|
rockcity posted:I think the reason people don't like flash and blur photos is that a lot of them tend to look similar and a lot of photographers ride that completely as their style. I use it here and there, but for the most part I don't touch my flash at shows. I think that's the thing. Don't do an entire show in that style. It's great in small doses and done well. It's also becoming a cliche for club shots. And you don't need L-glass to turn out concert photos. I barely use any actual Canon lenses myself and one of the two that I do use is the cheap plastic 50 and the other is a cheap 135mm f/2.8. Everything else is Sigma, Tamron or Tokina.
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2009 19:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 11:21 |
|
|
I guess I'm just not used to shooting major shows. I'm used to small shows with really lovely lighting. I usually shoot slow-sync + wide angle but i'm trying to branch out the style I shoot.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2009 20:02
|
|
|
pr0digal posted:I guess I'm just not used to shooting major shows. I'm used to small shows with really lovely lighting. I usually shoot slow-sync + wide angle but i'm trying to branch out the style I shoot. Small shows with lovely lighting are the majority of what I shoot. Eventually you learn to live with fast primes and high ISOs. I almost never shoot below 1600. Going through your photostream, I think one problem with your concert photos is sloppy composition. You're not framing your subjects well often cutting them off in odd ways when there's plenty of room left over in the frame. You've even got a photo where you cut the head off of the main subject. Why? As for your light trail photos, I think you might want to work on those a bit too. The best light trail work makes it so the light trails frame the subject or move with the subject to enhance the sense of motion. In some of your photos, you're making light trails smack in the middle of the photo with no particular connection to the subject. They're just there, cluttering up the frame. If you don't have a Sigma 30mm f/1.4, I'd seriously suggest you get that or something similar. Either that or you need to get way closer to your subjects with the wide angle. Wide angles work best with concerts when you use them to really stretch perspective and make things seem more extreme than they really are and the way to do that is to get right up close and comfy so that the subjects fill the frame right to the edges. If you have to opt between showing more floor or showing more ceiling, showing more floor will often yield the more dramatic photo, especially in a smaller venue. I have a Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 but I really don't use it much unless it's at a tight venue where I'm practically bumping the musicians with my lens hood. For anything else, a 17-50 or something similar is generally wide enough unless I'm going for a photo of the whole band at once.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2009 20:33
|
|
|
rockcity posted:Jeremy Saffer is probably the best example I can give of that. I came across this guys stuff last week. It is pretty flat and boring.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2009 21:21
|
|
|
HPL posted:Small shows with lovely lighting are the majority of what I shoot. Eventually you learn to live with fast primes and high ISOs. I almost never shoot below 1600. I have to agree here too. Just looking at your shots from the weekend, you need to work on composition. I'd say that for the most part you shoot too wide, or at least too wide for certain shots. Most of those shots you posted have way too many non-important things in the foreground. Monitors, mic stands, all of that. It takes up too much of your photo and doesn't draw your eye in to the musician. This was your first big show though, so it's certainly something to work on. Don't worry, I look at my early work and I laugh at how bad it was. It was all really generic and poorly exposed. My two most used lenses for shows are my sigma 20mm f1.8 and my canon 50mm f1.8. They're both good in low light and allow me to avoid using flash. I suggest getting some primes, they're really the way to go. If you take a look at most of the better photographers (or at least the ones I like) they almost all shoot with primes, especially at indoor shows. AIIAZNSK8ER posted:I came across this guys stuff last week. It is pretty flat and boring. Yeah, when I first saw his posed stuff I thought he was cool, but I really hadn't seen anyone who'd wowed me that much. This was also like 4 years ago and he wasn't nearly as arrogant. I met him again when I was in Worcester shooting the New England Metal Fest two years ago and again a few nights later at another show and he was full of it both times. Since then I've met or at least seen the work of so many better promo photographers, one of them lives just a few miles from me and is like 19. He's just really boring with how he uses his lighting and general concepts all together. Edit: On a side note I think Alternative Press is going to run some of my photos in the Warped Tour recap issue. rockcity fucked around with this message at 21:41 on Aug 4, 2009 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2009 21:35
|
|
|
