Photography for your employer advice.....

A

apkent

Suspended / Banned
Messages
693
Edit My Images
No
Hi all,

A question for you all, or "what would you do in my shoes" type thread......

Since getting into photography in a 'serious way', people in my office have seen a few of my photos and the quality of the camera equipment itself. They seem to have been pretty impressed with the photos I've taken on personal outings and so have asked me to update some of the staff photos for the new company website. Note that we had a professional tog come in about 3 years ago to provide images of most of the staff, but theres half a dozen new faces now and some of the 'team' photos include people who now don't work for us.

I happily did some portraits of two people about a month ago - portraiture was something I'd not tried before and they were pretty pleased with them so smiles all round.

However, now they're asking me to shoot a larger number of portraits, and a few small group photos. I'm happy to have a go as any experience is good experience, but I can't help feeling they're benefitting from the situation due to my equipment and (relative) skill.

I'm currently using over a grands worth of personal equipment to furnish them with photos free of charge and, whilst my photos probably aren't as good as a pro (not so varied, lack of studio flash equipment etc.), I wonder if they should really owe me something extra.

To make things more complicated, the images they are using are only to be put on the company website so, arguably, could be done on a cheap point and shoot. The quality, even reduced to web size, is nowhere as good as my DSLR, but they could certainly get by on them so I'm not convinced the pro is loosing out by my taking photos.
Secondly, we charge our clients by the hour for work carried out, so all the time I'm taking photos, they have to write off my time thus costing them in the long run.

So, what do you think? We're only a small office (20 or so surveyors) and I don't want to appear offhand or tight about it but have a nagging feeling that its something I should mention before I end up togging the whole office!

Help/advice/told not to be so silly would be appreciated :)

Andrew
 
Have you reached the point where the organisation is getting more from your images than you are getting by mastering portraiture and group photographs? When you pass that point then you may ask for some consideration (be it financial, benefit in kind or some other reward) to be shown in return for your efforts. When the organisation benefits from your work then it pays you a wage. If the organisation benefits from your photographic skills then it should reward you for deploying them.
 
as long as its done in work time then your being paid to do it tecnicalluy so its not free

if using equipment out and about then try and work out some kind of deal where they pay for camera insurance, or something like that
 
Hi Andrew.

Ok, so this is from my point of view, and I'm someone who is in EXACTLY the same boat.

I kind think they pay you to go into work so providing you do it in work time, then your technically just taking a couple of hours to do something that you actually will enjoy and getting paid for it! Plus it will give you some more experience, so you could sell your services next time. I would however tell them that if they were to hire a professional camera in as kit only, they would be looking at around £50 for a days hire, so you would like half that amount for wear and tear on your equipment!

My company not only got me to shoot all of the company portrait shoots, they also sell my services to the clients for exhibition work, I also take my camera to the jobs and photograph stands and set builds etc. It's my own kit, I don't get paid extra for this, which I personally think sucks. I have told them I would like this reflected in my christmas bonus though!!!!! lol.
 
Thank you both. I think Russell you are actually spot on and I hadn't realised it. I think the experience I'm gaining is probably worth much more than any recompense.

whitey, you are probably correct, although I suspect photography is outside the terms of my contracted work. Although as you rightly say though, my regular salary covers all the time I am in the office.

As of yet I haven't been asked to take the camera out the office (well, only as far as our private car park).
 
Thanks Aimee, looks like you have a pretty good deal going on! Does your company profit from selling your services to clients though? If so I'm sure they ought to make a considerable financial contribution to your equipment and skill-set!
 
Think of some kit you need and get them to buy it for you as kind of a 'payment' :)
 
Yes, they profit from it! And when it's not a direct profit from the client, it is when they are pitching for work and showing my images as examples of what we do! So I agree, it's a subject that will need reviewing at christmas!
 
How much do you value your job and not ****ing off your boss? Also how much do you earn if your company are paying you more for your real job than you'd ear as an inexperienced portrait tog then I'd keep quiet!
 
