...and I'm out.

[buckshot]

That's a decent general overview, but I don't adhere to everything the guy says in practice - e.g. for clarity's sake, I keep the DCP flat-rated no matter what gear I use (doesn’t make sense to ‘charge 3x’ as much when using a secondhand P25+ that cost 1/2 the price of a new Canon 1DX (or whatever)).

[JoeKitchen]

Is this instead of you asking them to pay you a licence fee for the use of your images then ?

And if you were to deliver more than 6, would they then need to pay you more - even if they only wanted to use 2 of the images you did deliver... on their website for a few months for example, rather in all media for the next 10 years throughout the world ??

And if you were just to take the pictures with your iPhone instead, would they still need to pay you this same amount, for this 'digital capture' thing that you are talking about here ?

No, I still require a license to use the images.  For those in the design and construction industry, I am more asking for a license fee to cover the overall project, not a per image basis.  This is due to the lower budgets, and lower usage, in that industry and that those clients are more interested in the overall project, not individual images.  For hospitality and ad firms, I also charge a licensing fee per image.  

Usually the amount of images I will shoot is already deiced upon before I show up.  However, sometimes I shoot an additional image.  If this is the case, I will send a very quick edit to see if they want to use it.  If so, then an additional capture fee will be charged for design and construction clients.  (If ad firms or hospitality, additional licensing fees will be discussed as well.)  If not, then I will not work on the image, or at least not allow them to use it.  

iPhone?  I guess if they really wanted to use an image from my iPhone, I would consider charging them a capture fee, but probably not.  Personally, I would not want an iPhone image with my name on it being used in marketing materials.  Or at least not an interior image that requires lighting and staging.  

FYI Ashley, I have read and reference your blog posts on licensing and how you charge, and feel it is very well thought out.  I try to emulate it as much as possible, however design and construction clients (as you have mentioned in the past) just have smaller budgets and usage requirements.  Being such, I can not just get the same kind of response in those markets.  I am currently changing gears to be more involved with advertising and hospitality firms.  

I know from your posts that capture fees do not exactly go inline with your fee structure, but that is something I might consider altering as well. 

[Chris Barrett]

There are a number of different viable business policies across the medium.  Some guys have given up dayrates and charge per image.  I charge my clients a dayrate based on a 10 hour day.  Then there is also a per image charge.  I call this charge "Capture, Processing & Retouching".  This is based on delivered final images.  Every setup I shoot becomes a deliverable, there are not really ever any rejects.  I include the licensing within my dayrate.  I think this overall structure is pretty common amongst U.S. Architectural Shooters.  I often get calls from third parties wishing to license images and I have a separate fee (or fees) for that.

[David Eichler]

There are a number of different viable business policies across the medium.  Some guys have given up dayrates and charge per image.  I charge my clients a dayrate based on a 10 hour day.  Then there is also a per image charge.  I call this charge "Capture, Processing & Retouching".  This is based on delivered final images.  Every setup I shoot becomes a deliverable, there are not really ever any rejects.  I include the licensing within my dayrate.  I think this overall structure is pretty common amongst U.S. Architectural Shooters.  I often get calls from third parties wishing to license images and I have a separate fee (or fees) for that.

Do you then adjust your day rate depending upon whether the client is an architect or, say, a product manufacturer, to account for the different licensing needs? When licensing to architects, do you include paid advertising usage within your day rate, or is it just Internet, awards submissions and brochures and such?

[alatreille]

Chris' explanation is also pretty standard amongst APs in Canada and Oz.
Though I do know of some in both locations with different models.

Not many I know have a 10 outta 10 hit ratio though! 

There are a number of different viable business policies across the medium.  Some guys have given up dayrates and charge per image.  I charge my clients a dayrate based on a 10 hour day.  Then there is also a per image charge.  I call this charge "Capture, Processing & Retouching".  This is based on delivered final images.  Every setup I shoot becomes a deliverable, there are not really ever any rejects.  I include the licensing within my dayrate.  I think this overall structure is pretty common amongst U.S. Architectural Shooters.  I often get calls from third parties wishing to license images and I have a separate fee (or fees) for that.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Being able to deliver excellent results may matter…

Also, keep in mind that there is much more equipment involved than just a digital back.It is not very probable that you transport a truckload of lighting equipment to a place and shoot with an iPhone on a heavy tripod.

