Home  >  Commerce  >  Business resources  >  Digital sources  > Digital charges

A Justification of Digital Charges

by Shawn G. Henry, a Boston-based photographer and officer of EP

Capturing images digitally is, in the end, little different than capturing images on film in terms of purpose: the ultimate goal, regardless of the capture method, is to fix an image suitable for publication.

Where the capture methods differ is in the additional burden in time and expense and equipment placed on the photographer in the process of getting the image to print. With film, photographers generally marshal the media through processing at a lab and deliver it to the client who then scans, color corrects, and readies the image for print. With digital capture, the photographer must handle the "processing", formerly the domain of the lab, and adjust, sharpen & color correct the images, handling most all of the steps of final image preparation formerly the responsibility of the client.

While clients have always willingly paid for the various production costs associated with film capture -- from film, processing & Polaroids, to clip tests, contact sheets, and couriers, through scanning, color correction, and traffic control -- there's a dangerous trend among some publishers to push the belief that "since it's digital, it should be free." In this view, no film means no reimbursement for the expense of capturing the image, and it's a most dangerous road down which we're beginning to roll.

Be it digital capture or film, clients need to pay the production charges associated with their projects. Photographers must quickly learn this simple bit of logic, or we'll soon find ourselves slipping even further backwards, as a greater percentage of our stagnant fees will go towards the purchase and upkeep of the digital equipment that most publications will soon demand we own.

There are several arguments that publications are attempting to use to justify not paying for the requisite digital production charges. Unless photographers learn how to successfully counter these arguments and insist on adequate reimbursement, we may find ourselves facing an ever-increasing number of clients sharing the same dangerous beliefs.

The first is that since there's no film, there's no need to pay. "We're happy to buy the film you need to shoot the job," the story goes, "but we don't buy photographers equipment." Photographers have always been reimbursed for the costs associated with the film, processing, clip tests, courier fees, and Polaroids needed to capture an image for publication. Most, if not all, photographers reasonably mark these costs up to help offset the hidden, indirect costs associated with this aspect of production. The clients, as they admit in their argument, have always agreed that this is a charge that they pay. But the fact is, the industry standard has long held that there is no transfer of physical property, ie., the film: we maintain ownership of the physical form of our images, as well as the intellectual property fixed in film or prints, and we only LICENSE the image for use. By paying for the various film and processing charges, the client is not "buying the film", rather they're simply paying for the direct production expenses required to capture the images which they license. It should be no different with digital.

A similar illogical line of reasoning holds that "We don't pay for equipment the photographer owns..." Again, by insisting that the client pay for the digital production charges, the photographer is not asking them to directly "pay for our equipment" anymore than they're paying for our vehicles when they reimburse us for mileage. Mileage reimbursement doesn't buy one's vehicle, it merely reimburses the photographer for one of the many production aspects necessary to complete the job. The same holds true for digital charges: they do not directly BUY or PAY FOR the photographers' equipment, the charges simply represent legitimate reimbursement for another aspect of production necessary to complete the assignment.

Another line in the argument against payment for digital production charges is that "We don't need you to do anything to the digital images. We have people on staff to do that, so just dump the images on a CD and ship them to us." Putting aside any defense of authorship -- that I shot it, and I have a vision of how the final image should look, so only I know how to craft it to final form -- this can be a valid request from a client under deadline circumstances. However, even if one is merely "dumping the images on CD" and FedExing the untouched files to the client, there's still a need to charge for digital production, just as one would charge for film and Polaroid were one to ship raw film to the client for processing. And, when taking into account the significant costs incurred in building a digital system -- the cameras, laptop, CF cards, hard drives, CD and DVD writers, card readers, monitors, calibration devices, software, and software upgrades, etc. -- one quickly realizes that the nominal digital production charge still needs to be significant. (One can easily spend $40,000 converting to digital, with additional annual outlays of thousands of dollars for upgrades of software and equipment.)

Demand Side Pricing

What all of these arguments fail to address is the fact that by refusing to adequately compensate photographers for digital production charges, the clients are effectively asking photographers to subsidize their publications by assuming most all of the costs historically the responsibility of the client. The production charges formerly paid for film, processing, Polaroids, prints, contact sheets, scanning, color correction, courier charges and traffic are essentially transferred to the photographer who is presumed able to absorb these costs in the stagnant assignment fee.

