The camera has a limited life. The number of shots it takes is directly related to this life in the same way a car depreciates with every mile. More importantly it will be redundant technology in two years. How much justification do you need? Did you read the preamble to the manifesto?
Of course I can see the justification. And of course I am charging clients more than the 'old' costs of film and processing, but charging per shutter click seems somewhat harsh. The 1Ds shutter has a life of at least 120,000 frames. That's 4.6 pence per frame if the shutter's life is nominally the camera's life. How much are people charging per capture?
Yes, I do shoot RAW. I make html galleries using jpegs and process the chosen shots. I did a shoot this morning; it took about five minutes to transfer the images to disk while I checked my e-mail, then about a minute to make an iView gallery. Three minutes to check focus and dump shots I didn't like. Click 'make HTML gallery'. Two minutes later drag the created folder onto Fetch and e-mail client with website address. Have lunch. I consider that the real work happens with the RAW conversion and Photoshop. Of course the computer costs a lot, and I charge whatever I can get away with. There have been jobs that I can leave post-production costs to be decided depending on time taken and number of images 'processed'. More often there is a rate on top of the photographer's fee, take it or leave it. I take it if I really believe there's a limited budget on a particular job, in the knowledge that I'll be paid more on subsequent ones.
The CD itself costs a few pence and a stamp 27p.
And the computer to do it on? and the replacement writer? the software to make the file readable across formats? the time the computer is tied up whilst burning? stock? Charge for it! Again did you read the manifesto?
In the old days, I'd charge for film and processing (marked up, of course), and hand over the transparencies. I'd either have to pay to make dupes of shots I wanted to keep, or try and get the trannies or scans on CD back from clients. Often difficult or impossible. Now I keep everything here, and only have to release the shots they want. If clients want subsequent shots to the main shoot on CD, I charge for it, but not at a rate that they would consider to be unfair (how would you feel if a client charged you �50 for a CD of your images they'd scanned? I've been sent a lot of CDs by clients, and not once been charged).
And I did read the manifesto; I'm just doubtful it's realistic. If shooting digital becomes much more expensive than shooting on film and scanning, a lot of clients would be happy to go back to film.
Are you saying that you would previously not have charged for film because it was needed to do the job anyway? Your logic astounds me.
My warped logic is that a roll of film costs around �4.00 and can sit in the fridge for months, CDs cost 15p and sleeves a couple of pence (when you buy 500 of them). Of course there is the cost of the computer to bear in mind, but that is being charged for in the basic post-production costs. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to charge as much as I can get away with, that's why a set of guidelines to educate the client as to what to expect in terms of charges would be very welcome.
I choose to use a pricing model which relates to my days of shooting film.
That's great, but not very clear. As I said earlier, if digital becomes too much more expensive that shooting film (and that's why I questioned the long list of suggested charges in my last e-mail) we'll lose work to the luddites.
Have a good weekend.
Best regards
Richard Lewisohn
http://www.lewisohn.co.uk
=============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
