DSLRUsers.com

Posted: **Thu Oct 02, 2008 9:10 pm**

Hey guys

Something a bit serious here and advice/opinions needed.

As some may know I work as F/T graphic designer and run a part-time photog business. Graphic Design is what I was hired to do as detailed in my job description. No mention of photography.

Yesterday I was approached to shoot a range of clothing line (jerseys, t-shirts, caps, pins etc etc) for a sports club (really well known one). Its approx 4hr shoot and they provide the models which is a mixture of some famous players. They mentioned there was little budget set aside for photography and offerred me $400. I was like ok, but we need to discuss the usage terms and the usual fee that comes with them. They were like "What do you mean?" I explained it to them (which I knew they already know) and at the end they pitched the usual line that it will be good experience. good exposure to the market, your name will be on the credit etc etc. I respectfully declined saying I can't do it at that price.

Anyway today, the boss and I had a meeting (it was a client of his). I explained to him my reasons and reinstated I have no problems shooting if the fee can be re-negotiated. He threw in the usual line about "good experience, good for your portfolio, where giving you a good chance here" blah blah. I threw in my usual line that I don't want to undermine the profession plus I don't want to be known as the 'cheap photographer". I also highlighted the fact that the ROI from the photos will be big. He said no and that they made a loss last year. He then tried to sweeten the deal and said something along the lines that "It will get you out of the office more, you can practice being more creative plus we'll reimburse you with fuel plus you get paid your daily wage on top of the $400 fee. I still declined citing that I can make more money by charging a fee for the use of my photographs. I even suggested that the he doesnt pay me when im out of the office since I can stand to make more money by licensing the photos to this well known sports club. He was really adamant to push me to shoot for the client to the point I felt I was being bullied. He mentioned that if you won't do it then you will do it for the company (minus $400) and if refuse to do it under the company name (insert possible dismissal tone here). I responded by saying "I have no problems shooting it for the company but you provide the equipment" Then he left.

Anyway thats my vent, thanks for reading

Posted: **Thu Oct 02, 2008 9:22 pm**

Ron,

If you felt as if you were being bullied, then you need to raise that issue with him.

It's certainly a sensitive, and serious, issue, and a difficult one to address.

But once you have made your PoV known, he should do you the courtesy of respecting your viewpoint and withdrawing. It is really that simple. Sadly, many people haven't learned how to deal with that sort of thing, and then there's his ego: it sounds almost personal from his perspective, and thus his ego can and will be brought into play. That helps nobody.

Posted: **Thu Oct 02, 2008 9:32 pm**

Thanks Gary. I think your right. In my opinion he likes to over-deliver without the consideration of others as he wants to be known to be a reliable business (can't blame him) However during the conversation/debate I've attempted to make my POV known. From workflow, equipment use, commercial usage, insurance etc etc to the point that $400 won't even buy me a lens. That I need to do 4-5 jobs just to recoup the cost of one lens.
I'll attempt to talk to him if there is an opportunity but I was actually close to lodging an unfair dismissal claim since I believed there was a case for it (Dismissal includes threatened dismissal.)

Posted: **Thu Oct 02, 2008 10:03 pm**

My only suggestion is to keep a diary of what transpired. Include time and dates. Include an outline of the conversion and detail any threats made. Make this in a diary and start keeping tabs of the hours you work and the jobs you are working on.

This type of document can be very valuable in a "you said he said" type of disagreement.

To me it sounds like he has told the client he can get the images done cheap cause he "Knows" someone.

I wouldn't mention the conversation again unless he does.Then make it quite clear you are feeling bullied and threatened.

OH&S has clear rules on this stuff also, but I have a feeling he was pissed off you wouldn't do it when he had promised it.

Good luck and keep us updated.

MATT

Posted: **Thu Oct 02, 2008 10:24 pm**

Ron, very difficult situation with good advice above. If it felt like you were being bullied you probably were. Not that knowing that does you a bit of good here.

My suggestion is to go in tomorrow and ask to have a quick chat about this (I think you should knock it on the head straight away). I would say that you just wanted to explain your point of view. Say you appreciate the offer on the exposure etc, but if this big succesful club cant afford it this year they probably wont be able to next year either, then even if they could they now believe it is a $400 job and will get the next work experience kid to do it, not a proper photographer. I would then explain you feel like you are being used, as these are different paying jobs. I would use an example. Ask him if he got paid $10 an hour for graphic work and $30 an hour for weekend work fighting fires, how would he feel fighting fires for $10, because the $30 has a component for a different skill set and a component for danger. The actual example I would use is if a co worker was a prostitute on the weekends, would he think it right to ask her to sleep with a client for $10? That is what he is asking you to do. I would use that actual example because a real bloke would get a laugh, but your boss may lack humour.

Good luck and don't throw your job over this, better to be a hooker with a job than jobless :lol:

Posted: **Thu Oct 02, 2008 10:58 pm**

i like all the advice given you so far about talking this over with your boss and explaining the situation. here are some comments on the employment side of things....

its difficult to know how to advise you cos i know nothing about your contract or conditions of employment. from the employment side, you cannot lodge an unfair dismissal claim unless you have effectively been dismissed.

what you are referring to is constructive dismissal, by which you as the employee believe that the conditions of your employment have become untenable and continuing to work there is no longer an option to you given the actions of your boss and this untenable position would force you to resign against your will which is, in effect, the equivalent of dismissal. this is extremely difficult to prove and in 90% of these cases the employee cannot prove the case. what will make it even more difficult for you is that if this is the only instance that you have had this kind of dispute, then you will have no chance of getting this heard let alone winning.

bullying ? ohs ? nope. sorry, if this is the only incident then that does not equate to bullying and does not breach any ohs laws and it will be highly unlikely to qualify for stress or even a harrassment claim.

bottom line from a personal side...well this is entirely your call. if you dont think that its enough money then dont do the job. only you can decide if the exposure, opportunity etc you gain from this job and this assignment is worth taking the job or not.
we all have choices in life and perhaps this particualr choice will also include leaving your employer. by the sounds of things...perhaps its a good idea anyway.

i'm not making a judgement on right and wrong or whether indeed your boss is an asshole. just calling it as i would see it based on that limited information. (i do this for a living).

