A Penny Saved…

A couple of months ago I bought a new toilet. It cost me $120 to have a plumber install it.

This month, I bought a new faucet. After crawling under the sink in a contorted position that must have qualified me for the Cirque de Soleil, I installed it myself. It was at least as difficult as a toilet, so I figure I saved at least $120. To celebrate, I cooked my husband dinner (chipotle lemon salmon), saving another $40. I even managed to take care of a little business while under the sink.

This is proof to me that my cost-of-doing-business is not just related to my business expenses. This tells me that anytime I feel like taking an assignment for an absurdly low fee, I can think about how I earn money when I don’t have work to do. Considering I end up re-investing about 50% of what I bill, I would have had to earn at least $320 to make up for the time I spent at home today. I rarely, if ever, accept an assignment for that low, but now I have good evidence of what my non-photo time is worth.

I also consider my time studying for law school to be enormously valuable for what it will earn me in the future, as well as helping me actually get the benefit of all of that tuition money.

So this is my new mantra:

A penny saved– by not having to call the plumber/electrician/landscaper/maid/ babysitter (someday)/restaurant/etc.,– is a penny earned — by not taking an assignment that devalues my work and my time.

Other ways to save/earn money while idle include:

• researching new marketing opportunities (groupon anyone)?
• contacting old clients to see if they have any upcoming needs
• standardizing forms and contracts
• updating my website
• working on SEO
• finding discounts on things I need (I could have saved $20 if I ordered that faucet online)
• sending in my lights for repair

How do you earn money when you aren’t shooting? Feel free to comment below.

-alicia

Digital Economy Bill passes in UK- without orphan works provision

Busy day. The controversial Digital Economy Bill has apparently passed in the UK. The good news is that the controversial orphan works provisions in the bill were removed, due primarily to the efforts of photographers. YEAH photogs.

Read about it here.

My previous post on the controversy, and photographers efforts is here.

How to be a safe and lawful Bluebonnet-er

Shooting bluebonnets is one of the classic spring pastimes for photographers in Texas. For those of us who don’t shoot flowers for a living (and who does, really) it is a great way to rediscover the joy of just taking pictures for an afternoon.

But as with all things, it is important to keep it safe. I was happy to find this article (thanks to Helen Montoya Henrichs) that clarifies a few things- namely, that it is not illegal to pick the bluebonnets (but it is totally uncool to drive your car over them). Oh, yeah, and, no trespassing.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/director_staff/public_information/pr032602.htm

Wedding photography disaster- protect yourself

This story about a wedding photographer in England who was sued for providing “shoddy” photography holds a few lessons, for both photographers and brides to be. For brides, do your homework and get a decent, and professional photographer. These photos, and the video as well, make me wonder if the couple looked at any examples of the photographer’s work before they hired him. Was this just a bad day? I can’t imagine.

For photographers, the lesson is that an important element of your contract is a determination of what happens if something goes wrong.  Disasters happen. Car accidents and family emergencies happen. Even good equipment, on rare occasion, fails. My contract, regardless of the client, has a limitation of liability that says if something does go wrong, my liability is only the amount paid to me. I guarantee my work, but I am not willing to foot the bill for a second wedding if someone doesn’t like my style. To have such a guarantee would force me to raise my prices significantly.

This is important, not because I expect my client to be unhappy- on the contrary, I have very happy clients. But photography is subjective. For example, the judge in the above article found that the photography was bad based in part on the fact that some heads were cut off, and some horizons were crooked. Some photos were out of focus. From a stylistic perspective, you might have award-winning images with heads cut off, crooked horizons and soft focus.

This brings up another point. I don’t know whether the photographer in the above case gave all his images to the bride, or only a selection, but as a rule, I ALWAYS provided only an edited selection. I learned the hard way to never provide my entire take to someone who is not a photography professional. Doing so is an invitation to be judged by your outtakes, which by definition, stink.

You could certainly take my worst outtakes from any event I have photographed, haul me before a judge, and get a judgment that I am a bad photographer. But that will never happen, because my job is not to make every frame I shoot perfect. My job is to to provide a selection of wonderful, unique images. That is what the client wants, and that is what the client gets.

Copyright Petition to Obama

The Copyright Alliance, a group that promotes copyrights (good guess, right), has launched a campaign to collect petition signatures asking the Obama Administration to promote policies that respect and advance copyrights. It does not ask for anything specific, so there is little room for excuse or debate on this one. Step up.

http://www.copyrightalliance.org/letter

It takes about 20 seconds.

Photography in National Parks- a local look

With my attention focused on the national discussion of photography permits in the national parks, I thought I would check on my local national park. I have done photo shoots at the San Jose Mission National Park many times, for both editorial shoots and for individual clients.

What I found was proof that there are major contradictions out there and a definite need for the national system to give more specific recommendations.

Here is what is listed at the San Antonio Missions National Historical Park website (new policy effective in 2006). Instead of having one straightforward policy, there are four different policies stated that contradict each other and might each be interpreted by a park ranger in their own way:

First, on the FAQs page:

“I want to use the missions as backdrops in my family and wedding photographs. What do I need to know?

• “If you or a family member is taking pictures, there is nothing special you need to do… If you are using a professional or commercial photographer, you or the photographer must apply for a permit at least 14 days in advance. There will be a fee involved.”

Ummm…. Aaack!!!

But then, clicking on the more information button and the “commercial filming” link:

“Commercial filming includes capturing a moving image on film and video as well as sound recordings.

Still photographers require a permit when

1. the activity takes place at location(s) where or when members of the public are generally not allowed; or
2. the activity uses model(s), sets(s), or prop(s) that are not a part of the location’s natural or cultural resources or administrative facilities; or
3. Park would incur additional administrative costs to monitor the activity.”

(this is more in line with what we at the NPPA have been saying. Any permit should be based on the level of interference, not what the photographer will later do with the image.)

But if you read further on down the same page, you see this lovely chart …..

Commercial Filming/Videos		Still Photography
1 – 2 people, camera & tripod only	$0/day
1 – 10 people	$150/day	1 – 10 people	$50/day
11 – 30 people	$250/day	11 – 30 people	$150/day
31 – 49 people	$500/day	Over 30 people	$250/day
Over 50 people	$750/day

If I was a ranger, I would see the column on the right and assume that a photographer with 1-10 people was responsible for paying $50.

Finally, further down the page, the link to Appendix 13,exh.1: still photography pulls up a document that says:
“The NPS will not require a permit for photographers, commercial or non-commercial, to go anywhere or to do anything that members of the public are generally allowed to go or do without a permit. This is true whether or not the photographer uses tripods, strobe lights, or interchangeable lenses. Coverage of breaking news never requires a permit but is subject to restrictions and conditions necessary to protect park resources, public health and safety, and to prevent impairment or derogation of park resources, values or purposes.”

“A permit is required if the superintendent determines there is a potential of a photography project’s harming or having an impact on the park’s natural, cultural or recreational resources, or creating unacceptable health or safety risks, or disrupting visitor use and enjoyment. A permit is also required pursuant to 36 CFR 5.5(b) for persons taking photographs of vehicles, other articles of commerce or involves the use of a model, set or prop for the purpose of commercial advertising.”

This is a fine policy. I just wish I got there sooner.

-A