[Closed] normal for portrait photographers to keep copyright or not sell digital file?

This is very normal practice and it annoys me to hell too. You pay for a service yet they keep copyright even for your own personal use. (You could understand it if you wanted to then sell it on for profit but you do not).

Of course this means they can also use that image for their own marketing purposes.

We have just had a huge fall out with a photographer (we had used them for our wedding and again recently for a family portrait) for almost identical reasons.

Oh and congrats on the baby - our twins are now 18.2 weeks old 🙂

EDIT - of course if you have a scanner and a small amount of knowledge of manipulation software you should be able to scan in any photograph you have printed off and adjust the colours etc to make a decent enough fist of it to send around the world.

Yep, pretty standard practise.

You may be able to negotiate a rate for non-exclusive non-commercial licence of the digital image, but expect it to cost a bit more as then he knows he won't make any money selling copies of prints to your relatives.

Yep very normal - the idea is that you decide you want more copies, you pay for them. Quite a few places will now sell you a digital copy and permit you to print your own for more money (quite a bit more though). In your situation I would shop round till you find one that does let you have the digital files and just pay the buggers the extra.

To be honest, if you compare the cost of portrait photographers with the cost of someone to do a commercial shoot of the same duration, (where the client gets the images and rights to use commercially) they have to make up the difference somewhere, and charging for reprints or charging lots more for digital copies is one way of doing it.

Of course this also they can use that image for their own marketing purposes.

Doesn't really make much difference - if you sign something saying it is okay for them to use the picture in marketing, they can, if you don't, then they probably wouldn't risk it without a release.

It is obviously illegal, but a lot of people will just scan portraits in - if you only want a low quality file to stick on a desktop or facebook or whatever that might be practical. Realistically photographers who refuse to sell digital copies are fighting a losing battle given how easy it is to scan and re-print physical prints nowadays, but like I said, it is still naughty and bad and you probably shouldn't do it.

Joe

It is obviously illegal, but a lot of people will just scan portraits in

I don't think it would be illegal unless you sold the (poor) prints you made.

I don't think it would be illegal unless you sold the (poor) prints you made.

Yeah it would. You can't go making prints or digital copies of images where you don't have permission to make them (I suspect you aren't really even allowed to scan em in in the first place, but I'm not sure). Otherwise all the photo printing places wouldn't require you to tick a box saying that you have rights to print the pictures you're uploading.

Joe

It is normal for a photographer to retain the copyright, and it's also normal to have to order any prints through them - just all part of making a living. You could talk to them about selling the file to you, personally I would try and keep customers happy. They are selling you something that is their legal right though.

of course if you have a scanner and a small amount of knowledge of manipulation software you should be able to scan in any photograph you have printed off

see, that attitude

annoys me to hell too

very normal practice

Thanks for the quotes mastilesfanylion, hope they weren't your copyright.

I do a fair few portraits, although weddings are my main gig.

It's very, very hard to make money out of portraiture, and yes, it's standard practice not to give away copyright. It's worth pointing out that it's not just naughty and bad to scan and reproduce images, it's completely illegal [/sanctimonious mode off].

I don't give out hi-res digital (portraiture) files because I need to sell prints / canvases etc to make the shoot worthwhile. I can't tell you how frustrating it is to charge £40 for a sitting and then have clients complaining that they're expected to shell out more for prints. How exactly do they think we make a living? A £40 shoot per day doesn't cover petrol, business / car insurance, kit replacement / repair, training, printing costs and all the other myriad of overheads involved in running a business...

What I will do for clients of the Faceboook generation is sell a low res (72dpi) file for 99p. This is watermarked and they can do what they like with it.

Another very compelling reason not to sell digital files is that Aunty Flo will go to Asda and get some non-callibrated 7x5" prints done which will look horrendous. She will then proudly frame them up, hang them on the wall and suddenly my name is associated with awful prints - some clients even have a go at putting baby on a fluffy cloud with angels adorn-ed -- this has actually happened!

