So you wanna be a photographer?

The other day, one of you readers posited this:

Hi John,

I have a simple question for you, one I'm sure you get a lot.

How do you go about building a portfolio when you are starting out without undercutting established photographers for a certain time period, even if you intend on staying in the business long term? It seems a catch-22. Without charging less why would a client go to an unestablished, unproven photographer when there is an established one charging the same price?

Consider, for example, Heather Drake, whom I met recently at an Advertising Photographer's of America meeting here in DC this past Tuesday. Heather has a full time job, is taking classes at the Art Institute of Washington, and, she - STEP 1 - Has a website, STEP 2 - has not let the fact that she doesn't have many assignments keep her from making great images in the style and type of work she likes.

Of course, her site's not finished (check the Fashion, Beauty and Celebrity sections), but she's headed in the right direction. She has taken the first few steps. She also has the financial backing (i.e. she has a job that pays the bills, even if she would rather be doing photography) so she's not forced to take the jobs that undercut what she's worth. Yes, her website will improve, get finished, but she's moving down the path, not stationary, paralyzed by her own inaction.

Before someone will give you a paying assignment (worth having), you have to proove you can complete an assignment. Yes, I know, seems a catch-22, as suggested. Yet, it's not. Give yourself an assignment! It's called....self assignments! Read the paper, find out about the latest parade in your area. Go to high school or small college sports, and practice. You want to be a wedding photographer? Offer to cover a friend's wedding as a guest that will not cost them anything as you won't eat, or if you are a guest at a wedding, cover it as if you were working. After two or three, you'll probably have the beginnings of a portfolio that you can use to get paying work. Portrait photography? Offer to make portraits of friends and family, and then use those in your portfolio.

Once you have a portfolio - and by that I mean a website - where your work is displayed, once a client determines, based upon a review of your work, they they want to give you their assignment, then they have deemed you worthy of the work, and capable of completing it. Period. At that point, it's all about what that assignment is worth. If you don't know, start looking around for guidance. Ask the question "What budget are you trying to work within?" See where they are coming from. Tell them you'll work on the paperwork for the assignment, and then do so. Call a few other photographers and ask them what they'd charge. Post a message on a photo forum that has professionals on it that have done assignments like the one you're being asked to do. Be thoughtful about the estimate, and then put it in writing, including the proper rights package, and then send it along via PDF attached to a cover-letter-type e-mail.

If they said their budget was $200, and everyone you got counsel from said it was an $1,100 assignment, send the estimate near that knowing you may not get it, and chalk it up to good practice. And, as it says on the back of the shampoo bottle, "lather, rinse, and repeat." Eventually, fair budgeted assignments will come your way, and you will (slowly) grow your clientele to be fair paying. If you take every $200-job-that-should-have-been-$1,100 at $200, you'll never have the fair paying clients, or, at the most they will be few and far between. Further, you'll be surprised at how many people tell you $200 and then approve your $1,100 estimate. Sometimes, they are just trying to be cheap, but know what they really have to pay.

If being a professional photographer was easy, everyone would be one. Many many people are photographers, or hang out their shingle and call themselves one, yet are not among the professionals, nor are they even aspiring professionals. They are just stepping in and dilly-dallying around, not being serious about it as a sustainable profession. About 2% of actors actually earn their living as actors. I submit that less than that are professional photographers.

---

Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.

[More: Full Post and Comments]

The Value of Post Production

I've just posted over at my agency's blog - Black Star Rising, an article on the Value of Post-Production, a little insight into what I charge, and so on, as promised in an earlier post this week Cost Justification Time.

Long gone are the days where we made the last frame, and sent it to the lab via courier, and it returned to show us the glory of our work (or where we’d made a disasterous error.) Yet, this “ship and forget” system meant more time shooting, doing what we love (and hopefully are most talented at.)

Today, a photographer’s time is spent far differently. The biggest leech of our creative time is that of post-production. The time from final capture, to ingest, process from raw to TIF/JPEG/DNG and the necessary noise reduction, metadata application, and proper redundant archiving.

