Author Topic: Commission  (Read 18755 times)

  • Offline zpyder

  • Posts: 6,946
  • Hero Member
Re: Commission
Reply #30 on: April 17, 2013, 13:21:12 PM
On the plus side a Sky Broadcasting company has just bought a 1024x768 photo I took in 2008 for £100 :D

Looking at Getty's pricing scheme for images, I should have invoiced the university £500 easily for the resolution image they got.

Re: Commission
Reply #31 on: April 18, 2013, 16:37:40 PM
Looking at Getty's pricing scheme for images, I should have invoiced the university £500 easily for the resolution image they got.

Not really, because you're not a professional photographer.

  • Offline zpyder

  • Posts: 6,946
  • Hero Member
Re: Commission
Reply #32 on: April 18, 2013, 18:52:02 PM
How do you come to that conclusion? You'd be correct if you use the literal definition of a "professional photographer" being someone who earns 100% of their income through photography, but I'd say a large proportion of "professional photographers" do it as a side business like me.

This shouldn't factor into how much someone gets paid really. Just because I have a day job doesn't mean the photo I take is any different to the one someone who does it full time takes. I used the same level of equipment you'd expect (a 7d may not be a 1d or 5d, but I use L-series glass), have professional photography insurance, and am registered with the tax office. I also use the same work-flows and processing that a full-time photographer would use.

I didn't go out with a point and shoot camera, take a snap and go "that'll do".
Last Edit: April 18, 2013, 18:53:36 PM by zpyder #187;

    • Tekforums.net - It's new and improved!
  • Offline Clock'd 0Ne

  • Clockedtastic
  • Posts: 10,937
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
Re: Commission
Reply #33 on: April 18, 2013, 21:08:36 PM
Looking at Getty's pricing scheme for images, I should have invoiced the university £500 easily for the resolution image they got.

Not really, because you're not a professional photographer.

The price for a service/demand for something someone is willing to pay doesn't correlate to who owns/provides the service.

I could charge £10/75/100 an hour depending on who I talk to, what they want and what I feel they would fairly pay for my services.

Re: Commission
Reply #34 on: April 19, 2013, 09:28:28 AM
How do you come to that conclusion? You'd be correct if you use the literal definition of a "professional photographer" being someone who earns 100% of their income through photography, but I'd say a large proportion of "professional photographers" do it as a side business like me.

This shouldn't factor into how much someone gets paid really. Just because I have a day job doesn't mean the photo I take is any different to the one someone who does it full time takes. I used the same level of equipment you'd expect (a 7d may not be a 1d or 5d, but I use L-series glass), have professional photography insurance, and am registered with the tax office. I also use the same work-flows and processing that a full-time photographer would use.

I didn't go out with a point and shoot camera, take a snap and go "that'll do".

Being a good photographer doesn't really have anything to do with what kit you've got, it's about training, experience, an eye for composition etc. All these attributes when brought together into a single package are valuable and (arguably) deserving of higher remuneration. If, because you take a 18mp shot, you believe that your image should command the highest premium, you (in my opinion) do a disservice to gifted, full-time photographers.

Re: Commission
Reply #35 on: April 19, 2013, 09:31:04 AM
The price for a service/demand for something someone is willing to pay doesn't correlate to who owns/provides the service.

Of course it does. If one finds a company or individual particularly capable, higher remuneration for their services is excepted; does experience and ability count for nothing?

Re: Commission
Reply #36 on: April 19, 2013, 12:10:51 PM
you've missed his point.

I can wash my car. but if i can find someone who'll do it for £6, which saves me getting the hose out, filling a bucket, washing it near the outdoor tap, then tidying up.... that means that the price is defined by the amount im willing to pay to save me the hassle.

that said, would i be willing to to pay extra for a touchless car wash? yes i would. but thats about the service, not the owner.


  • Offline Dave

  • Posts: 3,467
  • Hero Member
Re: Commission
Reply #37 on: April 19, 2013, 15:11:27 PM
Looking at Getty's pricing scheme for images, I should have invoiced the university £500 easily for the resolution image they got.

Not really, because you're not a professional photographer.

The price for a service/demand for something someone is willing to pay doesn't correlate to who owns/provides the service.

I could charge £10/75/100 an hour depending on who I talk to, what they want and what I feel they would fairly pay for my services.

I'm 50/50 on this... I can understand Nige charging according to the customer and he presumably varies his service slightly according to this too.

We do a similar thing where I work... I guess the term is economic sabotage - the software we sell to big banks we'll charge millions per year in license fees, maintenance contracts, consultancy etc.. some tier 2 bank can have the same software for a few hundred k but it will be deliberately limited somewhat and they don't get to customise it as much.