I need to post some more (recent) stuff up on my flickr. But you are right I need to work on composition/framing/etc for my next concert instead of just taking shots over my head. I have ended up with some cool shots that way, but my keeper rate isn't very high. I guess with the music scene the way it is in my area there aren't much in the way of show photographers so I've rather (badly) filled a niche that hasn't been filled (or at least that's the way it seems with every single show i've been too). I suppose I need to reevaluate the way I shoot shows. I really look up to my cousin in terms of show photography so I'll see what he has to say in regards as to what to do.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2009 22:08
|
|
|
pr0digal posted:I suppose I need to reevaluate the way I shoot shows. I really look up to my cousin in terms of show photography so I'll see what he has to say in regards as to what to do. Really, a lot of it comes down to grinding it out and getting experience. The more you shoot, the more comfortable and familiar you'll be with it. To be honest, what really gave me a kick in the butt photographically was shooting on film. After that my keeper rate soared, overall photo quality improved and I learned to adapt and apply post processing techniques that I learned from doing black and white to my digital colour photos. The more experienced you get, the more you'll be able to pick out problems like microphone stands, stage lights directly behind the performer, odd shadows, etc. and learn how to either avoid them, minimise them or use them to your advantage and do it all on the fly. Even to this day, there are still shows where I go out and try something different and it turns out to be a horrible car wreck, but it's okay because I (hopefully) learned something. The key is to not do your learning on a client's dime.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2009 22:16
|
|
|
HPL posted:If you don't have a Sigma 30mm f/1.4, I'd seriously suggest you get that or something similar. Either that or you need to get way closer to your subjects with the wide angle. Wide angles work best with concerts when you use them to really stretch perspective and make things seem more extreme than they really are and the way to do that is to get right up close and comfy so that the subjects fill the frame right to the edges. If you have to opt between showing more floor or showing more ceiling, showing more floor will often yield the more dramatic photo, especially in a smaller venue.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2009 23:10
|
|
|
HPL posted:Really, a lot of it comes down to grinding it out and getting experience. The more you shoot, the more comfortable and familiar you'll be with it. To be honest, what really gave me a kick in the butt photographically was shooting on film. After that my keeper rate soared, overall photo quality improved and I learned to adapt and apply post processing techniques that I learned from doing black and white to my digital colour photos. I have a film camera (two actually) but I find that I am not using them as much as I should. I am toying with the idea of getting some wicked high speed film (1600 or 3200) slapping on my 50 f/1.8 and going to shoot a show. As far as wide angle I have the sigma 10-20 and I love the drat thing. It's a bit slow and doesn't work well on FF but it's a pretty good lens
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2009 03:36
|
|
|
pr0digal posted:I have a film camera (two actually) but I find that I am not using them as much as I should. I am toying with the idea of getting some wicked high speed film (1600 or 3200) slapping on my 50 f/1.8 and going to shoot a show. You don't need fast film. Use 400 film and run it at 1600 or 3200.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2009 03:46
|
|
|
HPL posted:You don't need fast film. Use 400 film and run it at 1600 or 3200. When you say run do you mean set the camera's ISO at 1600 or 3200 or push it to 1600/3200 in development?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2009 03:47
|
|
|
pr0digal posted:When you say run do you mean set the camera's ISO at 1600 or 3200 or push it to 1600/3200 in development? both ideally (Though just because you can push HP5+ to 3200 doesn't mean fast rated films are obsolete) e: (or even that you should) Twenties Superstar fucked around with this message at 03:57 on Aug 5, 2009 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2009 03:53
|
|
|
Twenties Superstar posted:both ideally Goddamnit I am such a film noob  I do want to try to shoot a show with the Konica rangefinder I found in my house...
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2009 04:03
|
|
|
Twenties Superstar posted:(Though just because you can push HP5+ to 3200 doesn't mean fast rated films are obsolete) No, they're not. But they're expensive.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2009 04:36
|
|
|
How is it that both times that I am shooting a semi-well known band I always run into some interesting issues? I just got the following from my contact for the show on the 22nd. "Hey dude so there is apperently one stipulation to taking pics of unearth. They wanna have free access to the photos to use for any promotional use. Is that cool with you? Definately a great way to pat your resume." I mean I wouldn't mind as long as I got some credit for the photos I am taking and still hold fully copyright over the photos and license them for promotional use. It is a good way to get my name out there...
