Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: mcfoto on April 02, 2008, 01:54:12 am
-
Hi
This has come up on a different thread today & I would like to talk about how much we charge for our digital kits. We normally charge about $800.00/day for a basic Mamiya kit with an Aptus 22 & G5 with a 17 Apple flat screen monitor. We have based this on what they would rent for. Normally an Aptus 22 is $500.00/day, G5 with display $200.00 & $100.00 for the Mamiya. With the Canon 1DsMKIII I will keep the price similar maybe $700.00 all up. I find on quotes these days after all the figures come in it is very rare the client says great. They usually want to find ways to reduce the cost so we loose a day & shoot longer days. I know other photographers here are charging up to $1900.00 for there digital kit. Digital techs are normally paid $300.00/day the same as lighting on AD jobs. I hope this does not sound like an odd question but this is the business side. As James said the client only cares about the bottom line & doesn't really care how all the line items add up as long as it meets the buget.
Denis
-
Hi
This has come up on a different thread today & I would like to talk about how much we charge for our digital kits.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186312\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
www.theflashcentre.com rental rates times 80%
-------------
I dont know if only the bottom line is cared about there can be a bidding process too
In the slightly dumb world I operate in I used to charge a higher all in simple fee
Now I am moving towards a lower fee plus a pile of addons (if the client wants them)
By coming in with a higher fee I think some clients were just putting my quote in the bin compared with those with a cheap 'day rate'
Actually those guys would then mention all the addons in round two of the bidding process by which time I was out
So I am SMM, 2 Qflashes , 1*D3 and will advise the client if we need to 'bring more gear in'
SMM
-
G'day Dennis
That's a good topic to start... I would be interested in seeing what others are charging.
I charge £350 a day for the Aptus 22.
If I was able to rent one it would probably cost around £250 - £300.
This usually comes under the banner of "Digital Processing" on the invoice.
I will shoot tethered with or without Live-view to a MacBookPro, and depending on
the location, bring a calibrated Eizo 24inch Monitor along... which is great to work with
instead of the laptop screen.
Clients still question the whole digital capture/processing fee which is annoying.
But when it is explained that it is not negotiable because of the cost of the equipment,
the time spent colour correcting and converting to tiffs, plus the immense volume of work
that can be done in the one day compared to shooting to polaroid for a test then to film
and then film processing etc... they can eventually see the value in it.
They should be thankful that I am also the digital tech and not charging for that too.
Maybe I am undercharging after all?
regards
Andrew
-
G'day Dennis
That's a good topic to start... I would be interested in seeing what others are charging.
I charge £350 a day for the Aptus 22.
If I was able to rent one it would probably cost around £250 - £300.
This usually comes under the banner of "Digital Processing" on the invoice.
I will shoot tethered with or without Live-view to a MacBookPro, and depending on
the location, bring a calibrated Eizo 24inch Monitor along... which is great to work with
instead of the laptop screen.
Clients still question the whole digital capture/processing fee which is annoying.
But when it is explained that it is not negotiable because of the cost of the equipment,
the time spent colour correcting and converting to tiffs, plus the immense volume of work
that can be done in the one day compared to shooting to polaroid for a test then to film
and then film processing etc... they can eventually see the value in it.
They should be thankful that I am also the digital tech and not charging for that too.
Maybe I am undercharging after all?
regards
Andrew
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186323\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This seems a bit cheap if your time is included - especially if you are working any of your magic in the retouching sphere as part of your tech-ing.
OTOH, it might reflect market forces, as more people start offering the service..
Out of curiosity, what happens if your A22 stops working? Do you have two?
Not being funny here, but I have wondered about renting out my A75 in the way you are doing, but its the backup issue thats stopped me as I'd reckon I'd need a second back.
-
Hi
Thanks for the response. What we are finding here in Sydney is that some retouchers are making more per shot than the photographers on AD jobs. I am talking fees here. For editorial my partner is doing all the post now & gets the same day rate as the shoot fee. Fees for editorial range from $500-800/day here. Now the AD guys are charging 2500-4500/image here. From our experience in quoting I am finding that some guys are charging 2500/shot & 1500/day for a digital kit. Personally I would rather have a higher fee & a rental rate on a digital kit. for post it burns me up when the retouching house is making more per image than the photographer who is controls the image from start to finish. For the price of a 1DsMKIII you can set up a good retouching suit these days.
