Day rate and retouching fees

[james_west]

Looking for some insight here. If, for example, your day rate for photography (a model shoot, or product) is $1,200.00, do you charge an extra fee for post-editing, retouching? If so, what do you charge for this.

Thanks.

 

[Vegasluvr]

If you are an Adobe Certifed Photo Shop expert (you have to take courses in Photo Shop), then your fees would command anywhere from $75-$150 per hour billable in half hour increments.

But all the professional photographers I know only retouch maybe 10%-15% of of their images. Most, and that includes me, admit some that need retouching are the photographer's fault because of poor lighting or not paying attention to the background or light set up. If this is the case, you shouldn't be charging the client for this service.

On the other hand, if the client wants blemishes removed, then that is a different story.

 

[james_west]

If you are an Adobe Certifed Photo Shop expert (you have to take
courses in Photo Shop), then your fees would command anywhere from
$75-$150 per hour billable in half hour increments.

But all the professional photographers I know only retouch maybe
10%-15% of of their images. Most, and that includes me, admit some
that need retouching are the photographer's fault because of poor
lighting or not paying attention to the background or light set up.
If this is the case, you shouldn't be charging the client for this
service.

On the other hand, if the client wants blemishes removed, then that
is a different story.

Thanks for your input, Vegas, but ummmm, I just don't know about that.

I didn't realize that you had to be an Adobe Certifed Photo Shop expert and take courses to be capable of doing professional retouching. I guess my almost 18 years of professional on the job experience with Photoshop, editing and retouching photos for major, nationally distributed magazines and other high-end publications doesn't count for much, then.

Also, as a magazine Art Director for major photogaphy magazines I've never seen a photo anywhere, ever, taken by anyone, straight out of the camera that didn't need post-editing and retouching.

Anyone else care to share their experiences?

 

[Dubbie99]

You don't have to be adobe certified anything.

Those sorts of certifications are usually for people with below average skill and talent. Photoshop is not difficult to learn. The hard part is knowing what to do with it once you have learned the buttons.

I charge ~ $120/h depending on the length of the job.

 

[Kent Johnson]

It really depends upon how many images you are talking about and how much retouching they need. A well shot and lit image of anything rarely requires extensive post processing. This is what lights, modifiers, assistants and makeup artists are for. Does this take more time up front? Sure.

This is one of the pitfalls of "fixing it in the mix" with Photoshop.

I let folks know ahead of time that my hourly time costs $150/hr. If the project is going to require a lot of time outside of the shoot then we figure that out beforehand.

As for being certified, I'm not sure why so many people jump on Vegas for having his employees certified? He's running a licensed business, not a tent at a Persian bazaar. I've been using Photoshop since v2 and I'm not certified but I sure wouldn't mind if I were. Despite what people think, it's not a "waste of time" or a threat to your stunning artistic vision and talent with post processing. It's a top down crawl through all of the functionality of a very wide and deep software program. No big deal...
-Kent

Looking for some insight here. If, for example, your day rate for
photography (a model shoot, or product) is $1,200.00, do you charge
an extra fee for post-editing, retouching? If so, what do you charge
for this.

Thanks.

 

[pptphoto]

Good answer Kent, and I agree about the Adobe certification. I'm not certified either, and don't feel it's a necessity, but I certainly understand Vegas reason for being certified and having his employees do the same.

What really kills me, to be honest, is when someone posts a question "innocently" looking for info/feedback from a variety of people, then jumps all over the first response criticizing their response and touting their "expertise". The real indicator is always the ubiquitous, long uuummmmm, then the lecture... oh well, the internet is full of people full of themselves.

 

[james_west]

Good answer Kent, and I agree about the Adobe certification. I'm not
certified either, and don't feel it's a necessity, but I certainly
understand Vegas reason for being certified and having his employees
do the same.

What really kills me, to be honest, is when someone posts a question
"innocently" looking for info/feedback from a variety of people, then
jumps all over the first response criticizing their response and
touting their "expertise". The real indicator is always the
ubiquitous, long uuummmmm, then the lecture... oh well, the internet
is full of people full of themselves.

Sorry pptphoto, didn't mean to "kill" you in anyway. The problem with words on a computer screen is it's so easy to assume incorrect things about people. You can only respond on face value to the words you see as best as you can. While there's certainly nothing wrong with being "certified", it certainly is no guarantee that the certified person will know what they are doing or be the least bit talented at retouching photos. I've seen too many certified hacks or people with college degrees who couldn't retouch their way out of a paper bag.

I suppose it would be easy to justifiably jump all over you for your ignorant assumptions about me, but I'll take the higher road and give you the benefit of the doubt that you, being the flawed, imperfect individual you are, merely incorrectly interpreted my response. Thanks anyway for chiming in, pptphoto.