Value my job quite a lot Alex, a relatively safe seat in the construction industry is hard to come by at the moment :lol:

I will keep quiet for now, definately the best course of action.

I wasn't thinking so much of extra money, but that I could do with a flashgun (or two) right now :)
 
I still think a little contribution towards the cost of the kit wouldn't harm... you're not being cheeky by asking for £20 or something, you could say you need a flashgun to do the job and it would help towards it!
 
Rather than asking for kit in exchange for doing it, find some equipment which would improve the photos and suggets how much better the photos would be if you had it. A flash stand and umbrella for your off camera flash, for example.
 
Perhaps......

What makes things more tricky is that our company has 5 partners who each own a part of the company. The person asking me to take photos isn't a partner, just someone invovled in marketing but who has control over company expediture for things like advertising and hiring togs. As I say, I will happily go along and take more photos as the experience will be good.

If it got to the stage where they wanted big numbers of photos I might change my mind, but until then I'm happy :)
 
I would suggest that an even better shot could be acheived with a flash gun, so to cover wear and tear and the out of work post processing, could they fund one for you? mention a pro tog cost etc. etc.
 
ShawWellPete said:
Rather than asking for kit in exchange for doing it, find some equipment which would improve the photos and suggets how much better the photos would be if you had it. A flash stand and umbrella for your off camera flash, for example.
Click to expand...

Just think how much better they would be with, say, a 600 prime?!!!

On an serious note, I'm in construction too, also get involved in surveys, and my cr*ppy photos are used in my firm too. I just think to myself, "I'm getting paid for this!" and it keeps me going, but I wouldn't be averse to asking them to buy a flash if I needed it.
Good luck!
 
Ive had a similer situation.
i work as a head chef in a chain of golf clubs,
ive taken "arty" photos of food and had them blown up as part of a display in one of the centres and ive done various shots of the golf courses for advertising brochures.

what i said is you can have my first ones for free, then after that you can cover my costs.

they paid a pro togger £700 to cover photos of one of the courses,
if they want to use my photos im more than happy with that, it just nice to see my stuff in print and it then works on a "back scratching" deal which benifits me quite well.

my advice is to do what ever you are happy with doing.
 
Pippy_Neville said:
....but I wouldn't be averse to asking them to buy a flash if I needed it....
Click to expand...

Couldn't you dial in a couple of stops of negative exposure comp. in your shots?

When they ask why they can't see anything in the shadows explain that a flash would make them better and that you are happy to source one for the company and pass them the receipt :naughty:;)
 
apkent said:
The person asking me to take photos isn't a partner, just someone invovled in marketing but who has control over company expediture for things like advertising and hiring togs
Click to expand...

Have a day off and let them book you on that day for £175/day and do the job.

Or get the heck out of the way and let the person who has a budget for marketing and publicity, actually spend it on a proper photographer
who, likely or not, relies on jobs like this to put food on the table. In a nutshell, do it and charge for it or don't do it at all.

Also known as poop or get off the pot ;)

p.s you posted the question at 13:01 .. shouldn't you be at work ?? :o)
 
Or what about a training course (if there was something specific you wanted to practice/learn)? Do you do any pro togging? Maybe getting a watermark, (c) sign/'photos by' or link to your website could generate a little extra business for you?

As previously stated though, as they're paying you to be there already what they ask you to do is largely irrelevant. Unless of course, you're on a performance related bonus scheme and by not doing your day to day job, there will be an adverse affect on any bonus payments earned.
 
Whilst I understand and have a degree of sympathy with the "I am at work anyway and getting paid for doing something I love rather than my proper job" I have to say that it also annoys me.

It annoys me because it devalues the skill and artistry of photography in general. It annoyed me a hell of a lot more when it cost me business but it still annoys me now.

