Someone should explain to him the concepts of fixed assets and depreciation.
Heading out to send a package. Hope FedEx doesn't charge me for the cost of a commercial jet
Amen.
I think we should send copies of this article when we decline to work for "free" - which actually COSTS us in gas money , printing, mailing, computer time to respond, irritation, etc.
Sandy
Posted by Luke Ormand on January 12, 2012 at 11:14 AM
Ok - here's a question. How much was he paid to write the article? Without his $6,612 photo he would have nothing to write about, so shouldn't the cost be $6,612 + time spent writing the article? If he wanted to create that article, from scratch, photo included - that's how much it would cost, yet he had no problem writing an article for far far less.
I get what he is saying and yea you need to be use sensationalism to catch peoples attention but it's a silly arguement and I don't think he is really accomplishing much. The culture of asking for freebies won't be changed by trying to argue that a photo cost you $6,000 to make.
Posted by Jim Bullard on January 12, 2012 at 12:17 PM
Unfortunately we live in an era of hyperbole and sometimes it seems like nothing less will get people's attention. The world of marketing does not operate on subtlety.
Posted by Howard Cheek on January 12, 2012 at 12:27 PM
Great article, thanx for posting it.
And the author never said he wanted over 6 grand for the image..
Just not for free.
Interesting "take" on it, and one which we had to confront in our business.
We have to accurately track our time and costs for contract photography. Setting rates for "billable" hours goes waaaaaaaaaaay beyond paying ourselves an hourly wage on which we support our household.
Our hourly shooting fees and image processing charges have to include contributions to studio mortgage, utilities, insurance, vehicle wear and tear, replacement of cameras and lenses and computers and updating software, advertising, retirement, and a contingency fund. Lotta folks charge little or no more than a basic hourly wage, but go broke really fast. We charge as much as architects and engineers, and manage to stay in business while covering all those costs on top of a basic hourly wage.
In terms of net income, stock photography can be little more than a casual sideline for us.
We may not be charging $6k for a photo, but by tracking and recovering costs in our billing structure over 20 years we've paid for a commercial building and built a substantial retirement account. As we near retirement (very close to it now), we'll have income from lease of the building or cash from the outright sale, as well as that retirement account. I know a small handful of photographers that have made a living from stock, but I don't know of any that managed simultaneously to build a comfortable retirement. It's all in cost recovery and business planning, considerations that thankfully caused us to look for alternatives to stock those 20 years ago.
Posted by Phillip Noll on January 12, 2012 at 2:52 PM
Wow. The comments below the article show the HUGE problem we (photographers) are up against. People are idiots!!
Posted by Walter Rowe on January 12, 2012 at 2:55 PM
Hank - you and your wife should teach a course on running a successful photography studio and business that takes all of those factors into account. I bet you guys could make a comfortable retirement income traveling and speaking using your decades of experience and proven success.
That sounds like work rather than "retirement" Walter!
There's actually no secret involved, rather a different business model. The bottom line for us is that 20 years ago income from stock was insufficient to pay all the expenses of collecting and marketing it, as well as covering our basic living costs and accruing a retirement. And it's worse today! So we decided to build a business around clients that paid us to TAKE photos rather than buying existing photos from our files.
This will sound absolutely crazy, but even with stock at today's bargain prices, contractors continue to pay our minimum rate of $175/hr plus expenses, and often much more depending on the complexity of the shoot. They put very little value in stock images, but great value in photos of their own operation- often used along with a few cheap stock photos.
I've continued thinking about the $6k photo in the article and looking at our past year for contracts with comparable income. And the reality is stranger than fiction. No, we weren't paid $6k for one photo, but we were paid even more for a 3-day shoot. As with building a stock photo business, it takes a long time to build a shooting business such as ours. And the early years can be lean. But there is simply lots more money in being paid to TAKE photos than in selling existing photos.
No, it's not "nature" photography all the time, and yes, we often have to take photos of things that don't really interest us. But in the end it's photography, and when the bills are all paid we get to use that same gear and sometimes interesting locations to take nature photos in our spare time. In that regard we're using our "real" job to support our nature photography just like so many others here on NPN, even if our real job requires using a shutter release.
Posted by Andy Richards on January 15, 2012 at 9:59 AM
I agree with the sentiment that the argument was not very well made, and thus, makes it weaker. But the point is still there. My amazement is the comments from (presumably) photographers and non- alike. Lots of ignorance out there!
Discussion
10 replieshttp://www.petapixel.com/2012/01/10/this-photograph-is-not-free/
Heading out to send a package. Hope FedEx doesn't charge me for the cost of a commercial jet
Guy
I think we should send copies of this article when we decline to work for "free" - which actually COSTS us in gas money , printing, mailing, computer time to respond, irritation, etc.
Sandy
I get what he is saying and yea you need to be use sensationalism to catch peoples attention but it's a silly arguement and I don't think he is really accomplishing much. The culture of asking for freebies won't be changed by trying to argue that a photo cost you $6,000 to make.
And the author never said he wanted over 6 grand for the image..
Just not for free.
We have to accurately track our time and costs for contract photography. Setting rates for "billable" hours goes waaaaaaaaaaay beyond paying ourselves an hourly wage on which we support our household.
Our hourly shooting fees and image processing charges have to include contributions to studio mortgage, utilities, insurance, vehicle wear and tear, replacement of cameras and lenses and computers and updating software, advertising, retirement, and a contingency fund. Lotta folks charge little or no more than a basic hourly wage, but go broke really fast. We charge as much as architects and engineers, and manage to stay in business while covering all those costs on top of a basic hourly wage.
In terms of net income, stock photography can be little more than a casual sideline for us.
We may not be charging $6k for a photo, but by tracking and recovering costs in our billing structure over 20 years we've paid for a commercial building and built a substantial retirement account. As we near retirement (very close to it now), we'll have income from lease of the building or cash from the outright sale, as well as that retirement account. I know a small handful of photographers that have made a living from stock, but I don't know of any that managed simultaneously to build a comfortable retirement. It's all in cost recovery and business planning, considerations that thankfully caused us to look for alternatives to stock those 20 years ago.
There's actually no secret involved, rather a different business model. The bottom line for us is that 20 years ago income from stock was insufficient to pay all the expenses of collecting and marketing it, as well as covering our basic living costs and accruing a retirement. And it's worse today! So we decided to build a business around clients that paid us to TAKE photos rather than buying existing photos from our files.
This will sound absolutely crazy, but even with stock at today's bargain prices, contractors continue to pay our minimum rate of $175/hr plus expenses, and often much more depending on the complexity of the shoot. They put very little value in stock images, but great value in photos of their own operation- often used along with a few cheap stock photos.
I've continued thinking about the $6k photo in the article and looking at our past year for contracts with comparable income. And the reality is stranger than fiction. No, we weren't paid $6k for one photo, but we were paid even more for a 3-day shoot. As with building a stock photo business, it takes a long time to build a shooting business such as ours. And the early years can be lean. But there is simply lots more money in being paid to TAKE photos than in selling existing photos.
No, it's not "nature" photography all the time, and yes, we often have to take photos of things that don't really interest us. But in the end it's photography, and when the bills are all paid we get to use that same gear and sometimes interesting locations to take nature photos in our spare time. In that regard we're using our "real" job to support our nature photography just like so many others here on NPN, even if our real job requires using a shutter release.