|
Bottom Liner posted:your post was cool until that, but that sentence just shows that you don't value photography or understand why people should have to pay what they do. band photography is essentially portrait work for commercial use, so why shouldn't the pricing be set as such? Haha. Yeah, this. Do one proper promo session once and you'll see why it costs what it does. The actual photo taking is only one portion of the equation. Photographers actually work dirt cheap compared to other trades. If we charged similar to what plumbers or electricians charged, you'd be talking thousands of dollars instead of hundreds.
|
#
?
May 26, 2009 15:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 01:41 |
|
|
Also, who the gently caress wants to do promo sessions. The money's the only reason I'd do it in the first place unless I had someone I know art-direct or something.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2009 15:52
|
|
|
HPL posted:Haha. Yeah, this. Do one proper promo session once and you'll see why it costs what it does. The actual photo taking is only one portion of the equation. Photographers actually work dirt cheap compared to other trades. If we charged similar to what plumbers or electricians charged, you'd be talking thousands of dollars instead of hundreds. If you charged what engineers charge, you'd be talking $150 tops. I know photographers, I work with photographers, I'm friends with photographers and I've talked with photographers about their business. I also manage my band. You cannot possibly convince me that shooting promo shots for my band is more of a money sink for you than it is for me. I've had enough people try to rip me off to know what's a scam and what isn't, and the fact is that you can talk to me all you want about the quality of your promo shot but I can get a good photographer who knows what they're doing to do a promo shot for my band for the cost of the film & chemicals along with lunch and a beer. $250 is a ridiculous amount of money for me to spend when it could easily translate into, say, five hours of studio time, which is infinitely more valuable. Price-gouging where someone other than the band is putting up the cash and can cover you is fine. There's no problem with that - screwing the label is the Steve Albini model, after all. Personally, though, I don't want anyone who's reading this thread and hasn't done band photography before getting the idea that they should be charging $250 to small, unsigned bands looking to get a press photo for the first time. Especially because with this attitude evil_bunnY posted:Also, who the gently caress wants to do promo sessions. The money's the only reason I'd do it in the first place unless I had someone I know art-direct or something. bands can easily find someone who's willing to do it for less and who has a better attitude towards the work. You aren't the only person out there with a camera!
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2009 20:37
|
|
|
JohnnyC posted:bands can easily find someone who's willing to do it for less and who has a better attitude towards the work. You aren't the only person out there with a camera! Yeah, that's why I download music. If the artists complain, then they're not the only people out there with guitars!
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2009 20:41
|
|
|
I'm completely in favour of downloading music so I don't get your meaning?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2009 20:45
|
|
|
dakana posted:Yeah, that's why I download music. If the artists complain, then they're not the only people out there with guitars! I agree with your point, but that it just an awful analogy.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2009 20:45
|
|
|
JohnnyC posted:I'm completely in favour of downloading music so I don't get your meaning? So you'll come do a free concert for me and 500 of my friends if I buy you lunch, a beer, and some strings? And give me an album if I cover the cost of burning and labeling the CD?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2009 20:53
|
|
|
I can't beat that kind of exposure and if you want the record that badly you can have it.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2009 20:57
|
|
|
JohnnyC posted:I can't beat that kind of exposure and if you want the record that badly you can have it. The "getting exposure" argument is analogous to the "do it for your portfolio" argument, which is a great way to get known as "that guy who takes free pictures". All the exposure in the world won't do you any good if you don't value your own work enough to charge a sufficient amount for it. If all you are is a guy with a camera (or a guy with a guitar), then your work isn't worth anything. If you're a skilled professional, then you should be charging what skilled professionals charge in order to make a living.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2009 21:13
|
|
|
You've pinpointed why your analogy falters, which is that a lot of bands aren't bands in order to make a living. Be a skilled professional all you want but be aware that if you charge skilled professional fees to skilled hobbyists they'll likely just seek out skilled hobbyists instead.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2009 21:22
