|
brad industry posted:This is why I have no desire to do consumer work, because the vast majority of normal people don't know anything about photography and don't have any clue why they should pay for it. I want clients who see my work and understand my vision and know that that is worth paying for. I would like those kind of clients too. Some people will spend thousands of dollars on their dress and specific foods for their weddings, but then want the cheapest guy with a camera they can find. They don't care about vision or storytelling. I turned down three jobs this fall because the clients wanted me to work in ways I don't. I can afford to do that because this is my part time job. I could never do weddings and consumer portraits full time.
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2008 20:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 18:51 |
|
|
Yeah I did one wedding and swore I would never do another again. You have to bust your rear end and then do like a week of post for someone who doesn't give a poo poo. Here are the mailers I am sending out now to clients I really want to work with. These are handmade envelopes with a package of 6 little prints and a note on the inside:  These cost a few bucks a piece to make and the response rate I've had has been really good. Postcards just get chucked in the trash, people actually open these up and look at them since it stands out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2008 20:47
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:I wouldn't charge a friend for giving a few lessons in all things digital. I feel weird accepting money for stuff like that. Hell I feel guilty charging friends to shoot their weddings (even the very small amount I charge them). She was willing to fly an old friend/photographer out and pay him for his time so charging her isn't really an issue for me. Ordinarily I dont like to charge friends but after 30 minutes on the phone with her I can see this is going to be long process. I know most photographers and myself charge about $75 hr for Photoshop work in my area, I wouldn't feel right charging her anywhere near that. I guess its just something I need to charge based on what I think is fair for her and I, my time is valuable and I didn't go to school to teach what I learned to anyone for free! Nice Mailers, where did you get the stamp for the wax seal?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2008 23:09
|
|
|
A local letterpress shop.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2008 00:54
|
|
|
Kaerf posted:Not sure. I can, however, tell you that it took 3 days to get rejected. Yeah. You would think they want someone established, might have some good advice
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2008 03:09
|
|
|
Man, please tell me when you need an assistant or second shooter.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2008 03:09
|
|
|
brad industry posted:Yeah I did one wedding and swore I would never do another again. You have to bust your rear end and then do like a week of post for someone who doesn't give a poo poo. Really nice and sure to get anyone to at least give your shots a once over. I need to use this workless December to put together some promotional items like this. Stock agency budgets aren't getting any friendlier.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2008 05:29
|
|
|
I hated the first two weddings I did. Now I love them. it's a chance to tell a story in a documentary way but you don't have to worry about journalist ethics in post.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2008 09:55
|
|
|
Weddings are nerve-wracking, more than anything. So much to capture, and often only one chance to get it. One of the biggest problems I encounter is just getting the wedding parties to complete formals on schedule, since someone is inevitably taking too long to get dressed, or wants a photo of Y when your shotlist calls for X.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2008 14:23
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:I hated the first two weddings I did. Now I love them. it's a chance to tell a story in a documentary way but you don't have to worry about journalist ethics in post. "And this is where the donkey came wandering into the reception and the bride got all excited..."
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2008 16:32
|
|
|
So I'm in an interesting situation: the really quick version of the story goes something like this. I need a bar to shoot and I spoke to one of the local bars about a block away and the manager agreed to let me shoot as long as it doesn't interfere with evening customers (not a problem) and as long as he gets a copy of everything I do. When I asked him why, he said he just wants to retain a copy and make sure it doesn't end up in some other bar's commercial since he custom designed it, or so he claims. Anyway I don't plan on making money off of this since it is purely a personal project but apparently if the shots are good enough, he'll pay for them to be used for his website. I'll cross that bridge when I come to it so read on. I'm doing this work in both film and digital and I'm pretty sure that he wants every shot- frame for frame. If I were to type out some sort of contract, what should it say? I, germskr, am shooting this bar with permission of the management. It is agreed that this body of work is neither commissioned nor commercial in nature. germskr has agreed to provide prints/cd of his work to management at their request to retain on file. All creative uses and permissions/licensing to germskr's. That's my rough draft, and I'd like to go back and shoot in 1.5 hours. Help please?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2008 20:37
|
|
|
I would never give anyone every frame, there is no reason to do that. Just give him the selects. If he is worried about them ending up in a competitor's ad then write in a non-compete clause or something. I don't really see any problems with what you wrote except I would add something like "All images copyright yourname 2008 and are not to be used for any reason without express written permission." just so there is no confusion later about who owns what.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2008 20:43
|
|
|
So more on this bar shoot: The owner likes my work but I'm still not established enough to have my own studio/name and such, I've always hidden behind my boss to do the billing and rental of equipment needed. Point being, I've got this idea where I want to get a little higher than ground level to take some angles from up high and that would require a foot ladder. Since we're still working out the logistics, should I bring this up with him and have him pay for the cost of rental? Or should I just say "gently caress it" and forget about it?