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2009 16:29
|
|
|
pr0digal posted:"Hey dude so there is apperently one stipulation to taking pics of unearth. They wanna have free access to the photos to use for any promotional use. Is that cool with you? Definately a great way to pat your resume." Haha. Photo credits are always the first thing to get dumped by the wayside. Have you ever seen a photo credit on a poster or press kit? "We'll make sure you get credit" is the concert photographer equivalent of "The cheque is in the mail".
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2009 16:39
|
|
|
HPL posted:Haha. Photo credits are always the first thing to get dumped by the wayside. Have you ever seen a photo credit on a poster or press kit? "We'll make sure you get credit" is the concert photographer equivalent of "The cheque is in the mail". "Hey my photo is on that unearth poster!" "Really? Prove it?" "They said they would put credit on the...  "*edit* while some people may think it's a bad idea, I'm going to do it as it would be a way to break into the whole "industry" because word does have a way of getting around...assuming that my photos don't come out like total crap that is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2009 16:52
|
|
|
there's an easy solution to that problem... you just don't give them your best shots. that or you don't give them the high-res, you give them something that'll work for a small flyer or web ad but not for full size print. let them negotiate the rest after that, as long as you don't sign anything the ball's in your court.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2009 17:42
|
|
|
pr0digal posted:*edit* while some people may think it's a bad idea, I'm going to do it as it would be a way to break into the whole "industry" because word does have a way of getting around...assuming that my photos don't come out like total crap that is. To be honest, I don't put a whole lot of emphasis on marketing my concert shots. I use them more as a way to drum up promo work. There are just way too many photographers in this town taking photos at shows.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2009 18:26
|
|
|
HPL posted:To be honest, I don't put a whole lot of emphasis on marketing my concert shots. I use them more as a way to drum up promo work. There are just way too many photographers in this town taking photos at shows. I don't put a whole ton of emphasis on marketing my shots either, as far as I'm concerned I'm just another photographer at the show (in general). At BMP, everybody and their mother had a loving DSLR. The thing is here that in order to be allowed to shoot Unearth (and hopefully only them) I have to agree to this...interesting stipulation. Ah gently caress it, experience is experience. pr0digal fucked around with this message at 18:43 on Aug 5, 2009 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2009 18:40
|
|
|
pr0digal posted:I don't put a whole ton of emphasis on marketing my shots either, as far as I'm concerned I'm just another photographer at the show (in general). At BMP, everybody and their mother had a loving DSLR. The thing is here that in order to be allowed to shoot Unearth (and hopefully only them) I have to agree to this...interesting stipulation. That's weird, I've shot unearth a good 10 times by now and have never had to give them that kind of permission. I wonder who you're talking to. I used to know their PR rep really well, but he just left that company a few months back or I'd shoot you his email.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2009 22:07
|
|
|
rockcity posted:That's weird, I've shot unearth a good 10 times by now and have never had to give them that kind of permission. I wonder who you're talking to. I used to know their PR rep really well, but he just left that company a few months back or I'd shoot you his email. I am going a much different route. I know the brother of the guitarist of the band playing with them. I was asked to come take photos at the show, I accepted and then was given this stipulation via the brother whose sibling had talked to the Unearth guys. It's not exactly a big well known venue so maybe that's it? pr0digal fucked around with this message at 23:15 on Aug 5, 2009 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2009 23:13
|
|
|
They're disrespecting you because they think they can use your work without compensation and that getting the privilege to shoot them and hear their dulcet notes free of charge obligates you to comply. Whether or not they're right in that assessment is up to you. Just say they can have some web-res branded shots for their MySpace and if they want to use them to make money, then you're expecting to be compensated accordingly. pwn fucked around with this message at 10:19 on Aug 6, 2009 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2009 09:54
|
|
|
