# First time shooting a band, can I charge?



## DrumsOfGrohl

Hey guys,
I wouldn't call me an aspiring professional. Really, I'm a beginner, but I thought this might still be a good place to pose this question.

I've never shot a band before, so these are my first photos doing that.  Do I have any business asking the band if they'd be interested in purchasing the photos?  I don't really feel like charging them, but I don't want to devalue my work.  I met them after their show, and actually, they really enjoyed my band (we played on the same stage after them), and I imagine I'll be seeing them again.  I was thinking of giving them a small version of the photos, or maybe putting a watermark on the photos, and then if they wanted larger versions without a watermark, I could charge them (a minimal price).  I've never sold a photo before, so that's also factoring in to my thought process.  

Any help you guys could give would be lovely.  If I do charge them, what price range should I charge?

For reference, here are some of the shots I took.


    

Thanks.


----------



## dennybeall

If someone will buy them, then sell them.
Personally I wouldn't want any of them although the one bottom left may be a keep'able snapshot for them. They are all way too dark and from a bad angle to be a good set in my opinion.


----------



## vintagesnaps

You don't GIVE them the photos. You SHOW them some of your photos if you choose to do so. You should first start building a portfolio to eventually be able to show. That should be your best of a number of concerts etc. that you've photographed.

Before you go any further with thinking about selling photos, learn how to license usage of your photos. Get on American Society of Media Photographers or PPA and learn how to do this. Read up on contracts and releases, etc. etc. otherwise you might be kicking yourself down the road.

I'd agree that you need more practice first. Make sure your camera's straight - if there are vertical lines in the background make sure they are parallel to the sides of the frame. Backgrounds will show even if out of focus, especially those bright colors. Think about how you're framing your shots. The bottle is a good idea but it's sticking up thru the green shirt guy. Think about your framing, keep subjects/objects in the frame or out of the frame not hacked off. Think about your vantage point. You should be going for clean, balanced compositions.

So no, I wouldn't expect to be paid for something you did for the first time. Get better at it first so you can build a good reputation as a good concert photographer (instead of a reputation of being half assed and/or cheap). Practice, practice, practice (you do with your music don't you?) and see if you like it and build from there.


----------



## SCraig

The images a beginner gives away / sells / shows early in their "Career" will follow them for a long time,  their reputation will be built upon them (like it or not), and they are likely the ones that prospective clients will remember.  It's amazing how long a bad result will follow someone and how quickly a good result can be forgotten.

You can decide if these are the images you want to use or not.


----------



## Trever1t

Why is it everyone buys a digital camera and all of a sudden is talking of income from it?  Would you go to a dentist who hasn't gone to school?

Learn the craft, become good at it and if you're approached to take images then perhaps start charging.....unless you're paparazzi and get a lucky celebrity image.


----------



## imagemaker46

Sure you can do whatever you want with the pictures, if the band wants to buy pictures they really can't use for anything.  These images match what you have said about your skills or lack there of, you're a beginner.  As Trever1t has said, why do people that buy digital cameras have to run out and try to make money from them instead of learning how to use them.


----------



## spiralout462

They probably have better Shots from fans cell phones in the crowd.


----------



## Braineack

DrumsOfGrohl said:


> Do I have any business asking the band if they'd be interested in purchasing the photos?


no.


----------



## DrumsOfGrohl

Thanks for your opinions guys.  I think the one that rang true to me was what @SCraig said, about bad images following you.



Trever1t said:


> Why is it everyone buys a digital camera and all of a sudden is talking of income from it?  Would you go to a dentist who hasn't gone to school?


Why is it that all you guys keep comparing photography (an art) to dentistry, or car mechanics (science!)?

Have you ever gone to a music concert where the artist didn't go to music school for 5 years, and still enjoy it? And you were glad you paid money for it? 

Wouldn't it make more sense to compare photography to another art form?

AND would you ever go to a dentist who was maybe really good at dentistry but never went to school and doesn't have a certificate? Of course not.  The analogy is false.


----------



## JonA_CT

I will echo the others and say that my band wouldn't buy those pictures, but I'll also throw it out there that some of it isn't your fault. When you look at some spot on concert photography, the lighting on stage at least is always really good. In this space, it looks like you probably have a light tree on either side with no back or floor lighting. It's pretty hard to take any sort of good or interesting pictures in that situation.


