Still photog rates

[BluesCam]

I had a crew shooting a corporate project and there was a still photog shooting digital stills. He was getting $100 a day more than my two person Beta crew!

[Baltimore Shooter]

Yep, I've been saying that for a long time, but everytime I post that, people just poo-poo me, saying I don't know what I'm talking about or that I misunderstood or something.

The still photogs invest $10k or so (maybe $15k but not much more than that) and they get more money as a 1 person still crew than we get for a 2 person crew w/ $100k+ gear!!!

The going rate for still photogs is $1,500-$2,000 a day!

As I have said here before we have only screwed ourselves buy undercutting eachother!

But then, no one listens to me anyway.

Warren

[Icarus112277]

An old gf of mine worked for grey advertising- the still guys they hired to shoot their print ads sometimes billed out at 8-10k!

[freedom]

I have a friend who works as a DP shooting commercials. He gets $10,000/day and up except for very long projects.
The 2 man beta crew has been demeaned by television news. TV news is the lowest form of photography, other than perhaps some wedding shooters and forensics.
That still photographer was working for a marketing company and that adds $.
Although I will say that I know several still shooters that say it is not nearly as good as it used to be. In large part it depends on the market you are in and how you position yourself in that market.

[Nino]

Why are still photographers making more money that we do?

This subject keep reappearing on this board every few months so let see why photographers can get more money that we do. The very simple answer is that the average commercial photographer has considerably more skills than the average video shooter, why is that? I started my career in the early 70s as a still photographer. I was strictly a full time photographer for my first 7 years then combined my still business with commercial film productions and then in the mid 80s switched to television.
Fresh out of college with a degree in arts and photography I was ready to set the world on fire, well, I soon discovered that I could hardly light a match. I was fortunate to connect with a few mentors that showed me the correct way to become a good photographer.

Photography is a community operating under the umbrellas of several professional organizations. These organizations primarily purpose is to upgrade the skills of the profession. They are all affiliated with the Professional Photographers of America (PPA). These groups brake-down into regional associations, state associations and some of the larger cities have their own associations. These organizations main purpose is to continuously educate and re-educate photographers. Their philosophy is that in order to make more money you have to become a better photographer, not just early in your career but learning is an ongoing process until retirement. Some of the associations have been around for 80 plus years, as senior member reaches retirement age the new generation takes over and moves on. Keep in mind that the PPA is not only about education, the organization also protect the rights of photographers. A landmark case that we all benefit from was passed thanks to the PPA where a hired photographer owns the image he created in perpetuity, the client who hired him only own the use of that image.

Just months after I started in the photography business in the early 70s, I was an active member of the national PPA, the regional New England PPA, and the locals Connecticut PPA, Westchester PPA and Long Island PPA. Each of the local ones has monthly meeting/lectures while the national and the regional have annual conventions. The main theme for these events is education, members teaching each other how to up their skills. Additionally the New England PPA runs annually the New England Institute of Professional Photography (NEIPP), a one week educational event with a variety of photographic subjects to choose from; back in the 70s it was held at the University of New Hampshire. I attended NEIPP ten consecutive sessions. In New England we also had the Maine Photographic Workshop that originally was only photography then it changed to cinematography and eventually television.

Although most of these association’s educational events are geared toward people style photography, within each association there are groups that specialize in various types of commercial photography. Each group, local, regional and national also sponsors photo contests. These are not just ego trips; a panel of PPA certified judges will hold critique sessions for all entries. This is probably the best educational value as a panel of experts tells you what you should do to improve your work. Photography was and for many photographers still is a 24/7 commitment. It was a point in our careers that we were programmed that every job we did was carried out with the objective of creating an award winning photograph. Quality, that’s how you get the clients to pay more for your services.

Now, when was last time that we, as video professional, attended any event to improve our skills?

Unlike our business, the equipment that a photographer owns has no bearing on what he charges for his services. He/she will buy whatever equipment will be needed to produce the best work possible, because once you can give your client the best work you can also ask for more money, and clients don’t care what equipment you use, they look for results. That’s a very simple and successful formula, something we should learn from.

