Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Pro Business Discussion => Topic started by: willconnor on March 04, 2011, 09:49:13 pm
-
I've made a living with landscape photography for the last 17 yrs. Times have been tough the last few (big news!) and I am hoping to diversify with AP work. My first "job" has been our newly constructed house, of modest size and cost, but designed by a nationally known architect. Despite being very raw and at the low end of the learning curve on artificial lighting, I've put together a couple of dozen images which the architect "loves."
We never discussed price beforehand because I'm unproven in AP and I wanted to show him what I could do. It turns out he's thinking that he would get use of the images gratis, and that I would be happy just be published in the national architecture magazine he has lined up as well as his upcoming monograph. I've since told him I don't work for publicity only, that I don't care about vanity projects, and that if he wants the use of the images that we'll have to negotiate payment in Real American $$'s.
Now I know times are hard for everyone in the building industry, including nationally known architects who charge $300/hr. But I also know, good images are the lifeblood of an architects marketing. The only way the vast
majority of people will ever see his work will be through the photography of his work. That's how I found him and hired him-- when I saw photos in his book in a bookstore.
So maybe he was just hoping to get a freebie, and will come to his senses and offer fair compensation. But I wonder, are the stresses of the economy making this kind of thinking more prevalent in the AP market?
A couple of pictures below:
Thanks,
Will Connor
http://willconnor.com
-
This is BS. There is nothing more common about such behavior in the current economy. There have always been cheapskate architects who thought they were doing you a favor by letting you work your a__ off for some good images. If he is indeed a "nationally known architect", he didn't get there using freebee images. Over the years he has paid serious $ for images to get in national publications. Unless the magazines had it shot, in which case he would be paying serious use fees to use the stock photography for his design competitions, his website, proposals, brochures etc. There is no cheap way to get good photographs.
I have been fortunate in that I never shot anything on speck even when I was getting started, but I was already pretty well known in my area as an art photographer. However I remember one architect early on who, pleading poverty, talked me down on the price. He was famous and well connected with the national magazines so I fell for it. He showed up at the shoot with a brand new BMW with the temporary dealer plates still on it. Yeah he was really broke. I think he bought it that morning. I ate it on that one but that project was published nationally a few times and the stock fees helped make up for it. Additionally this led to 5 years of assignment work for that magazine all over the western US. And it worked out in the long run with that client. Continuing our partnership over the next 25 years, I charged that architect premium prices and together we were published nationally dozens of times.
You made a mistake by not being clear up front. You could have said something like "if you like the results and want to use them, they will be X$ for such and such a use". That way you got your foot in the door with an opportunity to build your portfolio, but would get compensated too if the images were successful and used.
-
Will I have to say I agree with Kirk ,you've either never developed much business acumen in those 17 years, or you left it at the door when you took on this particular 'job'.
Regardless of the state of the economy for Architects these days, there is no-one to blame but yourself for not covering-off the potential eventuality after you 'showed him what you could do'.
I suggest you maximize the assets you have, work the files to their best and then publish the heck out of them, leverage them into more and paying opportunities.
DC
www.dermotcleary.com
-
So you paid good money to acquire or commission his design and have it built, and now the architect thinks you owe him a favor? That's precious. Tell him to build you a fountain, and offer him $100, but tell him that it will attract a lot of favorable notice for him, and could lead to getting actual paying work for him.
Then again, once in a while, doing a job on spec does lead to things. In spite of Kirk's feelings, it does seem his one lowball job turned into a good thing.
-
Will, That's a really nice house!! My take is that you should have had an understanding before asking for compensation but also don't forget you're his client so he might be in a position that's uncomfortable for him too. Perhaps he "loves" the pictures because his client shot them, quite honestly there are just kind of okay. Residential architects are crying the blues these days, some are having a real tough time, some are busy but not creating the kind of revenue that they were just a few years ago. Anyways, keep shooting your house as you spend more time there, it's a work of art! Use those images to showcase your talents to other clients. Jim
-
I think that you have the correct perspective, it is not sufficient compensation to merely get published. The Architect is in business to make money and the published work will message his ego and perhaps attract more paid work. I have never experienced a paid job that was generated from a freebie but I'm sure that someone has.