Denis
-
I was wondering, how does one reconcile the statement that " the camera does not matter, it's the photographer" with these rental charges?
Would it not be better to charge a total fee that covers the professional service, which will include whatever basic gear that will be used? If say, the shoot needs to have a scaffolding platform built, then that will be an extra but otherwise the client needs to be paying that fee.
Just wondering.....
-
I charge £350 a day for the Aptus 22.....Clients still question the whole digital capture/processing fee which is annoying.
But when it is explained that it is not negotiable because of the cost of the equipment,
the time spent colour correcting and converting to tiffs, plus the immense volume of work
that can be done in the one day compared to shooting to polaroid for a test then to film
and then film processing etc... they can eventually see the value in it.
They should be thankful that I am also the digital tech and not charging for that too.
Maybe I am undercharging after all?
regards
Andrew
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186323\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm pretty much the same as you Andrew. (I have the same questioning of it a lot! There is still a lot of clients who believe digital = free.)
I charge £320 / 650 Swiss francs per day at the moment and diplomatically explain that this for the cost of high end equipment, my time spent doing [very]basic retouching, archiving and producution & delivery of DVD's containing the final images.
I tell them that this fee is about the average cost of what their film & processing costs would have been for the sort of shoots I do and is often a lot less, as they would have had additional scanning costs with film as well. To be fair, most then find the fee to be acceptable.
I also state very, very clearly at the start, that any retouching they require beyond that of basic clean up and colour balancing, will be given to my retoucher, who will give them a competitive quote if they should need it.
-
The £350 fee does not include retouching at all.
I don't consider getting the colour temp and any overall tonal adjustmens etc as retouching... that is all I really do and in truth it doesn't take that long...
Any real retouching gets quoted for separately.
If there was something wrong with my Aptus, I would probably have to hire one and not really make any extra money from that part of the job... I pray that doesn't happen too soon...
I like my capture fee : )
A
-
I've been flat out TOLD by my some of customers they will not pay a kit or capture fee. I'm seeing more often so called "photography specialists" handling the photography requirements for their companies and these guys are well versed in modern tech. My response is I dont care what they will or wont pay for as long as I get an acceptable rate that covers my equipment I'm fine.
The trouble I find more than anything is every bloody client is familiar with a different billing/quoting system and sometimes the way the numbers are broken down say between myself and my competition has an impact on how they decide who does what. Even when the bottom line is the same amount.
Very frustrating...
-
I've been flat out TOLD by my some of customers they will not pay a kit or capture fee. I'm seeing more often so called "photography specialists" handling the photography requirements for their companies and these guys are well versed in modern tech. My response is I dont care what they will or wont pay for as long as I get an acceptable rate that covers my equipment I'm fine.
The trouble I find more than anything is every bloody client is familiar with a different billing/quoting system and sometimes the way the numbers are broken down say between myself and my competition has an impact on how they decide who does what. Even when the bottom line is the same amount.
Very frustrating...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186469\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I've been told the same thing by ad agencies: "No Capture/Kit Fee" and "We don't buy a photographer his/her equipment". They seem to respond better to line items under a heading of "Digital Carges", which is essentially all the time you sit at a computer x $150 an hour. You charge for the pre shoot set up of files etc., charge for basic color/tone correction, creating contacts, ftp time, time burning DVD's, time batch processing files etc. This is on top of a rental fee for the back. These fees always exceed a flat "digital fee", but are such a pain to invoice I feel like a lawyer.
-
These fees always exceed a flat "digital fee", but are such a pain to invoice I feel like a lawyer.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186497\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Haha true enough
-
I've been told the same thing by ad agencies: "No Capture/Kit Fee" and "We don't buy a photographer his/her equipment". They seem to respond better to line items under a heading of "Digital Carges", which is essentially all the time you sit at a computer x $150 an hour. You charge for the pre shoot set up of files etc., charge for basic color/tone correction, creating contacts, ftp time, time burning DVD's, time batch processing files etc. This is on top of a rental fee for the back. These fees always exceed a flat "digital fee", but are such a pain to invoice I feel like a lawyer.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186497\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi
I have seen some sample invoices from "The Photographer's Survival Guide" handout from the seminar in NYC using the term "Digital Capture Fee". In this case you do not charge for your kit. For example if you did 8 shots the line item would be:
Digital Capture Fees 8 x $250.00 ($2000.00)
(Reference:
"The Photographer's Survival Guide" by Suzanne Sease & Amanda Sosa Stone.
