Paying gig in York PA

Yes I think so - I'm the one familiar w/ the company after all. They are small and have a staff photographer that does all of their shoots - I'm sure on a salary.

I think anyone hiring a photographer to shoot in water will require insurance.

So now that I've established what I consider a mom and pop (individual or company) maybe you can answer the question - what do you propose for a shoot for a small mom and pop?

Question - Why can't the staffer shoot this one?

Depends on many, many things, but the starting point should be your BUR. How much does it cost you to do business? Every photographer will have a different BUR. Mine is known but won't disclose the exact figure, but for argument's sake lets call it $800 per day. Next question is:-

How many images do they want from the shoot?

Let's say 10.

So the cost per image is $80. This is for standard terms; exclusive use for 2 media, 1 year or 1 media for 2 years.

But the client wants to own the images outright. At this point I either negotiate the fee upwards by perhaps 600%. Why? More use = more benefit. If negotiations stall, I decline the job. Why? To give work away devalues your product and as someone pointed out on the business news today the decision by Anheuser-Busch to give away 500,000 bottles of beer is great for the beer drinkers, but long-term tells the market & consumers of your goods that your product is cheap and has low/zero value. It is not a strategy for business success, so I would prefer to spend the day looking for a client who can pay.

But lets say the client compromises and wants to have exclusive for 5 years. We take the BUR fee of $80 per image and factor in a percentage - say 50%. Now the cost per image is $120 or $1200 for the day. (I must stress these are not absolute percentages, treat as guidance - its not a real quote!)

We agree terms and the shoot goes well.

So well in fact that they want 12 images, not 10. The client sees the benefit in having the extra 2 shots and already understands how much it will cost so $240 is added to the bill.

Why is this good? Because it encourages creativity and raises the game for the photographer, knowing they can up-sell if the shoot goes well. For the client, they know what starting price they are dealing with, and will see the very best images delivered up to meet their brief. The photographer is paid more in exchange for delivering more than the clients expectations.

This does assume there are no extras required, such as an assistant, props, or extra lighting etc etc. And here in the UK, an underwater shoot like this comes under our Heath and Saftey Executive Diving at Work regulations. I would need, as a minimum; Dive supervisor, dive tender and standby diver. This may seem an overkill but keeping yourself and the client out of court is mandatory, not optional. Mom-and-pop operations are not immune to the law I'm afraid.

It may mean I'm simply too expensive and beyond what they are prepared to pay. Fair enough, this is a commercially driven world. To drop below what it costs to produce and provide images means I'm subsidising another company to the point that I won't be in business much longer if I lost money on every job. By using this method it means I continue, or cut my costs (and therefore BUR) and find a cheaper way.

So there isn't a direct answer I'm afraid - after all your BUR will be different to mine - but that's how I would approach a commissioned job like this one. Its all about bottom line and nothing to do with art whatsoever.

I fear this is not the answer you were looking for James, but I do hope at least it's food for thought. If you have any questions then by all means ask away - forum or PM is fine.

P.S.

Last week I was offered a derisory figure of £150 for a full feature (Not scuba related, editorial based, no names disclosed) and for that was expected to provide stock images and 1600 words. In exchange the magazine would fill 7 pages and get some web rights too. The funny thing is when I do turn down work based on poor fees, it does feel strangely rewarding and somewhat uplifting, but that's another story.

I

Wow - well I think this is turning into a very useful post - thanks for explaining that all Simon.

I think I used a similar process to come to my day rate for shoots I do for this publisher. I don't use the 600% markup though as in this case - that seems a bit high for this application.

Now the question of why doesn't the staff photographer just do it. How many topsides shooters do you think would take on an underwater assignment - who have never taken a photo underwater before? There is the cost of equipment rental which would be between $500 and $1,000. Then there would be the risk of just totally blowing it. That latter one is probably a lot higher of a dollar figure when you look at the cost for a re-shoot.

Cheers

James

Wow - well I think this is turning into a very useful post - thanks for explaining that all Simon.