-
Although I totally agree with the idea that you should not ever give your work away for free, I have to agree with Jim in that he may be in a odd position since you are not only a client but a photographer too. He may have wanted to have it shot by an AP, but can not since he does not want to offend you (being a client), and at the same time is not really thrilled with your images. From a composition stand point, they are nice, but the interior image lacks luster when it comes to lighting.
I would recommend that you concentrate on exterior images and talk fees with him on those. And then maybe suggest that he bring in a specialist to shoot the interiors. And as long as you are there for the shooting, it could be a great learning experience for you to watch someone who knows lighting. That or make the investment in some hot lights and start fooling around with them around the house. Being that you live there, you will see much more than another photographer coming just for the day, and when you get to the point where the lighting is spot on, maybe talking about licensing for your interior images will go better.
From a business stand point, did you discuss the project with him or just shoot the images and show them to him? Remember, photography is really a service industry and making sure that you supply good service is key. In general architects want to know that you are taking their point of view into mind when creating the image. When planning a shoot, I usually talk extensively with the client about what they feel is important to them, how they want it accented, their end use, publishing and etc. This goes a long way in convincing the prospect that your fees are worth it. Now with this project, it is a little different since you live there, but sitting down with the architect and talking this over could help convince him that the images you create will be worth the investment.
-
Thanks all, for your thoughtful replies. I can see why you might think the architect is in an awkward position, but I think he's actually really happy with the pictures. As I've emailed them to him over the past couple of weeks the responses have been: "Fabulous pics Will," "Awesome!" "Amazing!!!" "Super elegant!" and my favorite: "Yummy!" Knowing him pretty well, I think if he were not satisfied, his responses would have been more muted.
I think money is tight, his overhead is huge, and he tries to be cheap if he thinks he can get away with it.
That being said, I appreciate the honest criticism and agree these could be better. I have no knowledge or experience with artificial lighting, so have had to wing it with what is designed into the house and the nice northern ambient daylight from large windows. I think the interior lighting in some of these is rough and a little dead and could use some skillfully applied additional lighting. Though these are pretty accurate to the reality--for whatever that's worth! I think I would prefer a more understated approach to lighting interiors, so I'd like to learn subtle technique. Hoping to take a workshop with Nick Merrick this summer.
If anyone would like to see more of these and be inclined to offer any brief critique or suggestions, I'd be grateful. I could post a few more pics on the forum or email a web gallery.
Thanks,
Will
http://willconnor.com
-
When I've been hired to photograph new buildings and facilities, I offer two methods of billing:
- Photograph the entire project at no initial cost to anyone. Let the architect/developer/client select images and pay based on usage. Reserve all rights so you can license the images to any other interested party or magazine.
- Photograph the entire project as hired by the client, getting paid an initial fee which is applied to the usage of the photos. In this case, the client gets exclusive usage rights for their company for a predetermined amount of time. Reserve all rights so you can license the images to any other interested party or magazine.
However, in your case, only the first method of business applies. Evaluate your market and draw up usage rates for each image. If the architect balks, negotiate your prices based on usage.
-
Will, That's a really nice house!! My take is that you should have had an understanding before asking for compensation but also don't forget you're his client so he might be in a position that's uncomfortable for him too. Perhaps he "loves" the pictures because his client shot them, quite honestly there are just kind of okay. Residential architects are crying the blues these days, some are having a real tough time, some are busy but not creating the kind of revenue that they were just a few years ago. Anyways, keep shooting your house as you spend more time there, it's a work of art! Use those images to showcase your talents to other clients. Jim
But James, the sad thing, at least here, is that even big names, with state supports, political influence and big projects and money are using (not kidding) the guy in the agency who's week-end passion is arquitecture, with the results you can imagine.
in this latitude of Europe, it really lacks education more than any other thing. The money's there, the mentality is not.
-
it really lacks education more than any other thing. The money's there, the mentality is not.
For better or worse the job of educating clients falls on us. Who else is going to do it?