You can't go making prints or digital copies of images where you don't have permission to make them

well, of course you can, and if you print them yourself you can avoid any comeback 🙂

Well in the time it took me to write this little lot, everyone esle has said essentially the same thing...and the point about print quality from Aunty Flo is a good one

Whilst I can see your points, thats how copyright works essentially - the person who creates the image owns the copyright - yep they can give it away/sell it, but you have to remember that they are selling you the images and their creative vision, which is what you pay for, and they make their living from selling the prints or the images on DVD. (Playing devils advocate a bit, but you wouldnt work for free would you?)

Wrt to your original issue - I tend to give clients the option of buying prints via me, or the better value option (imho) of buying a DVD with print ready images and images ready for emailing/facebooking etc. This comes with a print release, allowing them full printing rights (it is not an assignation of copyright though) I also recommend to these clients a couple of good printing companies where they can get their prints done.

As for recomendations for your area. I am afraid I dont have any as I dont know anyone- but have a look around and ask lots of questions, like will you sell me the DVD with printing rights (not copyright), etc - and remember, you get what you pay for, so ask to see examples of their work (in the flesh). See if they will travel to you (I would) - having a session at home is better for everyone, especially the little one (congrats btw). My other advice is avoid Venture - will suck you in with cheap seession price and the stiff you big time on print costs (making my DVD price below look like peanuts) (also personally hate their style - high key background etc - not my thing)

As to a fair price for a disk like this - well I tend to charge £60 for a session (usually scheduled as 1-2 hrs, but very flexible when it comes to babies as I have one myself, so quite often stay for an afternoon). This includes a couple of 8x10 prints. For a DVD with edited images (usually up to 50+ - last one I did they had 80 images from the session), my going rate is £250 (which is well in line with what other people charge down in London) - sounds expensive, but remember that the images have to be prepared from the original files, and that covers the loss of print sale profit.

Without touting for business, PM me and I will send you a link to my stuff and perhaps we can work something out -I am after some portfolio stuff, and would be happy to help out a fellow STWer - ironically I am in Oxford this weekend with family stuff, but busy, but its not too far from N London so can shoot up easily another day.

Whether they can use it for their marketing all really depends on the contract you signed with the photographer - personally I would never assume that I could use images of a client for marketing and have a clause in my contract which says that I am allowed. However, I always point this out to them, and discuss the usage (which is generally that images might feature on my blog, or be used for website or marketing purposes), and make sure that they are 100% happy with that. Only ever had one no (which was for a boudoir session I did)which is fair enough, happy respect their wishes - but I think people generally appreciate the fact that I have asked.

Oha nd mastiles - didn't you have a contract expressly setting out what you were getting for yer cash?

Another very compelling reason not to sell digital files is that Aunty Flo will go to Asda and get some non-callibrated 7x5" prints done which will look horrendous.

Agreed, although it sounds like the other option is that she gets a fuzzy scan, complete with dust bunnies and a terrible colour cast, and THEN goes to Asda to print it 😀

Anabanana - I don't quite understand what you are trying to get at. Could you expand on just what I have said offends you please.

Funnily enough I run a web and print design business. If someone comes to me for, say, a brochure I design it and charge them for it (in a similar fashion to a photographer takes photographs). I usually place the print too (in the same way a photographer makes prints).

But, once paid in full, it is normal practice to release the artwork to the client. If they want to organise print themselves (in the first or subsequent instances) then that is their right.

I just think the way these sort of photographers deal with copyright stinks a bit.

A very good point about commercial photography though - all the commercial photographers I use, whilst technically retaining copyright, have no problem with images being used and re-used by the customer.

Oha nd mastiles - didn't you have a contract expressly setting out what you were getting for yer cash?

Personally, my top tip on portrait photography (sorry people who do portraits for a living), is to find someone you know who takes good photos and invite them over for a few beers. You'll probably end up with some more natural and fun photos than a posed shot. Surely everyone has a friend who always has amazing, fantastically well shot, natural pictures of their kids all over their facebook page? We took the same approach to our wedding, 4 or 5 of the guests were pretty good photographers and we just let them do their thing, no posed shots, and we got a great set of pictures in the end.