This was a booklet that was given from a Livebooks sponsored talk in NYC last year).
Denis
-
Hi
I have seen some sample invoices from "The Photographer's Survival Guide" handout from the seminar in NYC using the term "Digital Capture Fee". In this case you do not charge for your kit. For example if you did 8 shots the line item would be:
Digital Capture Fees 8 x $250.00 ($2000.00)
(Reference:
"The Photographer's Survival Guide" by Suzanne Sease & Amanda Sosa Stone.
This was a booklet that was given from a Livebooks sponsored talk in NYC last year).
Denis
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186561\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The rate is too high, though! I use this line item for processed tiffs: Digital Processing (basic color and tone corrections): 35 Tiffs @ $65/tiff: $2275. This keeps them from asking for too many tiffs, makes them really look at their selects. Don't think this doesn't meet with objections when they get the bill, and I cave to keep the client happy.
-
35 Tiffs @ $65/tiff: $2275. This keeps them from asking for too many tiffs, makes them really look at their selects. Don't think this doesn't meet with objections when they get the bill, and I cave to keep the client happy.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186620\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This is exactly how I charge with the same response from clients - prevents them asking for 'every shot' so they can decide at their leisure which shots to use and then after the 'cave in' they feel like they are being looked after.
I find adding the hire of the camera put s many clients off, whereas upping the day rate (and 'hiding' the cost in there) makes you look like a better photographer - aren't we all judged to some extent on our day rate?
Murray
-
This is exactly how I charge with the same response from clients - prevents them asking for 'every shot' so they can decide at their leisure which shots to use and then after the 'cave in' they feel like they are being looked after.
I find adding the hire of the camera put s many clients off, whereas upping the day rate (and 'hiding' the cost in there) makes you look like a better photographer - aren't we all judged to some extent on our day rate?
Murray
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186654\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi
Since we are in the same city,
we are finding that in advertising that many photographers are charging +$1000.00/day for a digital kit. I have heard of $1500.00 with a digital tech for a MFD kit in Sydney. I have never had a client question my digital kit fee but when I add in digital processing then the agencies ask questions. The other way around it is to hire an assistant for an extra day to do the post processing & charge $300-400.00 for that service. The reason I started this post is to discuss this topic in detail. The more view points the better since we are on the web.
With film it was simple x numbers of rolls dev & process + Polaroids. Well the game has changed & there are more ways than one to approach this challenge. I just don't think clients understand how much all this equipment costs including software upgrades! Today I just saw a 1Ds ( 11 mp ) being sold (Demo) for $1700.00 USD an 81% reduction from $8000.00 when it was first announced in 2002 which is 5 1/2 years ago! And when you upgrade your camera well you need a new computer too, at least they have more functions than a digital camera or back.
Denis
-
I charge the following for equipment:
MFDB+camera: 3950,-
Canon 1ds Mk.II: 800,-
Lens MF: 600,-
Lens 35mm: 300,-
Pro 7b pack with 2 heads: 1090,-
Acute 6b pack with 1 head: 540,-
Acute2 1200 pack with 2 heads: 1090,-
Compactflashes: 360,-
etc. etc. etc.
All prices in NOK. And they come on top of everything else like transportation, photography, assistant, rigging, batching/contactsheets, colorcorrection/base adjusments, compositing.
I differentiate my budgets pretty meticulously (how does one spell that...) giving the client a clear overview of associated costs and estimate time expenditure on every little detail. It's fairly quick once you have an excel sheet established with the nessecary boxes to fill in and formulas taking care of the rest.
It might be overkill, but it differentiates me from other shooters, and makes me attractive to some purchasers, and not to others.
-
I just don't think clients understand how much all this equipment costs including software upgrades!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186658\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
They don't.
But then they never did really and to play devil's advocate, why should they?
Do you have any idea of the cost of the fryer that make your fries in McDonalds?
I've never been comfortable discussing how much kit is mine with clients, and actually 99.5% have never asked.
Even to this day, I bill my lighting & grip, under "specialist" lighting & equpment.