When I started in 1978, architects here were pretty uninformed and were very hesitant to spend real money on AP. I had to show them the value.
-
For better or worse the job of educating clients falls on us. Who else is going to do it?
When I started in 1978, architects here were pretty uninformed and were very hesitant to spend real money on AP. I had to show them the value.
Totally agree.
-
Sorry, that post seemed a bit rude on reflection.
-
Looking at this as a registered architect, rather than a photographer, I probably wouldn't want to pay for the shots you show and, brutally, might not want them at all unless they were the only available record. The vibe I get from these slighty awkward, stilted images is that you haven't really come to like the building or see it as a home. It needs lighter, brighter images.
Maybe you are a bit dissapointed with it, which is sometimes they way just after finishing a project, but that would be a shame as it looks like it could be a cool house to live in.
I think the images need some work too-they would especially benefit from some additional accent lighting. But the bones of good images are there and from what I can see some additional post work solve most of the issues. The guy obviously has a good eye and feel for shooting architecture. But frankly its irrelevant what you or I think of the images. The architect "loves" them, wants to use them and thinks he can get them in a national magazine. In which case he should be willing to pay some use fees. That is the only real issue here. If they are good enough to use. They are good enough to pay for.
-
The comments/criticisms have been appreciated--even the brutal ones! With my landscapes also, I commonly start off too dark, and don't realize it until the first test prints. I worked some on the previously posted interior.
Another architect, a partner at one of the top firms here in Nashville that does big commercial and modern projects, saw the pictures a while back, via my contractor, and solicited me for work--as unbelievable as that may seem. I told him I'm not ready yet to do interiors. Hopefully, by then, I might have some idea how to price this kind of work which seems to be a labyrinth of negotiation and uncertainty.
-
The comments/criticisms have been appreciated--even the brutal ones! With my landscapes also, I commonly start off too dark, and don't realize it until the first test prints. I worked some on the previously posted interior.
Another architect, a partner at one of the top firms here in Nashville that does big commercial and modern projects, saw the pictures a while back, via my contractor, and solicited me for work--as unbelievable as that may seem. I told him I'm not ready yet to do interiors. Hopefully, by then, I might have some idea how to price this kind of work which seems to be a labyrinth of negotiation and uncertainty.
Will, Much, much better!! Here's a tip to get around a lot of interior lighting, purchase Photomatix and make wide brackets of each shot. Blend the images together using the exposure fusion mode (H&S adjust), not tonemapping, and you'll end up with something much like what you see with your eyes. Quite often that's all you'll need, if something is really dark I'll fill it in or if the light just really is boring I'll bring strobes in thru windows from outside which somewhat replicates natural light. Don't show work that isn't finished either. Attached are some examples of working this way (Photomatix). Jim
-
Will, Jim is right, much better and his advices are constructives as always.
I never do that in those sections but I had a little free time and I think it could be helpfull.
Without your permission I took your pic and quickly corrected it.
Please, for the people who would find that inapropriate, I just try to be helpull and to show a possible interpretation using PS. I find it more usefull for the poster that the harsh criticisms even if justified.
It took me 15min to correct the image so there is a lot that can be done on the pp stage. I beleive a reasonably trained retoucher would take 30mn on the original tiff to clean completly this image with precision.
Yes, it should be done as much as possible in the shooting.
I don't pretend here that my interpretation is correct, there are infinite ways according to each one tastes and aims.
The issues where strong magenta and green casts, red and green reflections on metal, different light source dominances everywhere, sensor dust etc...
I used basically the brush with masks and color corrected 4 layers.
I apologyze to the arquitecture gurus (it's not my imagery) if they find that a bad correction (specially now that the greenish external roof is a bit out of context but didn't have more time), it's not the purpose, but I think it shows something that Will might be interested to see.
-
Fred I was about to do the same edit this morning, but you beat me to it. It is fairly simple to clean up the color in post unless it is extreme.