It may just be me though - my dad is a photographer, and quite a few of my family and friends take photography pretty seriously, so I seem to cross paths with photo people quite often. But it is worth thinking about your mates. If they are anything like my photographer friends, the hardest thing will be stopping them taking photos - is bloody annoying sometimes when you're just trying to relax / pick your nose in peace or whatever!

It doesn't save you masses if you want prints though, as if you want a decent quality print doing, that isn't exactly cheap however you do it. But you'd probably end up with a nice digital file that you can do whatever you want with it - put it on a fluffy cloud with angels or whatever.

Joe

A very good point about commercial photography though - all the commercial photographers I use, whilst technically retaining copyright, have no problem with images being used and re-used by the customer.

Bet they charge more than £40 for a days shoot though?

Joe

Bet they charge more than £40 for a days shoot though?

Aaargh! My eyes! Bl00dy angels!!!

Fair point above and yes, if you're very, very relaxed about your wedding photo expectations, then having a bunch of your drunken mates take photos at what for them, is basically a big piss up, and then having loads of photos of you picking your nose may certainly be an option....

Quite a few members of my family are keen togs, as are (unsurprisingly) many of my mates. I got married last October and paid a consumate pro the going rate to come and take pics - and a grand job he did too 😀

Regarding portraits, then yes, that is a fair point - I suppose, again, it just depends on expectations. If you want a Venture style shoot, then your mate popping round for a beer is likely to disappoint. If you just want relaxed snapshots, then all well and good.

Ohh and another experience we had - the family portrait we had commissioned was for my wife's mum and dad's wedding anniversary. We paid the price they charge which includes the shoot and one framed 12 x 18 print which was given as a gift to her mum and dad.

We asked if we could have additional prints made up by them but just smaller ones for the rest of the family but they would ONLY do further framed prints.

So - they refused to even do hand-finished prints (for which they would obviously be charging) unless we had them done to the same size as the original and had them frame them for us. We weren't expecting to be given digital files or get something for free - they just demanded that we had the large prints for really quite inexplicable reasons.

You can get your friends to do your wedding, but if you do you won't get great photos of the most important day of your life, like these, for example:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/agnieszka/3859203358/

http://www.sylwiaszuder.com/index2.php?v=v1

Your choice, I suppose.

Wait until they try to force school photos on you

Twice a year [at least] for poor photos @ blackmail prices

If you are commissioning work then the work belongs to you the customer*. The photographer has no right to use that work in his business without your agreement, he does retain copyright. So if you're feeling particularly bloody minded you can demand the image files be destroyed after you have had what you want printed.

*Depends on contract wording though and IANAL.

Nice links DrJ - I was expecting a p1ss take!

mastiles - I think your experience shows how important it is to go in with your eyes open - you should be aware of exactly what you're getting before you hand over any cash. Any decent outfit will tell you before the shoot - places like Venture will need some heavy pushing though....

I'm guessing that he did your wedding on the cheap and had wised up a bit by the time he did your portrait? Did you manage to get a discount on the session? If so, he / she might feel like he's been hammered down too far to offer any more cheap favours - all guesswork and feel free to repudiate...

Dr J - nice wedding photos. I completely agfree with you - I know when I get married, what I will be doing.

user removed - nice portfolio, I was tickled pink by the family shot with the baby 'gouging' his/her dad's eye out though - nice capture

mastiles - sounds like your photographer was particularily obtuse - part of the business is (I am sure you know from what you do and being a pretty sound chap) keeping your client happy and creating fans who will spread the word about you - which seems to be what they haven't done in your case - their loss in the long run.

You can get your friends to do your wedding, but if you do you won't get great photos of the most important day of your life, like these, for example:

Like I said, a)it depends who your friends are, and b)whether you want a bunch of cliched, posed formal pictures, and the same set of 'creative' pictures that they wheeled out for the other 50 weddings they did that year.

