I usually place photographers into one of three groupings according to how expensive I think they might be to work with. I’m not talking about the creative fee because that usually stays relatively the same for everyone. The expenses are where the total cost for a shoot can vary wildly.
Low budget photographers have little or no rental and digital fees, no assistant, will drive 500 miles to save a couple bucks on airfare or even make 3 connections and endure several hour layovers, eat cheap fast food, rent compact cars and sleep in dive hotels or sometimes a ditch.
The medium budget photographers have rental and digital fees but are usually flexible and just looking to not get stiffed. They fly coach but it needs to be on specific airlines where they can upgrade to first class or collect miles. They always have an assistant but might be willing to use a local, eat sushi, rent SUV’s and stay in a nice hotel.
The high budget photographers hire a grip truck, have a preferred retoucher on speed dial, they fly first class and always travel with their 1st/digi-tech and need a second from LA or NY and a third could possibly be a local if they absolutely have to. They always have catering on set and then eat room service, rent 2 SUV’s (one for the assistants and gear) and only stay in hotels from a list they approve and sometimes with a specific room request.
How do I know what category you’re in? By looking at your photography.
Many times I won’t even call photographers because I know they’re going to be high budget and the shoot just isn’t worth that kind of money (vagueness by the editor about the number of pages available or even if it will ever run is usually a good clue). Sometimes, I get myself in trouble and the low budget photographer is actually high budget. That can cause a lot of tension as I try and hack away at the expenses.
Some of the high or medium budget photographers will say “hey, why don’t you call me for shoots like that that one you did with *low budget* photographer I’ll be flexible” but once we get down to an estimate the expenses always seem end back up where I didn’t want them to be.
I’m not sure what the cost of a photographers plane ticket has to do with their level of photography but I assume it’s their willingness to say no.
45 Comments
I have worked closely with all 3. And usually disgusted by the high end/ high on the hog guy/girl. The money that is actually wasted is enough to feed a 3rd world nation for a year. And that is just on one shoot. The most dusgusting was racking up a $25k expsense bill for a weekly mag’s cover.
That’s why I like my low end guy. Because once he had a taste of the big budget shoots. We made every penny count and it lead to a very lucritive relationship. And every time he delivered, it just scarred me when we stayed in that convetion center in waaaaaaay north miami where there was blood on the lampshade!
List post made me laugh because of the backward truth of it. Rob, besides being able to say no, I think it comes down to two main things: 1) been there and doing it so many times that comfort becomes very important to mental health and productivity, 2) Pressure to produce the A++ work that’s presented in a portfolio and sustaining a high reputation for excellence.
Naturally there are other issues but …
so refreshing to hear! i find the conundrum being: are you really worth that +++10-20K as compared to the low budget photographer? i don’t think there necessarily is a connection between the quality of the work and the ‘big pimpin’ attitudes of some photographers. i also think that was possibly something you could get away with more in the past then you can today. there are more photographers on the scene, digital technology, and the decline in editorial budgets = the decline of the superstar photographer. your name as a photographer means less now than it did in the past… i think your work stands out now more than the name.
My AD and CD friends have a name for those who have to work with the super expensive shooters, and the term is not flattering. I think a good photographer is going to get what you want period. I don’t know that there is always a direct correlation.
A CD and a large agency in town once hired there dream photographer, and ended up with severely underexposed negatives (back in the film days). It cost them a fortune, and of course they were happy because they worked with their dream photographer. Never mind the work was sub-par. That was beside the point…
On the other hand, those that cut costs to the point of preventing themselves from delivering quality results on a consistent basis certainly exist.
Darn, I wish I could edit my comments. Please over look grammatical and typographical errors…
I should mention that all the genre’s are different. Photojournalists are generally all low budget and forget about finding a lifestyle photographer where the expenses don’t zoom past $20k. Impossible.
The worst is hiring the big budget photographer to shoot a big headed rapper who has to roll with a posse that’s 20 people deep, fly out an uncle who happens to be his barber and has dietary restrictions of fresh sashimi and bbq ribs. Yeah, it’s happened.
Laughing at thought of high budget photojournalist.
pretty interesting…i wonder how cheap i look;-) i better fix that right away. would rather go out of business not getting calls then out of business going broke shooting.
jay
haha there is the quote of the year “Photojournalists are generally all low budget”
it’s not that we strive to be low budget, it’s that hardly anyone is paying for documentary/PJ images these days. I’m dirt cheap myself, hell couple of california rolls and a sleeping bag and i’m happier than a pig in the proverbial.
I love working with PJ’s. They deserve way more then they get for the stories they deliver to us.