But should you? Or how much? I would say that there is a difference between the needs/wants of designers vs. the consumer architectural market (shelter magazines, builder brochures etc.). The edit you offer IME would be preferred by design professionals because the colors are more correct and the clean modernist design is emphasized. But on the consumer side of the market warmth is oftentimes more desirable because of the emotions it evokes. Another viable edit therefore would be to maintain the warmth of the original while getting rid of the red cast on the interior and the green cast on the exterior.
-
Will, Much, much better!! Here's a tip to get around a lot of interior lighting, purchase Photomatix and make wide brackets of each shot. Blend the images together using the exposure fusion mode (H&S adjust), not tonemapping, and you'll end up with something much like what you see with your eyes. Quite often that's all you'll need, if something is really dark I'll fill it in or if the light just really is boring I'll bring strobes in thru windows from outside which somewhat replicates natural light. Don't show work that isn't finished either. Attached are some examples of working this way (Photomatix). Jim
Damn Jim, next time I'm in Detroit you are going to have to give me a lesson in Photomatix. You sure get a better result than I do. I have gone over to making the best image I can in PMX and then putting that in a layer over the best image I have processed for the midtones. I then Blend in the PMX layer where appropriate. This gives me more believeable midtones-where HDR oftentimes looks the wankiest.
-
Damn Jim, next time I'm in Detroit you are going to have to give me a lesson in Photomatix. You sure get a better result than I do. I have gone over to making the best image I can in PMX and then putting that in a layer over the best image I have processed for the midtones. I then Blend in the PMX layer where appropriate. This gives me more believeable midtones-where HDR oftentimes looks the wankiest.
Kirk, Please give me a call when you're in town! I use Photomatix all the time, make sure you're using the latest version, it works better than ever. My workflow isn't complicated, shoot a bracket so that your highlight detail is normally exposed and your shadow detail is bright, combine all the images in Photomatix using the Exposure Fusion mode (with H&S adjust selected), play with the sliders a bit and process. It's a very good base to start the balance of your imaging on. Jim
-
Fred I was about to do the same edit this morning, but you beat me to it. It is fairly simple to clean up the color in post unless it is extreme.
But should you? Or how much? I would say that there is a difference between the needs/wants of designers vs. the consumer architectural market (shelter magazines, builder brochures etc.). The edit you offer IME would be preferred by design professionals because the colors are more correct and the clean modernist design is emphasized. But on the consumer side of the market warmth is oftentimes more desirable because of the emotions it evokes. Another viable edit therefore would be to maintain the warmth of the original while getting rid of the red cast on the interior and the green cast on the exterior.
You're correct Kirk.
I agree with your lines.
But that was not really what I wanted to invite the OP to look at. In fact the tones I choosed can be warmed. There are "arbitrary". What I did is a cleaning because of the casts and reflections on metal structures, on wood and walls etc...if you do a big zoom on the file you can see it.
with a cleaned file you have a "master 2" file ready for variations and you can give it the tones you want. This was the step I wanted to stress.
I agree that magazines aimed to buyers would like warmer tones.
It's true, I've hesitated to do that quick editing because it's delicate, it's not a critic section so I tried to be cautious on the spirit and in the end I think the OP may find something usefull. If not, well fine, I think I kept it in a constructive spirit. He presented himself as somebody who wants to make a step on that. I would never have done that otherwise.
Ps: I think I need to look at Photomatix seriously.
-
Will, Much, much better!! Here's a tip to get around a lot of interior lighting, purchase Photomatix and make wide brackets of each shot. Blend the images together using the exposure fusion mode (H&S adjust), not tonemapping, and you'll end up with something much like what you see with your eyes. Quite often that's all you'll need, if something is really dark I'll fill it in or if the light just really is boring I'll bring strobes in thru windows from outside which somewhat replicates natural light. Don't show work that isn't finished either. Attached are some examples of working this way (Photomatix). Jim
Jim, Thanks-- all good advice, especially the part about not showing work that isn't finished! I actually thought I was finished-- I just wasn't seeing it. Thats why this feedback has been invaluable. I've tried PMX some along with manual layer painting in PS. Those examples are gorgeous, particularly the one in the aquarium.