I'm going to post this here first (as it pertains to band photos) before I post it in the photo business thread as I am a bit wary. Totally out of the blue today I receive the following e-mail:quote:"Hi, I am pretty wary at the moment because while this person does exist (I googled her) I have never a) heard of the label (not a huge surprise) and nothing turned up via google or a myspace search. The second thing that makes me very uneasy is the following line: Usage rights are a concern to us. Ideally, we would like to have ownership rights to the photos,. I know from doing some promo shots before that I hold ownership and copyright rights and I license them to use the photos for <xyz>. Now price: I am totally mystified by price here. The last promo shoot I had I charged 30 because it was a local band that wasn't going to use the photos for anything by myspace (and they broke up shortly afterwards). For what she is asking: holy poo poo. Full editorial and merch use of my photos in both print and web media. This is probably the biggest loving thing I have been asked to do. This overshadows the whole Unearth thing because I might have a chance to make money off this one (assuming it is legit and pans out). I apologize for the block of text, but what advice do you guys have? Especially those who have done promo shoots before. pr0digal fucked around with this message at 21:54 on Aug 6, 2009 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2009 21:49
|
|
|
pr0digal posted:Now price: I am totally mystified by price here. The last promo shoot I had I charged 30 because it was a local band that wasn't going to use the photos for anything by myspace (and they broke up shortly afterwards). For what she is asking: holy poo poo. Full editorial and merch use of my photos in both print and web media. This is probably the biggest loving thing I have been asked to do. So two shoots plus ownership rights? I would probably ask at least $500-$1000. It's a lot easier to negotiate down than up. You're looking at the better part of a day for shooting and then however long for post-processing. You're basically doing the band version of a wedding shoot.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2009 21:53
|
|
|
HPL posted:So two shoots plus ownership rights? I would probably ask at least $500-$1000. It's a lot easier to negotiate down than up. You're looking at the better part of a day for shooting and then however long for post-processing. You're basically doing the band version of a wedding shoot. I e-mailed her back to see if I couldn't get more information from her, most importantly where she heard of me from. I haven't really done all that many shoots, though I guess word does travel around. Holy hell I'm loving nervous 
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2009 22:08
|
|
|
pr0digal posted:I e-mailed her back to see if I couldn't get more information from her, most importantly where she heard of me from. I haven't really done all that many shoots, though I guess word does travel around. Goggle turns up one band on Static Eye, and that's pretty much the band's own label. The rights thing is a biggie because if they get all the rights to the photos, then once you're done with them and they're paid for, that's all you're getting. If you retain the rights, then there's room for future negotiation for further useage. That's why you charge way more for photos+rights. If they go griping about money, tell them that you can lower the price if they give up on the rights issue.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2009 22:18
|
|
|
Popping over to see what HPL said. I'd start with the $1000. Break that down into specifics. If they're at all business savvy they'll understand that prices are negotiable and you can simply withhold certain services to meet their budget and make your day easier. HPL is right: once you give up those rights, you make no more money from them. Be firm. Get a contract drafted up, too. This book is excellent for a starting point and includes a CD with the forms you can customize. And relax. e: after looking at your photos, you should feel a little more confident and I'm surprised you charge only $30. Another thing to keep in mind: lots of people can take some decent or even great photos. Guaranteeing the product and being professional is what gets you clients and clients that return. JAY ZERO SUM GAME fucked around with this message at 22:40 on Aug 6, 2009 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2009 22:37
|
|
|
guys, you've gotta be kidding... I completely agree that he wants to set the price higher to retain rights and you don't want to compromise but let's be realistic here. This is very likely a small unsigned band (they're the only band on their own record label?) If you know anything about small newly formed bands you'll know that the one thing they don't have is $1000 laying around for promo photography. This is completely different than if some band on Matador Records or SubPop approached you and wanted help with some promo shots. $1,000 might be more than they spent to record and press their cd's. (if they even have mastered cd's, they might be recording everything in Garage Band and burning them at home). Working with a band on something like this is a great way to build your portfolio and grow your client base, but if you come at them with some pie in the sky figure and they don't see some stellar promo work to back it up they're going to be scared off. Worrying about giving up rights is one thing when you're an established photographer that can afford to potentially turn away business opportunities, but if you're just getting started it's much better to build friendships in the music community (especially if you're in a small town). Trust me, musician's talk, if they like the work you did and feel like they got a good deal then you've made a great networking ally. I'd suggest you tell them that you tell them you charge $300/session, a session can be up to x hours (establish from the get-go) and includes post-work (important to clarify with them that you spend time editing the photos, a lot of people have the misconception that you just take them and are done). That will give them the option to do one session or two sessions to save time. Explain to them that you don't typically sign over the rights and why you don't but that maybe you'd be willing to give them unlimited web usage and limited print usage or negotiate an additional fee for full ownership. Most bands will want to update their promo shots down the road so there's lots of opportunity for continued work, but if they feel like they got ripped off the first time around then you can bet they'll go to someone else the next time. $300 for a 3 hour session and 3 hours of post is MORE than enough money for a hobbyist/amateur photographer, $50/hr is good money to do something you enjoy while you're learning the tricks of the trade. edit: did I forget to mention that we're in a recession? and bands aren't exactly making a lot of money in this day and age? and photographers are a dime a dozen since the advent of digital photography?