-
Hi
Since we are in the same city,
we are finding that in advertising that many photographers are charging +$1000.00/day for a digital kit. I have heard of $1500.00 with a digital tech for a MFD kit in Sydney.
Denis
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186658\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi Denis,
we are in different sections of the industry - if I was on large advertising budgets I'd be charging the hire fee along with other 'cream'.
My clients are mostly longer term and repeat business, 'client direct' sums up the situation quite well.
I talk openly with my clients during long shoots (and usually it's the person who is paying the bill) about my costs of equipment/software etc...in a way I consider it part of my marketing/educating clients so they understand what they are paying for. The same goes for digital processing - I tell them 1-2hrs min for every every hour spent shooting. Pnce the client understands that it's never queried again.
I like the McDonalds fryer analogy - I don't need to know how much the fryer costs - it's built into the price of the fries...just as my clients expect that my camera overheads are built in to my day rate.
If the job needs extra lights or labour then that get's charged on top as needed.
I think much of this conversation comes down to the expectations of the client in your particular field. Knowing when to charge what and how to express those charges to the client (different from profiteering and seeing what you can get away with - not a good approach for long term business)
Murray
-
just as my clients expect that my camera overheads are built in to my day rate.
If the job needs extra lights or labour then that get's charged on top as needed.
I think much of this conversation comes down to the expectations of the client in your particular field. Knowing when to charge what and how to express those charges to the client (different from profiteering and seeing what you can get away with - not a good approach for long term business)
Murray
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186688\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I agree.
It's also worth looking at the situation with a little perspective, I don't like the situation at the moment either, but no one forced us to become photographers. We choose to work in the areas we do and I think it's fair up to a point, to expect us to deliver the goods to the standard that is expected.
I think as an industry, we are feeling a bit hard done by at the moment because our overheads have just lept up in cost so disproportionally (not to mention coinciding with economic belt tightening from clients = our salaries going down in reality).
I also don't claim to understand why the photographic industy is [and has traditionally been] given such a hard time in this respect by clients, when other areas seem not to attract it.
For example, one of my close friends is a sound recordest for TV, his kit costs the same, probably more actually, than my RZ/A65s kit, yet he quite openly rents it all to whoever he works for and no one bats an eyelid. Another, who's been a cameraman for 15yrs, has never owned a single piece of his own equipment - again this is seen in their industry as perfectly normal.
-
Maybe I'm a little different than most of you.
Basically when someone hires me for the day (£440) that includes an Aptus 65 and all the equipment etc for the day, All images are supplied with basic colour correction on cd for £15 per cd. Any retoucing after the event that is not my fault is charged at my hourly rate of £55.
I find it hard to understand how some people can hire in standard equipment i.e digital backs and pass that charge on, surely you should be owning it? Ok if you need a bit of specialist kit like an ultra wide lense yes, but a camera?
-
I have different setups for different circumstances. For simple packshots I charge a setup fee and a per image cost which is low. For that I shoot it as is and the images are put on my FTP site. I add additional fees (costs per image) for, styling, extracting, retouching, renaming, DVD's, etc..
If clients want to do a lot by themselves they can have their stuff photographed cheaply and because I have to do minimal work I can make money of it as well. If they want more, they pay more, I make more and everybody is happy.
I also have clients that are adamant on using their own stylists. For those I use a flat hourly rate plus expenses. I have no objection of a stylist fooling around endlessly with dresses as long as the client is paying for my time. I actually love those assignments because the images have a very high acceptance rate.
For jobs abroad I charge a daily fee plus expenses
My equipment is basically integrated in my fees except when I need something really exotic. I don't want to discuss equipment choices with my clients. Even this way I still can be competetive because I make very clear what I do and what it costs this way I minimize doing stuff that is not paid for. The client gets me to use the equipment that does that particular job the best. Eg. I would not like to shoot white lacquer accessories on white with my D300 just because the client thinks it will save him some money, it will almost certainly cost him more at post-processing the images towards an acceptable result (if at all possible).
Indeed it does make me feel like a lawyer sometimes I used to be a Tax advisor in an ancient past which is in the same kind of category, it is scary how much many these guys charge you. Even when they dream about you at night you get charged.