 

[pptphoto]

James, sorry if I took you wrong. You are right, words on a computer screen can be taken incorrectly. Maybe you should have mentioned your credentials in the initial posts, I don't know.

Yes, you are right, I'm certainly imperfect. And flawed.

I agree that being certified, degreed and diploma-ed?, means very little. And, I agree that there are many people with degrees, etc that are idiots. Believe me, I've met lots of them. But. if that's what Vegas requires of his employees, then that's up to him, and at least he requires some sort of standards from them. I don't really know what Adobe Certification requirements are, but I'd guess that they might be pretty high. Probably more difficult than most universities Photoshop requirements. Again, I don't really know.

To answer your original question, I rarely charge for Photoshop work, personally. I don't do extensive manipulation for clients, just some fine tuning and minor enhancements. I come from the film days, large format, where everything had to be perfect before pushing the shutter button. Lighting, "white balance", exposure, ALL had to be perfect. Film retouching was too expensive and impractical.

I will admit I'm still learning where to draw the line between pre and post corrections. I shoot mostly architectural projects and like to deliver as perfect of a product as I can to my clients. My PS work mostly consists of color correction/fine tuning, levels, shadow/highlight, sharpening, and lots of cloning out imperfections such as stones, trash, phone lines, weeds, stakes, dead branches, etc. I rarely charge extra for that, instead just having it be part of my overall "photographic fee".

Anything more extensive I generally send out to a PS expert, charging their fees back to the client as expenses.

Again James, sorry for any misinterpretations. There ARE lots of people on here that like to challenge everyone, criticize everyone, act like they are the only experts, etc. Hopefully I jumped to the wrong conclusion. Take care.

 

[james_west]

James, sorry if I took you wrong. You are right, words on a computer
screen can be taken incorrectly. Maybe you should have mentioned
your credentials in the initial posts, I don't know.

Yes, you are right, I'm certainly imperfect. And flawed.

I agree that being certified, degreed and diploma-ed?, means very
little. And, I agree that there are many people with degrees, etc
that are idiots. Believe me, I've met lots of them. But. if that's
what Vegas requires of his employees, then that's up to him, and at
least he requires some sort of standards from them. I don't really
know what Adobe Certification requirements are, but I'd guess that
they might be pretty high. Probably more difficult than most
universities Photoshop requirements. Again, I don't really know.

To answer your original question, I rarely charge for Photoshop work,
personally. I don't do extensive manipulation for clients, just some
fine tuning and minor enhancements. I come from the film days, large
format, where everything had to be perfect before pushing the shutter
button. Lighting, "white balance", exposure, ALL had to be perfect.
Film retouching was too expensive and impractical.

I will admit I'm still learning where to draw the line between pre
and post corrections. I shoot mostly architectural projects and like
to deliver as perfect of a product as I can to my clients. My PS
work mostly consists of color correction/fine tuning, levels,
shadow/highlight, sharpening, and lots of cloning out imperfections
such as stones, trash, phone lines, weeds, stakes, dead branches,
etc. I rarely charge extra for that, instead just having it be part
of my overall "photographic fee".
Anything more extensive I generally send out to a PS expert, charging
their fees back to the client as expenses.

Again James, sorry for any misinterpretations. There ARE lots of
people on here that like to challenge everyone, criticize everyone,
act like they are the only experts, etc. Hopefully I jumped to the
wrong conclusion. Take care.

pptphoto,

Always glad to make a new friend here and thank you so kindly for extending the olive branch.

I was only responding to what seemed to me like a blanket generalization from the well-meaning Vegas business man, and my response was certainly not mean to attack him at all. Also, sometimes we all can get a little sensitive or even on the defensive in chat forums when we feel that someone may be taking a verbal swipe at us, which for adults, seems a little silly and a waste of time to go back and forth in such a manner.

Also, thanks for going into detail about your experiences, providing me with your helpful insights. I also do the same as you with my retouching, but I will handle it all from A-Z rather than farming it out. Right now, for apparel/model photography, I offer my client 25 retouched photos included in my absurdly low photography rate and I charge $50.00 an hour for anymore than 25 retouched photos. I think I'm giving away too much, but I know my new client has no complaints about that, and this may be the reason, in addition to my quality work, why this client chose me over their previous photographer who is top-notch in the industry. Money is tight these days, I guess. Perhaps for my next new client, in this particular genre of photography, I should keep my shooting rate the same and offer only 6-retouched photos and then charge for more than 6.

Thanks again, pptphoto.

 

[Vegasluvr]

No, I was just mentioning that Photo Shop professionals spend a lot to be certified. I am not certified nor an expert but I do know how to navigate around Photo Shop comfortably.

 

[james_west]

No, I was just mentioning that Photo Shop professionals spend a lot
to be certified. I am not certified nor an expert but I do know how
to navigate around Photo Shop comfortably.