Supermarkets do this too where they sell more-or less the same thing in different packaging as part of their el chepo range so they can still get some $$$ from pikeys without reducing profits form normal customers.

With the photography thing I've got mixed views... on one hand a gifted amateur can be as good as some professionals - on the other hand you might expect to pay more for a professional over a part time person because you'd expect to have more consistent results simply due to the level of experience. Say an amateur does some part time paid work then they'd surely need to have a very very good portfolio to be able to market themselves at the same rate for shooting someone's wedding etc.. as some full time guy who's got a variety of commercial work, wedding shoots, fashion shoots etc.. on his website.
On the other hand, when selling stock photography, the sale is basically based on the image itself. I can see why some might object to Zpyder's charge in this thread as his image wasn't selected after comparison with lots of other images on some stock photography site rather he was able to lock in his fee purely as a result of being employed by the university. Then again its a hobby he takes seriously and I'm sure the image was of a decent quality.

    • Tekforums.net - It's new and improved!
  • Offline Clock'd 0Ne

  • Clockedtastic
  • Posts: 10,937
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
Re: Commission
Reply #38 on: April 19, 2013, 18:37:46 PM
you've missed his point.

I can wash my car. but if i can find someone who'll do it for £6, which saves me getting the hose out, filling a bucket, washing it near the outdoor tap, then tidying up.... that means that the price is defined by the amount im willing to pay to save me the hassle.

that said, would i be willing to to pay extra for a touchless car wash? yes i would. but thats about the service, not the owner.

This is a good analogy because I've been looking for someone to come out and professionally detail my car; prices vary massively along with the particulars of the service offered. It's not as B&W as experience = more money, the same way that a service sold in London will probably cost more than one sold in Lincoln.

  • Offline zpyder

  • Posts: 6,946
  • Hero Member
Re: Commission
Reply #39 on: April 19, 2013, 20:39:01 PM
Being a good photographer doesn't really have anything to do with what kit you've got, it's about training, experience, an eye for composition etc. All these attributes when brought together into a single package are valuable and (arguably) deserving of higher remuneration. If, because you take a 18mp shot, you believe that your image should command the highest premium, you (in my opinion) do a disservice to gifted, full-time photographers.

I think you may have misinterpreted, or I may have badly worded what I was trying to say. I'll put my hand up and admit that when it comes to the photography business I lack experience. Photography wise, I'm fairly more solidly grounded, though I am constantly learning and developing my skills. My original statement though was based in my lack of the business experience. I simply don't know what to charge when approached...it was an eye opener looking at Getty's pricing schemes, and what people are willing to pay for images of low resolution. I had thought something at 1024x resolution would be pretty worthless. FYI, I have images on Getty, that meet their criteria for composition, artistic and technical. My portfolio includes National Geographic, Discovery channel, BSkyB (now), as well as other minor publications.

That experience in the actual business side of things is the only thing I'd say is missing in the "single package" you mention. When approached regarding the university commission, I brought to the table over a decade of photographic experience, I arranged meetings to discuss client requirements, I arranged for permission to photograph on the private property and laid out the terms and conditions of the commission, all in a professional manner. The package included several images and videos in several formats. Nothing was different from what a full time photographer would do, bar the price. My statement was a realisation that occurred during my learning processes of the business, that in all likelihoods I had undercharged. Do you believe that my lack of experience in handling my business would mean I should proportionally adjust my prices to account for this? Is this what you were meaning?

Additionally, regarding kit, yes, it's possible to take amazing pictures with cheap kit. However training and experience has taught me that some lenses are more sharp than others, and more suitable than others in certain situations. I used that training and experience to use a weather sealed lens and body that covered the requirements of the shoot in a dusty and contaminated environment.

Last Edit: April 19, 2013, 20:58:11 PM by zpyder #187;

  • Offline zpyder

  • Posts: 6,946
  • Hero Member
Re: Commission
Reply #40 on: April 19, 2013, 20:52:24 PM
I'm 50/50 on this... I can understand Nige charging according to the customer and he presumably varies his service slightly according to this too.

We do a similar thing where I work... I guess the term is economic sabotage - the software we sell to big banks we'll charge millions per year in license fees, maintenance contracts, consultancy etc.. some tier 2 bank can have the same software for a few hundred k but it will be deliberately limited somewhat and they don't get to customise it as much.


Is this the same as charging a varying fee based on the quality of the image? Full res being millions, and lower resolution being 100k? Or would this be more based on who the client was. Eg, low price for a charity, and higher fee for say, Microsoft. I guess it's both, low-profit companies or charities get a scaled version of the image etc.