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2009 00:06
|
|
|
MMD3 posted:I'd suggest you tell them that you tell them you charge $300/session, a session can be up to x hours (establish from the get-go) and includes post-work (important to clarify with them that you spend time editing the photos, a lot of people have the misconception that you just take them and are done). That will give them the option to do one session or two sessions to save time. You do realise that in the end your estimate is the same as mine, right? The rep is asking for two photo sessions (show and candid/promo) plus rights. You're just saying it in a wordier fashion.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2009 00:15
|
|
|
Guys, Thanks for all the input. I am probably going to accept the offer but I need to hammer out the details and I will defiantly be using your suggestions to draft up a document/contract. I'll post back once I get the ball rolling a bit more. Thanks for all your help For reference here are some shots from the last (and only other) promo shoot I have done.    I think I might buy a softbox as I already have flash triggers so I can use off camera lighting.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2009 03:28
|
|
|
Your creativity is good, but the exposure is off. The musicians are all unidentifiable white blotches in the first and sort of unidentifiable in the second. Unless this is a reincarnation of the Average White Band, you might want to work on recovering highlights in those photos. I do like the way the shadows frame the first one.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2009 03:33
|
|
|
HPL posted:Your creativity is good, but the exposure is off. The musicians are all unidentifiable white blotches in the first and sort of unidentifiable in the second. Unless this is a reincarnation of the Average White Band, you might want to work on recovering highlights in those photos. I do like the way the shadows frame the first one. Those were taken a year and a half ago for a now defunct band. I was using them as examples for what I have done. I processed them pretty badly =/. I am beginning to think that the e-mail might not have been directed to me but more as a mass blanket e-mail to a bunch of photographers seeing who responds with the best offer. *edit* I think I'll go back into Lightroom and re-process those pr0digal fucked around with this message at 04:27 on Aug 7, 2009 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2009 04:15
|
|
|
pr0digal posted:Guys, I agree with the earlier post saying that a band with it's own label, where it's the only band is not going to have $1,000 or even $500 laying around. Realize that most unsigned bands make around $50 a show, less if they don't have merch, and maybe even less depending on your market (IE: lovely venues/Promoters that skim off the top). Another thing to realize is that while they're telling you they're going to be using it for a lot, they're not Metallica, or even Cobra Starship, these pictures are probably going to be for their website/myspace, press kits, maybe a few flyers, and maybe a local free zine. If they ever got famous, odds are they'd get better and more recent pictures done. Judging by the fact that you only have 1 promo shoot under your belt, keep it low. Here's my advice: I'm sure you have a "day-job", figure out what you make an hour, and charge them that + expenses + a premium for full ownership. Anything above that will probably scare them away and put you on the "Do not call" list, not "Let's make a deal" list. For a 3-hour promo shoot, and a 1 hour set (probably way less) anything above $200 is robbery. I don't see how you guys can justify your costs here, it simply boggles my mind. $50 an hour is insane for this type of work, and you must keep in mind the average band is not going to go "Oh yeah, well this guy will do this and this, etc" the average band is going to say "gently caress that, doesn't Bill have a camera? Let's just call Bill and give him some beer or something". Think of it this way: You can charge $1,000 and be the guy that "Charges way too loving much" (even if they do take you up on it, they'll look elsewhere next time; but more likely you'll never hear from them again) or you could be the guy that "Is pricey, but worth every penny". Which do you think is going to get you more work long-term? Be realistic about this, and ask yourself this: Would you pay $200 per person for someone to take pictures of your family? Would you even pay $100? The same applies to any band. Most of the time the money is coming out of the musicians pockets. This is no exception, the label is likely just a front to make the band seem more professional, or it's a girlfriend/sibling/parent that just wants to be involved and supportive.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2009 08:33
