Best System for Under $12K

[bcooter]

Isn't that a mute point ? Most of the better known photographers I come across bill the magazine for MF rental anyway - at least for fashion editorials. The days of expensive 2 week trips to exotics went over a decade ago - replaced by reduced budgets, fees and 'fill-ins' such as MF rental !

In my experience there is two types of clients  . . . today.

One asks for an estimate because they are either exploring a concept or haven't presented budget to whoever makes the final decision.

The other has a number that they have to stick with and it's all bottom line, no matter how you get there . . . it's just one number that matters.

The first client isn't there yet, the second is ready to buy.

IMO

BC

[eronald]

In my experience there is two types of clients  . . . today.

One asks for an estimate because they are either exploring a concept or haven't presented budget to whoever makes the final decision.

The other has a number that they have to stick with and it's all bottom line, no matter how you get there . . . it's just one number that matters.

The first client isn't there yet, the second is ready to buy.

IMO

BC

The part I don't understand is that you have one single production cost, but different pricing according to the rights they acquire? If so, why, actually?

Edmund

[douglevy]

Because more rights = greater value to them and more potential for profit, so what you're selling them should cost them more.

[David Eichler]

Because more rights = greater value to them and more potential for profit, so what you're selling them should cost them more.

Yes.

[Manoli]

The part I don't understand is that you have one single production cost, but different pricing according to the rights they acquire?

Rights ? What rights? In the fashion/editorial jobs I see, it's a one off fee, no sliding scale. You, the photographer, surrender all the rights - more often than not. Budgets are slashed, where once exotic trips could be 1/2 weeks, now it's 3/4 days, Editors are responsible for the costs - not your well being. Within certain limits, photogs enjoy patronage and there's an understanding - up to a point. MF 'rental fees' , a euphemism more often than not, is away of getting to the bottom line while allowing the editor's to justify costs to 'those upstairs'.

Didn't ChrisBarrett post a rationale on LuLa as to why he now bases his fees on a one-off, all-in basis ?

No matter what we say, MF still seems 'de rigeur' in many productions. Don't think that will change, at least not until the Pirelli calendar gets produced with an iPhone!

I suspect cooter is referring more to advertising than fashion editorial.

[David Eichler]

Rights ? What rights? In the fashion/editorial jobs I see, it's a one off fee, no sliding scale. You, the photographer, surrender all the rights - more often than not. Budgets are slashed, where once exotic trips could be 1/2 weeks, now it's 3/4 days, Editors are responsible for the costs - not your well being. Within certain limits, photogs enjoy patronage and there's an understanding - up to a point. MF 'rental fees' , a euphemism more often than not, is away of getting to the bottom line while allowing the editor's to justify costs to 'those upstairs'.

Didn't ChrisBarrett post a rationale on LuLa as to why he now bases his fees on a one-off, all-in basis ?

No matter what we say, MF still seems 'de rigeur' in many productions. Don't think that will change, at least not until the Pirelli calendar gets produced with an iPhone!

I suspect cooter is referring more to advertising than fashion editorial.

Chris Barrett specializes in architectural photography, and I suspect the kind of clients to which he is referring, with regard to that particular kind of license, are architects, who tend to have a relatively narrow range of usage needs. I would be willing to bet that, whenever he is licensing photos to, say, a magazine or a manufacturer, the license terms and fees would be very different.

Anyway, what may apply to some fashion and editorial doesn't necessarily apply to other genres of commercial photography. Also, if you are surrendering "all rights" (by which I assume you mean a complete buy out for all media, worldwide, in perpetuity, or an actual sale of the copyright) to an editorial client who hardly needs to use the images that broadly, then I would say that perhaps you are not trying hard enough to get reasonable terms or need to look for other other ways to market your talents, depending upon the market where you are located.

[Manoli]

Anyway, what may apply to fashion and editorial hardly applies to other genres of commercial photography. [..]
As always, it is kind of hard to respond to someone who won't provide any information about his or her location or any examples of his or her work.

I hadn't intended that my observation be interpreted so rigorously. It was a general, not verbatim, comment on the reduction of fees in some branches of the fashion industry, that many photographers are no longer able or willing to command terms they used to and that 'MF rental fees' end up being part of, as cooter described it,  'all bottom line, no matter how you get there ...'

I'm not a professional photographer - the post was based purely on personal contacts with both editors and photographers, in the EU, mainly London and Milan and I don't believe on re-reading my post that I implied anywhere that it applied to all genres of commercial photography. I'm sure it doesn't.

[eronald]

Because more rights = greater value to them and more potential for profit, so what you're selling them should cost them more.

How does it work in the US - when you go see the doctor, do you pay a flat fee or one that is computed proportionally to your net worth?

Edmund

[MrSmith]

How does it work in the US - when you go see the doctor, do you pay a flat fee or one that is computed proportionally to your net worth?

Edmund

Edmund you have a PHD?  You know that a doctor is not the same as a working photographer producing images that help sell things, images that have a value proportional to the amount of the income they help generate?

[Ken R]

Edmund you have a PHD?  You know that a doctor is not the same as a working photographer producing images that help sell things, images that have a value proportional to the amount of the income they help generate?

Generally Clients want to know all costs up front. They do not like to worry about increased costs later. It is trickier in motion projects where you have to adhere to the approved estimate even when there was an increase of post production work involved due to increased client's revisions. A good estimator will factor that in when making an estimate depending on the client and type of project (that comes with experience) but every now and then overages have to be charged and its an uphill battle to get those fees collected a lot of times.

With photography generally clients tell me up front what their intended usage of the images is (type of media and length of publication) and I factor that in the estimate.

[ondebanks]

BTW, MFD to me is not MF size vs 35mm any more.  It is more CCD vs CMOS.

I find CCD to be just better then CMOS.  Better color, better grain, better depth, better color linearity, etc.  Even with BCooter's 800 ISO CCD shots, I find the tones to more appealing.  I even had a friend my age (around 29) say that the depth he sees with a CCD is still much deeper than what he see with a CMOS system.  

I'd chime in with Luke's and Erik's comments on that. In a multi-variate comparison, sometimes we seize on the wrong variable to explain differences.

I addressed the issue myself at length here. My opening line was (and remains): "My take on the difference between CCD and CMOS: There is none."

Ray

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I cannot afford the ticket… ;-)

So, I have no plans to go the moon.

Best regards
Erik

Well, do you?