How much to charge?

Kanikula

Kanikula

Suspended / Banned
Messages
98
Name
Sam
Edit My Images
Yes
How much would you charge for a 4hr photoshoot, inc 2 hours travel, postprocessing, copyright, disk with all images and also backdrop hire??

Take imn mind its first shoot????:gag:
 
I suppose there is no fixed answer to your question.

I guess a pro would need to profit at least the equivalent of a weeks wage.

If I was in your situation, I think I would be aiming to come away with some good images for my portfolio and a recommendation, I would probably accept a financial loss for the experience.
 
How much is it worth to you? that's what you got to think.

will you be doing it on a "day off" or will you be loosing money from regular work to do so?

calculate travelling costs and any extra spend

then put on top of that how much you would like to make for the job.

as its a first shoot you can always do it nice and cheap and only make £50-£100 or so just for the experience and in introductory rate,
 
You put in copyright there. Do not ever sell that for less than a good few thousand.
 
paulpierce said:
I suppose there is no fixed answer to your question.

I guess a pro would need to profit at least the equivalent of a weeks wage.

If I was in your situation, I think I would be aiming to come away with some good images for my portfolio and a recommendation, I would probably accept a financial loss for the experience.
Click to expand...

For the good of the photographic industry as a whole, please don't ever agree to a financial loss. ALWAYS be sure you are charging fair market value for your work, even if you're inexperienced.

- CJ
 
surely you want to be looking at least £20 per hour for the session itself+ price of backdrop hire.
something like 50p /mile travel(each way.)

for the cd of a wedding,copyright useable files
(as an addition to the album package ) we charge £300. some togs charge LOTS more.

i suppose if you were talking half day rates, youve got to be talking £300 to £400.
but thats doing it purely commercialy.
if your doing it for the experience , you still wanna be charging a good wack, i,d guess at £200 + hire charges.
as sai8d before DONT DO IT AT A LOSS.
if its for freinds or something, then ok, cover your costs and a bit of profit.
if its for a biz, make em pay.
 
cjnicolai said:
For the good of the photographic industry as a whole, please don't ever agree to a financial loss. ALWAYS be sure you are charging fair market value for your work, even if you're inexperienced.

- CJ
Click to expand...

Point taken;

I was thinking at a personal level, building a portfolio to attract business in the long term and also reduce the pressure on the shoot.

But you're right, its not good for the industry if people are prepared to work for free.
 
Thankyou for the advice guys :)

Iv decided to charge her £200 - its not a wedding shoot. She is a very highley respected dog breeder and judge and has asked me to photograph about 11 dogs.

The photos will be used on her website and aslo will be going on to greetings cards for sale. Iv put conditions on the release form, that she states who the photos are by and also i have the right to use them for advertising/prompotional purposes.

Iv donr shoots with dogs before but nothing paid as such.
 
I think that your client has got an excellent deal there - given the type of shoot I'd keep the copyright if humanly possible. There's money in them there greetings cards. If they're used to publicise breeding standards etc that's a whole market you could exclude yourself from if you sell the rights. Good luck - sounds like a good outcome. Hope to see the images one day?
 
I think it's on the low side as well. I'd ask for £400 (8 hours) + expenses for the shoot and then probably look at £100 per shot for the kind of usage but it would depend on distribution area and how long the rights were for. With 11 dogs that's £400 + 1100 + expenses.
 
Surely if someone pays you to take photos for them, the photos should belong to them?
 
Ian T said:
Surely if someone pays you to take photos for them, the photos should belong to them?
Click to expand...

That depends on the price. Anyone who asks me to take photos for them is only getting usage rights of the photos. Unless they pay a very large sum.
 
Ian T said:
Surely if someone pays you to take photos for them, the photos should belong to them?
Click to expand...

If you hired a singer to sing you a song would you be entitled to record it and sell it?
 
If I paid for that singer to write that song for me, then yes, I would want all rights which go with it.

If I hired an Architech to design and build a house for me, I would be very miffed if he then built another one of that design for someone else.
 
Ian T may not be aware that copyright for any image taken legally in the UK is the property of the photographer, not the person who has paid him/her to take it. It's a common misconception, let's not forget that. Ian - that's why selling images with copyright is so expensive - you never know where an image that YOU as the tog have taken might turn up, with someone having paid a small fortune for it that you are entitled to.
 
Jumbo - I'm afraid that's why songwriters a) don't sell copyright and b) are very wealthy.
You'll never get an architect to agree to a non-reuse clause either...
 
So am i just better off giving her permission to use without restrictions then???? or summit to that effect?
 
Ian T said:
Surely if someone pays you to take photos for them, the photos should belong to them?
Click to expand...

Nope. Copyright remains with the creator. Good thing, too, or it would be absolutely impossible to make a living as a photographer. Unless, of course, every photographer charged such a terrifically high session fee that he/she didn't need any money from selling prints.

In my case, that would mean a session fee of around $8000 US, which is currently my average for a portrait session. For commercial shoots, that would put my day rate at around $15000 US.

Much better for the client to simply pay for what he/she wants, which typically does not include the ability to recreate photos infinitely into the future. Why make everyone pay for what only a few want?

- CJ
 
I can't imagine any picture taken to be worth the amount of money thrown around on this site.
 
ThisPhotoGuy said:
I can't imagine any picture taken to be worth the amount of money thrown around on this site.
Click to expand...

It's not a matter of what a picture is worth.

If I did a photo shoot and included the rights to every image I shot at the session, I would, in essence, lose out on the revenue I would have received from every print and session book that would have been ordered. My average portrait session (and yes, I am high end) is around $8000 US.

Commercial shoots involve even more money, because the images are worth more. My work will be generating revenue for the client. In that case, I'm not just charging for "a print" but for the use of my work in national / international publications and on the web. Obviously I'm going to charge more than I would a portrait session, and the image is worth much more to the client than the cost of the paper (or CD) it's printed on.

Whether you can imagine it or not, it's how I (and many others) make my living.

- CJ
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top