|
|
|
Well, yeah, but let's hope the guy charging $250 knows better than to put them brooding in front of a brick wall, cross process and call it a day. Though I'm sure some do, and that is robbery in my opinion- but if they can get someone to pay it, why would it be so criminal?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2009 21:26
|
|
|
It's entirely possible that a band willing to pay $250 out-of-pocket for promo shots simply doesn't know any better.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2009 21:30
|
|
|
JohnnyC posted:I know photographers, I work with photographers, I'm friends with photographers and I've talked with photographers about their business. I also manage my band. You cannot possibly convince me that shooting promo shots for my band is more of a money sink for you than it is for me. Well, let's see, a few hours to research locations and ideas and prepare for the shoot, gas to drive to and from the shoot, approximately 2 to 4 hours for the shoot itself, 4 to 10 hours to make ugly faces look pretty in post and finish everything off nicely and make sure it's to the clients' liking, equipment costs, insurance, etc. so in the end $200 is more of a token of appreciation than anything else. Besides, you're going to be using the photos to (theoretically) make money, so if your band is worth a drat, the photos should easily pay for themselves in gigs and PR. Also consider that if you have four guys in a band, that's like $50 each, which is like a few drinks at a snotty club except the photos last longer. I used to scoff at wedding photographers charging thousands of dollars but then once I started doing actual research into it, I started to see where it was all going. HPL fucked around with this message at 21:35 on May 26, 2009 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2009 21:32
|
|
|
The photos aren't going to make money on their own and besides that plenty of truly incredible bands never get the opportunity to quit their day jobs. It sounds like you're thinking of shoots on a completely different scale than I am and that most bands are. Here's your average band's scenario. They aren't signed to a label. They all have day jobs. They work really hard for a turnout of maybe - maybe - thirty consistent attendees at each one of their shows. Their band is an enormous sinkhole of time and money, the latter of which they may never see a return for. They simply want a photo of the band that exists and looks decent in order to send it to media outlets or print it in the liner notes of their album, and in order to get that photo they really only need a few decent shots to choose from. Spending hour after hour for a bunch of press photos that will never leave a dank corner of their Myspace photo album is not only a waste of your time but an inflationary measure that simply lets you justify charging an excessive fee, especially when they can likely just get one good press photo for free. Look - here's the press photo my band used up until we had a big lineup change.  My kd lang haircut aside, this photo did exactly the job it needed to do and it cost us literally nothing and it took us thirty seconds. If someone is hiring you, don't just consider the $200 a token of appreciation, consider the fact that they even hired you at all a personal favour and treat it accordingly.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2009 22:17
|
|
|
JohnnyC posted:If someone is hiring you, don't just consider the $200 a token of appreciation, consider the fact that they even hired you at all a personal favour and treat it accordingly. I'd like to think logical people think at the margin and no band or person would do charity like you're explaining by overpaying for photos they don't need. If someone values something at less than it costs, they don't but it. It's that simple.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2009 22:43
|
|
|
I assume you know that you're going to get teamed up on, I'm glad someone is willing to swim against the current but I can't agree with you here. If you and your band don't want to pay a professional photographer $200 for a promo shoot, then don't pay a professional photographer $200 for a professional promo shoot. Why shouldn't people charge what they can make for doing something they're good at? And don't give me this malarkey about the band being a bunch of innocent, ignorant kids who are getting ripped off. Isn't that what you (their manager) is for? Concerning your band's press photo, I can't say that it is worth more than literally nothing. There are many many ways to get good PR and promoshots are one of them. I'm not saying you won't be successful with such a promo(snap)shot, but you certainly aren't grabbing anyone's attention with it. If your personal opinion that a creative, professionally done set of high res images is not worth it to you, then that's your opinion and don't buy it (what Thoogsby said) and be done with it. But I'm not surprised you're getting opposing opinions when you're telling people that they're charging too much for something that other bands are willing to pay. It is just simple economics (as far as my memory of the one class I took several years ago says).