Just recently while producing a marketing video for a Marriott resort I worked side by side with a still photographer, (veteran like me) hired by Marriott to update the resort’s photo library. For me it was like stepping back in time, as we both basically started the same way and even attended many of the same educational events. He stayed with photography and I drifted away.
While we (video crew) averaged about seven to ten set-ups a day, he was doing two and maybe three. He had a crew of three, one photo assistant and two lighting assistants. They used four strobe packs with 4 lights each (16 lights total) and his work was incredibly good. He didn’t tell me what his daily rate was, but the same person that hired us both told me that the photographer’s alone rates were almost twice the standard rates of a video crew.

Photography in general is more about skills. Pick up any professional or consumer photographic magazine and the main content is about techniques. Pick up any magazine about the video industry and it’s all about technology, very little or nothing about techniques.

[SimonW]

Photography in general is more about skills. Pick up any professional or consumer photographic magazine and the main content is about techniques. Pick up any magazine about the video industry and it’s all about technology, very little or nothing about techniques.

You have a point to a degree there. Mind you, professional photographers don't have to work around technology like we do. Their digital cameras can produce raw photographs with huge amounts of dynamic range and millions of pixels. And to be honest, it isn't exactly breaking the bank balance to shoot on film. Even medium and large formats are affordable to most people with an average income and who take it seriously. Heck you can even BUILD you own camera from scratch with a bit of DIY gusto.

But regarding the photo magazines, that is a good point. Even many of the professional film cinematography mags can often be about the equipment used to create a look, rather than the actual method employed. Ie, they will often say "We created a bleached out look with <insert software name here>, but I also wanted to have a nice highlight roll-off", instead of saying "We wanted a bleached out look, and we did this by performing <insert actual details of technique>".

I think there is a certain protectiveness about the intricacies of how things are actually done.

I am quite happy to go on courses (even basic ones) since I know I can always learn something I hadn't considered before. One reason I went for the Vortex Media interview lighting DVD was because it was aimed at not only lighting interviews, but it appears it concentrates on achieving a very high quality look. I'm always interested in how others approach things (and I'll quite happily eat humble pie if I'm a complete clutz at something).

Now, what was said earlier about undercutting is one issue with video. But there is another. Percieved quality.

Now, despite there being paparatzi in existence who don't seem to give a rats backside about the actual quaility of their photographs, the general impression of stills photography is of someone who takes their time over something and 'composes' a picture (possibly the same impression one gets if you are a film cameraman or DP)

Video has a different connotation. When people think of video they think of something that is shot quickly. Rightily or wrongly. They also have a lesser impression of it because the general feeling can be that we do the same as anyone else who has a camcorder at home, except we have better equipment.

Photography is also seen as being 'sexier'! Anyone who's done an assignment with a stills photog in a public place may know that if there's a stills guy and a video guy, the women always go to talk to the stills guy. Or maybe its just that I'm butt ugly! ;)

Video seems to be percieved as a way of obtaining a technical picture rather than a creative one.

Perhaps a new type of video magazine is needed. Showreel in the UK is a good mag (and I'm not being biased just because I occasionally write for them).

[The Thing on The Sticks]

Like Nino I have shot as a still photographer though my passion has always been in video. I can’t help but wonder is what people are seeing here a result of time. Still photography has been around as a profession for over a hundred years now. When it comes to, video for television or corporate use we are talking what 55 years or so. Additionally as many here have stated there is a greater degree of technical skill for the highly payed still photographers out there. However there are also many at the low end of the pay pyramid photographers who shoot a motor cross race and sell the images to competitors and the like. So the question becomes what can we do to improve the way we shoot?

I point this out because in my time working with a veteran still photographer I learned more about light and shooting in general then I learned in the first 4 years I shot video. In the two years since then I have chosen to continue my career as a vidiot however I have taken to heart what I learned as a snapper and been enriched by it. My advice to all is to find out how to do the same.