I think I used a similar process to come to my day rate for shoots I do for this publisher. I don't use the 600% markup though as in this case - that seems a bit high for this application.

Now the question of why doesn't the staff photographer just do it. How many topsides shooters do you think would take on an underwater assignment - who have never taken a photo underwater before? There is the cost of equipment rental which would be between $500 and $1,000. Then there would be the risk of just totally blowing it. That latter one is probably a lot higher of a dollar figure when you look at the cost for a re-shoot.

You are most welcome. I guessed the staffer couldn't shoot the material, but just wanted to check. Sometimes I think we (certainly I do) forget that UW photography does require special skills, somewhat reflected in a higher BUR than a land-based photographer - but that's thanks to higher capital outlay for a housing, port strobes etc

As for the risk of blowing it......the worse scenario is the client ends up paying twice; once to get something they can't use, and again to get it right. Add in the stress of a deadline........

Simon, your BUR model works for people who do it for a living, but for those like James who have a day job (you still do have one, don't you, oil man James? ), it's not really the same. Some people just do it for fun and to pay for the equipment. There's a price for every skill level, and there's a level of skill at every price level.

This company's budget is probably not expecting Schatz-like studio work, otherwise they'd have asked for Schatz. That said, they are hoping to find someone with the equipment, requisite skills and insurance to fit their budget, all in the PA area. It's a big market, and with hobbyists jumping in for kicks and pocket money, I'm pretty sure they'll get what they want. If they can't, then they'll learn to pay more for better skills.

Last week I was offered a derisory figure of for a full feature (Not scuba related, editorial based, no names disclosed) and for that was expected to provide stock images and 1600 words. In exchange the magazine would fill 7 pages and get some web rights too. The funny thing is when I do turn down work based on poor fees, it does feel strangely rewarding and somewhat uplifting, but that's another story.

You just like the sanctimonious stare down!

But that said, it's good business practice to get the best product for the lowest price. Can't fault them for trying and can't fault you for refusing to do that sort of work. Like you, I've said no to offers to do camera work for feature films because a. I have friends who are real uw camera operators who'd shoot circles round me and I hate to take work from them, b. I'd have to maintain the commercial diver licence and insurance and most importantly c. I hate pool work!

Simon, your BUR model works for people who do it for a living, but for those like James who have a day job (you still do have one, don't you, oil man James? ), it's not really the same. Some people just do it for fun and to pay for the equipment. There's a price for every skill level, and there's a level of skill at every price level.

This company's budget is probably not expecting Schatz-like studio work, otherwise they'd have asked for Schatz. That said, they are hoping to find someone with the equipment, requisite skills and insurance to fit their budget, all in the PA area. It's a big market, and with hobbyists jumping in for kicks and pocket money, I'm pretty sure they'll get what they want. If they can't, then they'll learn to pay more for better skills.

 

But that said, it's good business practice to get the best product for the lowest price. Can't fault them for trying and can't fault you for refusing to do that sort of work. Like you, I've said no to offers to do camera work for feature films because a. I have friends who are real uw camera operators who'd shoot circles round me and I hate to take work from them, b. I'd have to maintain the commercial diver licence and insurance and most importantly c. I hate pool work!

BUR works for everyone, even if they shoot a one-day paying event a year and want a $10,000 housing and body combo next year! People with day jobs also have a pressing need for money (otherwise, why the day job?), but I take your point....

And yes, its good practice to get the best product for lowest price.....can't fault em at all and in this case, we don't actually know the rough ballpark figure actually is so image ownership might not be unreasonable.

Sanctimonious? Moi? Everyone has a price they won't drop their pants for......

BUR works for everyone, even if they shoot a one-day paying event a year and want a $10,000 housing and body combo next year! People with day jobs also have a pressing need for money (otherwise, why the day job?), but I take your point....

You realize there is such a thing as a hobby? Some people taking up knitting, some people buy a kite and go kitesurfing, some people take their camera underwater. These people dont go 'oh my god, my grandmother's neighbors' niece asked me for a picture for their myspace page, id better calculate my BUR so I can afford my next underwater housing'.