-
It might be overkill, but it differentiates me from other shooters, and makes me attractive to some purchasers, and not to others.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186680\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think that's where it comes down to knowing clients /sectors as to which will respond positively to the detailed itemised billing and which won't.
By the way, this has been a very interesting thread, and thanks to all for sharing their practise. It wouldn't dawn on me to specifically 'hire' my equipment like this, but I do have some depreciation built into my fees, which I suppose is similar in a way.
Most of my clients (small business mostly) just want to know how much, what they are getting for that, and whether or not it fulfils their requirements. They seem much less interested in the items that go to making it up, and these are just listed together on the quotation. My feeling is that their view is, that they have enough accounting and lawyering to do, without adding a complex quotation of mine to it!
-
For the price of a 1DsMKIII you can set up a good retouching suit these days.
Denis
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186333\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Does that come with the retoucher?
-
Hi
This has come up on a different thread today & I would like to talk about how much we charge for our digital kits. We normally charge about $800.00/day for a basic Mamiya kit with an Aptus 22 & G5 with a 17 Apple flat screen monitor. We have based this on what they would rent for. Normally an Aptus 22 is $500.00/day, G5 with display $200.00 & $100.00 for the Mamiya. With the Canon 1DsMKIII I will keep the price similar maybe $700.00 all up. I find on quotes these days after all the figures come in it is very rare the client says great. They usually want to find ways to reduce the cost so we loose a day & shoot longer days. I know other photographers here are charging up to $1900.00 for there digital kit. Digital techs are normally paid $300.00/day the same as lighting on AD jobs. I hope this does not sound like an odd question but this is the business side. As James said the client only cares about the bottom line & doesn't really care how all the line items add up as long as it meets the buget.
Denis
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186312\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This is a touchy area. I think the bottom line is not to be greedy but to be fair to your clients. They are not suppose to pay for your digital equipment but at the same time you should not feel that you are being taken advantage off. It needs to be a win-win situation. Whenever discussing my digital fees with new clients I always compare the usage of my equipment to the cost of film and processing + polaroids. It´s important to make your client aware and accustomed to that they will most likely save some money by you shooting digital v.s. film, but that there´s always going to be costs associated with his new media. A good idea is to compare your fee with the price of a local rental house. Generally I charge $500.00/day which includes a computer (laptop or stationary), digital cameras (Canon 1Ds MarkIII's or Aptus 75S w/H2), hard drives + a CD or DVD with low res FPO jpegs (for positioning only jpegs- appx 13x20 inches at 72Dpi) at the end of the shoot or downloaded to a server of their choice. I also keep the media from the shoot stored on 3 separate hard drives for future use and reference. If you shoot 80+ days a year you will always be able to afford the latest technology.
The bottom line is to always keep your clients happy. Never make them feel like they have been taken to the cleaner at the end of a shoot. Usually they don´t mind paying for your services if the outcome is great and you have been easy and entertaining to work with. Here´s where you make the big buck + in post production where you perfect your images.
-
This is a touchy area. I think the bottom line is not to be greedy but to be fair to your clients. They are not suppose to pay for your digital equipment but at the same time you should not feel that you are being taken advantage off. It needs to be a win-win situation. Whenever discussing my digital fees with new clients I always compare the usage of my equipment to the cost of film and processing + polaroids. It´s important to make your client aware and accustomed to that they will most likely save some money by you shooting digital v.s. film, but that there´s always going to be costs associated with his new media. A good idea is to compare your fee with the price of a local rental house. Generally I charge $500.00/day which includes a computer (laptop or stationary), digital cameras (Canon 1Ds MarkIII's or Aptus 75S w/H2), hard drives + a CD or DVD with low res FPO jpegs (for positioning only jpegs- appx 13x20 inches at 72Dpi) at the end of the shoot or downloaded to a server of their choice. I also keep the media from the shoot stored on 3 separate hard drives for future use and reference. If you shoot 80+ days a year you will always be able to afford the latest technology.
The bottom line is to always keep your clients happy. Never make them feel like they have been taken to the cleaner at the end of a shoot. Usually they don´t mind paying for your services if the outcome is great and you have been easy and entertaining to work with. Here´s where you make the big buck + in post production where you perfect your images.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187126\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I pretty much follow this thinking and structure..I feel you are not doing yourself or the industry any favors by not charging for the back and what goes with it - I understand different segments of the market can't bare the costs involved with mfdb..but when you essentially give it away to the clients ( they wont complain with this) and at the same time accept glass ceiling shoot fees then you and me will be screwed in the long run. Hey your budget is 2 grand for the whole shoot?
well maybe you can't afford to have it shot with a mfdb, sorry.