Geoff

[freedom]

I was always able to command a large premium when shooting film over video. Somehow the still photogs managed to not suffer that when they switched from film to digital.

[Hiding Under Here]

I shot a piece a few years back for 20/20. Life Magazine was working on the same story. The still photographer, whom I liked and who I'll bet Nino knows (I can't remember his name but he shoots sports and is from Orlando), was a great guy. We got along great. The Life piece and the 20/20 version made their debut the same week, so I was able to examine both virtually side by side. Taking myself out of the equation I can honestly say that the television story was far more compelling than the printed/still photography essay. There was no question about it. The character in the story, a boy named Roberto who walked on all fours, hands and feet, came alive in motion pictures. You could see his burden and understand him in a way that print and photography was unable to express.

I'll taking the moving medium, sound and pictures, any day.

[Baltimore Shooter]

And let me guess, the photog from Life was paid more than your 2 person 20/20 crew.

Warren

[austinsatguy]

In an effort to compare apples to apples... During one 7 month stay I had in Afghanistan and some time in Iraq (both as a freelancer) I was able to get to know many fine freelance still shooters. They were working for the usual suspects, as was I. On several occasions after much beer and vodka, the topic of dollars would come up. I can tell you that the video profession faired well. About 25 to 50 percent higher in the day rate.

Just my .02

[Hiding Under Here]

I never knew what the Life Magazine photographer was making. I never asked. I was satisfied with my own compensation, although that's changing year by year.

[Nino]

bleached out look, and we did this by performing <insert actual details of technique>".
Photography is also seen as being 'sexier'! Anyone who's done an assignment with a stills photog in a public place may know that if there's a stills guy and a video guy, the women always go to talk to the stills guy. Or maybe its just that I'm butt ugly! ;).
Sexier? Photographers are more Sexier? I think I was absent when they were teaching the sexy thing, boy, I sure got cheated out of that one.

Simon is true that video is a more technically complex business than photography. When I made my switch from photography and cinematography to video in the mid 80s, as far as quality went it was like stepping off the top of the mountain into a cliff. Back then the technology wasn’t nearly as complicated as it is today and yet the quality of the average video productions was just awful. Things did not get much better, actually with lower budgets things got worse. Please let’s not use the excuse that technology doesn’t allow us to do a better job in front of the camera because it just doesn’t make any sense. Let me give you an example, this just happen two days ago but I can give you dozens of similar cases. I’m doing a quick live talking head at the Tropicana field for ESPN2. My set up for this type of work is a quick 3 lights, A Lowell caselight for key, another for rim or backlight and my on-camera HMI for fill. Next to me was the broadcasting network with their 100k hard camera also doing a talking-head. With all their million dollar technology at their disposal they had the subject lighted with one open face Lowel Total light with no diffusion. There’s no excuse for that crap.

I’ve been saying this for years, what’s happening in front of the camera is equally or more important that what going on inside the camera. Instead of calling for unity in the rates that we charge let’s instead do like the photographers do and encourage manufacturers and publications to start creating more technique oriented programs and events, once our quality overall gets better then we can start asking for better rates. The only way to get more money is to get better and increase the quality gap from those guys that stay in business by undercutting prices

[Lensmith]

I feel an important point being missed here is the wider market for a still image. More commercial applications which translate into more dollars.

With a wider market for your product, you can get a bigger cut of the pie up front.

[SimonW]

I’m doing a quick live talking head at the Tropicana field for ESPN2. My set up for this type of work is a quick 3 lights, A Lowell caselight for key, another for rim or backlight and my on-camera HMI for fill. Next to me was the broadcasting network with their 100k hard camera also doing a talking-head. With all their million dollar technology at their disposal they had the subject lighted with one open face Lowel Total light with no diffusion. There’s no excuse for that crap.

Absolutely. And I think you've unwittingly stumbled upon another point.