What I want to know…why is it that when I produce a job for us I can find good catering at $20 head but when I have the photographer (or producer) I am working with order it, it jumps to “Can’t be done for less that $50 a head”.
And I eat well. Real well.
In Europe it’s very unusual to get paid your food while on a editorial job. Hm. Should move to the US… ;)
You nailed low budget, its incredibly rewarding to work with almost nothing and come out on top. By choice. Forcing long nights sitting in trees, no assistant to do all the dirty work and eating incredibly shady local dive food brings out all the flavor of a shoot. I would feel spoiled and pigheaded to excessively charge, besides the fact that it is far from humbling. 95% of the work of a photographer is to be able to relate, communicate and meet your clients/models/athletes on a particular level. Rolling with more than 20k in expenses would be far from relating.. Maybe its just old fashioned New England work ethic and country living in the blood.
How do you justify the cost of comfort for mental health in the thousands of dollars. The connection between your finger and your brain is free and everyone has it. Some more clearly than others.
I’m pretty firmly in the middle category with elements of high from time to time. I will not do low anymore, unless it’s a really cool project or has great syndication potential.
I started off low and that was some of my most memorable times. For my first Rolling Stone job, I flew myself to Dallas and stayed with friends, and scouted for free, and borrowed gear, and got paid almost nothing, and it was totally worth it. Nobody with talent in a major market (I don’t know about pj people) stays low forever. Most start that way I would think, but it’s too tough after a while, and not neccesary.
And PE is right, it all has to do with your ability to say no.
I come from the school of under promise, and over deliver. Can you do that if you’re blowing the budget? I guess it really depends on the client and the perceived value.
A million years ago when I was 1st starting out I had a top notch designer, also a friend, do my biz cards, letter head, identity, etc. I made sure my promos, book & everything a client saw was super slick. One day I had a conversation with an AD from an agency I had been hitting up for work, it turned to why they hadn’t /wouldn’t hire me. I mentioned that they never asked for an estimate. She loved the work but said I obviously must be real expensive and obviously they couldn’t afford me since my promo’s etc were so top notch. ARRRRRR!
As a news/documentary shooter I think that my brethren fall into the class of the NO budget shooter. Our assignments are typically “Get there tomorrow and have the photos on my desk first thing the next day. Oh, and I guess you can charge me for mileage but remember to get a vertical for the cover along for the two page spread we need from this.” We have to make something out of nothing every time. If we have to stay in a sleeping bag and pack a sandwich from home to get the shots we will do it. We are passionate and resourceful. Yet it seems that we are discriminated against because we don’t typically work 3 assistants and two trucks of gear. Thus we won’t get picked to shoot stories where there is time and a budget. What can we/I do to overcome this prejudice?
@ 17. Jonathan: You know what? I never tell a photographer whether or not they can have an assistant and the low budget one’s always assume they can’t have one. Don’t think I don’t appreciate it either because many times low budget means low hassle for me and the subject and that’s what I need to get the job done. On the other hand if you want to break out of it you need to come into an assignment assuming you’re going to get all these things and showing a portfolio that feels a little more produced.
@17….you have to assert your worth. you want to do bigger produced jobs…you have to show that kind of work I would say.
from APE in 18:
“the low budget one’s always assume they can’t have one. ”
replace “one” with whatever you assume there isn’t budget for.
and then, ASK FOR IT.
This is something that took me a few jobs to learn when I started.
It’s not just about saying “no”. It’s also about having the confidence to ask for things and assert your needs.
you want me to spend half a day pulling clothes instead of hiring a stylist? sure but, i need to bill a production day,
you need digital? sure. but, i charge XXXX…..
You’re screwing yourself if you think it’s ok to work cheap.
the uncle charlie portrait photographer down the street knows how to make a living charging for his time and overheads,
You ever flown flights that were delayed 6 hours on connections, gotten your luggage lost, etc etc?
Try doing that more than 3 times and see whether you’re still thinking “oh I would do this for $500…”
Using passion as an excuse for low fees is a real joke. It brings everyone down and cheapens photography
Among photographers themselves, fine, we can always try to make things work.
But as a photo editor I’m sure you have some power to say “no it cannot be done for this kind of price and we need more money”
You would know that people will take advantage of you if they see they can take advantage of you
You can’t make a movie for less than a certain amount of money nowadays because everyone has to be paid properly. The accounts people seem to understand this and understand that they need to raise that sort of money before they can produce a movie.
Maybe a lesson to photographers.