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2008 01:55
|
|
|
germskr posted:Point being, I've got this idea where I want to get a little higher than ground level to take some angles from up high and that would require a foot ladder. Since we're still working out the logistics, should I bring this up with him and have him pay for the cost of rental? Or should I just say "gently caress it" and forget about it? Surely the bar must have a ladder you can borrow?
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2008 02:04
|
|
|
HPL posted:Surely the bar must have a ladder you can borrow? We'll see. I'm pretty sure they have to have one lying around as they have these massive wreaths on the mirrored wall hanging but who knows- maybe they rented those? Yes. Ladders are kind of big and a pain in the rear end to store so if you're not a handyman and/or have the space to store it, rental is a pretty nice option. They even loan out hammers and screw drivers. VVVV germskr fucked around with this message at 02:27 on Dec 16, 2008 |
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2008 02:07
|
|
|
People rent ladders???
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2008 02:08
|
|
|
Kaerf posted:Not sure. I can, however, tell you that it took 3 days to get rejected. Apparently my site is so trash I didn't even get a rejection notice. It's been a week.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2008 03:50
|
|
|
Random, fun tidbit I heard from my agency today: For a little background, I have been doing an ongoing series of still life shoots for a big accounting firm and things have been going well. The art director I was working with bought pretty much all of the props we shot for the last day and after we finished up with all of those we still had equipment rented for a few more hours and wanted to make good use of the time. We shot some random objects that were laying around, including one of the shoes I was wearing. When the art directors at the accounting firm were asked specifically which images they liked best, the one unanimous favorite was a shot of an old ratty sneaker. crackhaed fucked around with this message at 06:47 on Dec 19, 2008 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2008 06:02
|
|
|
Which agency do you shoot for? Stock right? Getty and Flickr announced some sort of partnership a few months back and people have been speculating about what it's going to be. Well yesterday I was one of 100 people invited into the early beta:  Basically it looks like a way for the Getty editors to cherry pick stuff they want off Flickr. Their little process for submitting image details and releases is really slick. So far no way to submit things directly to the editors, I wonder if they are going to add that (I doubt it since it seems like this is aimed at the average Flickr user and not professionals, they just want to be able to pick things they want). This is kind of funny that I get invited into this because I have an application and portfolio pending with Getty already and was waiting to hear back. I think it's a neat idea and it will be interesting to see how bringing amateurs and enthusiasts from Flickr into the stock world is going to play out. The contract was the same as being a normal Getty contributor so this isn't some rights grab deal to take advantage of people.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2008 19:45
|
|
|
brad industry posted:I think it's a neat idea and it will be interesting to see how bringing amateurs and enthusiasts from Flickr into the stock world is going to play out. The contract was the same as being a normal Getty contributor so this isn't some rights grab deal to take advantage of people. It's a neat idea and will be a big push for amateur and semi-pro photographers to get their stuff on Flickr instead of other sites if their work can get noticed. A good photo is a good photo regardless of who takes it, so now they've essentially got thousands and thousands of people doing casual freelance work for them. The overall quality of stock photos may not go up, but the diversity of subject matter and style probably will. It will also probably give Flickr a boost in that now people will be trying harder to produce quality work and raising the bar for all on the site. Either that or the overall quality will go to poo poo and the site servers will die because everyone will be uploading every single photo they have.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2008 19:51
|
|
|
HPL posted:The overall quality of stock photos may not go up, but the diversity of subject matter and style probably will.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2008 20:36
|
|
|
I don't think the quality is going to go down, they are going through and picking what they want subject wise and then you submit those to a technical review just like a normal contributor would. You can see the thumbnails of what they chose in that image, 12 of those I shot specifically for stock anyways and are in the portfolio I've been submitting to agencies. It looks like their minimum resolution might be lower (I submitted some old files shot with a 350D and they made it through, I think normal Getty contributors have to be doing >5D files) but I imagine the quality control is the same. I know some pros are going to bitch about it but I don't have a problem with it - they are offering the same terms and royalty rates as every other contributor - a good image is a good image regardless. I think the real reason Getty is doing this is basically for scouting talent - in the group associated with the beta I recognized a few names of other people there, they are all young/emerging professionals, photo bloggers, etc. not people with one good snapshot in a pile of thousands. Now we all signed Getty contracts instead of going somewhere else (ie. before this I was probably going to go with Veer).
