Assignment never tackled before

[domenico Foschi]

I have been asked to shoot some jewelry in natural light settings for publication.
My thoughts are concentrated on the type of film I want to use.
I know I will need film latitude and I was wondering if instead of using transparency and using negative film and then having scans made would be a problem.
I am new to product photography and I am not sure what the standards are at the moment.
My brain tells me that all they want is a digital file anyway.
I haven't decided yet if I will shoot with 4x5 or 8x10, but that is of no importance at the moment.
Also, I am not sure what I should charge for this assignment.
Sounds like this won't be just one product but a series.
I do not know all the details yet, they will come at my next meeting on monday.
Any thoughts?

[Walter Calahan]

Color neg. 4x5.

Get a lot of small reflector cards and mirrors to manipulate the natural light.

Your fee should reflect how the client is using the images. Advertising? Catalog? Editorial?

[Ed Richards]

Find out what they want - is it a digital file, if so, how big, for what size reproduction. If this is catalog shooting, it would be a real waste to shoot 8x10. Also find out if you are expected to do the pre-press work.

[matthew blais]

Personally I'd rent a digital if you don't have one and base the megapixels on what you rent against the largest print size they'd go. For catalog size a six megapixel would do just fine, poster size maybe 10-12 mp's.

[Frank Petronio]

I think the client is probably looking for photos in Domenico's short depth of field, creamy style rather than a generic catalog shot. I hope that is the case!

While you probably haven't done much product photography there is no reason you can't do something wonderful.

In most cases, jewelry will benefit from a single hard light source with subtle fill cards, rather than the typical bland catalog type photographer approach of soft boxing everything or using a "tent". I think that may work the best with your style anyway. So you might consider placing a hot tungsten light up high on a light stand to add a sparkle and highlight to the reflections, even if you are using natural light for the main lighting.

Pricing really depends on the value to the client, and that depends on the ad buy and how much better your photography will sell the products versus some generic shot. If you figure that a single page in a national magazine might cost anywhere from $25,000 to over $100,000 per insert, times the entire campaign, you could be looking at pretty large budgets. I try to calculate that I'm worth at least 1-2% of that budget. Of course if the campaign's entire budget is only $50,000 then you need to be more aggressive and look for at least $1500 or so. But for instance, my friend did a ad campaign for American Airlines that had a $3 million budget, and getting $30,000 to $60,000 for his photography was entirely plausable. Even though half the people on this forum probably could have duplicated or bettered the half dozen travel shots he did for the campaign. But the reason they chose him instead of you is that he can tolerate all the bullshit of having ten client people on location with him. And he can figure out how to make it look like he is diligently working and taking twelve hours to do a simple ass photo of a pretty girl on a beach because he unloads a dozen cases and has a crew and all the crap that impresses some suit from Atlanta. So he earns it, don't worry.

For catalogs and websites you don't get to think that way and they pay a helluvalot less. But don't do anything too cheaply. Hold a moderately high price and negotiate usage rather than price. It is far easier to give in and let them have an additional year's usage or let them have international rather than just North American rights to get the job -- than it is to give up cash!

Many commercial photographers who use film still deliver a final, retouched digital file. So use the film you like to use, don't worry about dogma or silly expectations. They are hiring you because you are unique.

While you are negotiating try to clarify how much you'll be "directed" versus left to your own better judgement. Will they be there manipulating the jewelry and expecting to see Polaroids of every tiny adjustment? Or will they give you the goods and let you do your best take? (Which is much nicer.) And also who will edit the photos and make choices. Never submit anything to the client that you don't want them to choose because they almost always choose the worst picture.

[Marko]

Frank is right - Anybody can do the surgery-room style. Just do it the way you did your leaves and don't worry. :)

[Frank Petronio]

Two more points:

If you don't do your own retouching, some dipstick will do it for you and screw it up.

And while a small catalog may need CMYK printer ready files, a real ad agency just wants your best 16-bit RGB file. They have production people and besides, they are going to resize the image differently for each insertion, so just give them your best and let do the production.

[domenico Foschi]

I think the client is probably looking for photos in Domenico's short depth of field, creamy style rather than a generic catalog shot. I hope that is the case!

While you probably haven't done much product photography there is no reason you can't do something wonderful.

In most cases, jewelry will benefit from a single hard light source with subtle fill cards, rather than the typical bland catalog type photographer approach of soft boxing everything or using a "tent". I think that may work the best with your style anyway. So you might consider placing a hot tungsten light up high on a light stand to add a sparkle and highlight to the reflections, even if you are using natural light for the main lighting.

