|
From the perspective of someone who's not only in a band but also reviews bands and does the layout for a campus newspaper, can I please recommend not going crazy with the processing if the band doesn't ask for it specifically? Don't surprise them with it and then watch their reactions like you just did an Extreme Home Makeover for them. Of course they'll act surprised and pleased - they've never seen anything like it before. They've never looked like this! It's crazy! That response is from the novelty of it and completely unrelated to the aesthetic quality of the photo. These bands are going to be older than their early twenties someday. Don't make them look back on pictures from their salad days and then put them somewhere that the kids can't get at them. In fact, if they ask you to hyper-process the photos, just lie and say you did! They probably won't know the difference! Instead of processing a photo to death and giving it to a band, just take a competent photo that makes the band look interesting. That way, you've not only taken a decent picture, but you've given the band a supreme advantage. Think of it from their perspective - they get this and then it has to go on their website, on their one-sheet and hopefully in any articles that get written about them. If they have a cool picture, it's going to wind up printed and referenced and disseminated like any of their other media. And here's the other thing about prioritizing interesting photos over heavy processing - there are a lot of bands out there, and almost all of them have some manner of press photos. Do you realize how many of those press photos are four guys brooding in an urban environment? Don't stand them up against a brick wall. Don't sit them down on a staircase. Don't ever, ever let them brood. Would you normally take a picture of a brick wall or of a staircase? What's a legitimately interesting environment for a person? What can you do for this band that you haven't ever actually seen? If you're charging hundreds of dollars for this (which is highway robbery, by the way, but I won't even get into that here), they better goddamn well get their money's worth, and it's your job to ensure that they do.
|
#
¿
May 26, 2009 10:36
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 05:10 |
|
|
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
|
|
|
I'm completely in favour of downloading music so I don't get your meaning?
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2009 20:45
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 05:10 |
|
|
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
|
|