Is videography better paid than photography ?

I get paid to second shoot weddings and occasionally book my own. I have yet to see a videographer at a wedding I've been paid to do. We hired one for our wedding, and certainly paid a lot less than the photographer. No offense to the vid people, but they're mainly capturing what happens, and a lot less of setting up lighting and posing people for a timeless photo that is supposed to be the best photo they'll ever have of themselves in their entire life. Just one persons opinion here.

Martin,

I think you have to research your local market. Many (most?) of the responses here will be from Americans.

As for market, are you talking weddings, or all the other fields of video? This can make a big difference because business to business photography/videography is potentially much more lucrative.

By the way, how much video experience do you have? It's easy to underestimate the effort required compared to stills.

It would often depend on the use of the work - as you will usually find that it's the amount that others would want to use the work, that would ultimately determine how much they would be prepared to pay.

Which in turn would then determine how much the self employed person, who is agreeing doing the work or has already agreed to do the work, will be able to pay themselves at the end of the day.

• Little use = Little value.
• Greater use = Greater value... to them.

Be it one person or lots of different people.


.. and I wish you all a very prosperous and happy New Year.

Last year video for weddings etc always was requested AFTER all conversations about photo session or reportage and always as a free addition. We refused to do it for all very budget clients, because there is no space for any operation with video for that price. More details will just look like a nagging

axio said:

Last year video for weddings etc always was requested AFTER all conversations about photo session or reportage and always as a free addition. We refused to do it for all very budget clients, because there is no space for any operation with video for that price. More details will just look like a nagging

Click to expand...

This is why anybody who wants to work in wedding video really needs to do his own marketing and to be able to present sample work that convinces customers that they'll be getting something special.

Shooting a 200 person wedding pn still, or video?

Providing editorial-quality stills for a multinational corporation to include with a news release announcing a new CEO, or providing 120 seconds of B-roll of the CEO inside the Hamburg factory, outside the London and Paris sales offices, and with a big customer in Miami?

We are overseeing a web site shooting a video interview with a tax lawyer next week. We expect a three-person video team; camera and lighting person operator, interviewer, and producer.

BAK

For retail sales, to the general public, it's no better or worse. For weddings, christenings, etc people don't really like video as much as stills so the reduced desirability cancels out any premium for the superior skill required to do video over stills.

For commercial clients, small or large, it's much more highly paid because it is a far more skilled operation than simple still photography and fewer people are capable of doing it to a high standard. Therefore laws of supply and demand mean commercial videographers get paid more than commercial photographers.

Martin Frost said:

Is videography better paid than photography ?

Click to expand...

It depends.

Martin Frost said:

If yes, is (freelance) videography much bettter paid ?

Click to expand...

It depends, mostly on you.

Martin Frost said:

Income / spent hours incl editing.

I know, I have to learn before stepping ( again) parttime into a market.

Click to expand...

Whether or not videography will give you a better income than photography, or vice versa, is a moot point. I think it's the wrong question to ask. If you're in it for the money, you're not likely to make it in either field in the long run. Consider becoming a lawyer instead.

Which field will bring your more money, or whether or not you'll be successful in either field in the first place, is entirely up to you.

It's not about hourly rates or hours spent, it's about how you choose to run your business in general. There is a valid point in the reply above, though, but getting there may not be as simple as it sounds, especially for a one-man band operation.

I'd say don't ask which field will pay you better, ask yourself what is it that you want to do, or cannot not do, even when you're not paid a penny. Then start pursuing that, whatever it is, even if it's something else than photography or videography. That way you might actually make a successful career, eventually, besides becoming a lawyer or a drug dealer.

RhysM said:

For commercial clients, small or large, it's much more highly paid because it is a far more skilled operation than simple still photography and fewer people are capable of doing it to a high standard. Therefore laws of supply and demand mean commercial videographers get paid more than commercial photographers.

Click to expand...

It would all depend on what you asked your clients to pay you for...



.. as well as of course, what they agreed to pay you for - either before, during or after you did the work.




.. and I wish you all a very prosperous and Happy New Year too.

BAK said:

...

Providing editorial-quality stills for a multinational corporation to include with a news release announcing a new CEO, or providing 120 seconds of B-roll of the CEO inside the Hamburg factory, outside the London and Paris sales offices, and with a big customer in Miami?

Click to expand...

No, I will never do this.

ashleymorrison said:

RhysM said:

For commercial clients, small or large, it's much more highly paid because it is a far more skilled operation than simple still photography and fewer people are capable of doing it to a high standard. Therefore laws of supply and demand mean commercial videographers get paid more than commercial photographers.

Click to expand...

It would all depend on what you asked your clients to pay you for...