Personally I very much like a more naturalistic style, particularly for portraits, which I guess means shots people take without posing everyone works best for me, I bloody hate those plain white background portrait prints in the high street shops. It is certainly not right for everyone though I'd agree, and very much depends on who you know.

Joe

I'm guessing that he did your wedding on the cheap and had wised up a bit by the time he did your portrait? Did you manage to get a discount on the session? If so, he / she might feel like he's been hammered down too far to offer any more cheap favours - all guesswork and feel free to repudiate...

mastiles - sounds like your photographer was particularily obtuse - part of the business is (I am sure you know from what you do and being a pretty sound chap) keeping your client happy and creating fans who will spread the word about you - which seems to be what they haven't done in your case - their loss in the long run.

Even more puzzling as we did the shoot just after I had approached them to do a commercial shoot for one of my clients. Guess who didn't get that work either...

Final caveat - I think it is the photographer's wife that does the financial side of things and it was her making these decisions - I kind of think that he has no idea she is telling clients this stuff!

So how much value is their in retaining copyright and doing reprints for the original customer?
Sounds to me like its a hangover from the pre-digital age. Doing a sitting and handing over copyright & digital image sounds like the way things should be going. I guess 1/2 day's time to organise, do the shoot and tweak the photos - £120 perhaps?

Some more professional wedding photos, not cliches, posed or formal:

http://www.chromasia.com/iblog/#

Doing a sitting and handing over copyright & digital image sounds like the way things should be going. I guess 1/2 day's time to organise, do the shoot and tweak the photos - £120 perhaps?

To reiterate what some others have said:

Giving/selling the copyright to pictures is rare. But also unnecessary. What I do when I sell pictures (jpegs) is to grant a license for unlimited personal use. That means that when you buy an image file from me you can make whatever prints you want, use on personal website or blog etc. Usually this will be all the rights any buyer needs.

There is no reason Mark, why your photographer (or another one) couldn't grant you this, although they may charge more if they were factoring in the sale of prints to you in order to keep their initial costs down.

A very good point about commercial photography though - all the commercial photographers I use, whilst technically retaining copyright, have no problem with images being used and re-used by the customer.

i can't speak for other photographers but the design/advertising/commercial photography i do is usually licensed for a particular media and a for a particular amount of time. usually 1-2 years and a specific use (point of sale/brochure etc) if the images are needed in another territory (europe for example) or for a longer period then a new licence to use is issued for a fee. any photographer who hands over copyright for free is selling themselves short unless the work they do is of little merit.
obviously this doesn't work for the high street portrait business but it's obvious that they make a wage from the print sales, anyone who has a problem this should take their own baby pictures, process them and get them printed and mounted/framed and see how much work is involved.

(not that i have ever done it myself i detest children)

So how much value is their in retaining copyright and doing reprints for the original customer?
Sounds to me like its a hangover from the pre-digital age. Doing a sitting and handing over copyright & digital image sounds like the way things should be going

Sigh.... My grandad was a wedding / portrait photographer and I can promise you that he did not hand over his medium format negatives at the end of the shoot so the clients could go and make shonky prints in their home darkrooms.

mastiles - that does just sound like bad business practice - I wouldn't go back either.

whether you want a bunch of cliched, posed formal pictures, and the same set of 'creative' pictures that they wheeled out for the other 50 weddings they did that year

Joe - a good photographer will constantly be trying out new things - I know I do - every month a bunch of us NE wedding photographers get together and have fun with a few models either in the city at an industrial landscape, or in a (cliched) corn field - whatever. We mess on with off camera flash, teach each other new tricks and poses and generally have a laugh. Then we go and get pissed as little beetles.

These skills then carry over into the business - we've had time to make our mistakes in a non pressure environment. The kind of tired old stuff you're talking about should be very apparent from looking at a tog's portfolio. If the pics are are locked away in password protected galleries, with 12 of the best on show, be very afreaid. Run away.

doc_blues - thanks for the comment, much appreciated!