Will
-
Fred and Kirk, Thanks for the edit and comments. Am I correct that the best strategy when you have mixed lighting, is to get the color temp globally optimized in raw and then selectively correct color in PS? Or process the file more than once for different temps and then combine?
I'll play around with the file and try to find what I feel is the best balance. I do think, like Kirk suggests, that maintaing some warmth while reducing color casts is worth trying.
Will
-
I think the exposure fusion mode is much better than the actual HDR function in Photomatix which i think tonemaps an image and usually it just looks a bit odd. I use the exposure fusion too. check out bracketeer as well...I actually prefer the results to Photomatix...closer to what you would get bu hand painting and masking. I thinks it is MAC only though
D
-
Fred and Kirk, Thanks for the edit and comments. Am I correct that the best strategy when you have mixed lighting, is to get the color temp globally optimized in raw and then selectively correct color in PS? Or process the file more than once for different temps and then combine?
I'll play around with the file and try to find what I feel is the best balance. I do think, like Kirk suggests, that maintaing some warmth while reducing color casts is worth trying.
Will
Hi will.
First and for most, thank you for your words. I must confess that I was not very sure about my editing folie without having asked permission and I'm happy to see that you understood the spirit.
About your question, there are several approaches. The good thing about PS is that it's like Rome. All the ways leads to the same goal.
In your image there where basically 2 kinds of dominance issues, magenta and green.
My personal view, thinking in a non automatized task, and let's say that the RAW overall tone that you want is done, I would look at things that way.
- Clean the original for all dust but also elements that can be distracting. (for ex the yellow seal, unless you want to keep it to indicate daily life)
then
- seeing the materials groups, for example the metal structures of the windows= 1 layer
- the wood, floor+top+chairs, another layer
- the walls, all the white, another layer
- exteriors, another layer.
Each layer might require different correction. You can choose to have for ex the metal warm, but it might have reflections that are different from the walls.
The good thing about working with layer is that you have a perfect flexibility. If you use the pen tool, don't forget to save the path (it's working path on default) once you closed it because you might need it.
I'm not very friendly of abusing the selective corrections after the raw stage, you will always have more precise results with the brush, but it's longuer. (as often, the longuer, the better). But this is not a rule and you will have to combine several techniques. I recommend if you want to go serious on that, that you train a lot with the pics you have. Trying different ways and you will get soon the tricks. The very good point is that this is your house so you can see what the materials really are.
The retouching I did was rather cold on purpose, it was kind of too neutral. But this has an advantage, it creates a clean Master for more advanced step and allows very easily to change tones or pushing a more advanced retouching if you need from a wealphy base.
If you check the Jim's interior pic, it's rather warm. But there is no dominance conflict, that's IMO the point to reach. Even the blueish reflection on the column warnish is ok because of the aperture in the center top. It belongs to the exterior that "enters" inside and it's geometrically distributed.
Check Jim's Blog, the works are particularly impressive and there are many arquitecture.
It seems a bit of work but it's not that much and in the end it saves a lot of time later because your client might want a slightly different tone, colder or warmer etc...
The ideal would be gaining experience in the shooting with the lightning so the pp stage is reduced. This is where the experienced arquitecture photographers make the big difference. This is the toughest and on that I'm not usefull at all.
-
I used to use Photomatix exposure fusion a lot (yes, the current version). However, I find that luminosity masking gives me better results a lot of the time.
Any thoughts on this from experienced APs?
-
I used to use Photomatix exposure fusion a lot (yes, the current version). However, I find that luminosity masking gives me better results a lot of the time.
Any thoughts on this from experienced APs?
David, I'm not familiar with that technique, what is being done? Jim
-
David, I use Tony Kuyper's Luminosity Masks (http://goodlight.us/specialoffers.html) quite extensively, but more to finish the tones in an HDR image. My workflow is to use Lightroom/Enfuse on a 3 exposure 2 stop bracket set of exposures. If the dynamic range in a scene can be controlled by that spread, I can quickly create a decent, very believable, HDR image that requires some minimal tweaks.
