Empire wrote:
The same goes for pricing photographic services.
In the mind of the buyer, more often than not you are only worth what you charge.
Same goes for bands, artists etc etc
Yes, I agree. One of the biggest mistakes beginning photographers make is charging too little and consequently being perceived as offering the level of service/quality that little money would buy.
In the mass market, that makes sense. The average consumer is a brainwashed cretin with an SUV and acid reflux. "You get what you pay for" has become drilled into skulls for so long that it is now the catch-all slogan of the Consumerist-Capitalist manifesto, and it has more relevance, meaning, and emotional impact than the 10 Commandments.
I would have expected more here in the uber-intelligent microcosm of the FM Alt. Forum.
But, alas, being intelligent doesn't mean one will always be right.
My wife and I will continue to offer quality photographic services at prices that will not contribute to someone's ongoing and deepening debt. Stupid? That's our call.
Lenses like the Rokinon simply make it easier for us to do so.
@Paul:
Well, I think we are all out there looking for quality bargains else we would not even be talking about this lens.
I would say "conditioned through prior experience" rather than brainwashed but ya, I definitely hear where your coming from. Pricing considerations must be different somewhat in Canada vs. the U.S. if, for no other reason, a photographer has to figure out a way just to cover things like healthcare, education for the family, etc. (no, I'm not going there again) that perhaps are not concerns in other countries/markets. A beginning photographer here likely has no clue what their actual overhead is when everything is totaled up.
It's not hard to imagine why people feel justified in charging way more than we do for photography. They think great photos require $20,000-$50,000 worth of gear. Just like they think they require a $50,000 vehicle to get from point A to point B.
I simply don't accept any of that, and my customers get a good deal because of it. I'm convinced that nothing should cost even close to what it does, and that most people have no idea what the true cost (or value) of anything really is.
I have no doubt that we could charge double for our services. I also have no doubt that many of our customers would have opted not to have photos if they had not found an affordable service. And, finally, I know that the customers who would have taken their place wouldn't have been nearly as nice to work with.
Thanks Paul for the GREAT series of shots, your wife is clearly a very good photographer.
I'm sorely tempted by the Samyang (Rokinon does not seem to be available in UK).
I got rid of my 85/2.8 sonnar in preference for AF on a bargin Canon 100/2. I found the AF to be quick and lens OK but not spectacular and I can't seem to get my head around the issue of placing AF point focussing and recomposing it's a PITA.
That said, I doubt I could get anywhere near the shot's you've posted, the colour, bokeh, lighting, model and location all combine perfectly.
pdmphoto wrote:
The Nikon F,AI 85/1.8 manual lens has the best color, bokeh, sharpness, and least amount of CA - of any 85mm lens I've used. I might have to get a Rokinon and do some tests now. I'd also like to answer the unanswered question of whether this lens is truly f/1.4?
I have to agree. The Pre-AI 85/1.8 is such an amazing lens. Swirl, not a hint of CA and sharp as a scalpel.
I don't hold back anything. If they want a print package, they get a print package. If they want fully processed, full-res JPEGs on a DVD, fine with me. Not many of them want the RAWs, but they are welcome to them, if they do. Some people opt for all three formats. I sell my time, not media.
^You are selling your intellectual property outright, not just selling the rights to use your images for a specific purpose, time, etc. - as is custom- but rather giving them a complete rights buyout.
I don't think handing over full res files is equivalent to handing over all rights,
but of course it would be wise to specify to the client exactly what rights are
granted (unlimited prints at any size, and non-commercial distribution of the files,
for example).
Paul,
You and your wife have a good base of photos to lure customers with already.
Nice work! I wish you success. Is this your only day gig?
I have a Rokinon on it's way from Cameta Camera even now.
We'll see how it performs on my 5D. My standard will be the CZ 85/2.8 Sonnar,
at any aperture greater than 2.8:
I don't think handing over full res files is equivalent to handing over all rights,
but of course it would be wise to specify to the client exactly what rights are
granted (unlimited prints at any size, and non-commercial distribution of the files,
for example).
Paul,
You and your wife have a good base of photos to lure customers with already.
Nice work! I wish you success. Is this your only day gig?
Tim
It is not but, unless Paul were to state in the contract what he is selling (for instance, specific rights of use to an image as you state), he is potentially opening himself up to a mess of future problems. It could easily be construed - and argued - by a reasonable person that they were under the impression that they could do with the images whatever they wanted since the photographer gave them the raw files (the digital equivalent of the negative) and stated what he charged for was time. We (Photographers) don't sell media but we don't sell time either. We sell rights of usage to the intellectual property we create. It's usually never a good idea when pricing photography to have the client associate how much money they are being charged with the time involved, as if we were hourly workers at McDonalds or Wal-Mart. We price by how and what the images are used for hence the rights model.