When using my own mfdb it is usually just below the going rate for that the rental house charges. On top of that is a per shot capture fee .. not individual frames but separate shots as defined in the est/contract. Also usually a dedicated crew to process / proof as we are shooting. and the proofs are billed as well. I think the major manufactures should sponsor some apa events to educate photographers so they will be able to budget the next back they want to spring on us...
if you need to have a cat/scan you think your doctor or hmo is going to let you get as many views/scans as you want? and will they tell you, oh dont worry, its all part of my visit fee.
-
I pretty much follow this thinking and structure..I feel you are not doing yourself or the industry any favors by not charging for the back and what goes with it - I understand different segments of the market can't bare the costs involved with mfdb..but when you essentially give it away to the clients ( they wont complain with this) and at the same time accept glass ceiling shoot fees then you and me will be screwed in the long run. Hey your budget is 2 grand for the whole shoot?
well maybe you can't afford to have it shot with a mfdb, sorry.
When using my own mfdb it is usually just below the going rate for that the rental house charges. On top of that is a per shot capture fee .. not individual frames but separate shots as defined in the est/contract. Also usually a dedicated crew to process / proof as we are shooting. and the proofs are billed as well. I think the major manufactures should sponsor some apa events to educate photographers so they will be able to budget the next back they want to spring on us...
if you need to have a cat/scan you think your doctor or hmo is going to let you get as many views/scans as you want? and will they tell you, oh dont worry, its all part of my visit fee.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187133\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I´m foremost an editorial photographer and I´m aware that the cost structure is different from shooting advertisement where the budgets usually are much higher. But I never felt that I´m giving away my equipment for free as I always charge for my rig such as studio fees, grip and light fees, digital fees ( specified earlier), catering, production RV fees etc. What I´m trying is to bring is a little sense to the table. I have been contacted many times by digital tech´s here in LA that want to sell me their services. But it´s hard for me to see why my client should pay them $1500-2000.00 a day for their work, when one of my assistants can do the same thing for $300.00 a day under my supervision? Is it wrong to try to save so money for my clients? Remember, they have to pay for 2-3 assistants at $300.00 a pop, a stylist at $1000.00 or more, hair & make-up people at $600.00-1000.00, catering etc. plus my own fees (see above). A "camel" can only carry so much weight before it breaks so you got to be sensible about the load. As I said before, you make the big buck when shooting + in post production where you perfect your images. The rest is just a matter of landing the job. A digital fee that is to high should never be the reason for losing a job.
-
Does that come with the retoucher?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187106\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi
No. This is an example that retouchers are making as much or more on the same AD job. However there investment is a LOT less. Here in Sydney AD agencies are doing more in house retouching as they see a profit here. We are doing all our editorial & some AD work now even with complex stuff.
Denis
-
Hi
No. This is an example that retouchers are making as much or more on the same AD job. However there investment is a LOT less. Here in Sydney AD agencies are doing more in house retouching as they see a profit here. We are doing all our editorial & some AD work now even with complex stuff.
Denis
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187146\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Talking numbers on an open forum can be a slippery sloap, but in the real world the only rule is there is really no rules, or better put the rules change depending on your market and personal perspective.
A digital tech in NY will generally have a rate that is pretty much standard with everyone else in the New York market and I promise you believes their rate is completely justified, but that is from the digtal tech's perspective. This holds true for Hair, Makeup, retouching, stylists, assistants and in some cases all of the fees are justified, in some they really aren't.
The real rule and the only rule should be is you invest in your business, use what's appropriate for the project and try to stay profitable.
There are about 10 million ways to reach this sceanrio and what is profitable for someone living in Omaha can be way different for someone living in Malibu.
We all have clients that cut budgets, or have shortfalls and try to find ways to make up the margins. There is nothing new about that in any industry and though it may seem appropriate to think, "well they're not paying for ________, so bugger it I'll use my less expensive equipment", but does your client's budget dictate your standards, at least if you already own the equipment?"