-
Similar.... I use Photomatix to tame the contrast, which often yields an image that's a little too dark overall and lacks "oomph". I'll drop that on top of my middle (good overall) exposure and copy the middle exposure to a mask on the HDR layer. This usually lets the HDR through the areas that are blown in the middle exposure while masking back the midtones and shadows (where the base exposure is nicer looking).
I often then use Tony's masks to add contrast to the midtones and sometimes open the shadows.
Seems we've all independently arrived at similar workflows, heh.
-
Seems we've all independently arrived at similar workflows, heh.
Great minds.........
-
David, I'm not familiar with that technique, what is being done? Jim
James, you can find the basic technique for using a luminosity mask as a contrast reduction method in Katrin Eisemann's book on compositing and masking. Basic technique is one exposure for the shadows and one for the highlights. Layer together in Photoshop. Can put lighter exposure on top or the reverse, for different effects, depending on the subject. Create a luminosity selection from the bottom exposure and add a layer mask to the top layer using that selection. Either adjust opacity to taste or apply a curves or levels layer to the bottom layer, depending on whether the light or dark exposure is on top. For me, this method seems to deal well with the same kind of contrast range as exposure fusion. For larger contrast ranges, it is either Photomatix HDR tone mapping (not my preference for high quality work) or hand compositing (hand blending, as some call it).
I believe the Kuyper method with luminosity selections is intended for adjusting tonal separation in relatively narrow bands of tones. I have not tried it, but it would seem useful for recovering some of the tonal separation that is often lost with HDR techniques.
I would note, however, that Photomatix exposure fusion has the a nice side benefit of minimizing noise, perhaps less important now that Adobe's noise reduction is so good. Also, it has a decent anti-ghosting feature, but that doesn't always work.
-
Similar.... I use Photomatix to tame the contrast, which often yields an image that's a little too dark overall and lacks "oomph". I'll drop that on top of my middle (good overall) exposure and copy the middle exposure to a mask on the HDR layer. This usually lets the HDR through the areas that are blown in the middle exposure while masking back the midtones and shadows (where the base exposure is nicer looking).
I often then use Tony's masks to add contrast to the midtones and sometimes open the shadows.
Seems we've all independently arrived at similar workflows, heh.
[/quote
Chris, when masking the HDR with the middle exposure, are you usually doing that by hand (that is, painting with a brush, cutting a pen path, etc.) or by some sort of "found" mask?
-
David,
What I mean by masking the HDR level with the middle exposure is like this...
Say your base (middle) exposure is the background layer and the HDR image (created in Photomatix or whatever) is the layer above it. Add an empty mask to the HDR layer, then select the background layer, copy the whole thing and paste it into the mask of the HDR layer. What you end up with is a mask that only lets the bits of HDR through into the hilight areas, which is generally where you want it. To soften the effect and blend them a little better I'll usually decrease the contrast of the mask (via levels).
-
How to Get Paid--Part Deux.
The aforementioned architect, who by the way, Kirk, I think might be old New Mexico buddies with the architect who low-balled you 25 years ago (just guesswork on my part), tells me his photographer, that he has worked with for years, will "do this work for me for 1-1.2K, and even finance it or take money in once published from the publishers."
I'm not sure I can translate this. Is he saying his regular photog. will shoot a whole project for a low rate and then make it up later with direct payment from wherever it's published? The Arch has already told me the monograph he's producing won't pay anything and the photographer bylines in the magazine he may have lined up, all have the photographers name followed by "courtesy of (architect)." That sounds like the magazine's not paying anything either, no?
The architect also seems to take offense at the concept of licensing the images...
It sounds to me like he's got his regular guy (who's done some very nice work for him) beat down and working for expenses and the fun of it... ?
-
The architect I was referring to passed away a few years ago. Over the years we reached an understanding that was very beneficial to both of us.
Personally there is no way I would work under the conditions he stated. It is basically working on speck. He is wanting his own usage for peanuts. Besides that since you are the owner of the building, he can't have it shot by anyone else without your approval. IMO you are in the drivers seat here.
-
Sorry, I was thinking of someone else that you've worked a lot with.