I would guess that Chris has found that the A7r delivers the results he need while offering an efficient workflow.

I don't know why and how, but I would assume that good live view may be a part of the explanation.

It would be interesting to hear Chris explaining what he gained.

Best regards
Erik

So when you are asking these people to hire you here to do this work for them beforehand Chris - and pay you for your time to turn up and be there for 10 hours - do you also let them know what equipment you think you will need to use here, and what the cost of that would be to hire out per day ?

In other words, do you give them a choice here beforehand and then charge them according to what equipment they want you to use - and does that then also make a difference to the price you would charge them for "Capture, Processing & Retouching" - or do you charge them a set price for that, no matter what camera system they wanted you to use ?

Just trying to figure out what the difference would possibly be here, between you using the IQ260 back and your smartphone for example, or the A7r or whatever you happened to have with you that day - because obviously for this to make any sense, then there would need to be a big difference here - otherwise, I'd be wondering why you were even using the IQ260 back in the first place.

[D Fuller]

With rare exceptions, I don't think a client should have a say in what equipment you use. They don't rent your camera, they hire you to make finished images. How you get there and what you use in the process is part of what you bring to the table.

[Chris Barrett]

I think you guys are over-thinking this a bit.  Equipment is never up to the client.  They trust in my experience and ongoing expertise to choose the gear that is most appropriate to the project.  I've found lately that what is most Appropriate is not the highest megapixel capture device.

One thing that really bothers me about the model of just charging licensing on the images produced is that implies that my time has no value.  That can be a dangerous slope to be on.

Sometimes I really envy Film Production Companies, who can charge the client rental on every piece of kit brought out, whether they own it or not.

Regardless of the capture device, I'm still showing up with a View Camera and 8 of the best lenses money can buy... and oh... all this crap too...

[JoeKitchen]

One thing that really bothers me about the model of just charging licensing on the images produced is that implies that my time has no value.  That can be a dangerous slope to be on.

I go back and forth on this all of the time and just can not come up with something that makes me feel right and competitive, especially with the architect market.  If I am shooting complicated interiors, it may take me 10 hours to produce 4 images.  However, if I am shooting just day lit exteriors that require no staging or lighting (other then timing), I can capture a good deal more.  

Overall I am getting paid less per image in the second example while spending more time creating them, after taking post into consideration.  It always makes me feel like I am shorting myself and devaluing exteriors, which are just as important.  

[JoeKitchen]

Ashley, I know you like playing devil's advocate with business models and what not, throwing out thought provoking questions, which I enjoy.  However, one thing that I think gives you a great advantage and allows you to price the way you do is that your partner is an interior stylist.  (Or at least it appears that she is your partner, not 100% sure.)  

I have been getting more and more into hotel and ad work (or at least trying to), and push for using a prop stylist.  However, I need to hire one and need to ensure those expenses are covered.  I have a hard way of incorporating this into a per image fee since those expenses are based on the day, not the number of shots.  (Yes, prop expenses would change a bit, but overall the price is dependent on the days working for the stylist.)  

Not to mention, there is sometimes a good deal of push back from the client on if it is really necessary to hire a stylist.  I am trying to come up with ways to make it seem more necessary.  

[Dshelly]

In the entertainment business most photographers get a day-rate. My rate is strictly for myself and includes between 6-10 images that are touched up, including all the photos I've shot on a usb drive. The rate doesn't include the studio rental, makeup & hair folks, wardrobe, an art director (if needed) and my assistants. And though I have an extensive amount of gear, I also expense rental equipment to the client.

My rates changes based upon the client and the job. Some clients will come to me pleading poverty due to a number of circumstances. I often take these knowing that they'll reward me with future jobs for helping them out budget-wise. I rarely do this for one-ups or independents. The companies I work for are film studios and TV networks, so they provide the most jobs and good pay (most of the time). Sometimes I get licensing fees, other times not. There are a lot of photographers competing for these jobs, so sometimes you just have to bite the bullet and decide whether or not you wish to continue working with a client.