Posted: **Thu Oct 02, 2008 11:30 pm**

devilla101 wrote:Yesterday I was approached to shoot a range of clothing line (jerseys, t-shirts, caps, pins etc etc) for a sports club (really well known one). Its approx 4hr shoot and they provide the models which is a mixture of some famous players. They mentioned there was little budget set aside for photography and offerred me $400. I was like ok, but we need to discuss the usage terms and the usual fee that comes with them. They were like "What do you mean?" I explained it to them (which I knew they already know) and at the end they pitched the usual line that it will be good experience. good exposure to the market, your name will be on the credit etc etc. I respectfully declined saying I can't do it at that price.

From the way you have written the above paragraph I assume that the approach was not within the company but directly from a client of the company you work for.

If this is the case you have every right to negotiate your terms and conditions and how much it is worth to you. Again, if this was a direct contact you also have to consider your employer and whether or not the work would be done within your normal working hours (normal you say and I agree as a graphic designer myself there is nothing normal in our profession).

You state in the second paragraph that you had a meeting with your boss etc., etc. and my question is why? Was it a direct contact, or did your boss suggest to the client that you would do the work for them and is now feeling stupid because his employee is not coming to the party.

If your original contract of employment does not state photography as being part of your job description then you have everyright to say no. A few years back I worked for a very well known company in their art department. When I was approached to work on their catalogue as a freelance job I said yes (they wanted me to do it in work hours) but I would only work on it during the evenings and weekends. They said OK so I got my normal salary plus a substantial sum of money for the freelance work.

Posted: **Fri Oct 03, 2008 1:17 am**

This is an interesting story (mine may be sightly OT).....i have lost count over the last 12months the amount of time i have been asked to quote either shooting a range of clothing or doing a callender shoot or whatever it may be only to be told that i was way to dear....its BS, its more the deal that there are other 'so called' pro togs doing things for next to nothing and in this day and age of Dslr's coming down in price and anyone getting their hands on one everyone suddenly thinks they are a photographer (insert expected flamers)....don't get wrong here all i am trying to say is i know i am not an expensive photographer also NOT the cheapest but i will be stuffed if i am going to bring the industry down with cheap prices that 9 out of 10 times result in an inferior final product.....the industry i believe is in deep trouble and it seems to be cannibalising itself with these ridiculously cheap quotes that so called photographers are offering. The amount of times i am asked to do freebies (specially in the modelling/fashion industry) is just a complete joke!

I would rather sit on my are and do nothing rather than shoot TFC/P or do something for next to nothing!!

Glad i got that off my chest....

Dan

Posted: **Fri Oct 03, 2008 1:26 am**

Spot on CP. I say the same in my industry when a backyard "pro" undercuts a decent quote. " I can go broke sitting at home drinking beer"...

Posted: **Fri Oct 03, 2008 8:08 am**

Creative, that's a good point you make. I agree with cannibalizing statement. I think though the manufacturer is partly to blame. Their advertising makes people believe that if they go buy a flash camera they will be taking Pro standard images.

Look at the wedding market. I think a lot of people would like some return on their gear hence offer ridiculously low prices to either get in , or get paid practice.

MATT

Posted: **Fri Oct 03, 2008 8:16 am**

Thanks for all the contributions guys, really appreciate it.

Matt: Yes, it does sound like he promised something to the client without first consulting me.

Glen: Yes and thats one of my main concern. If I do it for $400 how can I increase my prices next year? I'll be shooting my self on the foot.

Rooz: Thanks for clarifying the law. Appreciate it. I've stated during the conversation, I'll do the job if the price can be re-negotiated or if the company can provide me the camera equipment and process the photos during working hours. But for $400 using my equipment is just paltry and unfair and sure enough taking advantage of me.

sirhc55: Yes thats right that they approached me. The work will be done during my working hours which he said i'll be paid for plus $400. Regarding the meeting with the boss I was seating at my workstation when he came to me and wanted to know why I refused the job. Then the fun started. Don't really know what happened behind the scene between the client and him but it seems they forgot to involve me during the planning stage. Yes I'm 100% sure my contract for the company does not include photography.

Cre8tivepixels: I agree and its another point I made to my boss. I do not want to undermine the profession.

Posted: **Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:50 am**

Ron, there is more than one way to skin a cat. Another option is to say no problem, I will do it, now who is going to do my work for the next 4 to 5 days whilst I post process?

Posted: **Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:10 am**

devilla101 wrote:
sirhc55: Yes thats right that they approached me. The work will be done during my working hours which he said i'll be paid for plus $400. Regarding the meeting with the boss I was seating at my workstation when he came to me and wanted to know why I refused the job. Then the fun started. Don't really know what happened behind the scene between the client and him but it seems they forgot to involve me during the planning stage. Yes I'm 100% sure my contract for the company does not include photography.

So, a client of the company you work for approached you directly to do work for them for which they would pay $400 and you would be doing the work during normal works hours. For this to happen your boss must have been complicit with the client and that stinks, and indicates why he is stressed because he is being made to look a fool to the client.