Vegas,

Sorry if I came off a bit sarcastic to your response to my questions, seeking input on getting tips on how to better run my business, but I felt your response was a bit overly simplistic, making a blanket statement on what you feel qualifies a professional retoucher. I just simply responded, disagreeing with you on that point. However, I don't fault anyone who is certified or schooled, my point was that this does not in any way guarantee that they will have the talent necessary in being able to produce a top-notch, excellent result in retouching photography. But thanks for taking the time to respond.

Still looking for other photographer's experiences in response to my original post.

 

[Ashley Morrison Photography]

....do you charge
an extra fee for post-editing, retouching? If so, what do you charge
for this.

It depends on whether you are 'Working for Hire' or selling them the 'Rights to Use' your images.
Either way it's a cost that needs to be covered.

If you are 'Working for Hire' then you charge them a fixed hourly rate, just like an employee, to do whatever they want you to do. Doesn't matter what you are doing... be it taking pictures, driving the car, sitting in front of the computer, etc, etc.

If you are selling them the 'Rights to use' your images, then the post-editing, retouching, etc should be built into your price per image - especially if you know about it beforehand. It only becomes an extra line-item if they ask for additional work to be done after you have supplied the images.

'Working for Hire' = you work & bill like an employee would - charge for everything - and then hand it over.

'Rights to Use' = you produce & provide them with images to meet their needs and charge based on Usage.

It's important to know beforehand which one you are doing and be clear about what the deal is. Keep it simple for both you and the client to understand - and don't mix the two up, as that will lead to fall-outs and misunderstands down the road.

--
Cheers,
Ashley.
http://www.ashleymorrison.com

 

[james_west]

....do you charge
an extra fee for post-editing, retouching? If so, what do you charge
for this.

It depends on whether you are 'Working for Hire' or selling them the
'Rights to Use' your images.
Either way it's a cost that needs to be covered.

If you are 'Working for Hire' then you charge them a fixed hourly
rate, just like an employee, to do whatever they want you to do.
Doesn't matter what you are doing... be it taking pictures, driving
the car, sitting in front of the computer, etc, etc.
If you are selling them the 'Rights to use' your images, then the
post-editing, retouching, etc should be built into your price per
image - especially if you know about it beforehand. It only becomes
an extra line-item if they ask for additional work to be done after
you have supplied the images.

'Working for Hire' = you work & bill like an employee would - charge
for everything - and then hand it over.
'Rights to Use' = you produce & provide them with images to meet
their needs and charge based on Usage.

It's important to know beforehand which one you are doing and be
clear about what the deal is. Keep it simple for both you and the
client to understand - and don't mix the two up, as that will lead to
fall-outs and misunderstands down the road.

--
Cheers,
Ashley.
http://www.ashleymorrison.com

Thank you Ashley. I checked-out your site. Very nice work! Right now, I'm doing work for hire. I have the client sign my contract with all the details clearly spelled-out.

My question has to do specifically with profit vs the amount of work I'll be doing. Basically my question was do other photographers include a certain amount of photos in their overall shooting fee and raise that price accordingly, or do they separately itemize the retouching fee?

For now, I advertise my shooting fee (in efforts to hook them with my lower rate) and tell them that in that fee they get a certain amount of retouched photos and if they ask for anymore than that amount, I charge an hourly rate for the additional amount of photos that the client requests. I was wondering if there is a better way to do this that would be more efficient and more advantageous, monetarily for me. Hope that makes sense.

 

[pptphoto]

James, and thanks for YOUR response. It's always better to make new friends on here than enemies. I am anxious to see some of the other responses you get as it is always good to see how others run their business.

It would be great to get more positive threads on this forum than some of the critical, sarcastic responses and mud slinging that often goes on here. Thanks for creating a positive thread.

 

[Ashley Morrison Photography]

Right now,
I'm doing work for hire. I have the client sign my contract with all
the details clearly spelled-out.

If you are 'Working for Hire' then you charge them a fixed hourly
rate, just like an employee, to do whatever they want you to do.
Doesn't matter what you are doing... be it taking pictures, driving
the car, sitting in front of the computer, etc, etc.

'Working for Hire' = you work & bill like an employee would - charge
for everything - and then hand it over.

An employee turns up with his/her two hands in his/her pockets and the employee supplies him/her with everything he/she needs to do the work or else he/she hires it and bills the client/employer for that hire....including the hire of your car, cameras, lights and computer equipment.

If you want to do some work at home, in your own time, then that's your call - but the employer won't want to paid you for it.