Just because one is an amateur (remember that this word comes from the root amo "to love") does not mean that under the right circumstances one should not make a charge for one's services.

There is a general perception that photography is easy fostered by the marketeers who try to give the impression that the latest overpriced compact camera will turn someone with no talent or experience into the next Ansel. We know differently having spent inordinate amounts of money and time trying to hone our meagre talents (speaking for myself here). I suspect that it is in part because of this that employers feel that they can expect people employed to do something completely different to take photographs for nothing.

Let's not mince our words: Photography is not easy! It is a marketable skill and just because you work for someone it does not mean that you should give it away for nothing. Surely any employer worth his salt will see that a request for a modest fee for a service outside ones normal job and which has a market value is not unreasonable if it is politely explained to him.
 
Nicos Rex said:
Whilst I understand and have a degree of sympathy with the "I am at work anyway and getting paid for doing something I love rather than my proper job" I have to say that it also annoys me.

It annoys me because it devalues the skill and artistry of photography in general. It annoyed me a hell of a lot more when it cost me business but it still annoys me now.

Just because one is an amateur (remember that this word comes from the root amo "to love") does not mean that under the right circumstances one should not make a charge for one's services.

There is a general perception that photography is easy fostered by the marketeers who try to give the impression that the latest overpriced compact camera will turn someone with no talent or experience into the next Ansel. We know differently having spent inordinate amounts of money and time trying to hone our meagre talents (speaking for myself here). I suspect that it is in part because of this that employers feel that they can expect people employed to do something completely different to take photographs for nothing.

Let's not mince our words: Photography is not easy! It is a marketable skill and just because you work for someone it does not mean that you should give it away for nothing. Surely any employer worth his salt will see that a request for a modest fee for a service outside ones normal job and which has a market value is not unreasonable if it is politely explained to him.
Click to expand...

He is being paid for it as the work is carried out during his normal working hours and as for it being outside of contract every terms and conditions I've ever signed for a full time job has had the 'and other work the company deems appropriate' caveat in it somewhere!

Pro togs getting upset about sstuff like this bothers me, the company needs shots at the lowest possible cost, they have discovered one of there employees can supply the shots to the standard they require why shouldn't they use him? All this take a day off and charge the £175 a day stuff is nonsense.
 
I do similar things in my line of work with my own equipment and I dont mind as its not often and its enjoyable doing something like that during office hours.

What Ive found though is that as people see the level of gear and the quality of my work word spreads and I've already had a wedding shoot come through my work place based on my previous pics.

When you are taking the pics, speak openly about what you can do ask if people are needing any family portraits done, presents for Christmas, weddings, club events, local lads football games etc. Make it work for you.

And I liked the comment about asking for help buying something. A friend did this with his video camera. He said "this would work so much better if only I had this £79 Rode Videomic" and the work got him it to "aid" the shoot :D

Give it a bash :D
 
a1ex2001 said:
All this take a day off and charge the £175 a day stuff is nonsense.
Click to expand...

If the op is going to do it he ought to charge and as it will take a day to do he ought to charge the going rate for the job, about £175

In each company there is a budget for publicity and marketing, if it isn't spent it gets reduced the next year. The PR people don't get
a bonus for not spending the budget, it's there to be spent, partly as a tax write down.

Every time a hobby photographer takes on a job like this for £50 or for free, it devalues our industry and drives prices down. When you earn
your full living from photography you may be in a position to call it right. Until then, leave it to those who know what they are talking about ;)

"He is being paid for it as the work is carried out during his normal working hours"

If his job description is photographer, you're right. If it isn't you're wrong.
 
Tyrone Shoelaces said:
If his job description is photographer, you're right. If it isn't you're wrong.
Click to expand...

Not wishing to join the whole "charge/don't charge" debate, but most contracts of employment will include a phrase similar to "and undertake any other tasks deemed necessary as they arise" which covers things just like this.
 
