What do you think is a reasonable price to charge a band for promo pix for their debut release?
July 3, 2006 9:57 PM   Subscribe

What do you think is a reasonable price to charge a band for promo pix for their debut release? Details inside...

I recently took B&W pictures at a gig of a band that I really like. I emailed them scans of the negatives and they seemed to be quite happy with them.

It was quite the surprise to me when I received an email from one of the band members asking if I would be interested in taking pictures for their upcoming debut release.

They want the following in true B&W:
1. Head shots of each band member.
2. Shots of each band member playing live.
3. Group photos.

I am an amateur photographer and this is my first opportunity to do a paid gig.

My question to you is what is a reasonable charge for the above? Should I:

A) Charge expenses (film+development+travel) + some amount (for e.g. expenses + say $500)
B) Lump sum after my best estimate
C) Charge per hour with a break-down of hourly rates per service (photography, photoshop work, etc)
D) None of the above OR some combination of the above
E) [Insert expert suggestion here]

Thanks for your help!
posted by hellhammer to Media & Arts (24 answers total)
 
It sounds like you're as new to this as them, in which case, you're not going to like what I'm about to say:

You should do this for free, or for very cheap. You need to build a portfolio before you can start charging lots of money for your work.


Problems with charging this band:
- $500?! How far is the travel? How much money do you think this band has? Is it signed to a label? I can guarantee no band who isn't signed is paying $500+ for photos of themselves.
- New-to-the-industry bands have the same problem you do - they don't know what things should cost.

If they actually have decent money, you should charge by the hour. If the travel is really significant (like a several hour drive), then maybe add on a bit for that.
posted by twiggy at 10:22 PM on July 3, 2006


If this is an unsigned band, I suggest you do it for free (or in exchange for a free CD or some swag) and use the photos and contact/reference as a stepping stone for future gigs. Bands have no money!
posted by easternblot at 10:38 PM on July 3, 2006


Response by poster: Thanks for your replies!

To answer some of your questions:

1. The band is signed to an underground label.
2. Travel will be about 100 miles round-trip, at least 5 times.
3. The $500 figure was hypothetical and not what I plan on charging them at all.

The band wants B&W film pix and not digital. B&W development is expensive since I don't have my own darkroom.

I would be happy with film related expenses + a small fee for misc. expenses. I'm still in the process of determining if I'm going to be responsible for any Photoshop work or if somebody at the label/printer is going to handle that.

Twiggy, what do you think is a reasonable rate to charge by the hour?
posted by hellhammer at 11:25 PM on July 3, 2006


Never work for free, even if you're learning. Charge them minimum wage, but don't work for free and NEVER work at cost to yourself.

At the same time, brush up on your skills. If they're hiring you to do headshots on the strength of your concert photography, your headshot skills might not be the best. Headshots are a specific enough niche of photography that people specialize in them, and with good reason.
posted by jedrek at 11:44 PM on July 3, 2006


Response by poster: jedrek, I'm pretty positive that my headshot skills are NOT very good (esp. cos I haven't taken any other than some of my friends') and I was very honest with the band about this, a fact that they noted and said they really appreciated.

Why they are interested in using me is that I understand the aesthetic of the music they play (doom / extreme metal.) They say they have talked to many commercial photographers and have come away unhappy with the results.

I like this band's music a lot and am excited at the prospect of contributing to their debut release in a small way. The money is not the most important consideration, but I also do not want to work for free.

Cost + Fee is what I had in mind... I'm just trying to figure out how to arrive at "Fee".

Thanks for your reply!
posted by hellhammer at 11:54 PM on July 3, 2006


work for beer and pot if the band make it big time you were there first also ask for credit on cd/single
posted by baker dave at 12:09 AM on July 4, 2006


cost of materials, transportation, development, etc + $10/hr.

you shouldn't really be trying to make money off this if you are an amateur photographer and fan. as mentioned earlier, you get portfolio material, you get to hang out with the band and see a bunch of shows, you can probably snag some free CDs/posters/swag, and if nothing else you will have a great story to tell your friends.
posted by sophist at 1:47 AM on July 4, 2006


if they see you aren't trying to be greedy, and they like your work, they are much more likely to throw you some extra cash, hire you for their next breakthrough album, or reccomend you to their labelmates.
posted by sophist at 1:49 AM on July 4, 2006


