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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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

In some cases.

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]

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]

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...

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"