Simmotino said:
Not wishing to join the whole "charge/don't charge" debate, but most contracts of employment will include a phrase similar to "and undertake any other tasks deemed necessary as they arise" which covers things just like this.
Click to expand...

Poor attempt at sophistry. If your boss spotted a hard hat and a tape measure in your car would he ask you to conduct a structural survey* ?

No, he'd call a surveyor in.

*Win one point if you're a surveyor :)
 
Simmotino said:
Not wishing to join the whole "charge/don't charge" debate, but most contracts of employment will include a phrase similar to "and undertake any other tasks deemed necessary as they arise" which covers things just like this.
Click to expand...

But in those instances they wouldn't expect you to use your own personal equipment to do the job.

If they give you the tools to do a job (in my case a computer, phone and car when necessary) then I guess you don't have much choice, and you do it to the best of your ability (alternatively you claim it is outside of your job description and you are not trained or qualified to do the job and take the matter up with HR)
 
Tyrone Shoelaces said:
Every time a hobby photographer takes on a job like this for £50 or for free, it devalues our industry and drives prices down. When you earn
your full living from photography you may be in a position to call it right. Until then, leave it to those who know what they are talking about ;)
Click to expand...

I do know what I'm talking about, the company are getting a quality of photography that they are happy with at a rate they are willing to pay, that rate being the OP's normal pay rate.

If the photo's were not of the standard they require then obviously they swould have to go to the market and pay a suitable photographer to purchase the images they require. This rate maybe more or less than what the OP earns for all we know he could be on 150K a year so his equivalent daily rate would be significantly more than the average portrait tog.

The market has eveloved into a state where certain types and standards of photography are available for free, professionals need to adapt to these new market conditions and differentiate themselves, if companies saw a value in spending more ona pro then they would. The same thing has happened in many other markets look at IT there was a time when you could earn a fortune doing what now are entry level minimum wage jobs, times change.

Tyrone Shoelaces said:
"He is being paid for it as the work is carried out during his normal working hours"

If his job description is photographer, you're right. If it isn't you're wrong.
Click to expand...

I'm clearly not wrong, nowehere in my job description does it say I get paid to take out the trash yet every now and then I put carboard in the skip and I don't here the cleaner complaining.

Tyrone Shoelaces said:
Poor attempt at sophistry. If your boss spotted a hard hat and a tape measure in your car would he ask you to conduct a structural survey* ?

No, he'd call a surveyor in.

*Win one point if you're a surveyor :)
Click to expand...

the boss may however ask 'Whats with the hard hat and tape measure?' and if the op said 'oh, I was just putting up some shelves at home' the boss may well say 'ooh we were going to pay some one to put them up in the office would you feel comfy doing that for us?'

I've seen it done, I spent a lovely weekend pulling cables through a roof space at one place I worked because my overtime rate was cheaper than the cable companies standard. Not that you comparison was very good anyway as if you have a camera it's obvious what it's for and the chances are everyone in the office has seen samples of his work. There are at least 4 people in my office with DSLR's and I can tell you exactly what each one is good at and how good they are.
 
I've done 2 staff photo shoots in the last few months, one after an employee had made a hash of it.

Oddly, he was off sick on the day I arrived and ironically, he didn't appear in the staff photo.

Here you go: last word

(arguing on the internet and all that ...)
 
I undertook a number of photo assignments when I was working. It was easier for me to handle because I was Group Sales & Marketing Manager(!) I enjoyed the change from the routine, understood the products and what was important to record and got the pictures I wanted and needed. To compensate for wear and tear, all consumables and software upgrade costs were handled through my marketing budget. It seemed like a reasonable quid pro quo.

Anthony.
 
Blimey, lots of replies!

Having posted the thread and, really, from the first reply, my mind is made up that I'm happy with the situation. I may well drop a subtle hint ("What a great shot, if only I had a flashgun to put some sparkle in the eye") - if it works, winner - if not I've still had some experience.