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2008 20:55
|
|
|
What have you guys heard about Retna? They seem to be big in event and music photography.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2008 21:00
|
|
|
brad industry posted:Flickr, Getty That's sounds really cool. My initial reaction to that would be like what jackpot said; I'd suspect they were just going to try and capitalize on amateur's desire to see stuff printed, and get images for cheaper. I've had people approach me on Flickr wanting to use my images for free; for commercial things I've always said no because I think that sort of vanity-tickling hurts working/aspiring pros, although I have yet to turn down anyone that wants it for personal use, a school project, etc. If they're using Flickr as a way of finding new, normal Getty contributers that's a whole different story, and it would make me a lot more inclined to take Flickr more seriously. I use it for photo hosting, but haven't really delved much into the community, tried networking through it, organizing/tagging my photos very well, or anything like that yet. (I think Flickr is great for the record, just something I haven't spent a lot of time delving in to). On stock, I've considered getting together a portfolio for Lonely Planet Images, since most of what I shoot is travel photography. I'm not sure if I have 500 "wow" images for the initial portfolio yet, but if the pictures in their guidebooks are anything to go by, it's not an impossibly high standard. They pay 50% of license fees to the photographer, is that a pretty standard/good rate? They do ask how many images you have already beyond the 500 in the portfolio available for them, and what countries you plan on traveling to in the next 12 months, my answers to which may not impress them very much right now. I was kind of hoping to do it as a part-time thing in the short-term, does anyone know of any other agencies I ought to consider applying to (that aren't microstock  )? Edit: longer Pompous Rhombus fucked around with this message at 07:05 on Dec 18, 2008 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2008 06:55
|
|
|
So what kind of images are hot with Getty and Veer these days?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2008 14:45
|
|
|
Do you have to be an ASMP member to attend meetings, or is that just for the other benefits and seminars and stuff.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2008 05:56
|
|
|
For anybody looking to break into the photo industry here's one bit of advice I can give you from my most recent experience. I got this non-serious job offer to shoot a bar that had just opened up relatively close to where I live. When I was in the preliminary stages of talking with this guy I kept bringing up the idea of "sign the contract which states usage and price". It was like a voice in the back of my head that I should have listened to but ignored since I figured he was actually serious (should have walked when he low balled). Fast forward to today. I got home from work and found a super bitchy email from the client about how I was a terrible monster for wanting to retain all the rights to my photographs. He went so far as to say that he owned the concept/design/ideas to them. Not to confuse physical property ownership from photographic ownership, and there is the notion of photographic interpretation plus my own unique "style" for post processing- plus he granted me permission to be on site to take photos. In any case, the lesson here is don't deal with businesses that really low ball you. My asking was 1.7k (exclusive usage license, 3 year plus some other really nice goodies) and he was talking 600-800. When you've got a job offer do not, I repeat, DO NOT shoot the job until some kind of contract in which ownership AND money is discussed and signed by both parties. Now I have photographs I can't use because they were made on private property (he owns the bar design or whatever and could probably sue me for infringing on that if I tried to post that) and I walked away from the job so there's no way he'll grant me permission to use photographs of his bar in my portfolio. I would like to, but I don't have the money for a lawyer at the moment. germskr fucked around with this message at 05:10 on Dec 24, 2008 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2008 05:06
|
|
|
germskr posted:For anybody looking to break into the photo industry here's one bit of advice I can give you from my most recent experience. He doesn't own the copyright to the bar. Period. Even if it's a "custom" bar like the one you were talking about above. I am not your lawyer, but the federal law here is pretty clear. If he gave you permission to be there, those photos are yours and are free to be used in most any way you want. Direct commercial purpose when you can ID the bar is out (probably, although you would have a reliance/promissory estopel issue, but that's another debate), but everything else is game. Art/Editorial is all yours. Also, it'd be interesting to see a 'copyrighted' bar. I would imagine that idea/expression merger might play to your strengths. Could you post them/one here? It's no different than if you took a photo inside a restaurant. I totally agree that it's good advice, because it's much easier to have a contract up front and if they breach, you have a much easier claim.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2008 07:21