Quote
With the photography thing I've got mixed views... on one hand a gifted amateur can be as good as some professionals - on the other hand you might expect to pay more for a professional over a part time person because you'd expect to have more consistent results simply due to the level of experience. Say an amateur does some part time paid work then they'd surely need to have a very very good portfolio to be able to market themselves at the same rate for shooting someone's wedding etc.. as some full time guy who's got a variety of commercial work, wedding shoots, fashion shoots etc.. on his website.

I believe that a large portion of business/professional photography is marketing and advertising. I'd say a lot of "amateurs" probably have as much experience as a professional, and produce consistent results, but they either lack the desire or knowledge to market themselves as a business.

Quote
I can see why some might object to Zpyder's charge in this thread as his image wasn't selected after comparison with lots of other images on some stock photography site rather he was able to lock in his fee purely as a result of being employed by the university. Then again its a hobby he takes seriously and I'm sure the image was of a decent quality.

Well, yes and no. Getty and other stock sites were looked at, the fall back was to use an image that would cost £500, from Getty. However the RA on the project had seen my portfolio after one of the few bits of advertising I've done, and one thing led to another. If they weren't happy with the image when compared to the stock images, they could have used those instead so the quality would have been comparative. There is also the in-house media department within the University, so it's not as though I stole the business exactly.
Last Edit: April 19, 2013, 20:54:33 PM by zpyder #187;

Re: Commission
Reply #41 on: April 19, 2013, 21:05:40 PM
you can charge as much as anyone willing to pay

and for something like a photo, it doesn't matter who/where it comes from, you look at the quality of the photo and if it's what you want you buy it, if it isn't then you don't


and for hobby vs professional... I'm sure most of us have been into somewhere like PC world and been shocked by the quality of the knowledge of the people working there.... so in the same way, I'm sure there's plenty of 'professional' photographers who are complete morons and don't know a thing about taking photos

  • Offline Dave

  • Posts: 3,467
  • Hero Member
Re: Commission
Reply #42 on: April 19, 2013, 21:19:06 PM
I'm 50/50 on this... I can understand Nige charging according to the customer and he presumably varies his service slightly according to this too.

We do a similar thing where I work... I guess the term is economic sabotage - the software we sell to big banks we'll charge millions per year in license fees, maintenance contracts, consultancy etc.. some tier 2 bank can have the same software for a few hundred k but it will be deliberately limited somewhat and they don't get to customise it as much.


Is this the same as charging a varying fee based on the quality of the image? Full res being millions, and lower resolution being 100k? Or would this be more based on who the client was. Eg, low price for a charity, and higher fee for say, Microsoft. I guess it's both, low-profit companies or charities get a scaled version of the image etc.

Well its not so much a comparison with photography more a comparison with Nige's mention that his charge's are different depending on the customer. Its gets a bit funny and I'm not a sales person so I'm not sure how they've ended up doing some of the deals they do (some of them I don't think we make much money on - small client being charged a fee per trade instead of paying for a license then finding out the volume of FX deals they do is akin to some small firm selling people travel money...). But essentially the same core bits of software is sold to different people for different prices depending on who they are, how they're intending to use it etc... Obviously additional customisations/ehancements and support for the larger clients (and they can do more with the software or have more scope to configure it) whereas smaller clients (small US banks) might have some hosted solution on some box in a data center which they share with some other banks and they're somewhat more restricted...

Quote
Well, yes and no. Getty and other stock sites were looked at, the fall back was to use an image that would cost £500, from Getty. However the RA on the project had seen my portfolio after one of the few bits of advertising I've done, and one thing led to another. If they weren't happy with the image when compared to the stock images, they could have used those instead so the quality would have been comparative. There is also the in-house media department within the University, so it's not as though I stole the business exactly.

Ah fair enough then...if there was competition in so far as other options were exposed then I don't see the issue - they paid what they felt was worth paying....
Last Edit: April 19, 2013, 21:20:48 PM by Dave #187;

  • Offline zpyder

  • Posts: 6,946
  • Hero Member
Re: Commission
Reply #43 on: April 19, 2013, 21:23:59 PM
Ah fair enough then...if there was competition in so far as other options were exposed then I don't see the issue - they paid what they felt was worth paying....


...well, they agreed to pay, were meant to pay, but someone else decided they weren't going to :dunno:

Still waiting to hear back from the professor on that one. It's now transpired that the administrator who initially put a stop to this has been moved up into a central role, rather than overseeing our specific school, and we will be getting new line managers. So i'll give it a month or two and then test the waters with the replacements!

  • Offline zpyder

  • Posts: 6,946
  • Hero Member
Re: Commission
Reply #44 on: June 02, 2013, 22:28:44 PM
Latest development...my contract isn't being renewed in July as my post is no longer required...despite the fact that the team is short staffed WITH my post.

This fiasco, combined with another recent development, probably hasn't put me in good favour with the line manager.

Don't know why I am pissed off, as I'd intended on leaving in August anyway...

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.