[D Fuller]

Sometimes I really envy Film Production Companies, who can charge the client rental on every piece of kit brought out, whether they own it or not.

And as someone who does most of his work in film production, I've envied the usage fees that still photographers are able to charge.

The grass always looks a little greener...

[Chris Barrett]

A 1 day shoot I did a couple months ago has netted me about $6k in usage licensing.  So, yeah, good point.

[David Eichler]

In the entertainment business most photographers get a day-rate. My rate is strictly for myself and includes between 6-10 images that are touched up, including all the photos I've shot on a usb drive. The rate doesn't include the studio rental, makeup & hair folks, wardrobe, an art director (if needed) and my assistants. And though I have an extensive amount of gear, I also expense rental equipment to the client.

My rates changes based upon the client and the job. Some clients will come to me pleading poverty due to a number of circumstances. I often take these knowing that they'll reward me with future jobs for helping them out budget-wise. I rarely do this for one-ups or independents. The companies I work for are film studios and TV networks, so they provide the most jobs and good pay (most of the time). Sometimes I get licensing fees, other times not. There are a lot of photographers competing for these jobs, so sometimes you just have to bite the bullet and decide whether or not you wish to continue working with a client.

It looks to me as though you often do a lot of touch up to your images. Do you also include that work within the day rate or break it out separately? What if the client comes back to you after you have delivered the photos and wants a lot more of this touching up?

[AreBee]

Yelhsa,

This image...was worth a lot more to my client than this image...because they wanted to use the 1st one a lot more than the 2nd one.

As a result, they paid me a lot more for the use of the 1st image than they did for the 2nd image - even though the 2nd image took me a lot longer to shoot and cost me more to produce.

Was the price set before or after you determined which of the two images was worth the most to your client?

[Chris Barrett]

Did these people also agree beforehand, to pay you for 'your time' to do this work for them, plus X amount for each 'deliverable image' too - on top of this 6k amount, to be able to actually use that work afterwards ?

Or did these people just agree to pay you 6K for the use of your work afterwards, rather than anything beforehand for you to do the work ?

No, my 'time' was paid for by the architect and their project participants (property owner and engineers).  Beyond them, there were 6 additional parties interested in images, who paid a per image flat fee for stock image usage.  So, for the originating clients, there is my dayrate plus per image (post-production) costs and for third parties there is just a flat per image license cost.  For the original clients, the total costs per image are actually a bit lower than stock usage fees as their licensing is bundled in to my dayrate.

Your model of clients paying more for images that are more Valuable to them has a perfect logic to it.  Then again, if I operated that way, I would begin to ask myself why I should put three hours into lighting a particularly tricky interior that may not be that valuable to the client?  This, in the end, might cause the quality of my work to suffer.  You put a lot of work into every shot and they're all beautiful, but how do you balance that with knowing that all that hard work has less value to a client than a 20 minute exterior?

I think most of us have varying approaches and in the end it's all about whatever is financially viable for your market, keeps your clients happy and you in business.  So, by and large, this discussion is rather academic.

CB

[MNG]

Hi Chris, with your time being paid by the three different persons or company's, did the architects assume that because your cost for your time was being shared that the other 2 parties had equal rights to use your images? 

Example: on a 1 or 2 day shoot, your day rate and post production costs divided by 3, Versus a situation if you only had one original client asking you to shoot for them then charging other party's a flat rate?

Michael

[Chris Barrett]

Michael,

Yes, I have a "Multiple Client" rate that allows for image and cost sharing across a small group of participants... at a higher rate, of course, than the Single Client rate.  This was a practice that began at the studio I previously shot for and has been adopted by many arch shooters that I know.

CB

[AreBee]

Yelhsa,

Thank you.

[Chris Barrett]

I don't really see how the timing of the payment is relevant.  What they are paying me for is outlined in my estimate and later my invoice.  These are the terms agreed to by the client and myself prior to beginning work.

By the same logic you, could argue that since you don't pay the plumber until AFTER he fixes your toilet that you are actually paying a crap/piss charge and not for his services.