I was approached a few years back by a friend to do some work for him. He was very busy (so he said) and could I not spare the time to work on a ‘cheap’ project for Coca Cola. Basically it involved tweaking the CC ribbons in their logo and he said it would be worth $1000 to me. I did the job and got my $1000 - I later found out he received $32,000 for the job, a tidy profit for him.

The way I see it is that your boss told the client that you would do the photography but that they should throw a little incentive your way, hence the $400. I’m an old bastard and would have, and have had, the pleasure of telling people like this to go f*ck themselves.

Posted: **Fri Oct 03, 2008 12:07 pm**

sirhc55 wrote:I was approached a few years back by a friend to do some work for him. He was very busy (so he said) and could I not spare the time to work on a ‘cheap’ project for Coca Cola. Basically it involved tweaking the CC ribbons in their logo and he said it would be worth $1000 to me. I did the job and got my $1000 - I later found out he received $32,000 for the job, a tidy profit for him.

Ouch! that was not nice of your friend to do that to you.

We are having trouble with the university union thinking it is alright to pay $21 p/h for student photographers (ie PhotoSoc club members and the like) to do casual photography for them. A lot of us have stepped aside and refused the work, but there seems to be this stream of beginners and 'backyard' togs that take them up.

Gotta hate the rising popularity of DSLR's for that

Posted: **Fri Oct 03, 2008 12:18 pm**

aim54x wrote:Gotta hate the rising popularity of DSLR's for that

Nope. Nothing to do with it.

If you believe that this is new, sorry, it's been happening for at least as long as I've been involved with photography, and Chris's commentary confirms that this sort of behaviour has been around for quite some time.

And it's not just in photography either: people want to be "famous", so they will do almost anything to get, for instance, a music gig for their band. Pubs will hire three bands for a night of music for their punters, and tell them that they can split the door taking, after paying for the sound guy. I have no issues with the sound guy getting paid, but think for a moment how many punters are needed in order to pay the four or five members of each of three bands, from door takings of, say $5 per, and reserving maybe $150 for the sound guy at the outset.

But it gets worse: in the US bands often get paid from takings from Mr Tip Jar. Unless someone goes around the room, quite assertively, then Mr Tip Jar will not be a very friendly fellow at the end of the night.

And yes, it gets even worse: Look at tv crap like Orstayan Idle, or Big Brudder. The producers are literally preying on the wishes of the participants in those shows to become "famous", as if it's that easy. How many people line up for the auditions for those shows? How many truly talented people from those shows can you name?

I actually know the answer to that question, and it's less than one.

So, no .... nothing to do with the DSLR. It's, again, just a tool that we use.

Posted: **Fri Oct 03, 2008 1:02 pm**

Good points Gary.

I meant that DSLR and their drop in price has made the entry point a lot more accessible which has acted much like a double edged sword, allowing a lot of truly talented people to get a step up, but at the same time bringing in a lot of people who are dramatically undercutting the industry. I am by no means a professional, but I am truly shocked by how some people will take a pittance for work (although likely to be substandard) and that spoils it for the Pro's who are cornered into being seen as being too expensive regardless of the better quality of work.

Sorry Ron getting a little :ot:

. But I am with you on this one, dont do the job unless either your boss supplies the equipment or you get a better offer.

Posted: **Fri Oct 03, 2008 1:43 pm**

aim54x wrote:I meant that DSLR and their drop in price

I would hazard a guess that SLRs had experienced the same thing before the D was placed in front of it. If I understand correctly, an F90X cost about $1500 brand new. For someone looking to make a few bucks by doing cheap shoots, $1500 wouldn't have been a big spend.

Posted: **Fri Oct 03, 2008 3:06 pm**

i've noticed even though cameras are more accessible and more and more people are able to match or surpass current standards in pro photography
what seperates them from the working pros is 'consistency' being able to produce quality results time after time consistently or people who can summon their talent at will under pressure

so even though theres thousands of new photograhers out there clients still tend to use or go back to an experienced photographer

i think you shoudl make the case to your boss your oen of these pros and he wil value you differently perhaps he was unaware of your current status so he thought he could push this love job to you
he wouldnt do it if he thought you were worth more so i think you should address this issue probably show him your work and tell him it's not a hobby anymore

Posted: **Fri Oct 03, 2008 4:55 pm**

Reschsmooth wrote:I would hazard a guess that SLRs had experienced the same thing before the D was placed in front of it. If I understand correctly, an F90X cost about $1500 brand new.

When we bought Leigh's F60 (or was it an F65?) it cost less than PP700, with glass. A quite capable FSLR.

Nothing's new under the flashgun.

Posted: **Fri Oct 03, 2008 5:02 pm**

wendellt wrote:what seperates them from the working pros is

The number of cameras that they have over their shoulders. Sorry, couldn't resist.

Posted: **Fri Oct 03, 2008 5:15 pm**

gstark wrote:
wendellt wrote:what seperates them from the working pros is

The number of cameras that they have over their shoulders. Sorry, couldn't resist.

I've always believed that what makes a pro is that they get paid for the job. There's just as many useless pros as there are amateurs.

Posted: **Sat Oct 04, 2008 4:15 pm**

Can't read the small writing on the screen :shock:

Off to get a good pair of glasses

Posted: **Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:56 pm**

Again a bit off topic but here is my 2 bobs worth.

Most/all industries have this exact problem, does not matter if it is a an Architect competing with a drafting servcie. Or in my case unqualified people passing themselves off as Access Consultants after doing a 2 day introduction appraisal course.