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2009 22:54
|
|
|
I'm the guy on the right in that photo. I'm in several bands and I work in alternative media. I know exactly how much a promo shot is worth, and the reason that I'm saying that you're overcharging if you charge $250 is that you're overcharging. $250 can get you studio time. It can book a venue for a concert. It can press a hundred CDs. It can buy a bunch of shirts. These things are all far more important than a promo photo and have far more tangible results for the band. Charge like you're lucky to be asked to do promo shots at all, because you really are.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2009 23:11
|
|
|
Why are bands paying $250 to have people take pictures of them standing around brooding?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2009 23:15
|
|
|
JohnnyC posted:I'm the guy on the right in that photo. I'm in several bands and I work in alternative media. I know exactly how much a promo shot is worth, and the reason that I'm saying that you're overcharging if you charge $250 is that you're overcharging. No one is disagreeing with you that for most bands, $250 can be better spent on the things you listed, but there are plenty of others out there that are willing to pay that amount. I'm a musician as well and I have seen bands start with the type of pictures you posted and as they become more well known they spend the money to get more professional pictures to be taken more seriously.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2009 23:26
|
|
|
JohnnyC posted:It sounds like you're thinking of shoots on a completely different scale than I am and that most bands are. Here's your average band's scenario. They aren't signed to a label. They all have day jobs. They work really hard for a turnout of maybe - maybe - thirty consistent attendees at each one of their shows. Their band is an enormous sinkhole of time and money, the latter of which they may never see a return for. See, that's where we're differing. I'm talking about bands that regularly fill clubs at $10-$15 a pop. I agree that bands on the level you're talking about can get by without fancy photos, but if you're serious and looking at making the jump up and get signed, you've got to look somewhat professional and put together a slick press kit and photos are a big part of that. Bands get lots of mileage out of good photos. They get used for show posters all the time, web pages, CDs, shirts and other stuff. As a photographer, I expect myself to deliver the best product I can within reason if I am charging the client and the last thing I would do is go on autopilot, crank out two or three generic photos and HDR them. Maybe if I were doing it for free for fun or just as an impromptu shoot after a show then maybe I'd fall back on the old cliches. HPL fucked around with this message at 23:53 on May 26, 2009 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2009 23:48
|
|
|
$250 really is a pittance for a solo gig. I tend to get paid $150-200 a day for ASSISTING another photographer, never mind doing the scouting and post-processing. If you don't need professional photos for your band then, don't hire a professional. Use the amateur with his compact or first DSLR, because they at least aren't trying to cover the cost of thousands of dollars' worth of gear.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2009 01:45
|
|
|
JohnnyC posted:The photos aren't going to make money on their own and besides that plenty of truly incredible bands never get the opportunity to quit their day jobs. Thats really not a good photo at all and I don't know why you would want to use it at all. It's a good thing you DIDN'T pay someone for that. I'm actually going to be shooting an old friend again tomorrow, it's been awhile since we shot last, but he actually saw some of my newer work and wanted to pay me for some. Hes not paying me 250, but less which I'm fine with. If a band is something you want to actually do, and get far with, you eventually need good pictures to get somewhere, and to get pictures you need to pay. It's just that simple.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2009 03:48
|
|
|
To change direction a little bit, I'm trying to design a MySpace page (and cringing every 5 seconds whilst doing it). Are there any automated ways of doing this other than using the MySpace site, also maybe desktop applications that you can manage it from? (For Mac, if possible)
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2009 05:06
|
|
|
As stated a bit earlier, I'm new to Photoshop and I'm conscious that I might be over-processing my photos. Do these look OK?  