I think he managed to get his regular guy to work like this and so it has become his comfortable norm.
Because I didn't discuss any of this beforehand with him, I'll probably agree to license limited usage for
a similar amount to what he pays his regular guy, and be done with it. If he tries to insist on unlimited
use, I won't go there. His project will then fall into a black hole, photographically speaking, which will
drive him nuts...
-
While this isn't the way I work with my clients, I have come across similar thinking from a very famous architect on the east coast. For years he worked with one photographer who shot the projects at no cost to the architect and made his living from selling the images to Architectural Digest, etc. I've priced out a couple of projects for them and while they don't expect me to work as they did with the previous photographer (who passed away) I think they experienced "sticker shock" when my pricing came in. I still contact them from time to time but so far no work has come my way. Magazines here in Michigan pay virtually or actually nothing so I haven't been too aggressive in pursuing their business, does anyone know if Architectural Digest operates in a similar manner? Thanks, Jim
-
Besides that since you are the owner of the building, he can't have it shot by anyone else without your approval. IMO you are in the drivers seat here.
This is not necessarily true; some architects stipulate in their contracts that they are permitted to have the project documented by a photographer of their choice. Now I do not think most architects would go there, point that out, and sue you for refusal to have it shot, but it is an option on their part.
-
This is not necessarily true; some architects stipulate in their contracts that they are permitted to have the project documented by a photographer of their choice. Now I do not think most architects would go there, point that out, and sue you for refusal to have it shot, but it is an option on their part.
You may be right about this as many architects end up in an adversarial relationship with their clients and this would guarantee their access.
-
I think it depends on the magazine, how well the photographer is at negotiating and who approaches who. If you approach the magazine, they may look at it as insulting that you are trying to selling them something. But if your client or a publicist convinces them of the value of the story for that publication, you may be in a better spot to get paid.
Joe, I'm not sure how long you have been doing this, but IME you are wrong here. FWIW at last count-I quit counting a few years ago-I have had over 400 articles published. On nearly every shoot I send out queries to magazines and every year I sell many articles off of cold submissions. They are hungry for input and expect to pay the photographer if selected-HOWEVER when they are getting submittals from architect's PR people they often times assume that the architects own all rights and are offering the images for free to get into the magazine. There must be many architects who do offer this. My contracts are very clear about this because I have had so much experience with it. I have yet to have a story killed because I insisted on use fees, though in some circumstances the architect has antied up to cover the magazines fees because of their misleading pitch. I am not unreasonable or cutthroat about these fees-I have always been paid well upfront for the original shoot. Sometimes the fees on smaller magazines are nominal. But as I tell people "I don't need exposure, I need income".
-
Joe, I'm not sure how long you have been doing this, but IME you are wrong here. FWIW at last count-I quit counting a few years ago-I have had over 400 articles published. On nearly every shoot I send out queries to magazines and every year I sell many articles off of cold submissions. They are hungry for input and expect to pay the photographer if selected-HOWEVER when they are getting submittals from architect's PR people they often times assume that the architects own all rights and are offering the images for free to get into the magazine. My contracts are very clear about this because I have had so much experience with it. I have yet to have a story killed because I insisted on use fees, though in some circumstances the architect has antied up to cover the magazines fees because of their misleading pitch. I am not unreasonable or cutthroat about these fees-I have always been paid well upfront for the shoot. But as I tell people "I don't need exposure, I need income".
Defiantly not as long as you, and not as experienced. I am speaking from a little experience and much advice, but I have found that magazines are skimpy, or at least the local ones. On a national level, almost no experience yet, although I am planing on starting to offer a submission service to my clients for a reduced cost, making it up on the publishing fees.
I too am very clear on their use vs. a magazines use in my contracts.
-
Kirk, When you make these cold call submissions, are you submitting text copy and images or just images that the magazine editors build a story around? If just the images, are you pitching an angle for them?
Thanks, Will
-
Will, I never write anything close to an article just a brief description of the project will some "hooks" possibly relevant aspects of the building aimed at the particular interests of the magazine.