A couple photographers want to use me for stock photography.  What is a reasonable rate to charge them?

Except for nude/lingerie stock (which there isn't all that much of anyway), the highest rate I've seen for stock photography is $100 per hour.  That's in major media cities; less is pretty common in smaller cities.

BTW, I agree that you have a great look for stock.

I just did some stock photography work yesterday and he paid me $50 an hour with a minimium of $100. It took an hour and a half and I made $100. Hope that helps.

I am not an experienced stock photographer, in terms of shooting models.  But I have sold a lot of scenic photos for stock.  Based upon my experience, I would say that the $50 to $100 per hour prices you've been quoted are very high, even though one model says she got paid in that range.  Photographers shoot stock on speculation, and only a very experienced stock photographer could hope to recoup for those amounts.  (And an experienced stock photographer would probably use a more-experienced model.)

If I were to shoot a clothed model for stock, I would probably offer $25 per hour tops, but likely less than that.  And I would consider that to be fair money, considering my prospects of recovery.

But there are two other things to consider:

You write, "A couple photographers want to use me for stock photography.  What is a reasonable rate to charge them?" 

1.  The fact that they are asking you to name a rate instead of offering you a pre-decided rate makes me think they are not experienced stock photographers.

2.  Since you are posing for more than one photographer, you deserve to be paid extra.  If two photographers have you going into their books, then you should be paid about one-and-a-half times the single-photographer rate.

I pay between $20 - $35 normally, although I have paid as high as $75 in one or two situations.  I also give a cd of images from the shoot for their portfolio.

There are a couple of different possibilities.

There are high end, full time, big city stock photographers who's full time occupation is doing people stock images for the big name stock agencies (like Getty, etc). Those photographers make substantial income, and have a substantial budget and staff, and pay well. That is where you are hearing the $50 - $100 p/hr.

There are smaller independent photographers, like me, who occasionally shoot stock as part of my overall business. I do not have a staff, nor a big budget, nor connections with Getty, and Seattle is not a power house city in the fashion or advertising industries. I make some money from stock, but not all that much. If I paid you $100 p/hr, you'd probably make substantially more than I would. For my size of operation, I'd probably offer $25 p/hr max as well.

So it depends on what kind of photographer you are talking about. What is reasonable for one may not be reasonable for another.

In case you don't know how it works, stock photographers pay all the expenses up front, and are shooting on spec. They take photos which they hope will sell to ad agencies (or whatever) via the stock agencies. Once submitted to the stock agency, they have no control over what sells and for how much. The stock agency pays nothing up front. The photographer hopes enough images sell for enough money that they'll recoup their expenses and make a profit. For people stock photos, the shelf life is maybe 2 years and then it is more-or-less worthless. (Nature stock photos have a longer shelf life, because a 20 year old photo of a grizzly bear looks pretty much the same as a grizzly bear photo taken last week.)

I shoot editorial most of the time and my subjects are top athletes or small-time celebrities.  I was asked to put together some stock images for fitness work basically running sunsets etc..  I offered the models $35 an hour with a min 5 hours for the local shoot and $35 with a min 10-12 hours with most of that time being used for travel.  Almost none of the models who originally responded to my ad wanted anything to do with it.  A couple of the male models wanted $75 an hour plus 10% of any sales.

The problem here is the model shows up I already have the vision I already have the MUA I have an assistant as well.  So I am paying for 2 people besides the model, I have the capital wrapped up in equipment, and I was the one who built the relationship with the companies involved not the model. 

I understand that maybe my pricing was a bit off but everything is a negotation and instead the talent that spoke to me just got up and left the table.

By the way I finished the stock work anyways using a local agency and I can tell you the girl who did the work in Death Valley for us today would have gotten a hell of a lot more from me.  But hey she was working for an agency!

James

According to a full time stock shooter in my market, talent on a typical shoot with him make up to $35/hour. These are most often "real people" and not full-time professional models (i.e. those with agency representation). These models are required to sign a FULL model release - which means the images can be used for ANYthing.

A talent agent friend tells me that she does not recommend her talent work on stock shoots - because in the end its not be a very good deal for the talent - or more to the point, not a very good deal for the talent agency. The agency wants to make money for every usage of the talent's likeness. With stock, it's a one time payment with the possibility of the images being used many many times.

Basically its up to the model to determine if any given shoot is worth the time/pay that is offered.

-steve
http://www.stevennoreyko.com/

$100/hour is standard here, but I am in a major market.