But the clue was in what I originally said...

[i][b]whilst technically retaining copyright[/b][/i]

I just think they are generally more relaxed about things and know that if they get anal about a shot being used in a little 1/4 page ad without permission they won't get the further work that would inevitably come.

I guess there are lots of 'high street' photographers that have been right-royally shafted though so they are just trying to protect themselves...

So how much should you expect to pay for say 1 hour sitting, where you walk away with 4 digital images that you can then print yourself?
Or is there a fundamental issue / snobbery / protectionism around the great unwashed taking the [i]art[/i] and getting them printed elsewhere?

I don't think £120 - £150 for 3 hours work that you then walk away from is  such a bad rate?

No, there's a law - there for several good reasons, mostly listed above.

EDIT: and to answer your question, you will almost certainly get what you pay for, as with most things...

You're not just paying for three hours of work - I'm not gonna spell it out again, but consider the overheads and the fact that for every hour you're shooting, you've got to take into consideration another two hours of editing, processing and to-ing and fro-ing between clients.

EDIT AGAIN: wot he said whilst I was editing (below)

I don't think £120 - £150 for 3 hours work that you then walk away from is such a bad rate?

but you're not paying for just that time are you? quite apart from the cost of the gear, travelling, insurance, studio hire etc., there's the post processing and so on

Or is there a fundamental issue / snobbery / protectionism around the great unwashed taking the art and getting them printed elsewhere?

Not at all, if you can do as well as a pro, then go ahead. I've spent a lot of time and money on my photography and will happily admit I'm rubbish. Compare the pictures I took at my pal's wedding last month to those taken by the official photographer and see why she gets paid to do the work...

Indeed. In this day and age holding onto the digital version and the expecting extra payments to get more images sound pretty much like extortion to me. If I pay someone to come round and install a toilet I don't expect them then to charge me each time I want to flush it.

🙄 *gives up and hangs head*

To be honest, I'm really not bothered as I know the clients that do book me value what I do and the end products. People who take the attitude of Mr Munro won't book me. And we'll both be better off for it. They'll book someone who charges £120 for a two hour shoot and all the photos on a DVD and never notice that the pics are utter crap.

And when they go to rebook that tog a few years later, he'll either be out of business, or he'll have wised up, realised that a business cannot be run without a proper pricing structure and put his prices up to a sustainable level.

but you're not paying for just that time are you? quite apart from the cost of the gear, travelling, insurance, studio hire etc., there's the post processing and so on

so allowing time for post processing which I did, it's really just like any other tradesman who needs premesis and tools?

and whilst the quality of prints [i]may[/i] be higher, if you are happy with poster prints from somewhere like photobox, why should you not be able to choose to do that?

So how much should you expect to pay for say 1 hour sitting, where you walk away with 4 digital images that you can then print yourself?

Thing with digital is, even though you don't have to process chemically, there's sometimes a fair bit of work getting from what you get straight off the camera, to a decent quality, colour corrected, edited, cropped image that'd you'd be happy to give to people.

Plus you inevitably don't walk away from it - what if they don't like the pictures, want changes / editing done, or just don't like the 4 images you chose.

It is also dead expensive in terms of equipment and other overheads - if you have a studio, that has obvious rent costs, then gear has costs - I've met people who spend 10k a year or more just on keeping up to date with cameras, lenses, flashes etc. computers for processing the pictures etc. Especially for the high-end kit that studio people probably use. If you drive places, then you have time getting to and from a job, plus paying to keep the vehicle running. I'm guessing if you total up time spent working and profit, it all adds up to not that great an hourly rate.

Joe

Because, it's the tog's rep on the line. I just wouldn't be happy knowing that my work has been printed in a shonky lab and is hanging on someone's wall at A1 size.

That's like having a really bad advert for your business in the public domain! Simples.

My niece has just got married and had the full photo job. She was told that with the selection of printed photos she chose she would get a CD with all the photos on it, AND full copyright would be passed to her.