The only real solution is client education in terms of bang for buck!

I have now added a section to my website "Does Your Access Consultant Have?" and listed some basic questions as follows

* Are they Accredited with the Association of Consultants in Access Australia inc? This will provide you with the security of competency of your consultant as the have passed the Associations stringent requirements.
* Do they have a minimum $5M Professional Indemnity insurance coverage
* Do they have a minimum $510 Public Liability insurance coverage?
* Do they used recognised/ calibrated auditing tools?
* Do they audit “Everything” identified in the statutory legislation or just the key items?
* What format are your reports provided in? Can they be imported into Facility Management software applications?
* Do the use a “Quality Management System”?
* Can they provide you with a copy of the OH&S Policy

One of the key items here is Insurance which I am sure even for photographer's is expensive.

Perhaps pro photographers need to do similar on their sites to at the very least "cast doubt" in their clients mind about using the cheapest may expose them to risk both in terms of quality/consistency and being sued over sub standard work. Understanding Public Liability risk would also be a benefit.

If clients demand insurance even from the cowboys they will have to increase their fees.

Sell yourself hard not undersell!!!

Bruce

Posted: **Sat Oct 04, 2008 11:48 pm**

... Obsolete ...

Posted: **Sun Oct 05, 2008 12:09 am**

VK4CP wrote:Using you own maths, do Graphic Designers earn more than $100/hr???

Adam, it's 4 hour shoot. PP time doesn't count?

Ron, it sounds very much like your boss promised something to a mate and he is now having trouble delivering on his promise... stick to your guns! Also this (warning NSFW!!!).

Posted: **Sun Oct 05, 2008 12:35 am**

... Obsolete ...

Posted: **Sun Oct 05, 2008 12:41 am**

VK4CP wrote:
devilla101 wrote:...and offerred me $400. I was like ok, but we need to discuss the usage terms and the usual fee that comes with them. They were like "What do you mean?" I explained it to them (which I knew they already know) and at the end they pitched the usual line that it will be good experience. good exposure to the market, your name will be on the credit etc etc. I respectfully declined saying I can't do it at that price.

Using you own maths, do Graphic Designers earn more than $100/hr???

Yes they can, but they are at the top of their profession. Back in the late 80’s I myself, as a designer, was earning over $125 per hour but times they have a changed.

It also applies to photography. You may remember an advertisment put out by AmberTechnology for Onkyo. It showed a Audi TT in a white room with speakers, plasma TV etc. The photographer was paid $25,000 for that one shot.

But for anyone to earn this kind of money they have to be exceptional.

Posted: **Sun Oct 05, 2008 9:34 pm**

I think you are getting very good advice above and I wasinterested even more when you stated that thratening with dismissal is also dealt in legislation. I didn't know this and I keep hearing on a daily basis the tune that "unless you did we will have no customers and you will loose your job".

My concern, though, it is you are now in a pickle. If you give up and do it for the $400 extra bonus and they then realise you are a talented professional (you have demonstrated this with your postings time after time), they will expect you to do it also next time, and the time after that. On the other hand, if you still refuse and cosidering your boss' authority has now been challenged it is a matter of time before he/she starts to make your life impossible, be prepare for it.

My advice, for what it is worth, it is play by ear, allow your boss a dignified retreat, but if him/her refuses to come to a reasonable agreement (keep your cards close to your chest) start looking for a different job. The ideal situation would have been for you to do the job and get the $400, but provide a less tha satisfactory result (that's what my dear father did when my mother once insisted he should wash the dishes. He left us with having to borrow a few from the neighbours). Anyway, keep us informed, but get ready for the worst and let us all hope for the best.

Posted: **Mon Oct 06, 2008 10:10 pm**

I'd take the job for $400.

Do it on the bosses time.

If you think you can earn more then go and do it. Finding customers is the hardest part. You got given one on a platter and was going to get paid $400 on top of your wage.

The market determines a persons worth. If customers don't want to pay high prices for photography then either the photography industry lowers their prices or they don't get any gigs. At the moment the industry is in big trouble. Not many wealthy photographers out there.

It's called competition. The only time you can afford to refuse work is when you can get more money for the same time elsewhere. Sounds like you are not in a position to reject work since you can only afford to be a part time photographer. Harsh but fair.

I don't see how your boss bullied you.

Are you willing to go bust to protect your industry?

I'm not. I'll take the money and feed the family instead.

You didn't get bullied from how I read things. You refused to do the job. You set the rules. Your boss didn't like those rules that you felt compelled to tell him about for the sake of the industry that you are a part time player in. He walked away.

If you worked for me I would show you the door for assuming what budget the client had and their ROI on the job. That's not your position. I would also be disappointed that you made me look like a fool in front of a client by making life difficult.

I suppose as part of your design role you don't edit photos coz photographers do that as well.

Do the gig. Take the cash. Keep your boss happy. Keep the client happy. Add the work to your folio. It's a win win all round.

Posted: **Mon Oct 06, 2008 10:49 pm**

silli wrote:I'd take the job for $400.

Do it on the bosses time.

Although the boss was complicit in this, do you believe that the attitude expressed by yourself in this post is reaonable and/or helpful?

The market determines a persons worth. If customers don't want to pay high prices for photography then either the photography industry lowers their prices or they don't get any gigs.

sirhc55 wrote:You may remember an advertisment put out by AmberTechnology for Onkyo. It showed a Audi TT in a white room with speakers, plasma TV etc. The photographer was paid $25,000 for that one shot.

I see.

It's called competition. The only time you can afford to refuse work is when you can get more money for the same time elsewhere.