----------



## tirediron

DrumsOfGrohl said:


> Why is it that all you guys keep comparing photography (an art) to dentistry, or car mechanics (science!)?


Because while photography is art, there is also a great deal of science involved, and a lot of skill and experience required to produce quality images.



DrumsOfGrohl said:


> Have you ever gone to a music concert where the artist didn't go to music school for 5 years, and still enjoy it? And you were glad you paid money for it?


I don't know; I don't generally stay around and question the performers, but I do know that in 99.993943% of cases, musicians that are playing at paid-entry concerts didn't just pick up their instruments a few months ago.  In most cases they've been playing for a while, often since childhood, and they've paid their dues along the way. 




DrumsOfGrohl said:


> Wouldn't it make more sense to compare photography to another art form?


In some cases.




DrumsOfGrohl said:


> AND would you ever go to a dentist who was maybe really good at dentistry but never went to school and doesn't have a certificate? Of course not.  The analogy is false.


I don't really understand what you mean there, sorry.


----------



## DrumsOfGrohl

tirediron said:


> Because while photography is art, there is also a great deal of science involved, and a lot of skill and experience required to produce quality images.


As opposed to other arts?  There's a ton of skill and experience required in any art form! You think photography is any different?




> I don't really understand what you mean there, sorry.



I'm comparing a photographer who is experienced and fantastic, but maybe didn't go to school for photography,  to a Dentist who knows a ton about Dentistry and is a great dentist, but he didn't go to school for it.  You would be happy to purchase photos from that photographer, but you'd never set foot in that dentist's office.  Because a photographer is an artist, and a dentist is not.

Meaning, just because I'd never go see a dentist who just started learning dentistry doesn't mean I'd never buy a photograph from a photographer who just started.

Also, a dentist has the ability to kill a person if he doesn't know what he's doing.  That's why we require certification for dentists and doctors, and not photographers.


----------



## OGsPhotography

Deleted.

My advice; brush your teeth AND get insurance. Think about the future.


----------



## tirediron

DrumsOfGrohl said:


> There's a ton of skill and experience required in any art form! You think photography is any different?


  I never said, nor meant to imply that it was, however your earlier post seemed to distinguish between the two...



DrumsOfGrohl said:


> I'm comparing a photographer who is experienced and fantastic, but maybe didn't go to school for photography,  to a Dentist who knows a ton about Dentistry and is a great dentist, but he didn't go to school for it.  You would be happy to purchase photos from that photographer, but you'd never set foot in that dentist's office.  Because a photographer is an artist, and a dentist is not.
> 
> Meaning, just because I'd never go see a dentist who just started learning dentistry doesn't mean I'd never buy a photograph from a photographer who just started.
> 
> Also, a dentist has the ability to kill a person if he doesn't know what he's doing.  That's why we require certification for dentists and doctors, and not photographers.



I'm still a little unclear on your dental analogy, however in response to part of your statement above, I'd be happy to buy an image I liked from anyone irrespective of their experience, BUT...  chances are, like musicians, mechanics, and almost any job/skill/trade, someone who's just starting is NOT going produce work at the same level as someone who's been doing it for 5, 10, or 20 years.


----------



## Trever1t

You're right, poor analogy. Allow me to rephrase. Just because One owns a camera does Not make them an artist. 

Not saying you don't have talent. Not saying you won't become the greatest concert photographer ever. I am saying you, at this time, should apply your energy to learning about your equipment (science) and how to apply it to artistic fruition. It takes time to learn the science...I am of the opinion that either you have artistic talent or not, others believe it can be learned.

Either way my intent remains. People buy a digital camera and start charging before they even learn how to shoot in any mode other than "P"


----------



## Braineack

yeah, keep shooting. improve. win at life.


----------



## DrumsOfGrohl

tirediron said:


> I'm still a little unclear on your dental analogy, however in response to part of your statement above, I'd be happy to buy an image I liked from anyone irrespective of their experience, BUT...  chances are, like musicians, mechanics, and almost any job/skill/trade, someone who's just starting is NOT going produce work at the same level as someone who's been doing it for 5, 10, or 20 years.