Pricing really depends on the value to the client, and that depends on the ad buy and how much better your photography will sell the products versus some generic shot. If you figure that a single page in a national magazine might cost anywhere from $25,000 to over $100,000 per insert, times the entire campaign, you could be looking at pretty large budgets. I try to calculate that I'm worth at least 1-2% of that budget. Of course if the campaign's entire budget is only $50,000 then you need to be more aggressive and look for at least $1500 or so. But for instance, my friend did a ad campaign for American Airlines that had a $3 million budget, and getting $30,000 to $60,000 for his photography was entirely plausable. Even though half the people on this forum probably could have duplicated or bettered the half dozen travel shots he did for the campaign. But the reason they chose him instead of you is that he can tolerate all the bullshit of having ten client people on location with him. And he can figure out how to make it look like he is diligently working and taking twelve hours to do a simple ass photo of a pretty girl on a beach because he unloads a dozen cases and has a crew and all the crap that impresses some suit from Atlanta. So he earns it, don't worry.

For catalogs and websites you don't get to think that way and they pay a helluvalot less. But don't do anything too cheaply. Hold a moderately high price and negotiate usage rather than price. It is far easier to give in and let them have an additional year's usage or let them have international rather than just North American rights to get the job -- than it is to give up cash!

Many commercial photographers who use film still deliver a final, retouched digital file. So use the film you like to use, don't worry about dogma or silly expectations. They are hiring you because you are unique.

While you are negotiating try to clarify how much you'll be "directed" versus left to your own better judgement. Will they be there manipulating the jewelry and expecting to see Polaroids of every tiny adjustment? Or will they give you the goods and let you do your best take? (Which is much nicer.) And also who will edit the photos and make choices. Never submit anything to the client that you don't want them to choose because they almost always choose the worst picture.

Thanks to all, and to you, Frank, for your words and detailed response.
Yes, I had considered many of your points, especially the possibility of the presence of some guy from corporate office.
On monday I will know everything.
Matthew, I am not inclined in using Digital because of the depth of field control I can have with LF and the choice of lenses.
Hey, Frank, I am actually contemplating the possibility of using a petzval.
At close distance its optimal sharpness area wouldn't be so small...
These images wouldn't record just the object but also some of the surrroundings and the petzval feels like a great ally for this due to great sharpness and wonderful bokeh(according to me, of course).

Domenico

[Ed Richards]

Domenico,

Not only do you have beautiful images, you have the perfect Flash site - one with an option to skip Flash entirely! My hat is off to you.

[GPS]

Tell them the truth - you have never done it, you don't even know what type of film, lens, format to use, what to charge etc. No quick "post me all I need" schooling will make you ready for serious work, let's be honest.

[domenico Foschi]

Tell them the truth - you have never done it, you don't even know what type of film, lens, format to use, what to charge etc..

...and then give them your phone number?:)

[GPS]

What for?

[Frank Petronio]

If every successful photographer passed up good jobs because they had never shot that particular kind of subject, the world would be a duller place.

Take a risk. What is the worst that could happen? You wouldn't get paid? I mean it isn't life or death...

[Ed K.]

Just because you need movements is no reason to skip digital entirely. Jewelry stands still, and you could use a Betterlight (they rent by the week). Also, Calumet has a rental for a small view cam that accepts a 1DSII and I believe they also rent mini-view cams for a P45 back, etc. Time is another reason to possibly go digital, and scanning film isn't exactly cheap either. Sometimes, you can use both - digital for the details, and film for the details in larger scenes, no?

Whatever you elect to do, good luck to you and much success!

[domenico Foschi]

If every successful photographer passed up good jobs because they had never shot that particular kind of subject, the world would be a duller place.

Take a risk. What is the worst that could happen? You wouldn't get paid? I mean it isn't life or death...

Frank, that's exactly my approach on life. Life without risks is unbearably boring.

[Paul Coppin]

Be a tad careful with a hard light source if you are using digital. You will have to watch the contrast carefully. Specular reflection can cause brutal pixel anomalies in the final print if the reflections are small and bright enough - the reason is that if the pixel sizes are not small enough to grade out the contrast change around the reflection, you get very harsh speculars. Look at "sparkling water in bright sun" scenics shot with your average digicam to see what I mean.