So, you believe that this issue is all about money? You don't see that perhaps there are any matters of principle involved?

I'll take the money

I suspect that gives me the answer to my question.

If you worked for me I would show you the door for assuming what budget the client had and their ROI on the job.

How many staff do you actually have? How long have they been in your employ?

That's not your position.

Actually, I would suspect that he is employed to perform the duties as agreed upon in his contract for employment, and as embodied within his statement of duties. Anything else would be subject to negotiation, and any attempt to "show him the door" for abiding by his contract of employment would be very messy, I would respectfully suggest.

I would also be disappointed that you made me look like a fool in front of a client by making life difficult.

And with all due respect, I would tell you exactly what to do with your ego, and probably suggest some places where it might reasonably be put.

Maybe even unreasonably.

Seriously, yes, his boss's ego has been hurt, but that is because the boss put his ego into a place where it is likely to be injured. Bottom line for that point, though, is who gives a damn about the boss's ego? In a professional situation it has no relevance.

Do the gig. Take the cash. Keep your boss happy. Keep the client happy.

Or maintain your integrity. Your belief in your principles. Your self respect.

Some things are way more important than money.

Posted: **Tue Oct 07, 2008 6:53 am**

Hmmm...certainly a curly situation.

I guess at the end of the day it's all about business.

Your boss wants to keep up good relations with his client, and by the sounds of things has made promises without consulting you first (which is his biggest mistake).

If he comes across as unreliable he risks losing the clients business in the future, which he won't want to happen and will likely look for someone to blame (which won't be himself !).

However, as this is business, you have the right to stand strong and ask for what you believe is fair (as long as it is fair - which I think you are doing).

I wouldn't be surprised if your boss/clients asked what PP is and why you needed hours to perform this - "if you were a decent photographer, and one that wants more money, why do you need to spend hours fixing up the photos on a PC ?". If he asked this question to you, what would you say ?

I agree with Glen that you should knock this on the head asap. I'd look to take the initiative and make the next step. Ask your boss for a chat and explain to him that you would really like to help out the client (and the company you work for) and ask him if he can think of a compromise that will ensure all parties are happy.

This puts the onus back onto him (as he initiated this on himself by not first consulting you). This may then show you how much the client means to him and what he is prepared to do...and gives him the opportunity of getting out of this without looking stupid in front of the client.

Lastly, I would mention that you would be more than happy to do photog work for clients in the future, as long as you were consulted about it first to negotiate terms & pricing.

It is a difficult situation to get into and refusing to assist, whilst well within your rights, can often lead to employers becoming unhappy and this can only lead to stressful times in the workplace.....which is dis-heartening, especially if you really enjoy working there.

Let us know how you go....

Posted: **Tue Oct 07, 2008 9:53 am**

If the Boss is so hell bent on impressing teh customer. he could charge them $400 for the shoot. Then hire Ron at a more reasonable rate. If not Ron then he could go out intot the market place and hire another person at the "Going" rate.

Any update how this ll turned out??

rgrds
MATT

Posted: **Tue Oct 07, 2008 11:04 am**

MATT wrote:If the Boss is so hell bent on impressing teh customer. he could charge them $400 for the shoot. Then hire Ron at a more reasonable rate. If not Ron then he could go out intot the market place and hire another person at the "Going" rate.

Awesome idea, now to communicate that to Ron's boss. BUT it also sets a terrible precedent to the customer, who will want $400 shoots forever (the whole reason for this thread from what I gather).

Cheers
Cameron

Posted: **Wed Oct 08, 2008 12:21 am**

I must say as an employer of about 10 staff, GStark's replies 3 above this one is spot on.

Someone needs some life experience in employment/ management, and how/when you can dismiss a worker I think!

I think that the boss has broken the line, expected someone to do something they arent comfortable with and got burnt.
As a boss you have to always plan ahead, just "because" your their boss doesnt mean you own their soul..... If in doubt Ask! and expect it could be rejected.

Posted: **Wed Oct 08, 2008 8:27 pm**

Ok, sorry to the people who are waiting for some sort of update. However nothing yet has arisen since last week. Work so far has been normal with the boss giving me work as usual and not yet uttering a word regarding the shoot.

Again thanks for the support and the many sound advices from you guys. Really appreciate it.

Regarding Silli's comment, mate if your willing to sell your self very short with every paying job so you can feed your family then go for it. You may be in a much more different financial situation than I am. I would say more except Gary pretty much nailed it especially the part that its not all about the money.

VK4CP: Like with Silli if your willing to sell your self short then go for it. Even though DSLR have changed things last time I checked they still need people to operate them effectively

Anyway I'll summarise and elaborate my situation a bit more:
1. A FAMOUS/WORLD RENOWNED sports club which I will not name because if I did everyone will say "Whoah! How cheap are they?" asked me to do a 4 hour catalogue shoot for their clothing merchandise for $400. Photos will be used in their catalogue to be sent out to their fans, print posters and use on the web. Basically unlimited use and no time limit.
2. I refused the offer after they said they only budgeted for $400 and have no extra $$$ for usage/license fee.
3. Boss and I had a chat and kept persisting I will have to do it even after repeated decline of offer
4. Boss said I'll have to shoot it for the company and if I refuse...well...
5. I stated to the boss that I have no problems shooting it for the company if they provide me the equipment

