WTF???? What an absolute mockery!!!

Them be fighting wordS? Put 'em up, put 'em up, fight like a man and put 'em up!*

While I agree that every photo should be as close to perfect as can be out of camera, there are things that simply cannot be done in camera. When I studied photography, we used darkroom, processing techniques, negative retouching and airbrushing on our images for the production of the final image - hardly any image was ever delivered "out of camera". The camera was merely a step in delivering that image. Today, Photoshop has replaced the darkroom and airbrush, simple as that. (And added an undo button, thank goodness! I don't want to think of how many sheets of Ilford I messed up...)

To me the philosophy is quality rather than quantity. Take a look at my port - almost all the photos there are photoshooped - some of them to death. I like "artistic" and "graphic" images. Book covers, movie posters, even packaging and product design, have the artistic and graphic effects applied, and no "out of camera" can deliver that. Thats what I do.

If your client wants catalogue work, then a SOOC image will cut muster if you know what you are doing (which you obviosuly are). But when the client wants something a bit different...

However, havign said that, even in my commercial work (Which is largely food and "landscape" - still have to figure out how to make serious money out of the ladies), I spit-and-polish images on PS.

Maybe its just the way I've been trianed, but I hardly ever see a photo that is perfect SOOC. I always see a way to improve something, even if its saturation, spot removal, cloning out a stray (something).... Every photo that gets delivered, goes through Photoshop.

Or maybe I'm just fulla shit, which also has been proven numerous times.

*Old Hanna Barbera cartoon line from Deputy Dawg.

I thought it wouldnt be long before I wasnt the only ego with it's claws out.

QDP:

At 2000 pics per shoot, his cam wont last long :P

Well, put it this way. A Nikon D90's shutter is rated to an average of 100000 actuations. At R5000 per 2000 shots, you could by 20 Nikon D90 bodies and still come out with change...

(Pro bodies can shoot even more images, so even that expense would be justified)

Ok I am sorry. Call me a snob, call me unrealistic and "poor", call me whatever but if you give a person 2000 images from a 4 hours shoot then firstly, they are not edited and I do not care WHO you are, digital images ALWAYS need fine tuning. Even if it is just sharpening.

While I agree that every photo should be as close to perfect as can be out of camera, This does not happen if you shoot 2000 images.

Secondly you pretty much shoot on sport mode so you have 30 images of the same pose with slightly different variations in them. Yes well this is quality for money isnt it?

Gerry, does he really make loads of money or does he just say so? and forgive me, starving artist has a nice romantic feel to it.

I ask again, if it was this simple to make loads of bucks out of photography why do we study and practice our craft? Why do we look up to people we call "masers" and try to emulate them? Why do we spend so much time building commercial portfolios? Because it simply isnt this easy. I dont care what anybody says.

For those who do not know how to google recommende rates:

Appa site:

Recommended digital capture fees (DCF) - Per supplied HI RES Image (Digitally processed, un-retouched)


The following DCFs cover the photographer's digital overheads and ensures that the client benefits when shoots of high image volume are undertaken. The costing used to determine the DCF is below.


Minimum Digital Capture Fee (DCF) - Up to 10 images

ZAR 1 525.00

11-15 Images

ZAR 150.00 ea

16-20 Images

ZAR 125.00 ea

21+ Images

ZAR 100.00 ea



Recommended retouching fee


The retouching fee covers the repro operator's time, equipment and other overheads.


Retouching should only be done by operators qualified to do so. Photographers should not retouch their own work unless they are repro trained and are qualified to do so.


Photographers who shoot film often hand over a processed un-retouched film image to repro for retouching. Handing over a digitally processed un-retouched image to repro for retouching can be seen as the same.



ZAR 390.00 per hour


Recommended rates to supply image CDs/DVDs and to upload images to servers


The rates to supply and burn disks and to upload to a FTP server cover the material supply, use of the equipment (hardware and software), the operator's time, related costs and other overheads.