(Continue Reading)

---

Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.

[More: Full Post and Comments]

The Reality of One's Future

Why must we stand by and somehow accept what other photographers are doing to the detriment of our profession? Why must we simply sit back and say "heck, go ahead and do RF!", or "wow! You just took an assignment for $75, using $250 worth of equipment if you had to rent it all. You go girl!", or "wahoo! You just got a photo credit for your work! Congrats! It looks great next to the full page ad that the advertiser paid $50k for! That's awesome!"

I was listening to the radio on the way home tonight, and heard this story. British General and Commander-in-Chief in India in the early 1800's, Sir Charles Napier, became famous when he was confronted with a terrible Indian (and that's India's Indian, not American Indian) ritual, called "suttee". It's a horrendous act, whereby when a man dies, as they are burning his body in a ceremonial fashion, the now widowed woman is tossed on the fire to burn to death. Napier, in charge of India, governed by British Authority, confronted the Indian seeking to do this, and stated to him:

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."

Which brings me back to my point. Why must we stand by without making an objection as another photographer stands before us and says "man, I just think it's so cool that I made $25 off that photo." Why must we feel compeled to say, "It's ok that all you got for your hard work was a photo credit." Why, somehow, are we to listen while someone says "oh, my full-time job is X, so I'm not worried about how much I get for my photographs." Or, from our fellow photographers who are full time staffers, who say "oh, my freelance work is gravy to me, it's an extra few hundred bucks or so. It's no big deal to me."

I don't know. I suppose, there are several ways to confront someone. One is to yell at them. One is to try to convert them by citing how wrong what they are doing is. One is to toss a glass of water in their face and walk away. Trust, me, all of these are thoughts I have had. Really.

Napier, of course, had a bit more authority. He could actually jail, hang, or otherwise punish wrongdoers. What he did, though, was reason with the man.

What, then, should we do? Well, for one, not be silent. Yet, take a positive approach as you do respond. Stock licenses still cost good money. Just yesterday, I licensed an image for $1,800. That was fair for this company to pay. There is clearly a bottom, and it's free. I can't concieve of anything I'd ever endeavored to produce should ever be given away for $1, or less.

Perhaps ask a few questions, like: "do you want to do this for a long time, or just a few months?" "Do the people who hire you have health insurance and a 401k? Can you concieve that you'll have that in the (near) future? Is that fair?" "Do you think you could afford a family, or to eventually make mortgage payments at a revenue level that is about $200 a day?"

Try helping people to see the reality of their future. Suggest that they may look back at this year and next when they are five years down the line, and realize that all the work-for-hire deals they signed means they have nothing to show for their hard work back then.

Noted novelist Catherine Aird said it best:

"If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning."

That's pretty damn succinct. Thanks Catherine.

---

Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.

[More: Full Post and Comments]

Metadata and Mermaids = Metamerism?

No, sorry. For men, this one's easy to illustrate - have you ever pulled out the black suit, and black pants, checked to make sure they matched outside your closet, and then once you're outdoors, your wife points out that they don't match? For women, it happens with dresses, but somehow, not so often.

While this affects you when you're with a client and they are looking at you and worrying that you are color blind, how does this affect you beyond that? Well, it extends to printed output, and specifically, to prints you produce under your own lighting source, and then, upon receipt, the client sees under their light.

While this is a little technical, check out this animation and really study it, to see how, as the color temperature/wavelength of the light changes, the reflected light hue/saturation changes.

Further, Wikipedia has a great explanation of metamerism, and it is among the things that can render a print you are looking at (prior to delivering to a client) good, and then not so good once you've delivered it, because it's looked at under a different light.

The other issue is dry time. When you are producing a final image from a printer, you should wait for the inks to totally dry and confirm that the color is accurate. What you see fresh out of an inkjet printer is not what the final image rendering will look like. While humidity, ink type, paper pourousness type, and others all factor into how long it will take, suffice to say, you need to put from an hour or two, to several hours between printing and final judgement, to ensure proper client satisfaction!