Now I will also add my reasons why I refuse to do it so that maybe some people can understand where I'm coming from:
1. $400 non-negotiable fee to shoot 4 hours. So they expect me to bring along my 5D ($2500) 70-200 2.8 IS ($2000), 24-70 2.8 ($1500), Studio lights, lightstands, softboxes, flashes, pocketwizards, reflectors ($$$$) plus more importantly. Experience and creativity.
2. By taking this job I've cemented myself as the photographer that can do it really really cheap with ok gear. If this job (or similar) comes along again how can I justify or negotiate a higher fee?
3. The boss did not consult me prior to this
4. The boss didn't like the fact I refused and try to find other reason for me shoot.
5. If my wedding clients can pay between $2000 - $3000 why should this big sports company that has a CEO, Board of Directors and players earning $$$$$$$$$$$ can't afford more than $400??
6. The old "It will be good experience, good exposure, your name will be in the credit lists" talk is wearing really thin. Sorry, but you've seen my portfolio and if you like what you see then you know I've got the experience to do it. As for exposure and credit. I don't care. I'll charge for my service at MY rate and try my damn best to give you the best photos to maximise your ROI.

PEACE OUT!

Posted: **Wed Oct 08, 2008 9:32 pm**

Regarding Silli's comment, mate if your willing to sell your self very short with every paying job so you can feed your family then go for it. You may be in a much more different financial situation than I am.

i dont think anyone should be making judgements on what one would and wouldn't do a job for. its completely personal imo.

1. A FAMOUS/WORLD RENOWNED sports club which I will not name because if I did everyone will say "Whoah! How cheap are they?" asked me to do a 4 hour catalogue shoot for their clothing merchandise for $400. Photos will be used in their catalogue to be sent out to their fans, print posters and use on the web. Basically unlimited use and no time limit.
2. I refused the offer after they said they only budgeted for $400 and have no extra $$$ for usage/license fee.

does anyone actually get licencing and usage fees for this ? serious question. i mean if a guy shoots a photo for Nike, does he get royalties every time that photo is printed or used ? i dont know.

1. $400 non-negotiable fee to shoot 4 hours. So they expect me to bring along my 5D ($2500) 70-200 2.8 IS ($2000), 24-70 2.8 ($1500), Studio lights, lightstands, softboxes, flashes, pocketwizards, reflectors ($$$$) plus more importantly.

is this even relevant ? if it is, isnt this then a contradiction of Dan's point. does that mean if some guy with a shitload of money goes and buys really good gear that the client should be paying a premium cos of what you shoot ? are we pricing jobs on the equipment we take with us ? come on Ron.

Experience and creativity.

this is get and i compeltely agree with you on...as long as you actually DO have the experience.

2. By taking this job I've cemented myself as the photographer that can do it really really cheap with ok gear. If this job (or similar) comes along again how can I justify or negotiate a higher fee?

i dont think this is true. as you get more and more jobs you are able to charge more and more. this again gets back to your point about experience. if experience costs $$$ to hire then surely you have to earn it by starting a little lower now than what you will be charging after a number of jobs. if you charge the same now as in any future job then what you're effectively saying is experience isnt worth a dime.

5. If my wedding clients can pay between $2000 - $3000.

agreed. but a wedding is ALOT longer than 4 hrs. i remmebr our wedding guy was from around 8am to midnight. thats just shooting. and then theres the album, the intense pressure...i dont think they are comparable.

6. The old "It will be good experience, good exposure, your name will be in the credit lists" talk is wearing really thin. Sorry, but you've seen my portfolio and if you like what you see then you know I've got the experience to do it. As for exposure and credit. I don't care. I'll charge for my service at MY rate and try my damn best to give you the best photos to maximise your ROI.

again, i agree with this compeltely. good on you for sticking to your guns. i may not necessarily agree with alot of the reasoning you put behind it but i do agree with the end result. its personal, its your time, your imagination and no-one should be able to put a price on that but YOU. so congrats on taking your stand and i hope it turns out well.

Posted: **Wed Oct 08, 2008 9:47 pm**

Cre8tivepixels wrote:This is an interesting story (mine may be sightly OT).....i have lost count over the last 12months the amount of time i have been asked to quote either shooting a range of clothing or doing a callender shoot or whatever it may be only to be told that i was way to dear....its BS, its more the deal that there are other 'so called' pro togs doing things for next to nothing and in this day and age of Dslr's coming down in price and anyone getting their hands on one everyone suddenly thinks they are a photographer (insert expected flamers)....don't get wrong here all i am trying to say is i know i am not an expensive photographer also NOT the cheapest but i will be stuffed if i am going to bring the industry down with cheap prices that 9 out of 10 times result in an inferior final product.....the industry i believe is in deep trouble and it seems to be cannibalising itself with these ridiculously cheap quotes that so called photographers are offering. The amount of times i am asked to do freebies (specially in the modelling/fashion industry) is just a complete joke!

I would rather sit on my are and do nothing rather than shoot TFC/P or do something for next to nothing!!

Glad i got that off my chest....

Dan

i dont entirely buy into the argument about undercutting and bringing the industry down. not cos it doesnt happen, but becasue it is not unique to photography. this story of undercutting happens in ALL businesses and all skills. it happens to areas with a high level of expertice and it happens even for a simple labouring job. thats our world. a free market. if we complain about the guy who bought a dslr who is suddenly a photographer, think about the building game. does that mean if you buy a hammer and saw you're suddenly a carpenter ? how many "handymen" are out there working for bugger all compared to a proper chippie ? how many of you or people you know go the short cut in that industry and picked cheap prices from hacks over fully qualified tradesmen ? it happens. photography is no different, it is not special, it is not unique and it is not an untouchable industry to our wonderful world of capitalism. lol.

imo, as with any other indusrty, if you are good enuf, if you earn a reputation for being reliable and giving a great product or service then you will survive just fine. sure you will lose jobs for not being the cheapest. sure there will be times you get overlooked by the cheaper hack, but so what ? thats life bro. customers have choices on who they go to just like we, as professionals have choices on what we want to charge.

similar to you, in my actual "profession", (not being photography), i have also heard countless times...