I have a friend who works for a firm that does corporate and industrial video. Now, my friend is an exceptional editor. He's good at camera too, but his main forte is editing. He spends most of his time covering up the lackluster camerawork of his boss, as well as sorting out editing issues when said boss attempts to put something together. By my friends own admission (and his boss oftentimes undoes his good work in the editing and has the final say!) a lot of what they put out is rubbish. Yet their clients are 99% of the time utterly over the moon with the final product.

Yep, some people just cannot tell good video from bad as long as they see themselves on a television screen! Now contrast this with stills photography. We all know of stories of the rubbish wedding photographer for example. It seems that like bad audio people are less tolerant of rubbish stills photographs than they are about rubbish video

[Stoney]

I wish I had some of the same skills with my still cam as I do with my videocam. I love still photography but I feel like the skills, although similar in so many ways, do not translate very well to both mediums.... I take a lot of crappy still pics! Maybe if I learned still then went to video, things would be different in that regard.

I think the ability to capture something special in one frame is infinitely harder to do than through video. It's easier now with digital than ever, but still very difficult. That doesn't mean that I prefer one medium over the other or think still shooters are better than motion shooters. They are just apples and oranges.

Like anything else, the rates that all shooters of all mediums can command does not always translate to ability. Still shooters seem to be better at keeping their rates high. Video crews seem to be good at amassing more and more gear, producing, scheduling, and throwing out backs!

[Sprite]

There are many issues at play here:

Still photography, particularly the real deal commercial kind -- not 35mm but the huge camera with the 5" negative -- costs a lot of money to produce/upkeep. The PROJECT commands the big money. The photogs, unless they own their own commercial business, make a fraction of that. And you have to look at terms. If your handing over the negs to said company, you are surrendering all rights to reproduction. Thus, you charge more.

Wedding photogs, again if they own their own biz, can charge into the thousands for the contract. But, if you're a still photog working for a studio, then again you only get a fraction of that. Studios charge waaaay above cost for stills. And video. Unless you own the biz, I'd be surprised if the videographers make more than $800 per party.

Same goes for news (still and video). Independent freelancers can charge a higher rate than paid staff. This isn't the case in every state, but that's the way it is here in NY. Stills new photogs here cap off at $350-$400/day, no matter how many assignments you're given. Here, wedding photogs make more.

[Sprite]

That still photogs are also a dime a dozen.
Everyone's a photog, but few can really take a picture. Seriously.
Commercial work is hard to find. To be in the position of the big kahuna that does nothing but click the camera as your crew of a dozen lighting and film assistants and set designers do everything else for you -- you've got to be one in a million.

.
.
.

(I'll take a bow for post # 101)

[Run&Gun]

What we're talking about here is the still photog doing something major, a national ad campaign, or other pictures that will be around for a long time and be seen by lots of people and that may convey the public image of somone or company, not a newspaper still photog shooting something for tomorrows newspaper.

I think still photos have more staying power than video. How many more famous still photos are there than video or film images? How many countless covers of Time, National Geographic and newspapers have held images that are a part of our culture and history now? Yeah, people talk about the game that they saw on TV last night, but when was the last time you remember them talking about a specific image(picture) that they saw on there for a long time like on the cover of a magazine or newspaper?

[schlagdrg]

I also started out as a still photographer. In the late 80's, covering spot news on Long Island, minimum was $75 for an B/W photo on an inside page on the local daily. Upwards to a $1000 for a front page color. Add other streams of income from AP, and it wasn't a bad gig.

But in the early 90's, the AP changed their photo agreements wtih freelance photographers. They owned all rights to your image for future re-sell, and you had to be responsible for the transmitting of the image to the AP. You were also solely responsible for said image if the AP was sued. The options were to sign on the dotted line or find another outlet to sell your photos.

I have not worked for the AP since.

Since then major dailies, were able to lower their rates for freelancers. There were a lot more freelancers, NFL and MLB were cutting access. I was stuck between a rock and a hardplace. I had just reinvested in all new equipment, swithing from manual focus to autofocus. 300f2.8 $4000, 600f4.5 $6500, 2bodies w/power drives $4000, flashes $900, misc lens $3500... Roughly $20,000 in equipment, losing a major customer in th AP, re-sell was a significant income, and I couldn't give it up.