Ultimately you’re going to get lower standards of photography, and your budget’s going to go south too as the pictures get less and less important to a magazine’s worth.
Vicious cycle.
What about low-budget photographers who create very convincing high-budget invoices? You know they’re out there.
I wonder what is the average pay for low/mid/high photographers per job/day? What is creative fee?
I think the prissy five-star hotel folks need to get some mental toughness and keep it real. I admire guys like Galen Rowell who take most of their shits while hanging 5000 feet off a vertical cliff. Now that takes some big balls. I know mine aren’t that big.
Dear Rob,
this is the first time I’ve ever heard such classification. I can’t agree with you about giving a value to photographers by their budgeting.
I’m still new in photography and don’t even have a camera, and I try and learn to work with integrity and high commitment. And I always try to save as much money as possible to be able to buy a camera someday myself instead of renting or borrowing one from friends. So, do people like me has the same value to you? What if any photo editors categorizing photographers like you? would people like me have chances, if our budgeting is also correlated with the quality?
I don’t know if you’ve ever worked with photographers in developing or poor country, where they have no value at all, but they has to have almost as much capital or money with people in western countries/rich countries? I’m one of them…
The other thing is I quite agree with you about “looking at your photographs” to see the quality… but I won’t, like I wrote above, correlate the quality with the budget. The budget makes thing possible, but maybe the “low budget” photographer would have the same quality if they have the chance, facility and possibility like those “high budget” photographers.
But I’m sure you have your own reason to categorize photographers like that.
Best regards
suryo wibowo
I’m at the starting gates of my photographic career and I know of a few cheap photographers, some that I’ve assisted. Two are no longer photographers and have admitted they felt cheeky to ask for a higher rate. What happened there?
I don’t think the quality of work will diminish for “some” magazines if they use “Mr Cheap Photographer” who can still produce similar work, but many photographers don’t really know how much they and their business are really worth and end up in trouble further on down the line.
For me its all about building good relations (that includes doing good business), producing damn good work and giving value to your client.
All the extra bling is a bonus if you can get away with it. You work for it, you earn it. I’ll be happy to stay in Hotel 31, NY. I’m a cheapskate from the UK.
“your name as a photographer means less now than it did in the past… i think your work stands out now more than the name.”
Sorry but the photo world is obsessed with “name” the whole sociology is based on it:
http://www.iphotocentral.com/news/news.php
let me think … yeah, I remember I went to my last shoot on my bicycle. ,-)
The more interesting point is why magazines are using ad and commercial photographers to shoot editorial. That sort of photography, its production values and budgets, its quest for eye-candy falsification and novelty, is not truthful communication. It is not journalism but seduction. At the same time, advertisers are often using PJ style images for credibility.
…oh and. A few years ago, Phillip Jones Griffiths remarked (in Russell Miller’s book ‘Magnum’) that the average annual income of Magnum probationers was $9,000. He wasn’t saying they were idiot cheapskates, but pointing to the lack of value that the market places on photojournalists, in this case some of the best in the world.
oh and #26 (is that you Dave?)… spot on. Half APE’s blogs are about presentation, about building perceptions, and this one – about budget – is no different. All of this is demonstrably much more important than the work, as the interesting little social experiment at http://www.flickr.com/photos/andrerabelo/70458366 showed.
Thank you Rob for an interesting post. It totally got me thinking about each of my clients individually and how I may be perceived in relation to costs. The three categories in your post may be over-simplified, but it really is an important perspective, as is the discussion here.
I think that the factors determining when a photographer says no can be varied and sometimes unrelated to cost.
I wonder if any photographers out there have categorized clients in a similar way. That would make for some interesting discussion too :)
@ 28: In answer to your question re why ad and commercial photogs are hired to shoot editorial, its because they want to sell magazines. Do you want James Nachtwey shooting a portrait of Jessica Alba? Would James even do it? No one wants to see an unretouched beauty shot of a model in Marie Claire. It would ruin the fantasy that the mag is selling. And trutheful communications has nothing to do with glossy mags, at least in the US. Save that stuff for the Times and the Euro picture mags like Stern and Spiegel. US Mags sell fantasy lifestyles that are unatainable for 90% of the readers. Ad and commercial shooters (like myself) are more akin to illustrators than documentarians, creating the fantasy images.
Some of you wrongly assumed I said low budget photography is bad. I may have unintentionally implied it but it’s not. All the low budget photographers I hire are good. The takehome pay is the same for low and medium and even sometimes high. In the commercial world that’s not the case. There, the creative fees change with the perception of how expensive you will be to work with.