Trever1t said:


> You're right, poor analogy. Allow me to rephrase. Just because One owns a camera does Not make them an artist.
> 
> Not saying you don't have talent. Not saying you won't become the greatest concert photographer ever. I am saying you, at this time, should apply your energy to learning about your equipment (science) and how to apply it to artistic fruition. It takes time to learn the science...I am of the opinion that either you have artistic talent or not, others believe it can be learned.
> 
> Either way my intent remains. People buy a digital camera and start charging before they even learn how to shoot in any mode other than "P"





Braineack said:


> yeah, keep shooting. improve. win at life.



I agree with all of you.  I hear you loud and clear.  I appreciate you taking the time to help me out.  Clearly (and no one is saying otherwise), I need some more work as far as my photography goes.  I'm brand new to this, and I mean to work at it.  I am of the opinion that there is at least a little creativity in everyone (some more than others), but that anyone can work hard enough to get good at anything if they have direction and passion.


----------



## imagemaker46

There is a little creativity in everyone, but it may never translate into creating great images. I'm not going to talk about dentists, or mechanics, just photography. I agree with getting some direction, maybe pick up a few classes, check with some local camera clubs, you'd be surprised at what you can learn.  Passion, well I've never been a big fan of that word, everyone that wants to be a photography uses the word. A lot of web sites will have the word in there somewhere.    I can't really say I'm passionate about photography, I love the job, I'm good at at the job, it is the best job I've ever had, only job I've ever had.  It's a job.

Take what people have said on here, learn how to use light, it's pretty much the single most important aspect of photography I can think of.  When shooting bands, with the light the way it is, shooting some backlit images may separate you from everyone else that shoots from the light side, like the images you posted.  Just practice, make it a hobby, you'll enjoy it a lot more.


----------



## DrumsOfGrohl

imagemaker46 said:


> There is a little creativity in everyone, but it may never translate into creating great images. I'm not going to talk about dentists, or mechanics, just photography. I agree with getting some direction, maybe pick up a few classes, check with some local camera clubs, you'd be surprised at what you can learn.  Passion, well I've never been a big fan of that word, everyone that wants to be a photography uses the word. A lot of web sites will have the word in there somewhere.    I can't really say I'm passionate about photography, I love the job, I'm good at at the job, it is the best job I've ever had, only job I've ever had.  It's a job.
> 
> Take what people have said on here, learn how to use light, it's pretty much the single most important aspect of photography I can think of.  When shooting bands, with the light the way it is, shooting some backlit images may separate you from everyone else that shoots from the light side, like the images you posted.  Just practice, make it a hobby, you'll enjoy it a lot more.



Thanks! Yeah, other than a couple (a lot actually, but still not enough) YouTube videos on Light, I know very little about it.  I'm definitely planning on learning as much as I can, but I gotta take it a step at a time. 

BTW, hate to burst your bubble, but it sounds like you're passionate about it photography   Do you get a smile on your face when people ask you about photography? Do you end up talking really fast? That's passion, my friend. But you're right: passion isn't everything. But it helps.


----------



## imagemaker46

I've been shooting over four decades, it's a great job. I don't tell people that I meet what I do, if they ask I tell them very little. I've done a lot with it, and some people see it as being conceited when I tell them. Nope no bubble bursted, and for the most part being a full time freelance photographer is a combination of frustration, long hours, making little money on a consistent basis and spending tens of thousands on gear just to try and stay competitive. These days, it's not the most "passionate" profession to be in.


----------



## ronlane

Your point is well made, but you don't see a person walk into guitar center buy their first guitar and then go out and start booking paying gigs at the local club where there is a cover charge.


----------



## DrumsOfGrohl

imagemaker46 said:


> I've been shooting over four decades, it's a great job. I don't tell people that I meet what I do, if they ask I tell them very little. I've done a lot with it, and some people see it as being conceited when I tell them. Nope no bubble bursted, and for the most part being a full time freelance photographer is a combination of frustration, long hours, making little money on a consistent basis and spending tens of thousands on gear just to try and stay competitive. These days, it's not the most "passionate" profession to be in.