One resource is a light hood. The folks over at Luminous Landscape have a great explanation about the benefits of it. It is illumination that is calibrated, by the bulb's life and manufacturers specifications to ensure a known light output. I will, however, say that I do not have one of these, because I don't have an inkjet printer system to speak of, nor do I have plans to put a system like that in place. If I did, however, I would be sure to have one. Further, you should always know - at least as much as possible - what the lightsource where your work is being displayed is like, so you can be sure it will look how you want it to, and the client will too.

When it comes to my suits, it's easiest to just check the brand name to make sure the pants match the jacket, and I then can walk outdoors safe knowing that I don't look the fool.

---

Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.

[More: Full Post and Comments]

Cost Justification Time

I just loved when John Nack over at Adobe revealed the color schema and iconography of the entire Adobe line (click here to see larger)


Which leads me to talk about software. Today, I committed to my upgrades to:

Yes, that would be the amazing CS3, the new Bridge, Lightroom, and the new Acrobat 8 Pro. All together, my upgrades ran just over $2k.

"That's A LOT of money, you say!"

I say, it's worth every dime. Each version, I do a reasoned analysis of the capabilities of the new upgrade. I did skip Acrobat 7, for example. I didn't see the cost justification for the number of seats I needed, and the functionality. However, with v8, I see the benefits.

When you're just flopping around thinking that post production doesn't cost much, or is no big deal, don't forget that on a fairly frequent basis, you'll need to be upgrading your software.

For those of you still using pirated versions of any software application, shame on you! Don't ever complain when someone steals your photographs, because that will make you a hypocrite. Then, when you have to shell out $600+ for a full (and, unless you're a bonafide student, that does NOT mean Academic version!) version of Photoshop, you'll understand why it is necessary to charge for Post-Production. Next week, check out Black Star Rising for more on post production charges justification.

For now, though, realize that your soon-to-be expense for your upgrades will only cover your use of the software for about 18 months, before you need to buy the next version, with whatever can't-live-without feature additions.

If you're not factoring in these software costs to your overall expense, you are setting yourself up for more bad business decisions as you "eat" things like upgraded computers, screens, and so on.

---

Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.

[More: Full Post and Comments]

I Appreciate What I Earn

I've been doing a lot of readin' these past few days on forums and other blogs. (That's me, on the left, at my Remelli reading wheel. My laptop's on the floor to my right.) A lot of people are bitchin' about pricing, and RF, and so on. I've done that a few times here, hopefully somewhat constructively. However, in the end, I figure my revenue stream is fairly good. I can't see any lunatic justifying "earning" $0.50 off a license for a photo. You can't even buy a stamp with the $0.25 you have left after taxes.

My assignment fees range, of course, in the $500+expenses range easily to the nearing $2k mark for editorial, and start around $1k and frequently get above $3k for limited licensing of corporate work. I have also completed assignments that exceed $10k. In other words, my fees (and associated expenses) range according to complexity, extensive uses, and so on. For each assignment, I EARN what I am paid. (How the heck else do you think I could afford something so eccentric as a reading wheel??)

Now:

Try dialing 411 on your cell phone - $1.50
Try buying the local paper - $0.35
Try buying a hot dog and soda at Costco - $1.50
Try feeding a parking meter for an hour - $0.50

None of these things can you cover the cost of, with your after-tax profits of $0.25 from that $1 stock sale. You have spent more time working to produce that image than you'll earn on it, almost without exception, FOREVER.

I make no apologies for a fair, thoughtful, and earned revenue stream. I do what I can with portions of that, and my time, to give back to try to help others, and I am often saddened by others who don't have enough self-respect to charge similarly (self-determined) fair and thoughtful rates for their work.

And don't, for a minute, try to suggest that when you get paid $0.50 for the use of your image, you earned anything. You did not. Each use of that photograph represents a net loss. And, woe the businessman who sold everything he had below cost, loosing a few dollars on each, expecting to make it up on volume.