Paul, of course, can do whatever the hell he wants and feels comfortable with. Just stating custom practice and a few reasons why it is that way.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
It is not but, unless Paul were to state in the contract what he is selling (for instance, specific rights of use to an image as you state), he is potentially opening himself up to a mess of future problems. It could easily be construed - and argued - by a reasonable person that they were under the impression that they could do with the images whatever they wanted since the photographer gave them the raw files (the digital equivalent of the negative) and stated what he charged for was time. We (Photographers) don't sell media but we don't sell time either. We sell rights of usage to the intellectual property we create. It's usually never a good idea when pricing photography to have the client associate how much money they are being charged with the time involved, as if we were hourly workers at McDonalds or Wal-Mart. We price by how and what the images are used for hence the rights model.
Paul, of course, can do whatever the hell he wants and feels comfortable with. Just stating custom practice and a few reasons why it is that way.
Unfortunately while tis approach is correct under US law, in Canada the customer DOES own the rights to the images unless the contract specifies otherwise. If you're getting paid to be there, you are doing 'Work for Hire' and whoever hired you owns the resulting images. You would need to have specific language in the contract to handle things as you suggest and even then it could be rather iffy given the differing assumptions.
Paul's take that he's being paid for his time and effort is exactly how Canadian Law handles this, there is no Image Use model in Canada unless you have a custom contract or are shooting on your own dime.
mawz wrote:
Unfortunately while tis approach is correct under US law, in Canada the customer DOES own the rights to the images unless the contract specifies otherwise. If you're getting paid to be there, you are doing 'Work for Hire' and whoever hired you owns the resulting images. You would need to have specific language in the contract to handle things as you suggest and even then it could be rather iffy given the differing assumptions.
Paul's take that he's being paid for his time and effort is exactly how Canadian Law handles this, there is no Image Use model in Canada unless you have a custom contract or are shooting on your own dime. ...Show more →
Wow, that is shocking to me. The "Work for Hire" clause is automatically assumed under Canadian law? Ouch. Exact opposite assumption as applies in the U.S. I would have thought that international copyright law would have some how covered intellectual property in the instance of a photographer creating images in Canada, particularly in the case of a freelance photographer.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
^You are selling your intellectual property outright, not just selling the rights to use your images for a specific purpose, time, etc. - as is custom- but rather giving them a complete rights buyout.
Yes. I am. Our contract states that we reserve the right to use the images for promotional purposes. Otherwise, I couldn't care less what a B&G does with their wedding photos, or what a shop owner does with their photos of shoes or coffee beans, or whatever...
When I hire someone to install a door in my house, I don't expect to pay every time I use the door. When someone hires me to shoot photos for them, they don't expect to pay me every time they use them.
Many people don't even want prints these days, or prefer to get them done themselves. Who am I to refuse that option? The photos are theirs, not mine. I don't even want them. One couple this summer couldn't quite afford 8 hours of coverage for their wedding, but the guy said he was interested in doing all the post-processing work himself. So we sold them an 8 hour "RAW only" package for the price of 6 hours. They were a great couple and we really wanted to work with them, so we figured out a way to make it work. I couldn't care less what he does with the RAW files. In the end, I ended up giving them over 600 fully processed JPEGs and a web-gallery along with the RAWs. That's just the kind of guy I am.
You and your wife have a good base of photos to lure customers with already.
Nice work! I wish you success. Is this your only day gig?
Tim
Thanks Tim, we appreciate you saying so.
No, I work full-time. My salary is enough to carry "the whole shebang" with not much left over. My wife does free-lance work for local newspaper/magazines and we both do various portrait, product, etc. work as well. We also do some volunteer photography at our kids' school and a few local cultural events. During the wedding season, we "passively" pick up a handful (or less) of weddings by word of mouth. We don't market ourselves at all. We don't want to be too busy, because we want to continue to enjoy it as much as possible. It is not a "business" for us. We feel that is the key to the quality and good service we provide. Every wedding we have done has been a total blast and has resulted in some lasting friendships with the B&Gs. Never met a Bridezilla yet, and would refuse the work if/when she does come along.
Well, I don't have near the talent of you or your wife so if I get half the results from this lens then I will be happy Just waiting on cameta now.....
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Wow, that is shocking to me. The "Work for Hire" clause is automatically assumed under Canadian law? Ouch. Exact opposite assumption as applies in the U.S. I would have thought that international copyright law would have some how covered intellectual property in the instance of a photographer creating images in Canada, particularly in the case of a freelance photographer.
Canada is out of line with most of the rest of the world on this issue. IIRC a bill was put forward to harmonize the law in this country with most of its peers, but that fell with the last Liberal government.
But it shouldn't matter, because even if you feel you're covered by those rights that are assigned by default in the jurisdiction you're working in, you should still be laying them out explicitly in a signed contract.
Just waiting on cameta now.....