@ 29 Tony: That Magnum number is bullshit. It may be that the older guys like Philip are getting that but I’ve personally paid several dozen Magnum photographers $5k-$10k for a single assignment.
@32. That was precisely my point. However this understanding shows where the difference truly lays. APE consistently seems to suggest budget and quality are in some way linked and it is up to photographers to position themselves where they want to be in the continuum, sustained by appropriate props – the exotic portfolio presentation, the website of a certain look, even the right sort of email, etc. Of course there is a price stratification/pecking order within different types of photography, but a low-budget ad photographer will never be found sleeping in doorways like Koudhelka.
It’s an apples and pears comparison, and one I find slightly disturbing. The connection between excellence and reward is so tenuous as to be almost arbitrary. Other art eds will read this blog and take from it that these are necessary indicators that someone is or is not a good photographer.
Why not just look at the bloody photographs? Well, the Flickr experiment shows that few people are actually all that capable of seeing what is, they rely on cues and prompts if they are available. HCB = must be good, and Deleteme if they didn’t know who took it. The photo doesn’t change, only the perception. Then how much does the photo matter at all?
Just think of that : our financial viability, what work gets done, how, and who by, largely depends on people who are so massively uneducated and insecure at what they’re doing that they will take one look at your portfolio and if it’s crummy Rymans vinyl rather than hand-bound leather they already made their mind up and you’re doomed to a life of flipping burgers. The exact same photos backed by a super-cool looking web design, and you’re away club-class with lobster for supper.
Anyhow, that’s my thesis : that photojournalism is dead not thanks to TV or an overweening cultural myopia that favours marketing over useful information. Nobody even looked at the photos, it’s due to PJ’s having bad dress sense.
Love this post but the same can be said of clients. You have some clients that act like they need high budget then you get them the estimate that is required to produce the work they need and they ask you to sleep in a ditch.
I once had a client for a food rag I was shooting some portraits for go cheep fast. On the set the client canceled the sandwiches that was going to be delivered for Jack in the Box 99 cent tacos.
Thing is that there are costs to run your business and your costs are your costs and that’s it. I don’t fly first class all the time but if the budget is there then cool if it’s not then cool.
If you’re going to be open and honest with your clients you’re going to be clear in your communication. This means telling them what is needed to produce the results. Maybe you don’t need your digital tech and can use a local one but if it’s required that you use your crew to get the results then you hire your crew and thats that.
If you explain what is required to get the shoot and don’t jive your client they’ll appreciate it and the end result will be strong images that sell and happy client.
#33. I don’t think PJG was bullshitting at all. At the time that was written Magnum was still trying to concentrate on the purist PJ that made its reputation. In any event, he wasn’t saying ‘all’ Magnum probationers earn that little, but a majority. Of course they joined the agency to improve on this, but he cited it as a benchmark of how little PJ was valued commercially.
Since then Magnum has changed course dramatically, out of financial necessity because what it was supplying the market did not want sufficiently. Of course PJG is a fundamentalist advocate of concerned, social, political PJ here and less than keen on the transition. He recently remarked of Magnum that ‘the barbarians are within the walls, for sure’. But they will be better paid.
@ Tony: You said average pay so that includes everyone. There’s no doubt in my mind that several of those photographers make next to nothing every year but the average is much higher. I’ll ask.
You also underestimate how difficult it is to hire photographers. It’s a business. Museums and patrons and grants exist for photographer who aren’t interested in treating it a such. Koudelka doesn’t take commissions by choice. He’s not willing to treat photography as a business.
Taking great photos and taking great photos on assignment under a predetermined set of circumstances are completely different things. Looking at your portfolio to see if you treat it like a business is one test we use so is showing up on time and your appearance. It helps me determine what assignments to pair you up with. Wandering the countryside with gypsies is different than a 10 min. picture with the president.
Tastes change too. The public is no longer interested in certain styles of photography so it can’t be supported by magazines and advertising agencies. Do you think I should shove it down the editor and reader and publishers throats?
It’s awfully ignorant to think that companies who use marketing to reach and profit off an audience would not appreciate a little marketing from contributors trying to reach them.
@34: PJ is mostly dead because the public doesn’t want to see it, not because PJ’s can’t sepend $250 at House of Portfolio for a leather 11×14.
@ Rob – “Tastes change too. The public is no longer interested in certain styles of photography so it can’t be supported by magazines and advertising agencies. Do you think I should shove it down the editor and reader and publishers throats?”
I disagree with this statement regarding the public not being interested in certain styles. I think one could say that because most photography that the public sees is the same style and that those in charge of hiring are playing it safe and continuing to hire the photographers with the same look.