Best answer: Why on earth do they want it to be film rather than digital?
Have you asked them if they have a budget? That's usually how I get around these scenarios.
Do you have any studio experience?
Do you have access to a studio?
I'd use a studio for the headshots and possibly for the group shots. Factor in this cost.
If you can charge a reasonable amount, think about getting them to pay only if they're happy with the results (- expenses). This can take some of the pressure off you.
Make sure your licence for the photos is very clear. Think about putting a time limit on usage... ie one year. After that, they'd need to renew.
Although you're relatively new to this, you might be quite talented. Charge what you think the photos are worth to the band. Also charge what you think you can afford.
Bands always claim to have no money. They always seem to find money for expensive instruments, PAs and beer though. They can find money between them for good photography which is arguably one of the most important elements a band needs to make it in the music business.
I personally never charge by the hour. I charge per project or per day. I don't have a fixed fee... I charge a combination of what I think the client can afford and what I think the project is worth.
From what you've said, they're not using you because you're cheap, they're using you because you're better than the other professional photographers they've tried. Bear this in mind when coming up with a cost.
Is their label paying for the shoot? It may be that the band don't care how much you charge because they'll just give the bill to the label.
Good luck!
posted by BobsterLobster at 3:59 AM on July 4, 2006


"Although you're relatively new to this, you might be quite talented. Charge what you think the photos are worth to the band. Also charge what you think you can afford."

should read

"Also charge what you think they can afford."
posted by BobsterLobster at 4:01 AM on July 4, 2006


Best answer: You should know that if the label is paying for the shoot, they're likely getting the money from the artists in the end (more on how royalties work).

If you've never shot portraits before, (even "metal" portraits), you might need to get some proper lighting equipment. I'm going to presume that by "amateur" you don't own any lights. That's a big expense right there, and you don't get to charge them for your new toys. If you've never used lights before, you're going to have to learn how to use them. That means a shitload of practice and study from now until then. You don't get to charge for that, either.

What you do get to charge them for is time and production expenses. If they're dead-set on film, you can charge for development and printing costs. If you can use digital instead (and really, they won't know the difference) you can charge for any post-editting. You can charge for the actual shoot. Since you're new to this, I'd suggest something fair like $25/hr.

You have a classic business problem here: one on hand, you don't think you're professional enough to be charging them what a "professional" would charge. To a certain extent you're right, and yet you're also wrong: a professional is just someone who charges for their time and work. So in that sense, if they pay you, you're semi-professional ("semi" because you aren't yet making enough to sustain a living from it). But in the more traditional sense, you're not a professional, because you not only lack the training and equipment, you also lack the experience.

But the other side of this goes something like this: never, ever undersell yourself. In other words, while it might be more noble to do it for free, you shouldn't. I'll put aside for a moment the argument that you'd be hurting the photographic industry in general by doing so. The real problem is this: once you get a reputation for being cheap, that's all the clients you'll ever get. Cheap clients. Clients that haggle over nickels and dimes. Clients that are bargain-shopping. Exactly not the clients you ever want anything to do with. You want the band to recommend you because of your skills and your product, not your price.

So a happy compromise: $25/hour (next client it goes up to $30/hour). Plus production expenses. But not equipment expenses. Those are yours to bear.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 5:56 AM on July 4, 2006


Okay. They're a band about to release their debut album on an "underground" label. This means they have no money. They're probably playing with beaten-up instruments, and touring in the back of a Ford Transit (or American equivalent). That said, find out if there is a budget, and if so what it might be.

If you're just starting out as a photographer (which it sounds like you are) you're probably going to have to do it for either nothing, or nothing plus travel expenses. Every photographer I know who shoots bands – whether they work for newspapers/magazines or doing promo for bands, or (usually) both – started out charging nothing, shooting their friends' bands, hanging out with them or getting in the back of the tour van and living smelly for a couple of weeks. Partly it's to get experience of how to shoot a band, partly it's to build a portfolio to show people who can afford to pay you that you're worth paying.

The music photographer who works for the paper i write about music for started out this way; it took him a couple of years of free shoots and paid-in-beer gigs to start getting paying work. When he and I did a seminar on music journalism/photography a couple of months back, his advice to the wannabe photographers was: shoot for free when you're starting out, but when they paying gigs start coming in, then you can start charging. At this stage of your putative career, there are just too many people competing to shoot stacks of bands who can't afford to pay anyone. And more important than whether you get paid now is retaining control of your images in the future, because that's where the money is (or, hopefully, will be).