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2009 12:55
|
|
|
Wow, this debate has gotten ridiculous, when it's really not a real debate, everyone is arguing different things. JohnnyC, there is a difference between overcharging and better ways to spend money. Just because you can think of other, possibly more beneficial ways to use $250 doesn't mean that it's overcharging. Why should someone who spent their own time learning a skill, buying equipment and practicing their craft not be paid accordingly for it? And yes they could easily "make money" from the photo, even if it doesn't get used in anything commercial. A good promo photo can make or break the chances of a local band getting a gig. Booking agents book a lot of their acts barely even paying attention to their music, but if you can put together a good looking package for them to show them you aren't just a bunch of dudes making noise, they'll book you. More shows = more money. The really lovely thing is that the people who do charge next to nothing for their shots, or constantly do people favors devalue the art as a whole. The more people that do this and undercut the people who do it for a living and it is their day job, the less people are going to be able to do that anymore. So for every person that's undercharging, another one might have to go back to a day job due to no fault of their own. Think of it that way.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2009 13:56
|
|
|
Xiphias posted:To change direction a little bit, I'm trying to design a MySpace page (and cringing every 5 seconds whilst doing it). Are there any automated ways of doing this other than using the MySpace site, also maybe desktop applications that you can manage it from? (For Mac, if possible) this. I haven't spent a whole lot of time trying to figure out myspace, but it seems like I just have to learn how to use css, to make it shiny and pro like Bottom Liner. Does anyone have a good tutorial site? edit: have you ever been approached by the venue to do capture the night life energy to promote the club as well? is there a market for this kind of promotion to go along with concert shots? AIIAZNSK8ER fucked around with this message at 14:20 on May 27, 2009 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2009 14:15
|
|
|
I'm seeing Todd Snider on June 6, and I can't loving wait to pull out all my new toys. 40D plus 50 f/1.4 should make for some great stuff, I'm sick of losing shots due to low light. If I could get the 85 f/1.2 I might be the happiest man alive...albeit the poorest.JohnnyC posted:Look - here's the press photo my band used up until we had a big lineup change.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2009 15:15
|
|
|
jackpot posted:If I could get the 85 f/1.2 I might be the happiest man alive...albeit the poorest.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2009 15:43
|
|
|
jackpot posted:You might as well take all your arguments and toss them out the window, after posting that picture as justification for your stance. But... black and white makes everything artistic and relevant!
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2009 16:23
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:EF 85mm f/1.8 USM.  I kid  Yeah, the 85 f/1.8 is high on my list; in fact if the 50 f/1.4 doesn't impress me enough I may sell it and trade up. Right now my 100mm f/2.8 is my go-to long lens, but if I could go a bit wider and faster? That's butter.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2009 17:14
|
|
|
JohnnyC posted:I know exactly how much a promo shot is worth, and the reason that I'm saying that you're overcharging if you charge $250 is that you're overcharging. Just because you drive a $400 1985 Corolla doesn't mean I was overcharged for my 2006 model. Different people have different needs. You certainly got what your promo shot was worth. You paid nothing, and you've gotten nothing. You and your band full of kids-having-fun-but-not-making-money need to find a student photographer who will shoot you for free. YOU would be overcharged if you paid $250 for a promo shot and got that photo in return. However, bands who are serious about doing it for a living, who want a photo they can submit in a press release without embarassment, should put some money into a photographer who knows what they're doing. They will be lit properly, from flattering angles, and get a selection of quality photos to choose from rather than the caliber snapshot you so smugly posted of your band. JohnnyC posted:Charge like you're lucky to be asked to do promo shots at all, because you really are. You are funny. A chance to be lucky enough to photograph your local band's DELICATE GENIUS for free! Where do I sign up?!