How often do we see work thats a rip off of Fiscus and Terry Richardson? If the look fits to sell the product use it but if the public does not know there are other looks out there they’re not going to ask for it. Kinda like the music industry.
Again look at Terry Richardson, I’m sure that he’s professional but I doubt he’s gonna show up on a set all prim and proper.
Personally I’m ready for the over sharpened CG looking crap to end.
Those in charge of hiring have had Magnum photographers shoots thrown in the garbage can by the editor. I’ve also had advertisers complain bitterly about their ads running next to certain types of photography and threaten to pull all of it out of the book. If the public didn’t care Life magazine would still be around.
After re-reading I understand what you meant now. I though you were referring to the public not caring about what styles of photography are printed.
@40 “I’ve also had advertisers complain bitterly about their ads running next to certain types of photography and threaten to pull all of it out of the book. If the public didn’t care Life magazine would still be around.”
Indeed, but I don’t think you can roll together the interests of advertisers and the public. They are not synonymous, and the relationship between journalism and advertising is to an extent inherently adversarial. Certainly I have worked on magazines where advertiser opposition to editorial content led to ad bookings being cancelled (25k GBP on one occasion). I wrote and photographed a feature that criticised a major automotive company for rotten service, on the back of many reader complaints and my own experience. Dealers were furious and the manufacturer’s PR dept would not talk to me for 2 years and pressured the admirably unrepentant editor. However he was eventually ‘gone freelance’ after we managed to upset 4 of the 5 major advertisers in the course of a year. His circulation was doing fine, the public appreciated it, but the board’s duty is to shareholders. Right there, you have a point of compromised interests that no publisher escapes, and it leads to the advertiser tail wagging the dog.
Of course I understand what you’re saying regarding photographers treating what they do as a business and being professional, it’s sine-qua-non.
The fashion factor is also undeniably (and often oppressively) true, especially in style-conscious titles. But that pressures toward homogeneity, the opposite of indiividualist vision, so there’s a Catch-22. You want to eat? Here’s a checklist of things you had better conform to, but we are really only interested in seeing someone who’s substantially different. I know you are being helpful, but I bet in the next few months you’ll be seeing a ton of fresh faces with the same website, folio and similar work :)
I wouldn’t dream of expensing a first-class flight.
“I know you are being helpful, but I bet in the next few months you’ll be seeing a ton of fresh faces with the same website, folio and similar work”
Yeah, its a pity the work that interests me most these days are by photographers who are almost totally unknown,who do stuff totally for themselves, certainly I don’t think our photo editor here would seriously consider using them, or at least his boss’s allow it. Then when you see the sartorialist getting some serious representation with silly words put next to and pumping up his efforts you realise just how much its about who has the power to give value, the strongest “pimp hand” if you will.
I think many of you have missed the point of what APE was saying. There are different budgets for different jobs. You are free to say yes or no. And photo editors are rarely the last word in what’s a greenlight, (budget wise), and what’s not. Budgetary concerns for corporations are not myopically the exclusive domain of photographic endeavors. It’s the norm in the business world. And as independent businessmen/women, it’s your responsibility to adjust your business model to suit your own needs/lifestyle.
Me? Well I don’t do “free” editorials any longer, where the new “norm” is to also “assimilate” your copyright. I’ve been told by more than one AD that I’m foolish for not going along with this, as it’s an “honor” to even be asked. However, my 2 year old and 5 year old can’t eat “honor”. Hence, I adjusted. While I still do advertising accounts, it’s an “honor” for me to also be doing annual reports, trade show events, licensing stock, books (The Nude Bible and upcoming Party Animal) and gallery showings. I don’t feel any of these jobs are beneath me. Because I get paid what I need to be paid. There is a level of renumeration that you are comfortable with. Figure out what that is, and shoot. If one niche market is not interested in your work, find another.
When I worked out of NYC, (my studio was across the street from Steven Klein), and interrelated on a daily basis with editors, agencies and AD’s,….well, life was good. But it’s just as good now,…just different. But still profitable. And my passion has never left me, and I hope it never leaves any of you. Certainly not because of a few minor money concerns. Forget “Low budget, Middle budget, High budget”. Just concentrate on your own budget requirements,….and keep shooting. If you think you can do a better job on a certain editorial or print ad you’ve seen, call the company and ask to bid the next go around. You’ll be suprised how many will actually consider you,…and some who will actually give you a job. CD’s, AD’s and PE’s are not the enemy, and you’d be suprised how many are just like you,…and me. (well, not all)
Comments are closed for this article!