.. as well as of course, what they agreed to pay you for - either before, during or after you did the work.

Click to expand...

Yes it could depend on those things, where the image is used, for how long, by who, etc, etc.

Or, as is often the case, even amongst seasoned, "veteran" pros, that they simply charged a daily fee and transferred all rights to the client who threw them a few hundred or even a few thousand £/$.

However, the point is, whether we're talking work for hire, license agreements or payment in goats, pound-for-pound a commercial videographer will get paid more than a commercial photographer.

RhysM said:

Yes it could depend on those things, where the image is used, for how long, by who, etc, etc.

Click to expand...

I believe what you meant to say was: It would all depend on the Media use, the Period of use and the Territory of use, if this...


(Licence to use document)

.. was what you were asking your client to pay you for - either before, during or after you had agreed to hire yourself or employ yourself, to create the images.

Because it would obviously be those 3 main things here, that would ultimately determine the fee at the end of the day... as well as the number of images that they wanted to use.

Cheers

Ashley

www.ampimage.com

I have read all.

* Highest level video for commercial customers is better paid than highest level photography

* For private customers or not-highest-level video: Photography seems a bit better.

Martin Frost said:

* Highest level video for commercial customers...

Click to expand...

Would normally involve a Production company, so the camera man and the rest of the crew would probably just be paid for their time, to operate whatever equipment the Production company wanted them to use.

So yes, the overall cost to the Client could be much higher because of the greater production costs involved.

Or, just like with photography, if the Production company felt that they would be able to sell the Rights to their work to a number of different people throughout the World over the next few years, then the cost to each Client may not be as much as a result.

However, the camera man and the rest of the crew that the Production company hired to do the work for them, may still not be paid as much as you think for their time.

(Based on my understanding of how things work at the higher end of the market)

Cheers

Ashley

www.ampimage.com

ashleymorrison said:

Martin Frost said:

* Highest level video for commercial customers...

Click to expand...

Would normally involve a Production company, so the camera man and the rest of the crew would probably just be paid for their time, to operate whatever equipment the Production company wanted them to use.

So yes, the overall cost to the Client could be much higher because of the greater production costs involved.

Or, just like with photography, if the Production company felt that they would be able to sell the Rights to their work to a number of different people throughout the World over the next few years, then the cost to each Client may not be as much as a result.

However, the camera man and the rest of the crew that the Production company hired to do the work for them, may still not be paid as much as you think for their time.

(Based on my understanding of how things work at the higher end of the market)

Cheers

Ashley

www.ampimage.com

Click to expand...

Or maybe they just do get paid more, because videography is a much harder skill and more marketable than still photography.

Without the need for further dilution or protracted rhetoric on the subject.

RhysM wrote:

RhysM said:

Or maybe they just do get paid more, because videography is a much harder skill and more marketable than still photography.

Without the need for further dilution or protracted rhetoric on the subject.

Click to expand...

Some people may agree with you; as a result, they may therefore be prepared to pay a Videographer more for their time than they would a Photographer for their time.

However, as a self employed person, if one were to simply charge for the use of your work, instead of for your time to do the work - then how much one would be able to pay oneself at the end of the day, would ultimately be determined instead, by how much others would want to use your work afterwards.

Which is obviously a totally different thing altogether...


(Licence No. 20060927-00015995)


(Licence No. 20070505-00016084)


(Licence No. 20080302-00016219)


(Licence No. 20140203-00016826 & 20150506-00016901)


(Licence No. 20140515-00016839)

.. and so therefore, it may not be as easy to determine, who in the end would make the most money here - as it could be 10 years or more before you would be able to say for sure - as that would often be about the life-spam of a really good image or piece of work, based on my own personal experience over the years.

Which is why I'd often say: The Value to them, is not the same as the Value to you - which is worth keeping in mind when you are quoting a fee beforehand - especially if you are just asking others to pay you for the Rights to use your images... which are protected under the Copyright Law.

Cheers

Ashley

www.ampimage.com

I've been on sets with professional video guys and they were getting paid substantially LESS than I was. At least on an individual basis. I was honestly shocked.

I just do photography, but it seems if you want to do videoography well, you need to invest in even pricier equipment (stabilizer devices, gimbals, and drones are pretty cool!) plus video takes up a lot of hard drive space.

Editing is bound to be more complicated and time consuming I would think, I guess it depends on how many photos you got vs how many minutes/hours of video.

I think Video should charge more, but it seems they don't based on others answers here, but I know if it's like photography, peoples rates do really vary based on their quality of work (and or confidence and marketing tactics!), I think editing style could definitely influence clients to pay more if you have a style they like.



Ben