"so and so is cheaper". Yepp.
"so and so will do it for this price, can you match it." Nope.

like i said, its about choices. i choose not to comprimse what i charge. other will choose to haggle and comprimise. i dont feel any ill-will to them at all and i dont think they are bringing the industry down. they are just different from me and appeal to a different buyer/ market.

Glad i got that off my chest.

Posted: **Wed Oct 08, 2008 11:58 pm**

Here's perhaps another pint that I don;t think has been canvassed in this discussion.

Ron's boss offered him $400 to do a four hour shoot.

Who said that four hours was an adequate time allowance for that shoot? I'm not forgetting that we also need to add in time allowances for PP etc, but I'm simply asking the question as to whether it is relevant or appropriate that Ron's boss, or his client, tell Ron how long the shoot is going to take.

Isn't it more appropriate that we, as professional ... whatevers, in our chosen fields of endeavours .... discuss with the client the specifics of the job, gain a clear understanding of the client's needs and expectations, and then determine how much time is needed to perform the task at hand, in this case, the shoot?

Posted: **Thu Oct 09, 2008 7:02 am**

gstark wrote:Isn't it more appropriate that we, as professional ... whatevers, in our chosen fields of endeavours .... discuss with the client the specifics of the job, gain a clear understanding of the client's needs and expectations, and then determine how much time is needed to perform the task at hand, in this case, the shoot?

Gary I completely agree and have indicated to the client to email me a detailed brief before I mentioned to them the usage fee associated with the photos.

We'll see how well this fiasco turns out.

Posted: **Thu Oct 09, 2008 8:45 pm**

Rooz wrote:
imo, as with any other indusrty, if you are good enuf, if you earn a reputation for being reliable and giving a great product or service then you will survive just fine. sure you will lose jobs for not being the cheapest. sure there will be times you get overlooked by the cheaper hack, but so what ? thats life bro. customers have choices on who they go to just like we, as professionals have choices on what we want to charge.

I have stayed out of this conversation :wink:

but I have to say I agree with Rooz 100%.

There is a lit of whinging going on in the industry about "uncle Bob's" shooting weddings, well let them, go ahead... I don't want that wedding anyway as they are not really interested in the photos. There are enough weddings out there for everyone & Uncle Bob can't offer the same experience nor quality product a pro can and as long as you can show and prove that to your clients you will be fine.

A.

Posted: **Thu Oct 09, 2008 10:04 pm**

Maybe these kind of things should be kept off a forum that is about photography not how to run a business or pricing.

Maybe our friend should visit http://www.acmp.com.au and seek some advice.

Posted: **Thu Oct 09, 2008 10:19 pm**

silli wrote:Maybe these kind of things should be kept off a forum that is about photography not how to run a business or pricing.

Maybe our friend should visit http://www.acmp.com.au and seek some advice.

??? Why, This topic is exactly about photography and a member asking for advice on others thought in particular to his problem relating to photography.
You will also find this forum has a LOT of topics on pricing and business related stuff. All bloody useful too in some points.

The ACMP probably isnt going to offer any real advice as he is already sticking to his guns on their standards IMO? Possibly they could be an in between as mediator between client/photographer But I highly doubt as he is the employee and the employer obvisouly wont want that..

The ACMP aims to safeguard and promote the interests of photographers by:

Promoting high professional standards and ethics in photography
Promoting co-operation and understanding between photographers and their clients
Establishing photographers’ rights and setting precedents in areas such as copyright and finance
Encouraging development and discussion of all aspects of the business and art of photography

Posted: **Thu Oct 09, 2008 10:36 pm**

gstark wrote: but I'm simply asking the question as to whether it is relevant or appropriate that Ron's boss, or his client, tell Ron how long the shoot is going to take.

Gary, you are completely wrong. It is certainly appropriate for a client to tell a professional how long they should take to do their job. After all, the client knows best, right?

(I assume my sarcasm, being the lowest form of wit, is evident here)

Posted: **Thu Oct 09, 2008 10:42 pm**

silli wrote:Maybe these kind of things should be kept off a forum that is about photography not how to run a business or pricing.

Maybe.

But then, I suspect that our forum section named "The Business of Photography" might start to feel a little unloved. Clearly, this is no place to be discussing anything to do with the business of photography.

And to answer your next question, no, this thread doesn't necessarily fit into that section, because it''s Ron asking about his employment and how his photography interacts with that employment.

But it's time for me to ask you a couple of questions; please humour me and answer honestly. You are employed in some form of marketing endeavour, aren't you? And I'd guess that you're less than 30 years old as well. I note that you haven't answered any of my earlier questions to you in this thread. I suspect I know why that may be.

And as a final observation, perhaps I should ask you to explain what it is that qualifies you to make such a recommendation? After all, you've made a grand total of, um, let's see, four posts. We have an excellent team of mods including a couple of admins, and I have absolute confidence in their ability to decide what is or is not appropriate here. But you are quite clearly far better qualified for making such a recommendation than I am, after all, I only run the bloody place!

Posted: **Thu Oct 09, 2008 10:44 pm**

I must just say, that over the years, I taken many many thousands of photographs for clients ranging from Coca Cola through to Pioneer Plasterboards and I have never ever charged for reuse or multiple use of my pics.

I charge a price, they pay and I don’t then have to keep an eye open for reuse. I’m happy and so are they.