I now work in video, in a top 20 market. Pay isn't great, but I like the job.

I stiil shoot stills, mostly ad work. But the pay isn't what it use to be. Every Tom, Dick or Jane with a digital SLR and photoshop are out there offering their services.

I just turned down a shoot, the client told me a recent grad said they could do the job for $150, and why was I charging $1500? If I wanted the job I had to do it for $150.

The grad got the job, and I got a call the next week asking if I could re-do the shoot. But they needed a finished product in 24hours. No problem, but for that shot turn-around, I need $2000.

$1500 or $2000 might sound a lot, but that generallly covers all processing, converting to digital format and digital editing.

BTW... most commercial photographers still shoot on film. The quality is still alot better than digital.

[SimonW]

BTW... most commercial photographers still shoot on film. The quality is still alot better than digital.

Absolutely. Many of the people offering their services now are only able to do so because of digital SLR's. Focussing is done for them, exposure is done for them. Many of them just don't know how to operate them manually.

Right on about charging more for the turnaround. People will pay for quality. The ones who are cheap skates always learn their lesson eventually and have to pay someone with actual skill to 'fix' the problem.

[dhart]

A few points. First, the EFP production marketplace has determined the rate structure for a two person EFP crew. We can whine that it's not that of a still photographer but I doubt that will change what the marketplace is willing to pay. Second, one can argue that more skill is required to shoot a really compelling still photograph. With the advent of digital photography that may be changing a bit, but a really good still requires many skills we do not normally use in our profession. Finally, we haven't had a real raise in our rates in nearly 25 years and I do not see that changing any time soon. However this does not deter the people willing to ply this trade as supply always exceeds demand, hence the posts about a "slow" summer.

[Shootblue]

I have a digital SLR setup, spent about 14k for it. I recently did photos for a local Holiday Inn. I charged them $75 an hour on location. Included was the time to photoshop them to look better. Some were pretty simple, just a tiny bit more saturation or contrast. Others were more involved, like the outside signature shot, and included a lot of PITA removing fire lane markers, off-air antennas, adding a gradient to liven up the sky...

I ended up billing it at $1200 for about 17 hours total worth of workon location, and about 15 at home. I think that is a fair amount considering my investment, time, and level of ability. I'm not the greatest, but I don't suck either. I learned that lighting a hotel room is a lot harder than it looks.

I've gotten screwed on projects before with money. The huge amount of time it took me to do the local festival was not worth the $700 they paid. Shooting photos for the local youth sports thing was something I never want to do again. I think you get what you pay for though. It does in fact take a couple hours sometimes to get that special shot. I reguarly read that the still guys who take the really great looking shots at places might get 4-6 shots a day. They spend all that time setting things up...It's hard for me to get that kind of stuff when they want so many different shots. Give me three hours to set up a shot and I can get it looking pretty close to as good as the 4-6 shots a day counterparts.

[Baltimore Shooter]

As someone else on here said one time "Still guys only have to get one good shot, we have to get 30 good shots a second".

Warren

[Grip]

I have only met one still photg that I could respect, long time friend
http://www.nathanielbrowning.com/gallery.html
The dude finds places that are not on the map

But to back up what Warren was saying,
Not only do "Still guys only have to get one good shot, we have to get 30 good shots a second", but they only have to consider that picture, while we have to work with sound and sequence.

[Cameradude]

That'll teach ya!!

I started out as a freelances newspaper guy and moved into the commercial world before taking the video route full time.

The thing I hated about the still work was all the post production work involved. In the film days there was film and processing, editing, and then delivery of images. In the digital world there was downloading and editing of images to the ones selected for client delivery. I had a studio to maintain and pay for and that was factored into figuring my rate for a shoot. The bottom line is that I really like not having all those additional hassles as a freelance vide shooter. Now it is shoot, hand them a tape, send 'em an invoice.

You are sitting at home drinking a beer and surfing the net while he is editing images, archiving shots, and burning CD's.