Your minimum hourly rate

[jasevk]

Yip, you should be taking into account your expenses (accounting, legal, insurance, memberships, training, books, camera depreciation etc) of course.....

Agree mate, but 80 to 100 per hr would surely cover this for most who do a fair few jobs in a year right?

[jasevk]

Hire Aunty June then. |-)

This gets back to one of my first replies... This kind of job reeks of aunty June! Lol, btw... I wasn't saying charging that much was unethical... Just that I was surprised given the details and a few assumptions of the job

[Againstme]

Even after taking into considerations $3000 is a ridiculous price. Standing around with a camera is not hard work. Having the ability to control a few variables on a camera is not skilled work. You can try to convince yourself otherwise, but its really not.

[atky]

I'm think it more about what the market will bear, to my mind I doubt the market would bear any more than about $750 - $1000 so if you quoted $1500 - $3000 you don't want the job and thats fine. Just ask this question do they want a Rembrandt or a Bob Smith (apologies if your name is Bob Smith).
So while saying the job is worth $3000 sounds good it is only really worth what they (the Customer) is willing to pay. So if your to good for the job don't complain when some one else is not.
This is not to say I would do the job for $1000 but I just might.

[Xenedis]

I was surprised given the details and a few assumptions of the job

Well, we don't know a lot about the job at this stage, so it's all hypothetical. :-)

Some assumptions can be made, though, given the duration of the job, the conditions in which you're likely to be shooting, etc.

[jasevk]

Well, we don't know a lot about the job at this stage, so it's all hypothetical. :-)

Some assumptions can be made, though, given the duration of the job, the conditions in which you're likely to be shooting, etc.

Yeah that's what I meant... I was saying I was surprised given the details and the assumptions I had made on the job... Wasn't having a go mate

[Xenedis]

Even after taking into considerations $3000 is a ridiculous price. Standing around with a camera is not hard work. Having the ability to control a few variables on a camera is not skilled work. You can try to convince yourself otherwise, but its really not.

Could you give an indication as to what you consider to be skilled work that justifies four-figure sums for eight-hour photoshoots?

Why do some wedding photographers charge upwards of $5K? After all, they're just standing around with a camera.

PS: What would you charge for the job in question?

[kiwi]

OK, more details

It's an industry awards night
A big hotel reception room
attendees are paying $100 a head to attend for dinner & dance, 200 attendees
band is a queen tribute band
images are to be used for company website, and to send out as complimentaries to attendees
Internal newsletter
commercial secondary use unlikely


(hypothetical buy typical)

Interesting we have answers ranging from $0 to $3000 so far

[Xenedis]

Yeah that's what I meant... I was saying I was surprised given the details and the assumptions I had made on the job... Wasn't having a go mate

It's all good. I didn't feel attacked. :-)

Naturally we're only going with limited details here. We know it's a commercial organisation and it's an eight-hour shoot. It's fair to argue that such a night isn't going to be cheap to host even without the photography component.

I'd imagine that a company hosting an awards night of that length would be having a pretty decent spread, and would want professional images of the night, not just snapshots anyone in the crowd could take.

Maybe Kiwi can provide more information at a later stage.

[jasevk]

I really don't think these details change much for me Darren... the situation remains that you have taken pictures which not many people would be interested in purchasing from you... Unlike a wedding where the couple and all their families are queuing to buy prints etc...

[Xenedis]

OK, more details

It's an industry awards night
A big hotel reception room
attendees are paying $100 a head to attend for dinner & dance, 200 attendees
band is a queen tribute band
images are to be used for company website, and to send out as complimentaries to attendees
commercial secondary use unlikely

As I suspected (I was typing my previous post as you posted yours), it doesn't sound like a cheap do, and definitely not Aunty June material.

You can bet that the band will also command a considerable four-figure sum, being a corporate gig and not just Friday night at the pub.