I'm not advocating giving anything away, but usually investment in your business reaps rewards.
This industry can get sideways very quickly and from "my" perspective of couse no retoucher should make more on a project than I do, then again I've seen some photographs before the retoucher saved them and I think the retoucher should have been paid double.
Of course were not talking about my photographs.
The real question all of us have to ask ourself is if money and creativity is leaving our domain, how to we retrieve it, how do we make it so an Ad Agency has no benifit in taking it in house.
Early on with digital I learned that possession of the files is a positive and not a negative. If you have the files, make them almost instantly retrievable, keep excellent cataloging and can process, retouch and deliver image(s) in a better, more cost effective and effecient way then the retouching will come under your roof, even if you live in an electronic house.
Though not to get into specifics, we have devised a way to pretty much keep the process to a one e-mail, one response, one button click delivery method for our clients.
This isn't for the faint of heart, takes a lot of work and investment and keeps you or someone in your studio married to the computer almost always, but then again it keeps you envolved with you clients in ways that film, or even just dropping off processed files never could.
JR
-
Hi
No. This is an example that retouchers are making as much or more on the same AD job. However there investment is a LOT less. Here in Sydney AD agencies are doing more in house retouching as they see a profit here. We are doing all our editorial & some AD work now even with complex stuff.
Denis
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187146\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well I don't see retouchers charging clients for their use of their own equipment, apart from scanning and prints.
There are photographers who rent all the equipment and studios. Should their day rate be lower?
-
Generally I charge $500.00/day which includes a computer (laptop or stationary), digital cameras (Canon 1Ds MarkIII's or Aptus 75S w/H2), hard drives + a CD or DVD with low res FPO jpegs (for positioning only jpegs- appx 13x20 inches at 72Dpi) at the end of the shoot or downloaded to a server of their choice. I also keep the media from the shoot stored on 3 separate hard drives for future use and reference. If you shoot 80+ days a year you will always be able to afford the latest technology.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187126\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Sorry, I think I must have missed something here. Do you mean that on a gross annual turnover of $40K (80 days @ $500/day) one should afford to maintain the latest digital capture gear in MF and Dslr, computer equipment, not to mention lighting, advertising and other overheads as well as make a living? I just don't see how the maths adds up.
David
-
Well I don't see retouchers charging clients for their use of their own equipment, apart from scanning and prints.
There are photographers who rent all the equipment and studios. Should their day rate be lower?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187179\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You charge what the market, or the project will allow. I've heard photographers say a billion things like "I would never shoot for under _________ a day, or I would never use my cameras for "free".
All that's bull because if it's something they want to shoot, or something they "have" to shoot the numbers will move. It's the same with retouchers, heck it's even the same for a plubming supply.
Everyone is different, some people can't stand to own equipment, other have to own everything.
I find owning my own eqipment frees me to do what I want, charge what I want, test and experiment when I want.
If I want to add to my portoflio we just load the truck and I don't have those overburdening thoughts of how much the day is costing me, or use something that is really not right for the job because I don't want the rental fees.
Personally I have a strong dislike for rentals. I never feel as comfortable with rental equipment as I do my own and it just seems wasteful to rent things like sandbags, or 12x rags that costs the same as buying if your working multiple days.
Also if I own my own equipment, it doesn't bother me to take a truck of equipment and only use a fill card as I don't feel I wasted anything.
JR
-
Sorry, I think I must have missed something here. Do you mean that on a gross annual turnover of $40K (80 days @ $500/day) one should afford to maintain the latest digital capture gear in MF and Dslr, computer equipment, not to mention lighting, advertising and other overheads as well as make a living? I just don't see how the maths adds up.
David
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187215\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes, you actually missed something. The digital fee does not include shooting fees, studio fees, grip & light fees etc. It only covers the digital part of the shoot excluding any post production. If you consider the life span of a digital camera or back and a good computer system (usually 2-3 years) you will be well ahead of the curve in the end. Even when including the time it takes for you to do a quick editing, CD/DVD burning and storage to hard drives.
One of my close friends works at a major rental house and you would be surprised how much money they make on their 1DS camera rentals. Not only do they get their 300 + dollars per day but they also get about half of what the paid for these cameras back at the end of their life cycle when they are sold as used. Same applies to us photographers. It just a matter of staying busy shooting:)