Photo Job Pricing

  • Started
  • Last post
  • 7 Responses
  • mg33

    Got a question for the photographers here, might be more specific to anyone who shoots bands, but maybe not.

    I need to put together a really basic pricing structure for shooting bands and their live shows. I typically do this stuff for friends bands that I really love and because I'm going to their shows, but I'm getting asked occasionally to shoot photos for some other bands in the next few months.

    Do you guys have any suggestions on something basic I can follow for this?

    I was thinking of something like the following:

    1. Shooting.
    $25 per band member for 1 hour of shooting x 4 band members: $100 for shooting.

    2. Photos Provided:
    Tiers of pricing for quantity (10-15 photos, 10-30 photos, All photos) and purpose: medium res for acceptable for digital sharing, high-res for printing, and high-res licensed for commercial use (ex: album artwork, physical promotion, etc.)

    Any thoughts on that? If you have other ideas or pricing structures you use that make more sense, please share them. Thanks!

  • pango2

    $500 minimum for 4 continues hours on location.
    include 10 Photos with edit and basic retouching,

    $80 for additional hours. Include 2 photos each additional Hours.
    $10 each additional photo. $5 each additional retouching. Advance retouching $30 each photo.

    Bands, Corporate head shot, Model head shot. Family Photos.

    roughly like that.

  • nb0

    $500 minimum.
    Lifetime guest-list +1 spot.
    Unlimited bar tab.

    • Seriously, though, if your work is good and the band is good, you should consider licensing them work for a limited time (i.e. 2 or 3 years).nb
    • Most bands shouldn't mind agreeing because they'll likely want new photos by then anyway, but if you ever shoot a band that somehow gets famous... GOLD!nb
    • ha not a bad idea.pango
    • Nice, thank you.mg33
    • hmmmm.... if i do that i would feel obligated to do as often as possible... and +1 is useless since i don't chill with people when i'm at "work"pango
  • monNom0

    Be sure to keep your rights separate from your fee for being there and taking photos. You want to license your photos to them in a limited fashion. That way, when you take an iconic photo that becomes their cover artwork, their posters and the basis for their best-selling t-shirt, you didn't give it away for $10.

    This is typical of photographers and illustrators, but we rarely see if in graphic design because copyright in GC is based on derivative works, not original works.

  • mg330

    Thanks for the thoughts. I've been looking around for limited use licensing language, and came across this. Seems very straight forward and could offer the client a decision about which photos to pay a premium for, for commercial use vs. more of social media sharing.

    Copyright and Licensing Notice

    The images that are being provided to you are licensed to you for any reason personal, including but not limited to: printing, copying, emailing, and web publishing. Your license does not include use that results in financial gain, including but not limited to: advertising, stock photography, print sale profits, or resale of any nature. Your purchase of the original files releases LTP from any liability due to loss or damage of the images, and also releases LTP from any obligation to maintain copies of any digital file, image, or photograph. You hereby grant to LTP the right to use and publish images and photographs taken at your photography session to further promote its service, including portfolio, web site, display, advertisement, and editorial use, unless otherwise discussed beforehand. LTP agrees to limit the use of these images and photographs to promotional use only. LTP may revoke this license at any time and for any reason. LTP retains all copyrights to the images and derivative works thereof.

    If you are posting any of the digital files to social media (Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, Instagram* etc.) OR if you share or use any digital files from either Facebook or my website, you may not alter the image in any way** and you must give credit to Lita Trimmings Photography.
    *Instagram – you may not alter the image(s) in any way by adding filters.
    ** You may not re-edit, crop, or remove the watermark, or alter the images
    in any way, doing otherwise is copyright infringement.

    By using any of these images, you are agreeing to the above terms.

    • Don't worry, they'll still apply a fucking shitty filter on top of it and say it's yoursjaylarson
    • < fyi - a label wouldn't sign thisGnash
  • monNom0

    I would include social media as advertising. That's how bands communicate with their fans now.

    What I've encountered in the past was that the photos from the event were for presentation only (for me to see and review), and I picked the ones I wanted to license. I then paid for a limited license based on my needs (or there might have been a license for a few photos included in the session fee). If I needed more in the future, I could always buy more time, circulation, media, etc.

    Jessica Hische, though not a photographer, has a good article about this precise sort of licensing arrangement: http://jessicahische.is/thinking…

    • the GAG guide the ethical pricing has very similar info. There's even a sample license agreement that would probably work just as well for Photos.monNom
    • https://www.amazon.c…monNom
  • mg330

    Thanks again everyone for your comments.

    Question: Can you foresee any scenario where someone may want to purchase original files, with a license that grants them the ability to do whatever they want with them? This would exclude any retouching or editing by the photographer, and a full unlimited use license per photo.

    My thought here is that if a client is a designer, and wants a photo to edit as they see fit, this would apply. Otherwise, everything would be limited use, with any edits, modifications, etc. not allowed by the client.

    I think in this case you would seriously increase the price of an original photo of that of an unlimited use license photo, correct?

    • Yespango
    • You should charge much more but the reality is that many clients expect or demand these rights without wanting to pay more. Same ol' shit, different industry!nb
    • yes. few years back (when i worked for a label) we paid $50K for a shot which included unlimited use of the pics. the label could use them in any medium.Gnash
    • shoot, not shot*Gnash
    • we got around 15 shots from that shoot.Gnash
    • we paid 2 different rates
      1. publicity (cheaper)
      2. packaging
      Gnash
    • for publicity shots we could create promo material - tshirts, posters, etc -- as long as NOT for saleGnash
  • jaylarson3

    Great thread! I'll definitely be watching this thread. Thanks for posting!