The owner of the nightclub I shoot fashion runway shows asked me to give him a quote on shooting at his club at night. Maybe shoot 2-3hrs. Shoot his club to revamp his current pic stock, and also shoot the action in the club at night.
My price quote would include unlimited shots for a night, editing as needed and a cd of resized shots for web posting and email.
I have a price in mind but would like to here your opinions on this matter.
I would not charge hourly, or offer unlimited photos as I think it devalues your work. I would charge a minimum of $50/shot with a 10 shot minimum. Then I would take several times as many shots and deliver the best of the best.
This is sort of an interesting question... Most people shooting nightlife are getting literally insultingly low pay.... $50 to $75 for the 2-3 hours. The last time I even looked at my cameras for that pay was in high school. In other circumstances, depending on your market and situation, it's barely justifiable, but when you consider the added risk of drunks, higher crime, crowded clubs, etc, there's no way I would risk my gear.
On the other side of the coin, there are very, very few club owners willing to pay much more than that. They can post an ad on Craigslist and get 30 responses overnight. Shooting nightlife is among the "easier" disciplines of photography and often doesn't require a professional.
If he values photography and your work, you have a little more room to negotiate. Only you can decide what your time is worth though... every market, every individual, every situation will be different.
Interesting response, Jonathan H. In your post you say that shooting nightlife is easy, that is does not really require a professional (I agree) and that few club owners are willing to pay much more than $25/hour for a photographer. But then you also say that the pay is insultingly low. To me, low pay is consistent with easy work that does not require a professional. So perhaps the pay is on par with the value intrinsic to this type of work?
In following with this logic, I'd say $25/hour is pretty decent for this type of work (asusming that few shots require much post-processing as the photographer should be shooting on P most of the time). Keep in mind that the average high school teacher does not make $25/hour, and yet teaching is considered a profession and is typically not considered to be easy.
The only problem is that the club owner could reasonably see more than $75 worth of revenue from displaying these photos (if 4 people decide to go to this club over another from viewing its photos on some website, then the club owner has already won), so the club owner is getting a lot for a little.
Thanks for the comments everyone. I have submitted my proposal to the club owner...waiting for a reply. I will post final numbers once there is a commitment. Then we'll really have some feedback here! :0
I think for 1/each venue, 2-3 hours of work, no commitment in number of images, maybe 50-100 unique images, basic post-edit (simple crop, color, etc.), only website or personal usage (no publication or editorial) should regularly pay $200-300. Thats what I used to get paid for doing concerts, bar, lounges and clubs. I dont do them much anymore as I find it a little stressful sometimes to annoy strangers with bright flashes.
I do a lot of club shooting. I personally happen to like it quite a bit. Not a real source of income, but it has it's benefits.
- The owners let me shoot there when the clubs aren't open. Clubs can make for great location shoots.
- I find models for other shoots.
- I've gotten a lot of work from regulars who love my work and want me to shoot their own events.
The comments about what owers will pay is quite accurate. There are a lot of places that won't pay more than $50 for the night, and have no trouble finding kids who will shoot it for that. I get paid al lot more, not near my normal rate- But I have a LOT of fun doing it, so it's worth it too me.
I still have not heard back from the club owner....However, the fashion girl I have been shooting for, for free...just to get her exposure...has agreed after my proposal to her to now pay for my work! I didn't want to keep shooting for free.
It will be $100.00 per fashion show which is about 2hrs, random and posed shots in the back changing area, shoot her fashion show 2 to 3 runs, cd with edited/resized/watermarked shots.
Also, we worked out a deal to shoot for an hour at her boutique on the weekend(day and time TBD) for $40.00.....small handful shots of her model/friend with some dresses.
I have been shooting clubs for over 2 years now, its quick and easy cash and as others have stated i have gotten alot of work from shooting there, i have booked 5 weddings so far for the 2009 season, landed a job with a major broadcasting company which in turn landed a contract with sony/bmg so i would have to say the low paying club did pay off in the end.
it started off paying 125 a night with all the drinks i could consume, but thats not such a huge benefit for me as i am not a drinker, as the economy went downhill so did the pay! they cut back to 75 a night then to 50 a night.........then i got tired of extremely low pay and just got out of it all together.
the newest trend here in providence for the clubs now is they purchased their own gear and shoot their own events now!
mdude85 wrote:
Wow, 125 to 50, what a drop!!!
Thats why i have dropped all club and event work right now, nobody wants to pay everything is supposed to be free in our world to them!
Studio20> nobody wants to pay everything is supposed to be free in our world to them!
I've had a few people over the years who had the badly mistaken idea that digital was somehow 'free'. One potential client who started down that track drew my ire and I decided to respond instead of ignoring him. After he said that I should charge *less* for digital than film (because the cost of film no longer applied) I took out a napkin and did a rough cost estimate of digital bodies vs film bodies, etc. I also showed him my costs for film and processing for a 36-exposure roll (times however many rolls it took). By the time we were done he had very slightly revised his opinion, and because of that I decided he was not somebody I wanted to shoot for ... so I took my napkin and bid him farewell.
Best,
Andy
AndyKellett wrote:
After he said that I should charge *less* for digital than film (because the cost of film no longer applied) I took out a napkin and did a rough cost estimate of digital bodies vs film bodies, etc. I also showed him my costs for film and processing for a 36-exposure roll (times however many rolls it took). By the time we were done he had very slightly revised his opinion, and because of that I decided he was not somebody I wanted to shoot for ...
What was the outcome? Was digital less or more expensive than film according to your napkin calculation?
I didn't want to keep shooting for free.