|
|
|
Here's the best of 150 files that do not identify the place. Maybe number 1 but other than that the rest could be any bar. The lights constantly changed color which was kind of annoying. None are processed except RAW to jpg conversion. He had no input in the photo shoot and it annoys me to no end that he wrote this: Moron posted:I understand that you feel that you have some sort of rights to your photos, but remember the concept, idea, and design were mine. I really feel that you have entered into this relationship the wrong way, and you feel entitled to an exclusivety to my creative work.  I hope he uses one of the preliminary photos that I had given him back when I was using his bar for my personal project- my copyright watermark on it plus the contract we signed that states I own all rights to the photographs. Yeah, he even signed something in the past acknowledging that. The bottom line, don't deal with people who are stupid.  Click here for the full 512x640 image. germskr fucked around with this message at 20:54 on Dec 24, 2008 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2008 20:47
|
|
|
Coming up with the idea and design has nothing to do with copyright - copyright protects specific works, not ideas. I mean if you do a commercial job it's not like the art director owns your images even though their job is to tell you what to do. You don't need a property release either to use them, it doesn't matter if it's private property or whatever. Tell him to go gently caress himself, he has absolutely zero legal standing to tell you what to do with your images. And yes, stuff like this is why you get everything in writing. Never even pick up your camera with a signed contract. (germskr I just saw your email, sorry I have been moving this week) edit: tell him to have a nice life, put those images in a portfolio, and go to his "competition" and offer to shoot their bars. Hopefully you will have better luck with someone else. brad industry fucked around with this message at 22:35 on Dec 24, 2008 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2008 22:06
|
|
|
germskr posted:HEdit added here: I must have gone over the exclusive license more than a dozen times explaining that his paranoia of my work ending up in the competition's hands drove up the cost. Again, a stupid jackass that just doesn't understand (despite my numerous explanations) how the photo business works. No dude, he sounds like he doesn't understand how photos work, and that you're a button monkey that has a super nice camera. I don't get his reasoning, if the "competition" was so desperate 99% of all cell phones have cameras now. The only reason not to tell him to go gently caress himself is if he starts spreading bad info about you to other area businesses. I was thinking about working up a book of snowboarding images b/c I live by a ski slope in NJ that has lots of media events/competitions at its huge half-pipe. Would I look in Photographer's Market to find winter sports publications to shop myself to? I don't even know if it would be worth my time really, as I have no interest or connections for the sport. VVV Well, yeah, that's how I'd go about doing it; probably coordinate with the pro shops and reach out to my friends network. My concern was more with the market and how to check interest. Jahoodie fucked around with this message at 02:39 on Dec 25, 2008 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2008 22:22
|
|
|
Jahoodie posted:I was thinking about working up a book of snowboarding images b/c I live by a ski slope in NJ that has lots of media events/competitions at its huge half-pipe. Would I look in Photographer's Market to find winter sports publications to shop myself to? I don't even know if it would be worth my time really, as I have no interest or connections for the sport. If you have no interest or connections, you most likely won't end up with that great a book because your disinterest will show through in your work. What you might want to try is a collaboration with someone who is into the scene and would like to make a book but needs photos. For instance, if there's a local up-and-coming snowboarder, it would be mutually beneficial to get in touch with them. They get a neato promotional vehicle and you get a shiny book for your portfolio. Bonus points because you'll actually have an interest and connection with the sport if you're working with someone like that as opposed to just showing up at the hill and wondering what to shoot. I notice the effect when I'm shooting a band where I don't know any of them and have never seen them before versus shooting a band where I actualy know the guys well and have seen them a few times. The familiarity definitely makes for creative incentive. HPL fucked around with this message at 01:38 on Dec 25, 2008 |
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2008 01:34
|
|
|