As a self-employed person, I would not recommend you 'work for hire', unless they insist that is what they want you to do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Law_of_Business_Balance

"It's unwise to pay too much, but it's worse to pay too little. When you pay too much, you lose a little money -- that is all. When you pay too little, you sometimes lose everything, because the thing you bought was incapable of doing the thing it was bought to do."
--
Cheers,
Ashley.
http://www.ashleymorrison.com

 

[Arrowman]

I don't normally stick my nose into "pro" threads, but since you don't seem to be getting a whole lot of response, may I offer some thoughts from the (hypothetical) client's point of view?

Photography is a professional service. As with all such services, the rate, and whether or not it is fixed, and how it is broken down, will vary depending on the nature of the work and the client. In particular, it will depend on your relationship with the client, their understanding of the work you do and the product you produce, and their attitude to "fixed vs variable" charges.

The client is paying for a product, a result - not (necessarily) an hourly rate for your time. The client is entitled to expect that product to be produced, for a fee, and not for the cost to vary (greatly) depending on how much extra time you have to put in on post-processing.

A reasonable, "standard" amount of post-processing is part of the deal, but the cost should not vary if you have to spend more or less time in pp because of your skill level or mistakes that you might make.

On some jobs you will spend more time than others - swings and roundabouts. You always have to "eat" your own mistakes or misjudgements. If you budget for a shoot to take 6 hours of pp and it ends up taking 12, then that's a lesson learned for you and not a bill for the client to pay.

The main thing is, the deal has to be clear about how many images you are producing, and what will be the marginal cost of extra images - like "for $1,500 you get a portfolio of 10 fully processed images, if you decide you want more, that will be $X per image". Or whatever.

But you know all that. What you're really asking is, what works best for the client - a bill/quote of, say

• $1,200 for the shoot plus $600 to produce 10 images, or
• $1,800 to produce 10 images.

Whichever way it goes (and I can't tell you what is "most common", only the pros can do that) from the client's point of view, the key is predictability and understanding of the costs involved.

I would say, as a (hypothetical) client, that either of these charging models would be acceptable if they were properly explained. What would not be acceptable, would be "$75 an hour for post-processing (however long that takes)".

In any case, I would expect the hourly rate for the post-processing to be lower than the rate for the shoot itself. Daily rates for on site attendance, for any professional, include travel time, equipment costs etc. I think in general people expect that to cost more than time spent (rightly or wrongly, this is the perception) sitting in your office "writing up the results". So the client is happy to pay the equivalent of $150 an hour for you to be on site, but they're not going to come at that rate for the post work.

Sorry there's no single clear answer in there, and the pros will be able to offer better "real life" experience, I'd just like to throw in some ideas from the client's perspective.

--

 

[Ashley Morrison Photography]

'Working for Hire' = you work & bill like an employee would - charge for everything they want you to do at the agreed hourly rate and fully itemise all your expenses - then hand ALL the work over to them.

'Rights to Use' = you produce & provide them with images to meet their needs and charge based on Usage. X number of images for Y amount per image - and then state the Media Use, Period of Use & Territory of use, that has been agreed. Your production costs are of no interest to the client in this case.

Be careful not to mix the two up.

--
Cheers,
Ashley.
http://www.ashleymorrison.com

 

[BAK]

You've been running with the wrong crowd.

Re> Also, as a magazine Art Director for major photogaphy magazines I've never seen a photo anywhere, ever, taken by anyone, straight out of the camera that didn't need post-editing and retouching.

Lots of us shot lots of slides, properly.

For that matter, lots of us shot lots of negatives that printed without much in the way of manipulation, other than pickjing the photo paper and turning some filtration knobs on the enlarger.

In this day of digital, lots of us can put the lights in the right place, set the contrast and saturation and sharpness so the shots turn out pretty good, and the only touch up necessary is pretty much equal to the adding of filters and paper choice (grade, surface, etc.) from printing.

As for your original question, what's the deliverable?

Does $1200 include RAW files, or not, and if so, how many?

My $1200 years ago included no pictures: processed slides were something like $50 a roll, with the losers and failures removed from the box, sometimes, before delivery. But often the $50 a roll covered a 36exp. strip (35mm) or a 120 strip or unmounted pictures.

If the client required negative shooting, the $1200 included no pictures: film was charged at cost (lots of photographers mark it up 17.65 percent) and contact sheets were charged at cost. My day rate / hourly rate was charged for the drop off, pick up of contracts, and meetings with clients to edit contacts, and the submission of orders to the lab.

With some clients, lab bills were sent directly to the client.

Depending on the size of the order, I'd print big orders myself, charging the same rates for prints as the pro labs did ($15-25 an 8x10, less for extra prints)

In the digital era, retouching is either included in the $1200 if it's just color balance and sharpening. REtouching is extra if it is real art; changing the labels on wine bottles, removing one background and adding another. Probably semi-easy to define the difference as whether the retouching is photography or commercial artist manipulation.

BAK