Supply & burn image CD

ZAR 150.00 ea

Supply & burn image DVD

ZAR 250.00 ea

Upload to FTP server (per Mb)

ZAR 2.20 ea



Safrea site:

Safrea suggested minimum rates for PHOTOGRAPHY 2009-10

Please note that all rates exclude VAT

PHOTOGRAPHS SUPPLIED AS STOCK IMAGES (NOT SPECIFICALLY COMMISSIONED)

The following rates are for images supplied as stock images, that is images that are not specifically commissioned, and are rates per image supplied to the editorial market, based on the size that the image is used in the publication.

Cover : from R1 815.00 ea
DPS : from R 907.50 ea
Full page: from R 605.00 ea
Half page < FP: from R 495.00 ea
Quarter page & smaller: from R 440.00 ea

PHOTOGRAPHIC BASE USAGE RATES (BUR)

Ownership, copyright and terms of usage should be negotiated prior to commencement of the job.

The BUR is a combination of the photographer's overheads and creative fee and is limited by time constraints.

Half-day rates are charged at 55% of full day rate. Use of an assistant will remain up to the photographer's discretion at a fee of 15% of BUR.

Advertising/Aerial/Creative R5 250.00 / 10 hour day
Catalogue/Corporate/Industrial R3 850.00 / 9 hour day
Advertorial/Promotions/Books R3 250.00 / 8 hour day
(with by-line)
Editorial (with by-line) R2 750.00 / 8 hour day

Pre & Post Production work R275.00 per hour or part thereof.

Based on normal business hours 8am-5pm Monday to Friday.

The following prices are based on the supply of photographic images not including material costs, which will be quoted separately as required. These charges are based on use of the photographs in RSA only. All other costs related to the shoot are not included.

RATES FOR THE SUPPLY OF DIGITAL IMAGES

Digital capture fee (DCF) R165.00 per capture
Retouching R330.00 per hour
Supply of final image CD R165.00 per CD
Supply of final image DVD R275.00 per DVD

To avoid any misunderstandings, SAFREA recommend that a written agreement stating full terms and conditions, is entered in to prior to commencement of work.[b][/b]

starving artist has a nice romantic feel to it

It may be romantic, but it sucks, doesn't it? I've been a poor artist as long as I remember, and while I've"got the girl", everything else about being skint, sucks!

why do we study and practice our craft? Why do we look up to people we call "masers" and try to emulate them? Why do we spend so much time building commercial portfolios?

Because we love what we do, and value quality before commerce. Ever seen "The Pirates of Silicon Valley?" the story of the early days of Apple vs Microsoft. There an incredible scene in it where the first home PCs, NECs, if I'm not mistaken, are delivered, running a very buggy Microsoft OS. and they sell like hotcakes. Apple, on the other hand, hasn't released a product yet 'cos Steve is on a mission to iron out every single bug he can find apple computer, for all practical purposes, does not exist. Steve Jobs looks at Bill gates and says "We're better than you." Bill just laughs and shrugs it off, points to all the boxes of NEC computers and says "don't you get it?" and just walks away.

Apple vs. Microsoft: quality vs. commerce. Do you want to rather turn out a few good images, or a lot of crappy ones? Do you want to sell Ferraris or Fiats, Porches or VWs? Fiat & VW makes a lot more money with a visibly inferior product.

That's the value system. And whichever side you find yourself on - is the right side. But don't vilify the other side, that value system is just as valid as yours.

PS: thanks Adele!

[quote=]PS: thanks Adele![/quote]


Lol - a pleasure. Really just getting gatvol of people undercutting and then trying to justify their blatant disregard towards other photographers with weak and pathetic excuses. And no..... this is not a stab at anybody, but rather black on white facts.

I totally agree with you. It's ALL dependant on the client brief. But those damn stray (somethings)...


I sort of agree with this. But our cameras DO have this function. Tweak (+/-) the sat, contrast, sharpness all within the Picture Styles. That's half the job done. ;)




Look, ultimately, none of us offer what Dawie does. And best of luck to him. We all operate differently. If he has 6 confirmed bookings then good for him. His OP states "...and CD with 200 to 2000 photos..."

Now... about moving to Rustenburg and stealing some business... *rubs hands together with greedy look* ;D

My 2c.

Let the guy do what he does, its not taking business away from any of us, and yes his images may not be what everyone likes, but he seems to be doing OK.

As far as Art/starving artist whatever, Even Christo has moved to the dark side. If you want to make a living out of photography, yo need to deliver what the client wants, irrespective of your own feelings.