Maybe I'm way off, but that's how I talk about playing drums.  And as far as frustration, long hours, no money and putting tons of time, energy and money into it: tell me about it! .


----------



## astroNikon

I used to judge music competitions.

You can tell the ones that practice a lot and progress well to be good all-around musicians by their results while playing.  Saying something is "artsy" when it's just bad is to cover up bad technique, knowledge and training.

The same can be said about photographers and the images they capture.

I used to go out with friends to see other friends play in bar bands.
I just keep my mouth shut and say that was pretty good. Which is what happens all the time when friends respond to friends photos.


----------



## Mr. Innuendo

I agree that the comparisons to something like dentistry are silly. No one suffers if you take a bad picture. Bad dentistry can have lasting ill effects.

The comparison is bad.

As for the photos shown, there are two dynamics in play. 

First, the photos themselves: As other have stated, they're dark and not really something you should expect someone to pay for. They're just not of that quality. 

The other dynamic, and which no one else has picked up on, is that you played in the band right after them. I've played in more than a few bands in my 53 years and there always seemed to be a degree of "professional courtesy". Back in the day (long before digital) someone in a band that followed mine at a festival took a photo of me with my guitar. The way it was framed you could easily believe that the crowd numbered in the tens of thousands (in fact, it was about 12,000). The guy had an 11x14" made and gave it to me. He didn't ask me if I wanted to buy it. He just had it framed and gave it to me. Some years later I returned the favor and did something similar for him.

The photos you've posted aren't something that, I think, anyone would want to pay for, so how much are you devaluing your work if you just gave them the photos? As a beginner, your photography isn't about money, so resist the temptation to make it so. When I was first learning, there were two bands I would shoot for free. I cut my teeth shooting those bands, and I got a lot better at what I wanted to do. Now I make a decent living with my camera, and some of that income is "music photography".

Give them the photos, foster the good will between bands and enjoy the fact that you did something nice for someone.


----------



## DrumsOfGrohl

Mr. Innuendo said:


> I agree that the comparisons to something like dentistry are silly. No one suffers if you take a bad picture. Bad dentistry can have lasting ill effects.
> 
> The comparison is bad.
> 
> As for the photos shown, there are two dynamics in play.
> 
> First, the photos themselves: As other have stated, they're dark and not really something you should expect someone to pay for. They're just not of that quality.
> 
> The other dynamic, and which no one else has picked up on, is that you played in the band right after them. I've played in more than a few bands in my 53 years and there always seemed to be a degree of "professional courtesy". Back in the day (long before digital) someone in a band that followed mine at a festival took a photo of me with my guitar. The way it was framed you could easily believe that the crowd numbered in the tens of thousands (in fact, it was about 12,000). The guy had an 11x14" made and gave it to me. He didn't ask me if I wanted to buy it. He just had it framed and gave it to me. Some years later I returned the favor and did something similar for him.
> 
> The photos you've posted aren't something that, I think, anyone would want to pay for, so how much are you devaluing your work if you just gave them the photos? As a beginner, your photography isn't about money, so resist the temptation to make it so. When I was first learning, there were two bands I would shoot for free. I cut my teeth shooting those bands, and I got a lot better at what I wanted to do. Now I make a decent living with my camera, and some of that income is "music photography".
> 
> Give them the photos, foster the good will between bands and enjoy the fact that you did something nice for someone.


LOVE your advice.  Goodwill with bands is key.  

I think what had me worried (and it's clear now that it's not the case) was I've seen posts here where people have been criticized for offering their work for cheap, and how it makes it more difficult for photographers to charge enough money to pay their bills when other photographers will offer to work for next to nothing.  

These photos I think will be simple instagram posts, and I'll give them to the band for free (if they want them).  Thanks.


----------



## Mr. Innuendo

Well, I'm not at all concerned with whatever you choose to do impacting my ability to earn a living.

I'm able to charge what I charge not because I know I'm good at what I do, but because people writing the checks know I'm good at what I do. It's an absolutely false premise to say that giving away photos, or selling them cheaply, devalues anything. If Photographer A believes he can't make a living because Photographer B gives his photos away, Photographer A need to find a different job.


----------