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2009 20:08
|
|
|
Out of curiosity, I was wondering what the bare minimum investment would be to get up and running with concert photography. I ended going with film because of the cheap equipment. Here's what I came up with: Equipment: Canon EOS A2E body: $80 Canon 50mm f/1.8: $100 2CR5 battery: $9 (Seriously, what the hell?) Sub total: $189 Film gear: Bulk roll of HP5+: $53 Bulk loader and 20 cartridges: $60 Kodak Xtol developer: $9 x 2 Stop bath: $6 Fixer: $10 Developing tank with two reels: $20 Graduated cylinder: $10 Negative sleeves: $20 Epson V500 scanner: $200 Sub total: $397 Total: $586 So there you have it. You can get a kick-rear end full-frame, low-light setup capable of running comfortably at EI3200 for less than the price of a used 40D body alone. The only downsides are that you won't be able to shoot hundreds of photos per show, fast cheap film is usually only black and white and it takes time to develop and scan the film. Also, there will be a continual investment in darkroom chemicals and film.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2009 00:50
|
|
|
HPL posted:Out of curiosity, I was wondering what the bare minimum investment would be to get up and running with concert photography. I ended going with film because of the cheap equipment. Here's what I came up with: HPL, I've seen TONS of shots from you and LOVE your film stuff. Where do you guys go and order your chemicals for the film? I believe freestyle has some, but just curious as to where you guys go. (sorry if this is a bit of a tangent) Reason why, is I've been shooting digital for... 4-5 years now. Only had a year of film before I switched over, then this semester had a class in film and started liking it a bit again. Since I already have some of the stuff to start doing film again, I thought I might want to start bringing my film camera along with me on my next couple of ventures.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2009 01:16
|
|
|
shudder posted:HPL, I've seen TONS of shots from you and LOVE your film stuff. Where do you guys go and order your chemicals for the film? I believe freestyle has some, but just curious as to where you guys go. (sorry if this is a bit of a tangent) I get my liquid chemicals (stop bath, fixer) from the local stores because in Canada there are crazy surcharges for shipping liquid chemicals. That's one reason why I like Xtol because it's a powder so there aren't any hassles with shipping and I can get it from anywhere (usually Henry's) and it keeps for ages as a powder. The problem is that when you're pushing film like crazy, you use stock undiluted developer with Xtol, so you burn through it pretty quickly. If you're finding that you're getting decent results at 800 or 1600, then HC-110 might be okay and one bottle of HC-110 lasts for ages because you dilute it so much. Definitely bring the film camera along for messing around. It takes a few tries before you get things just the way you like them both on the shooting end and the developing end. I find that for concerts, it helps to develop a half stop or one stop faster than what you shot at, like using the 3200 data for 1600. Again, it's all in the experimentation because there are a lot of variables unique to your setup, where you shoot and how you shoot and develop.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2009 01:52
|
|
|
HPL posted:Out of curiosity, I was wondering what the bare minimum investment would be to get up and running with concert photography. I ended going with film because of the cheap equipment. Here's what I came up with: Honesty I know a lot of people who got a body and a 50mm and rode that for months before investing in any other lenses. The big reason for digital is mostly the shot potential. It's so much easier to fire away and widdle down later on. I started on film shooting shows and hated the hassle of trying to change rolls of film in the pit on limited time. The sad thing is that it sort of gets the young and learning photographers away from understanding the real concept of exposure which is really important for concerts. Seriously though, you could easily get started for the same price of all that film gear. One could certainly find a starter SLR and 50mm for that price. It won't be a 40D in quality, but it's certainly usable. The rebel line and the D40 are no slouches for the price.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2009 03:30
|
|
|
The problem with low budget digital is that it's not going to look quite as good at ISO3200.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2009 07:43
|
|
|
psylent posted:As stated a bit earlier, I'm new to Photoshop and I'm conscious that I might be over-processing my photos. Do these look OK? I quite like these shots' composition, but I think maybe they're a little too washed out? Like, they need to be "warmer" - it looks like the colour's faded a bit? The skin on the performers looks a little too light.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2009 10:09
|
|
|
 There we go, a little bit warmer. I'll try not to zombify my band photos
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2009 10:59
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:The problem with low budget digital is that it's not going to look quite as good at ISO3200. Certainly true, though I never shoot at 3200 with my 40D anyway. 1600 is always the highest I'll go.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2009 13:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 01:41 |
|
|
jackpot posted:f/1.8? Great, why not just hand me the kit lens? The EF 85mm f/1.8 is a must for live concert photography on a budget. I'm sure having the flexibility of knowing you can go down to f/1.2 would be nice, but I wouldn't consider trading up unless I found it for absurdly cheap. It's probably the lens I use most, especially in situations where I'm in the crowd. Here's a couple of 85mm Death Cab shots from earlier in the month, just because:  
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2009 14:14
|
|