With regard to taking jobs away from a pro, I'm not convinced. Having chatted to the person who asked me to do the shots, they've already tried with a point-and-shoot and stuck them on the website anyway. They don't like them much, but the persons face is clearly visible and "it'll do". My photos "do" a hell of a lot better and since I'm already in the office, the most able person. Its such a small office that no-one else has an SLR.

This is where my query sprung from - if I hadn't spent my own money for personal togging (motorsport :) ) they certainly wouldn't have asked me and just carried on with the point and shoot.
 
Anthony.Ralph said:
I undertook a number of photo assignments when I was working. It was easier for me to handle because I was Group Sales & Marketing Manager(!) I enjoyed the change from the routine, understood the products and what was important to record and got the pictures I wanted and needed. To compensate for wear and tear, all consumables and software upgrade costs were handled through my marketing budget. It seemed like a reasonable quid pro quo.
Click to expand...

The definition of self employed :)
 
Do the pics and just ask if they will pay you a couple of hours over time to cover the processing of the pics and the time spent catching up on doing your normal job
 
Whether you're doing it in work time is irrelevant. What's relevant is how much your skills are worth as a photographer against what they are in the role you're employed to do.

If you worked as cleaner but taught yourself webdesign and then got asked to do the company site for minimum wage, would you do it?
 
I did a similar thing for the last company I worked for. I volunteered my services ( and camera). I spent a few days driving around in a company vehicle ( Toyota Landcruiser Amazon) taking photos, then a couple of days flying up and down the South Coast taking photos.
I got the satisfaction of a few days away from work having fun and knowing all my work was serving a useful purpose.
I didnt get any weddings or anything off it and didnt want to.

Now, I understand the " doing it for free devalues the Pro Tog" arguement, but dont subscribe to it.

If I did, I would never put up a shelf ( devalues the carpenters work) paint the house ( devalues painting a decorating trade.... you know where I am going with this!)

Sure, I agree tradesmen get a rough deal sometimes and work is hard enough to come by at the best of times, ( I work for myself too) but if I was the OP I would be asking for something in return if it was going to be more than a one off, otherwise, enjoy the moment!

Allan
 
One thing to keep in mind is WHEN it becomes a more regular thing and you do go off site, that whatever insurance you have on the camera will probably not cover you (unless you have specific business use). Just make sure your employer is happy to cover the cost of loss in that situation, otherwise you could find yourself out of pocket!
 
Gnaser said:
Whether you're doing it in work time is irrelevant. What's relevant is how much your skills are worth as a photographer against what they are in the role you're employed to do.

If you worked as cleaner but taught yourself webdesign and then got asked to do the company site for minimum wage, would you do it?
Click to expand...

Exactly and the OP has never at any point said he is unhappy with what his company are paying him for his real job, I suspect it is more than he could earn as an inexperienced portrait tog.
 
Its a tricky one this, but what if the employee drops the camera (his camera) on a shoot s/he's doing for the company?

Does s/he shrug and say "tough", I'll just have to get it fixed (or replaced) OR does s/he ask the employer to pay? If he was employed to take photos it would be the company's gear and it would be done at their risk.

And any such work adds to the wear and tear on the camera, which could result in early replacement, at the employee's expense.

The naive may happily do jobs like this, but the more experienced will think very carefully about it first.
 
a1ex2001 said:
Exactly and the OP has never at any point said he is unhappy with what his company are paying him for his real job, I suspect it is more than he could earn as an inexperienced portrait tog.
Click to expand...

I didn't mention it as I didn't think it relevant. As it happens I'm a trainee in my real job (of 4 years, but a trainee all the same). I don't expect them to pay me a full days pro-tog rate, just whether they might owe me anything for doing them a favour as it were.

Anyway, my shoot of 4 people went well today (group shot). Was interesting having to arrange them, but I'm sure staying stum was the best course to take - was a little bit of trial and error, but the results were pleasing and I learnt a few things too :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top