When I see people willing to work for photo credit, or for less than you could rent the equipment you are using and hand it to a monkey to make pictures, what I see people earning, is a reputation as a chump, or as a sucker.

If the local camera store rents a Nikon D2x ($125), single lens ($35), and strobe ($10) for $170, and you take an assignment for $150, you're the sucker. See, the camera store amortized that camera over it's useful (and functional) life, and determined what it cost them to have available for use, plus a moderate profit. When you use your same equipment (plus other lenses, and redundant cameras if you're professional), those same figures apply to you, and taking $150 is paying for the privledge of being that client's sucker. You didn't earn anything. You took a loss, and those losses will compound, over a year or two, and you'll be out of business. And, as PT Barnum once said, "there's a sucker born every minute", so, have no fear, someone will, in ignorant bliss, step in to take their chump change once you're out of the picture.

When you are paid a fair wage, plus profit, you appreciate what you earned. You earn respect from your clients as a professional that can contribute talent to a project. Two years ago, I was called on by a large corporate sponsor to cover a big Spring parade here in Washington. The fee plus expenses for a five hour day on a Saturday exceeded $3,500, with a limited rights package. Last year, someone got the bright idea that it could be done for (a lot) less, and I didn't get it (I asked and it was a lot less). I asked why (which I always do), and the client said price. "No problem, I hope to work with you in the future", I said, and I meant it. Low and behold, something didn't work out last year, because they came back to me again this year. "My fees have increased slightly since two years ago," I said. "No problem, please send along an estimate. This year we probably have two days we'll need you for", they said. "Great, I'll get those estimates right out to you. The rights packages will be the same, with a nominal increase in fees/expenses from two years ago" I said.

Two years ago, I earned that assignment's revenue. It was a profitable assignment for me. Last year, someone had the not-so-bright idea that a monkey with rental gear could do the job, so I did not do it. This year, I am appreciative that they have have returned and remember the level of service and quality images that were delivered when I did it last. I look forward to earning these upcoming assignment's revenue, and earning back this client's understanding of the value that I bring to bear on each assignment.

Respect, and especially self-respect, is not for sale to the lowest bidder, just ask the starlet hoping to make it big as an actress who starts out in adult flicks. For some reason, that just never works out for her. Ask the late night "if you've got a phone, you've got a lawyer" guy. Respect is earned, and not through nickel-and-dime "sales", but rather valuing your own work. Interestingly enough, it seems that the higher you price your time and licensing fees, the greater respect you get. Sure, you might have fewer assignments, but you'll have earned so much more respect for the work that you do do.

---

Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.

[More: Full Post and Comments]

Save the Date: March 28th, Philly Bound!

Best Business Practices for Photographers

---

Program description:
How do you operate a successful freelance photography business, even if you're a staffer? How do you determine your rates, handle supposedly "no-change" contracts, late-paying clients, and debates over rate increases. Simply put —the business of photography is just plain time-consuming and oftentimes daunting. How can you negotiate better? How do the needs of editorial and commercial clients diverge and intersect? During this presentation, John will address these topics and more as you learn to handle your business better and more efficiently. We’ll discuss considerations when developing rates and resources, designing a business model that accounts for everything from taxes to business expenses, plus several techniques for negotiating with clients.

Social Chit-Chat: 6:30 - 7:00 pm
Program begins: 7:00pm

Community College of Philadelphia : http://www.ccp.edu/site/, Photo Studio B1-21 Bonnell Building, 1700 Spring Garden St 19130 215-751-8319

Other program details: http://www.asmpphilly.com

---

Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.

[More: Full Post and Comments]

Remembering A Legend

Monte Zucker, you may have heard, has gone on to his great reward. Monte first came into my consciousness when I learned that he and I shared the same lab, Custom Touch, in Hyattsville, Maryland. While I only met Monte once, he was legend amongst photographers, and rightly so.