Im sorta like James. I have a day job. It pays well. The last thing I need is a second job. I do some paying U/W gigs, and I charge what I think is fair. But i have no pressing need for U/W gigs to pay for my camera. It's a hobby, and I enjoy spending money on my hobby.

You realize there is such a thing as a hobby? Some people taking up knitting, some people buy a kite and go kitesurfing, some people take their camera underwater. These people dont go 'oh my god, my grandmother's neighbors' niece asked me for a picture for their myspace page, id better calculate my BUR so I can afford my next underwater housing'.

 

Im sorta like James. I have a day job. It pays well. The last thing I need is a second job. I do some paying U/W gigs, and I charge what I think is fair. But i have no pressing need for U/W gigs to pay for my camera. It's a hobby, and I enjoy spending money on my hobby.

So undercutting 'professionals' and taking away work from others. Lets hope your 'day job' isn't ever threatened by 'Hobbyists' with loads of spare time.

Dive safe

DeanB

I work in IT, what do you think? It's a fact of life that you have competition, from fellow professionals to hobbyists. This goes for almost any profession.

Simon seemed to suggest that people with a day job also should work with a BUR for that one magazine article a year. Im saying thats often not how it works, because many people dont consider it their job, requiring things like expenses etc to be properly tracked. You can be nasty about it, but thats merely stating a fact.

I realize you probably have many people undercutting you in your job. Im not one of them, although I suppose writing for a magazine a few times a year does take up pages that could have been filled by a pro. But dont blame me, blame the editor. Give him a better story to print instead. I rarely ever do anything non-magazine related. I send those to pros if I get asked.

I agree with Cor. Underwater photography is primarily a hobby. People actually PAY to do the thing that others expect to be paid to do. If you don't give people a reason to pay you, you're not going to be paid. It's one of the sad facts of living in a free market economy.

Also, Cor does work in an industry where people sometimes work for free. It's called the open source movement, and it's actually celebrated by free thinkers in the industry. If you decided to start doing IT work for free, I don't think anyone would be giving you a hard time.

I'm not saying it's the same thing, but it's simply a fact, and there is no reason to get nasty about it. In my limited history in this industry, people who get really upset about this issue are insecure and scared because they have realized that they are making a living in a way that is not sustainable.

BUR works for everyone, even if they shoot a one-day paying event a year and want a $10,000 housing and body combo next year! People with day jobs also have a pressing need for money (otherwise, why the day job?), but I take your point....

I'm more with Cor and Eric on this as well. Hobbyists with high paying day jobs really don't care if the job pays well or not, because they can afford to not get paid at all or even pay to work on the gig. What do you think these shootout competitions are about?

You also have a huge core of hobbyists who have supported the underwater housing industry in general. Just as Flickr has shifted the stock photography market towards the amateur, so has professional shooting jobs. Even specialist photograpy strongholds like war photojournalism has shifted as equipment becomes increasingly accessible.

I'll expand further on what Eric is saying by adding that the competition increases as skills decrease. It's not the elite guys who fret (although they are not exactly sitting easy either) but those in the lower, middling tiers who are doing this for a living. In the old days, craftsmen passed their skills down to chosen proteges, and there was a honor and traditional code in how things were done. With the advent of technology and progress, that model is way past its time. Nobody can afford to sit still and rest on laurels. It's either compete or die out.

Cor, when are our wool sweaters going to be ready? Please remember to use merino wool and not wool you need to skin an animal for:)

Drew - I would say that competition increases as skills *increase*, not decrease.

Eric, what I'm saying is that the pool of people with good or excellent skills are many, but those with exceptional skills are few and far between. By "skill," I mean the ability to take friggin awesome shots consistently.

For example I've seen many people go to South Africa to shoot the sardines, yet the most iconic shot is still done by a guy who has a terrible knack of being at the right place at the right time too many times and taking more than a few iconic shots in general. So in my equation, that tier has little competition vs the number of guys with shots of a nudibranch or Volitan.