As a retired (well, on indefinite hiatus) performing musician, I feel confident to state that if you're in a four-piece band, a hypothetical $1,000 for the band ($200 each, minus expenses) really isn't going to be worth the time invested in travelling, rehearsing and being there for a good 10-12 hours.

When I was playing, I'd often spend more time on a gig than a typical day at my day job.

[Xenedis]

I really don't think these details change much for me Darren... the situation remains that you have taken pictures which not many people would be interested in purchasing from you... Unlike a wedding where the couple and all their families are queuing to buy prints etc...

I'd agree that the people photographed receiving awards, dancing, etc., won't be likely to purchase images.

The company, however, may place a higher value on the images.

And with wedding photographers making money from prints, that's after the thousands of dollars they've charged for the package in the first instance.

[kiwi]

here's food for thought

http://www.photoeventz.com.au/confer...otography.html

[jasevk]

I just don't tend to agree that the price should depend on what the client can afford to pay... Doesn't seem like an ethical way to do business, but then again I'm relatively green in this area so would be happy to be proven wrong.

[kiwi]

by the way that company i linked to was on the first page of hits on google, not related to this particular event

[Xenedis]

I just don't tend to agree that the price should depend on what the client can afford to pay... Doesn't seem like an ethical way to do business, but then again I'm relatively green in this area so would be happy to be proven wrong.

It's not about what the client can afford to pay; it's about what the client will get, and the experience and skill of the person delivering what the client will get.

I dare say that a company hosting a lavish awards night would not skimp on photographers. You get that for which you pay, like any business.

If I were paying a photographer to shoot some event that is important to me, I'd want a professional who looks and acts the part, can meet the challenges of the subject material and ambient light, who can produce and deliver images of a high standard, and make the whole process painless.

For a few hundred dollars I really doubt I could get that.

The main problem in this day and age is that people don't see the value of photography. Digital photography has placed cameras into the hands of so many people, many of whom would never have bothered had we only had film.

Consequently, a lot of people think "have camera = professional photographer", and the value of photography and the photographic image has gone down. People who want photos (which seemingly ANYONE can take) cannot imagine why it would cost so much to get good images. "$10K to take photos of my wedding? C'mon!".

Barristers charge thousands of dollars per day. A lot of people cannot understand that either.

[jasevk]

It's not about what the client can afford to pay; it's about what the client will get, and the experience and skill of the person delivering what the client will get.

If I were paying a photographer to shoot some event that is important to me, I'd want a professional who looks and acts the part, can meet the challenges of the subject material and ambient light, who can produce and deliver images of a high standard, and make the whole process painless.

For a few hundred dollars I really doubt I could get that.

The main problem in this day and age is that people don't see the value of photography. Digital photography has placed cameras into the hands of so many people, many of whom would never have bothered had we only had film.

Consequently, a lot of people think "have camera = professional photographer", and the value of photography and the photographic image has gone down. People who want photos (which seemingly ANYONE can take) cannot imagine why it would cost so much to get good images. "$10K to take photos of my wedding? C'mon!".

Barristers charge thousands of dollars per day. A lot of people cannot understand that either.

Hey... I really don't disagree with you about providing a good product and the price reflecting this... But I just question that 3000 was maybe a tad high but now looking at more details, I think I'll now submit a variation on my first price... I think $1500 to $2000 is more on the mark for me... And I'd be reviewing the handover of images... I'd provide low res with people being able to purchase prints from an online gallery

[kiwi]

One last message from the organiser

"last year we paid $600, we are looking to choose based primarily on price"

does this change anything ?

[Xenedis]

Hey... I really don't disagree with you about providing a good product and the price reflecting this... But I just question that 3000 was maybe a tad high but now looking at more details, I think I'll now submit a variation on my first price... I think $1500 to $2000 is more on the mark

$2K seems reasonable.

I think we both agree that a few hundred dollars is not reasonable at all. :-)

[jasevk]

One last message from the organiser

"last year we paid $600, we are looking to choose based primarily on price"

does this change anything ?

That's where I refer to aunty June.... Or Xenedis :P