Posted: **Thu Oct 09, 2008 10:45 pm**

Reschsmooth wrote:
gstark wrote: but I'm simply asking the question as to whether it is relevant or appropriate that Ron's boss, or his client, tell Ron how long the shoot is going to take.

Gary, you are completely wrong. It is certainly appropriate for a client to tell a professional how long they should take to do their job. After all, the client knows best, right?

Patrick,

I respect your ultimate right to be right.

Or left. Right out.

Posted: **Thu Oct 09, 2008 10:48 pm**

gstark wrote:
Or left. Right out.

Wow I am glad I am using a Logitech MX Revolution (lets me zoom in and read this tiny, tiny font!!

Posted: **Thu Oct 09, 2008 10:50 pm**

gstark wrote:But it's time for me to ask you a couple of questions; please humour me and answer honestly. You are employed in some form of marketing endeavour, aren't you?

I just checked your profile. One of the perks of being the site owner.

I now know the answer to this question. Lock it in, Eddie.

Posted: **Thu Oct 09, 2008 10:54 pm**

sirhc55 wrote:I must just say, that over the years, I taken many many thousands of photographs for clients ranging from Coca Cola through to Pioneer Plasterboards and I have never ever charged for reuse or multiple use of my pics.

I charge a price, they pay and I don’t then have to keep an eye open for reuse. I’m happy and so are they.

But you get a say in how much you get to charge for "that price" yes?
And also the choice of time and equipment etc about how you will go about your job to end up with a professional result that You & the client will be happy with. Yes?

I understand your very vaild point, but you have to put yourself in the same situation as the original poster. What if your liberties/ professionalism and rights werent thought about? Would you be upset?

I know I would be, and If I believed in what i was doing strong enough, would be at the position that the OP is at.

Posted: **Thu Oct 09, 2008 10:58 pm**

sirhc55 wrote:I must just say, that over the years, I taken many many thousands of photographs for clients ranging from Coca Cola through to Pioneer Plasterboards and I have never ever charged for reuse or multiple use of my pics.

I charge a price, they pay and I don’t then have to keep an eye open for reuse. I’m happy and so are they.

Chris, yes, and that is one way to work. While I worked under a similar regime, I also retained my negs (shooting filum) and thus if/when reorders were the order of the day, the clients needed to contact me.

I do think that some aspects of the game have changed a little however. When we're supplying digital images to clients, they now have the ability to reproduce the images themselves. That may, or may not, be an issue for you, depending upon what is being shot.

The real issue is to ensure that you receive what you believe to be fair compensation for your time and IP, and I expect that we will each have a different means of evaluating the quantum of that.

I didn't read Ron's words as saying that he wanted residuals, but more along the lines that it, along woth so many other points relating to the gig, had simply not been discussed.

DSLRUsers.com

Being bullied by boss for refusing to photograph for client

Being bullied by boss for refusing to photograph for client

Re: Being bullied by boss for refusing to photograph for client

Re: Being bullied by boss for refusing to photograph for client

Re: Being bullied by boss for refusing to photograph for client

Re: Being bullied by boss for refusing to photograph for client

Re: Being bullied by boss for refusing to photograph for client

Re: Being bullied by boss for refusing to photograph for client

Re: Being bullied by boss for refusing to photograph for client

Re: Being bullied by boss for refusing to photograph for client

Re: Being bullied by boss for refusing to photograph for client

Re: Being bullied by boss for refusing to photograph for client

Re: Being bullied by boss for refusing to photograph for client

Re: Being bullied by boss for refusing to photograph for client

Re: Being bullied by boss for refusing to photograph for client

Re: Being bullied by boss for refusing to photograph for client

Re: Being bullied by boss for refusing to photograph for client

Re: Being bullied by boss for refusing to photograph for client

Re: Being bullied by boss for refusing to photograph for client

Re: Being bullied by boss for refusing to photograph for client

Re: Being bullied by boss for refusing to photograph for client

Re: Being bullied by boss for refusing to photograph for client

Re: Being bullied by boss for refusing to photograph for client

Re: Being bullied by boss for refusing to photograph for client

Re: Being bullied by boss for refusing to photograph for cli

Re: Being bullied by boss for refusing to photograph for client

Re: Being bullied by boss for refusing to photograph for cli

Re: Being bullied by boss for refusing to photograph for client

Re: Being bullied by boss for refusing to photograph for client

Re: Being bullied by boss for refusing to photograph for client

Re: Being bullied by boss for refusing to photograph for client

Re: Being bullied by boss for refusing to photograph for client

Re: Being bullied by boss for refusing to photograph for client

Re: Being bullied by boss for refusing to photograph for client

Re: Being bullied by boss for refusing to photograph for client

Re: Being bullied by boss for refusing to photograph for client

Re: Being bullied by boss for refusing to photograph for client

Re: Being bullied by boss for refusing to photograph for client

Re: Being bullied by boss for refusing to photograph for client

Re: Being bullied by boss for refusing to photograph for client

Re: Being bullied by boss for refusing to photograph for client

Re: Being bullied by boss for refusing to photograph for client

Re: Being bullied by boss for refusing to photograph for client

Re: Being bullied by boss for refusing to photograph for client

Re: Being bullied by boss for refusing to photograph for client

Re: Being bullied by boss for refusing to photograph for client

Re: Being bullied by boss for refusing to photograph for client

Re: Being bullied by boss for refusing to photograph for client

Re: Being bullied by boss for refusing to photograph for client

Re: Being bullied by boss for refusing to photograph for client

Re: Being bullied by boss for refusing to photograph for client