I agree that the good and excellent shooters tier has increased exponentially, but the elite tier, by and large remains very exclusive. Of course, we could discuss about the tiers and what qualifies as elite vs excellent, but that's another topic altogether.

Hobbyists with high paying day jobs really don't care if the job pays well or not, because they can afford to not get paid at all or even pay to work on the gig. What do you think these shootout competitions are about?

There are many hobbyists that try to at least maintain a proper price level in the photo industry. I wont undercut someone, and I know plenty of others that wont either. But there are so many shooters out there, it doesnt even remotely matter I think.

Absolutely, Cor. What I was saying is that BUR doesn't matter for someone who makes $500k a year when asked for an image which sells for $80 on the market. Whether that person sells it or not is another matter altogether.

Then again, if a magazine says to me, 'We can get you permission to go to Diego Garcia unrestricted but you have to pay us to go.' I'd pay instantly and I don't care who I undercut.

Well this woke up the debate!

You realize there is such a thing as a hobby? ..............I have a day job. It pays well. The last thing I need is a second job. I do some paying U/W gigs, and I charge what I think is fair. But i have no pressing need for U/W gigs to pay for my camera. It's a hobby, and I enjoy spending money on my hobby.

Glad you have a day job. It helps to pay the bills. But equally better is the fact that you charge for U/W photo shoots. Speaking for myself, I found paid employment very disappointing place to be where security was flaunted as a thing that actually exists. The only "secure" employees these days are the unicorns employed as gate guardians at Atlantis - but thats for a separate thread.

Simon seemed to suggest that people with a day job also should work with a BUR for that one magazine article a year. Im saying thats often not how it works, because many people dont consider it their job, requiring things like expenses etc to be properly tracked. You can be nasty about it, but thats merely stating a fact.

I realize you probably have many people undercutting you in your job. Im not one of them, although I suppose writing for a magazine a few times a year does take up pages that could have been filled by a pro. But dont blame me, blame the editor. Give him a better story to print instead. I rarely ever do anything non-magazine related. I send those to pros if I get asked.

Specifically, BUR works where the client is looking to commission a photo shoot. There has been no suggestion of applying BUR to editorial - the market is dominated by a glut of material supplied by those who have no compelling need to be paid (dislike the word 'amateur' - I feel it doesn't give specific respect to the talent of the photographer) for their work. The first post in this thread was a request for a photographer to shoot to spec - a commission. This is where BUR works for photographer and client alike.

BUR would work in the editorial world, but there are simply different market forces at work. And I don't blame anyone for this situation - particularly the editor. The editor is running a business and is focussed on the profit/loss, even if their suppliers are not. Its a big world out there and everyone can choose to supply material for whatever price they see fit; from nothing more than the credit and a massage of the ego to full rate paid features.

You are right about "better story", although it is very subjective about what better actually is. Repairing nuclear submarines was one such shoot earlier this year and in a couple of hours will be documenting a team looking for terrorist devices on the underside of their ship. Next month.......well that is interesting indeed....Its finding the unusual, rather than mainstream, that keeps me busy.

As an aside, tracking expenses might be useful if the feature income was declared to the tax authorities...... you might end up with a loss and be entitled to a tax rebate.

Then again, if a magazine says to me, 'We can get you permission to go to Diego Garcia unrestricted but you have to pay us to go.' I'd pay instantly and I don't care who I undercut.

Diego Garcia? Part of the British Indian Ocean Territory....... he he he.....well yes it would be an interesting place to visit. Aside from the moral issues of enforced deportation of the Chagos islanders, I would consider carefully if such a visit at my expense would see a profit. For me, its not about undercutting someone else but undercutting myself. That hurts more...... I would take a long, hard look at the bottom line on this and if the sums failed to add up I would turn the trip down.

Not convinced? I turned down a free trip to the Galapagos based partly on financial reasons.