There are really no hard and fast rules about these things: another photographer I know who started out shooting bands nearly 15 years ago stopped doing all but the most high profile music shoots, because they don't pay enough and they're not worth the hassle. He's in the middle of shooting an ad campaign for Adidas in London tied to the world cup, but he's coming back up here to Glasgow for a day to shoot a local band. His fee? £50 and some beer, because he likes the band. And he doesn't even want travel expenses.
posted by Len at 6:43 AM on July 4, 2006


Best answer: Never do it for free. That is bullshit advice. If you are good enough to do it at all you need to get paid for it. Be honest with yourself here - are you good enough? You have already provided them with a freebie to whet their appetite, so if they are interested in asking you to do this work they should be charged. Be upfront about it and don't settle for nothing.

Charge for expenses, and yes, for equipment too, and for time/materials. Charge for equipment as if you'd rented everything. Check pro-rental places for their rates on rentals of all your equipment and use that as a basis. Give them an estimate beforehand with all the rights you expect and have them sign it if they agree. Try to be as accurate as possible with your estimate but don't break it down to every roll of film. Keep your profit margin down to a minimum but make sure you cover everything else. Consider shooting digital to bring the costs down as fim and development costs can increase the full costs of the work. Like I mentioned, especially in your area, you can rent all of the equipment you need which can then be charged in the invoice.

A signed contract before the work is started will be necessary to prevent any misunderstandings. Get all agreements in writing. You could provide a final invoice after work is complete based on actual costs but most times, the estimate will be the final billed price. If you are billing based only on the estimate, add a 5-10% contingency fee on the estimate to cover any additional unforeseen costs. If the band balks at the estimate, be willing to negotiate but don't let them make you lose money on this.

I have done my share of freelance photography work and have dipped my hands in the complexities of pricing. It's not easy and will be a learning experience for you.
posted by JJ86 at 7:21 AM on July 4, 2006


I agree with much of what JJ86 says, but not this part:

and yes, for equipment too

In any profession, there are some things that you assume the pro is going to have in order to work in the industry. I wouldn't pay a programmer for their computer, for example. I wouldn't expect to see an invoice for "hammers" if I ask a roofer to come fix my leaking ceiling. You don't charge the customer to get your "business" up-to-speed.

The exception to this, and it's a common one, is when you're asked to do something that requires tools you wouldn't normally come across. I'm sure this sounds obvious, but in actual practice this can get tricky. For example, I'd expect a fashion photographer to have a ring flash, just as I'd expect a nature photographer to own a huge-honkin' telephoto lens or a architectural photographer to own a tilt-shift lens.

The expectation is based on the resulting product. As a customer, I don't care about the process, only the result. If I hire a guy to take architecture shots, I'm expecting a certain result that implies ownership of some specific equipment. It's up you, to the professional, to be honest and upfront about your costs, and any costs that you'd want to defer to the client. But there is a base level of equipment to any profession that I'd argue you simply cannot pass on to the client.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 8:40 AM on July 4, 2006


Best answer: JJ86's advice is dead on. I ALWAYS charge for equipment "rental" and a digital capture fee to recoup the cost of my investment. Also, NEVER, EVER WORK FOR FREE. I cannot stress that enough. By working for free you not only do yourself a disservice but you are also undermining the value of other photographers services in your area. The Editorial Photographers site is a great resource for answering your questions. The bottom line is your not going to get rich shooting this band but you need to be compensated appropriately for your time, expenses and creative abilities. Feel free to contact me via email if you need help with a contract and coming up with appropriate fees.
posted by photoslob at 9:01 AM on July 4, 2006


What would be wrong with sitting down and calculating the cost of your 5 round trips (gas) and the cost of developing/processing the film? Come up with a itemized list and figure as a starting point and work from there. That way you're at least not taking a financial hit to build your portfolio nor are you accidently gouging your new client.
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 9:23 AM on July 4, 2006


Best answer: ask this at:

PDN Forums
Pro Photo Community (nee Rob Galbraith Forums)

to get answers from working pros.
posted by joshwa at 9:38 AM on July 4, 2006


It is perfectly legitimate to work for free -- I can only assume the people who say otherwise are pissy photographers who think they don't earn enough, or something. The whole argument about undercutting other photographers, is completely ridiculous (it's much like the 'filesharing hurts music' argument, in that it wrongly supposes that people who get something for free would always otherwise have paid for it).