|
|
|
AtomicManiac posted:Think of it this way: You can charge $1,000 and be the guy that "Charges way too loving much" (even if they do take you up on it, they'll look elsewhere next time; but more likely you'll never hear from them again) or you could be the guy that "Is pricey, but worth every penny". Which do you think is going to get you more work long-term? Be realistic about this, and ask yourself this: Would you pay $200 per person for someone to take pictures of your family? Would you even pay $100? The same applies to any band. Most of the time the money is coming out of the musicians pockets. This is no exception, the label is likely just a front to make the band seem more professional, or it's a girlfriend/sibling/parent that just wants to be involved and supportive. Have you even bothered to read the thread? We've been saying he should charge that much because they want full rights. If the band is so broke, they shouldn't be so pushy on details like that. Let's turn it around: Say this band ends up being the underground hit of the year and they end up making millions of dollars and his photo becomes the icon of a generation. If he charges $200 for the photo shoot plus full rights, he'll end up looking like the biggest chump in the world. If he doesn't give full rights, he has a chance at royalties or licensing or useage fees.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2009 10:03
|
|
|
HPL posted:Have you even bothered to read the thread? We've been saying he should charge that much because they want full rights. If the band is so broke, they shouldn't be so pushy on details like that. if they end up becoming the biggest underground hit of the year they're going to be having another promo shoot done a week after they're playing shows to more than 200 people and they'll start using those photos. My point with breaking it into a per-session cost was that hopefully they'd just say "let's do both stylings in one session to save costs" and you'd make them feel like they're getting a bargain and save yourself an extra day of work in the process.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2009 11:09
|
|
|
AtomicManiac posted:Here's my advice: I'm sure you have a "day-job", figure out what you make an hour, and charge them that + expenses + a premium for full ownership. Anything above that will probably scare them away and put you on the "Do not call" list, not "Let's make a deal" list. For a 3-hour promo shoot, and a 1 hour set (probably way less) anything above $200 is robbery. I don't see how you guys can justify your costs here, it simply boggles my mind. $50 an hour is insane for this type of work, and you must keep in mind the average band is not going to go "Oh yeah, well this guy will do this and this, etc" the average band is going to say "gently caress that, doesn't Bill have a camera? Let's just call Bill and give him some beer or something". I have a day job as an Intern at a speech recognition company where I make 15 bucks an hour but I also do freelance video work and I have been offered 40 bucks an hour (offered, not asked) to edit footage. The label/band/whatever wants full ownership of my photos meaning I no longer hold the copyright, which I find to be rather shady and not something I would easily agree to. If they don't like what I quote them (I am liking the 300 a session for 3 hour session + 3 hours editing at 50 an hour more than the one lump sum idea) then they can a) talk me down a bit or b) go find somebody else. If I remember correctly this "highway robbery" argument has already been made in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2009 14:42
|
|
|
pr0digal posted:The label/band/whatever wants full ownership of my photos meaning I no longer hold the copyright, which I find to be rather shady and not something I would easily agree to. If they don't like what I quote them (I am liking the 300 a session for 3 hour session + 3 hours editing at 50 an hour more than the one lump sum idea) then they can a) talk me down a bit or b) go find somebody else. The way I see it, if you have another job, you should feel much more comfortable being firm on price because you don't actually need the money.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2009 14:46
|
|
|
MMD3 posted:if they end up becoming the biggest underground hit of the year they're going to be having another promo shoot done a week after they're playing shows to more than 200 people and they'll start using those photos. All it takes is one great photo to last the ages. There are a lot of photos of Che Guevara out there, but people only remember one. Well two if you're a Leica geek.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2009 15:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 11:21 |
|
|
An update on the Unearth show on the 22nd (rockcity you are going to love this). I just got this message back from my contact after telling him that I would send the band web sized pictures for their myspace/website: quote:Oh well sorry man they want free access or bust no worries though Seriously? What the gently caress? and some more hosed up reasoning quote:The reason they want full access for free is because they are working on a DVD to be released world wide I'm not annoyed at my friend or his brother's band but Unearth is pulling some weird poo poo. Pictures to be used for a world wide DVD release given to you for free? gently caress that
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2009 20:32
|
|