germskr posted:Here's the best of 150 files that do not identify the place. Maybe number 1 but other than that the rest could be any bar. The lights constantly changed color which was kind of annoying. None are processed except RAW to jpg conversion. He had no input in the photo shoot and it annoys me to no end that he wrote this: You may want to do some reading on the idea expression merger doctrine. His bar is nothing special that isn't dictated by the function of a bar. It's not like he has sculpted support posts or other things. The fact remains is you have an implied license because he let you shoot the photos. The problem remains that if he sues you, you'd have to defend it - but that's why they created rule 11(b) - frivolous lawsuits get reasonable fees reimbursed. Grab a book on photography copyright, I'm quite confident it will clear it up. If he sues you, counter sue for harassment and breach of implied contract.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2008 04:26
|
|
|
I suspect I won't hear back from him until his "lawyer" has had a chance to look everything over. I can only hope the lawyer is a voice of reason rather than a vulture looking to make profit and advises him against suing since there really isn't anything he can sue me for. Unfortunately poo poo like that takes time even though I know I would have a pretty strong case. No harm, no foul brad. It's a busy time of year.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2008 04:51
|
|
|
While we are on the subject, how many of you actually register any images with the copyright office? At what point would it be worth it? It costs $35 (per image?) IIRC, but it makes your protection much easier. Statutory damages are the bees knees. Just a curious question.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2008 05:59
|
|
|
KennyG posted:At what point would it be worth it? It costs $35 (per image?) IIRC, but it makes your protection much easier. Statutory damages are the bees knees. Just a curious question. It costs $30ish period. You can register 1 image or 1 million images for that fee. It's obviously in your best interest to register as many as possible at any given time.  ASMP has a copyright tutorial on their site that runs through hows. Personal and stock work I register en masse once or twice a year, assignment work I register immediately. It's cheap, it's easy (even moreso now with electronic filing), and if someone screws you, you can ostensibly screw them back.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2008 06:52
|
|
|
those of you doing Digital photo work for clients (portraits and whatnot...) I would love a rundown of what and how you "provide" the package to them. -How many samples do you provide, say, by email? -When you provide the disk, How many images do you tend to include? (all? Just the good ones? A set number?) -How much post process work do you include as part of the base contract? And how many of their shots do you clean up? And any other info you may have about that part of the process. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2008 04:42
|
|
|
Feenix posted:those of you doing Digital photo work for clients (portraits and whatnot...) I would love a rundown of what and how you "provide" the package to them. You go through it and edit and cull out the ones that are over/underexposed. Never show those to a client. As to what you actually show, you kinda know once you view the photographs large which are the keepers and which ones are to be banished to your external hard drive. Contact sheets are nice and if you have your own website then posting a small to mid size image with a HUGE watermark across it would be acceptable too. Charging for post processing work depends on your skill level and how much time/energy you want to put into it. Obviously don't clean up all the lovely images but again, you'll know which ones you'll want to work with. Some of my friends do the "I overwhelm them with everything" approach and I've seen some whacky pictures being selected. poo poo I would never want to print/post process but for whatever reason they liked them (their photographs I guess). The approach I would take is cull and find the most presentable images and then send that off to them to view. Obviously full sized samples are not a good idea and they should have some kind of noticeable watermark on them. Contact sheets are a decent option. If you have your own website (or something like a smugmug account) you can put them up and direct them over to that and have them pick and choose. I rarely do portrait stuff so this isn't my daily grind but this should get you on the ground running.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2008 05:31
|
|
|
Luxmore posted:Here's a question for us lazy businessmen: Is there a good website, similar to Flickr, that lets people buy prints of the images they like? https://www.clustershot.com - A great site. You get 80% of the sale, they accept flickr and rss feeds, so the setup to you is next to nothing. Edit: Miss-read your post. They are for selling the rights to your photo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2009 22:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 18:51 |
|
|
Hey brad - you've probably answered this before, but are you incorporated, or do you work as a self-proprietorship?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2009 18:40
|
|