This is the key: to get ahead in any job, first you need experience. The very best way to build up loads of good experience is to work for free. It's just the way it is. If you do charge, keep it below $100.
posted by reklaw at 12:08 PM on July 4, 2006


reklaw:

it's not that "people who get something for free would always otherwise have paid for it" -- it's that people who *do* something for free, almost always otherwise *could get paid for it*. The supply side is killing itself, not that customers aren't willing to pay for it anymore.

People who come into the industry and charge less than CODB hurt their future earnings by dragging prices down. Eventually all commercial photography will be an industry of hobbyists willing to work for free.
posted by joshwa at 5:40 PM on July 4, 2006


Civil_Disobediant: Every independent contractor charges the client for their tools either directly or indirectly. Many workers don't even own their own equipment and just rent it when they need it to keep their overhead down. Photographers especially need to work with some high priced cameras, lenses, lighting, etc that would break them if they had to eat the costs. A pro location kit can run in the $20 k price range.

reklaw: How do you know hellhammer doesn't already have the photo experience and just lacks business knowledge? Most photographers out looking for work didn't just pick up a camera yesterday. They have been shooting for years and they come to a point where they need to make a living. Sometimes a photographer will do a favor for a friend by shooting a wedding for nothing but as a business proposition, working for free is bad. No other profession operates like that. Amateurs who do it on a regular basis to "get experience" rob hard working photographers trying to put bread on their tables. Working for free might seem cool if you can afford it but every photographer I know is barely scraping by. It's a tough business.
posted by JJ86 at 6:18 PM on July 4, 2006


Photographers especially need to work with some high priced cameras, lenses, lighting, etc that would break them if they had to eat the costs.

Like I said, if the photographer makes the call that it's beyond their budget and outside the umbrella of "standard equipment", they should be upfront about it to the clients. But it's crazy to think that a professional photographer would charge the client for the tripod or the camera.

Oh sure, sure, if it's a special camera, pass along the rental costs. But notice the special part? That implies non-standard. Any photographer shooting portraits that doesn't already own a couple of lights and a light meter and expects to defer the costs to the client is not going to be in business for long.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 7:21 PM on July 4, 2006


Response by poster: Thank you all very much for your very valuable inputs, esp. BobsterLobster, Civil_Disobedient, JJ86 and photoslob.

After reading your replies and checking the fora on Photo.net, PDN, a few other websites and much debate with myself, I think I will go with something along the lines of:

1. Acutal photo shoots - $20/hr
2. Post-processing of digital pix / scanned B&W negatives - $20/hr
3. Transportation costs - 50 cents a mile, one-way
4. Admission into gigs (2, possibly 3... a $45 value at most)
5. Band owns license at no extra charge to all pictures they select, with the clause that I am allowed to display them on my website as examples of past work, and that they give me a credit - name + email add - in the liner notes.

With my estimates of shooting + post-processing work (about 30 in total), film development costs (minimized now since I think I'm going to shoot about 5-7 rolls of 36 exposures each and the rest in digital) and mileage, my estimate will be about $750-800.

Does that sound reasonable for a first assignment? The band is reasonably financially sound... they all have day jobs and though this is their debut album in this incarnation, they've all played in bands that have released albums before.

I would appreciate suggestions and comments on my pricing estimate and also the following:

1. Will it make things simpler for the band if in addition to the above (or whatever modifications to the above) I state that the band will get a minimum of "x" number of prints?

2. What recommendations do you have with respects to rights, license viz. the images?

3. [Any other recommendations/advice]

Thank you all very much for your time!
posted by hellhammer at 9:23 PM on July 4, 2006


I think they're going to balk when you put it in front of them. It's too complex, and too much money. But hey, your friends, your life.
posted by reklaw at 9:55 AM on July 5, 2006


I'd suggesting giving them an itemization of #1-4 "...or, I shoot it digital at my expense, retain copyright, and grant you a free license to use the photos to promote album X." No cost to them, and hopefully one day when they hit it big your copyright interest in those photos can help pay back the shoot expenses.
posted by nakedcodemonkey at 10:43 AM on July 5, 2006


« Older Where do I take my girlfriend of 5 years?   |   File Explorer Alternative Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.