The sooner you can grasp that, the more work you will get.

I shoot all sorts of things from commercial work for ad agencies, to Agency tests, to theatre, catalogs, whatever pays the bills. Unfortunately I dont have much time to shoot the conceptual stuff I like, but that is my problem.

WRT Exessive photoshop/editing, I dont do that at all, unless it is a requirement of the client. Most of the commercial work is edited bu the agency themselves. I run a batch in Lightroom and make sure everything is perfect, then deliver the images. If I had to edit them all, I would be editing more than I am shooting.

Also, agencies and magazines prefer the skin to look normal rather than smoothed.

That is true, because the creative directors like to have the final say as to the outcome of the image's, which is unique to either the editorial, or the magazine's "look." They outsource the re-touching to graphic designers / re-touchers, or have in-house personel for the editing.

If you were a sous-chef, would you want your guy whom delivers your garlic to bring a ready made garlic sauce or fresh garlic cloves? Crazy comparison, but it gets the point across. Just because the photographer doesnt edit the images doesnt mean they are not edited before the print run.

You could never do rotogravure or photogravure printing processes without at least some degree of editing. (usually quite a bit. no person wants an exceptionally large set of pimples in a high definition magazine) Editing has been around since almost the very first photograph.

http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/farid/research/digitaltampering/

We all have different styles and techniques. Doesn't mean you have to like mine, nor do I have to like yours.
But we all strive for quality.

Once again, quite true.
Everyone has their own point of view, and its better left at that.

Editing has been around since almost the very first photograph

What? They had photoshop in the 1860s already?


Even Christo has moved to the dark side.

Nuh-uh I didnt. Really I didnt.

Apple vs. Microsoft

You cant compare apples and crap ... uhm I mean Microsoft. You must compare apples with apples and lemons with lemons

[quote=]You must compare apples with apples and lemons with lemons[/quote]
you mean apples with apples and crap with crap

I agree with Seagram, I think it's really unprofessional to publicly post URLs of others work and groups in order to draw attention to them in a negative way especially when they clearly have access to forums like this and he participates in the same profession that you do.

His photography is not of a standard that I'd want to associate myself with and his prices are exorbitant, but I think it's important to be supportive of the industry that we choose as our careers. I think it just would be more valuable to constructively criticise in order to uplift rather than bring down.

Whether people go on to pay that price, well then they're at fault. Samples of his photography are up for them to see and if they then enter into the agreement expecting more well then they obviously have the money to throw away.

And if they generalise and assume that all photographers deliver the same quality and level of product then they obviously have no logic. Just because I bought an over priced avo at Woolworths that turned out to be vrot doesn't mean that every avo I buy from every grocer from now on will. It's illogical. And anyone can call themselves professional these days... the internet makes sure of that, as does sites like this.

Editing has been around since almost the very first photograph

What? They had photoshop in the 1860s already?

Thomas Knoll & Seetharan Narayanan were here before Adam & Eve ;)


I agree with Seagram, I think it's really unprofessional to publicly post URLs of others work and groups in order to draw attention to them in a negative way especially when they clearly have access to forums like this and he participates in the same profession that you do.

His photography is not of a standard that I'd want to associate myself with and his prices are exorbitant,

Contradict ourselves ever?

"You must compare apples with apples and lemons with lemons"
you mean apples with apples and crap with crap

Yes thats what I meant.

Whether people go on to pay that price, well then they're at fault. Samples of his photography are up for them to see

Yes, well see the average person on the street has very low expectations of "professional" photography and that is our fault. The industry should educate the public about quality photography.

I'm pretty sure that no established model would pay that kind of money for that standard of work. So, he preys on young girls who dream of becoming models. He offers them "professional" results that you and I both know no agency will look at. But I suppose that doesnt matter. As long as he makes his money who cares that some girl forked out a fortune to realise her dreams just so an agent can throw her "portfolio" in the bin cause the photos are kak. But hey, lets not interfere with his right to earn a living.

I think it's really unprofessional to publicly post URLs of others work and groups in order to draw attention to them in a negative way especially when they clearly have access to forums like this

Uhm so it's more ok to do it behind his back?