Moreover, the arguments against adequate compensation for digital production charges ignore this central and undeniable fact: Digital photography does save the client money - even after they have paid reasonable digital production charges. A publication saves time, manpower, and therefore money, when they commission digital photography. Direct savings include messengers, scanning and tracking. Film images must be checked in and out multiple times, and a skilled employee or outside contractor must make good scans.

Many publications have corporate mandates to go digital because of these savings. Make no mistake: the publishers want to go digital, and publishers can afford to pay our digital production charges. Just as a photographer who goes digital is reluctant to "go back", so too will the publishers want to be all digital. Think of an editor on deadline who can see jpegs hours after a shoot. Now ask him to wait twenty four hours and keep his fingers crossed while the film gets processed and shipped. Which would you rather do?

Photographers can ill-afford to provide this subsidy. Stagnant assignment fees aside, the costs of converting to and supporting a digital system are staggering, and there is no legitimate reason to transfer these key aspects of production from the client to the photographer. Photographers must charge for these new digital services in order to survive, and clients should rightly pay for them.

Pricing Strategies

A few strategies have emerged for pricing digital production. Some that should mollify any resistance from the client side as well as provide the photographer with adequate compensation are outlined below:

Same as Film

In those cases where a publisher can accept unprocessed images because of in-house expertise, some photographers are adopting an attitude of "same as film." This line of reasoning holds that the FLOOR for digital production charges is what the client would expect to pay if the job was shot on film. Because of the savings outlined above this is a win/win strategy. The client gets digital imaging - a value added service compared to film - for the same price that he currently pays. The photographer gets to recoup these production charges to offset the time, equipment and training needed to provide the service.

Same as Film, plus Scanning

For publishers who do not have in-house pre-press, many photographers are able to charge a capture fee similar to film (see above), plus a Master File Prep charge comparable to scanning charges. This practice allows the photographer to charge for the time-consuming task of color correction, dusting and file conversion. Just like Same as Film, this pricing model simply redirects the already-allocated budget. Of course the photographer needs more and better equipment and training to deliver final files with confidence. Without the additional fee involved, it makes little sense for most photographers to provide this service - and to take on the extra risk. Typical scanning charges that this file prep would offset can range from $25 to $100 an image.

Digital Equipment Rental

Some photographers are simply charging a rental fee for the digital equipment. In most cases, this fee is even applied to equipment that the photographer already owns, and it is priced in line with rental fees charged by rental companies. This type of pricing seems to be more common among photographers using high-end equipment. Rental charges for these systems can be several hundred, to nearly a thousand dollars a day.

These pricing strategies should adequately compensate photographers for their considerable investment in digital technology, while at the same time offering their clients the significant benefits that digital capture provides.

Final Considerations

Photographers, before you accept the next assignment from a client that doesn't pay or doesn't pay adequately for digital production charges, consider your investment in equipment and software and training, as well as the charges that you'd be billing if shooting the job traditionally. Hold the thought, and try to imagine for a moment how much of your fee is going to subsidize the client if you agree to the insufficient reimbursement for digital production. Hold the thought a bit longer, and try to estimate how much of your fee will be going back to your clients in the form of this subsidy when even more of your clients jump on the "No film, no pay" bandwagon. Now try to estimate how much longer you'll be able to afford to do editorial work if you're unable to recoup your digital investment and adequately compensate yourself for these additional services.

Clients, please consider the substantial investment that photographers must make in equipment and training to provide you with digital services, and recognize the huge savings in time and manpower, and ultimately money, that digital capture provides to your publications, even when photographers are fairly compensated for digital production. Publications have always compensated photographers for the production expenses on assignments, and there's no legitimate reason for that to cease with the conversion to digital capture. Squeezing photographers on digital production charges might look attractive in the short term, however, doing so will slow the adoption of this new technology and ultimately risk driving the best and most experienced photographers from the editorial marketplace to the corporate and advertising fields where fair compensation for digital production is already well established.