I think it says it all really... Why would anyone with 'money' take the work away from someone without 'if' they didn't really need it 'fame'?? If they have plenty of cash then go to the destination for a holiday and take as many pic's as you want for personal use. I'm not naive I've seen undercutting in both my careers however it doesn't make it right. If everyone stuck to their guns and charged equally then it would only be their talents that stand above the rest.

As for IT or any job if you have fallen to 'undercutting' then you know it stinks so why inflict it on others... Most people who undercut, in my opinion, cannot be confident in their own talent so rely on underhand techniques to gain work.

However this is the real world and people will do anything just for 'kudos' or 'fame' ...

Dive safe

DeanB

Why would anyone with 'money' take the work away from someone without 'if' they didn't really need it 'fame'??

Underwater Photography is a hobbyist driven world. You are being a professional in an environment thats inundated by countless people that do this for fun. You could hardly have chosen a more challenging profession to be successful in. You can't compete with fun.

You keep trying to suggest I would undercut you. Im one of the few that wouldn't, so in a way you're barking up the wrong tree.

I agree with Simon that separating editoral work from commissioned work is important. I didnt read it what way, because being paid is being paid. I did not see the distinction. But now that has been clarified, I understand what Simon means. Ive never done commissioned work, because thats a job, and I dont want this to be a job. I can see the frustration of someone undercutting you in a commissioned job though. But again, you are trying to compete in a world where people do this for fun. Not naive? Im not convinced.

I suppose you could ask, why write articles instead of refusing it and leaving it to the pros. I dont think this is in the editor's best interest. They want as much content to choose from, and the broader their base, the more chance they have to find stories that are different. It's great that Simon is doing stories that hobbyists rarely are able to do. He's at least found a great way to keep busy. Kudos But those kind of stories rarely sell advertising. Editors want the stories about diving destinations, because they sell advertising. Without advertising, no magazines. And they can't afford to commission every article.

The most important factors that have blurred the separation between hobbyist and professional, and ultimately driven prices down is digital and the internet. Think about stock photo agencies, the digital darkroom, and the ability to transfer files electronically. From the perspective of the consumer of these images, the customer, it makes no difference if the photographer is a professional or not in most cases, all they care about is that they have the images they want, at the best possible price.

Whether one likes it or not the average photographic product has been devalued by all these factors, and there is no going back.

This applies to most industries and professions, not just photography. Similar factors have driven down the cost of most 'professional' products, even in my profession medicine, similar changes are afoot. Change is the only thing that's guaranteed in life.....

So undercutting 'professionals' and taking away work from others. Lets hope your 'day job' isn't ever threatened by 'Hobbyists' with loads of spare time.

 

Dive safe

 

DeanB

Either it's a free market, or it isn't. A professional will add value...

... but it must be up to you to convince the client of that. There is, after all, no such thing as a free lunch, even if many clients don't realise that until too late.

I have trained for 15 years (perhaps 20 years, if you look at it from one direction) to do my job. Some people offer "solutions" for the same problems with no training whatsoever...

... I'm not even allowed to advertise, but I don't do too badly! Of course, loftus and I might have a different perspective as medical types who can subsidise trips and cameras from our professional practice, although many pro photographers seem to have one sideline or another to subsidise their own shooting, too.

Who ya gonna call?

Tim

Either it's a free market, or it isn't. A professional will add value...

 

... but it must be up to you to convince the client of that. There is, after all, no such thing as a free lunch, even if many clients don't realise that until too late.

 

I have trained for 15 years (perhaps 20 years, if you look at it from one direction) to do my job. Some people offer "solutions" for the same problems with no training whatsoever...

 

... I'm not even allowed to advertise, but I don't do too badly! Of course, loftus and I might have a different perspective as medical types who can subsidise trips and cameras from our professional practice, although many pro photographers seem to have one sideline or another to subsidise their own shooting, too.

Better yet, you doctors can save on hiring a doctor to be on site!

I do think this discussion is a very healthy exercise for hobbyist and professionals a like. The world is changing, yet it's nice to live in a world of ethical business practices, which is severely lacking in so many ways.