A story I recount, I can assure you, is true. The story goes that Zucker, known to be the best wedding photographer in the business, was arriving to his appointment with a prospective bride, groom, and bride's parents, in the ultra-exclusive Potomac Maryland enclave. As he was walking towards the house, the florist, whom he knew quite well, was leaving. Monte asked if she was doing the wedding, and she said she was, and they'd just confirmed their budget for flowers. "How much?" Monte asked. "$30,000", came the reply. Monte contratulated the florist, and headed in to his appointment.

After looking through his work, and discussing his style, the bride's parents asked the unasked question, "How much for you to be the photographer?" Monte, not missing a beat, said "$30,000." The bill-paying parents were incredulous. "That's outrageous!" they said. Monte, always the calm and collected one, said softly "You're paying $30,000 for flowers, which will last one day. My photographs will last a lifetime, and always remind you of this wonderful occasion. They are certainly worth atleast as much as the flowers." With that, Monte booked the wedding.

We all have much to learn from Monte, not just from him as the consumate businessman, but more importantly, as a good person with a good heart. As is said in Matthew 25:23, "Well done, good and faithful servant...enter thou into the joy of thy lord." Rest in peace, Monte.

---

Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.

[More: Full Post and Comments]

Hack Journalists and Paparazzi

When I picked up Saturday's Washington Post, I read the front page article by hack tabloid journalist Amy Goldstein, and then further read the trash written by that other muckraker Dana Milbank....

Oh, wait. Was that offensive? Hmmm. Reviewing the caption that accompanied Ms. Goldstein's article, dead center top above the fold, was the following caption:

"Valerie Plame strolls into the hearing room, the only sound the paparazzi's shutters."

Then, I read in Milbank's article the following:

"A hearing room in the Rayburn House Office Building, March 16, 2007. Valerie Plame, playing herself, enters the room fashionably late, and 30 paparazzi start shooting. She walks with the slow poise of a catwalk model, pausing for the cameras on the way to the witness table."

Now, the photo is credited to the post's photographer, not a paparazzi. I know her. In other photographs from the event, published by Reuters, the AP, and (well, if you believe the reporter's count, and a round "30" seems a bit inaccurate to me) 27 others, are colleagues whom I know quite well, and they too are not paparazzi. To coin a phrase - "I know paparazzi. I've worked alongside paparazzi, and those men and women there that day were not paparazzi."

The word "paparazzi" is a pejorative. Just like calling the Post a tabloid. Just like calling Goldstein a hack or Milbank a muckraker. Those members of the Senate Press Photographers Gallery can courteously stand behind a velvet rope between two stanchions at the most intense of a news event, and all come away friends and bruise-free. The paparazzi require metal barricades be erected, and strong-armed security details to keep the true paparazzi from their prey.

Those photographers were the working press. The visual arm of the reporters you see clamoring for the Starr Report, the Iraqi Study Group Report, or any other hotly debated document's release. Do we ascribe to those reporters who are hoping to get the document and get it on air first or get their story onto the wire first, perjoratives?

I have known many a time a reporter has wanted a photographer with them on a story, because they know that having a photograph and solid headline will get their pieces read. A story without a photograph is less likely to be read, and a story with a large photograph is much more likely to be rememebered. These insights, from the EyeTrack III study reaffirm what photographers have already known, but some reporters might have forgotten. Clearly those that refer to their breathren in a derogatory manner need a refresher.

---

Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.

[More: Full Post and Comments]

The Importance of Markup

One of the things I have long held in high regard is my relationship with my agency - Black Star. They are a true photo agency, looking out for the best interests of their photographers, as opposed to those of Wall Street investors. Fair rates are secured, rights packages are licensed, and so on. They have had a blog running for awhile, Black Star Rising, and they've asked me to contribute to it (and I've created my own graphic to illustrate that). So, from time to time, I'll be posting over there, and encourage you to hop on over to the article that I wrote there instead of perusing it here. There are a bunch of other interesting articles to read there as well. The link for the article on the importance of marking up one's costs is: Markup? Yes Mark it up!

Check it out.

---

Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.

[More: Full Post and Comments]