[i]And when they go to rebook that tog a few years later, he'll either be out of business, or he'll have wised up, realised that a business cannot be run without a proper pricing structure and put his prices up to a sustainable level.[/i]

I pretty certain that I never said I expected it to be cheap, just that if I pay for a photograph I'd expect ownership of it. And if he did go bust I'd still have a digital copy unlike if you went bust 🙂

My niece has just got married and had the full photo job. She was told that with the selection of printed photos she chose she would get a CD with all the photos on it, AND full copyright would be passed to her.

My friend bought a bike from Halfords - two wheels an' ev'rything.

if I pay for a photograph I'd expect ownership of it

I bought a copy of STW last week. Should I expect to be able to run off a few copies of it?

Did you pay for them just to produce the magazine solely for you?

Y'know in the old days when you went for an eye test & they'd keep the prescription - even though you'd paid for it?

People are used to the idea they can do a lot with digital images (digital photo frames, print on a mouse mat, email to family, whatever...). If photographers have not moved on with the times, then tough luck. They should adjust their pricing strategy accordingly to reflect the clients preference. I'm not saying they should work for less, but the current strategy of paying minimal fee for the shoot, then charging for expensive prints seams flawed, especially as if the client gets pissed off with the print prices or the photographer withholding images, the photographer will only get minimum fee, which won't cover his expenses, and he’s out of pocket.

I think most people want to pay for a photographer to stage and capture images, not act as on overpriced printing service, and their fee structure should reflect this, because to me, it seams like photographer is trying to lever extra cash based on practices from times gone by.

[i]I bought a copy of STW last week. Should I expect to be able to run off a few copies of it?
[/i]

Completely different - with photography you are paying the photographer to do a specific job, for which he should cost his time and equipment charge out accordingly. Why should you be charged again and again to use something you've already paid for? If you employed an architect to design an extension would you pay them a royalty every time you used it!?

Seems to me like they are just trying to hold on to an old costing model, just like record companies tried to hold on to CD pricing.

I can see where you're all coming from, and agree it might be frustrating for the consumer to shell out loads of cash for a framed print that's blatantly not worth £300 (in itself, as a standalone object) .

It's just a different way of pricing - if I decided to give away all my digital files from each shoot, I would have to put my prices up by around £300 - £400 to cover the lack of sales.

[b]You (the customer) would still be paying the same - why can't you see this? No photographer will go down this road because they'd be the only tog on the block advertising a shoot for £450 when all his competition are advertising a shoot for £40[/b].

It would just be very bad business practice.

Did you pay for them just to produce the magazine solely for you?

Did you? Apparently not.

Completely different - with photography you are paying the photographer to do a specific job, for which he should cost his time and equipment charge out accordingly

That's fine, but then just don't expect it to be cheap.

surely it all depends on whether you'r an aspireing XC racer in need of transport and a mechanic in return for sweet FA as well?

It's just a different way of pricing - if I decided to give away all my digital files from each shoot, I would have to put my prices up by around £300 - £400 to cover the lack of sales.

... and to cover the business you lost because someone saw a dodgy print of a pic you took, inexpertly retouched and poorly printed, and the owner told them that you took it.

Exactly!

Also feel it's necessary to point out the difference between 'Printing Rights' and 'Copyright'.

In almost every situation the tog retains copyright, aside from Mr Smith's commercial work on page one.

Many photographers have felt the need to give out edited and processed images on a disc, "to keep up with the times". This is printing rights and I do this myself for my wedding clients, (fairly safe) in the knowledge that hardly any of them ever print them. They don't need to - they have a beautiful album. I might see the odd one on Facebook, but that's about the extent of it.

The client just thinks it's the norm, and that they MUST HAVE the FILES!! And they DEMAND copyright of the images - they soon settle down when I tell them they'll have a disc of their images to keep in a drawer for all eternity.

To be fair on the person placing the order....

What happens if the photographer dies or goes bust or leaves the country or has their premises burnt down and all the original shots of their wedding/baby etc disappear forever?

At least if the client had [b][i]a disc of their images to keep in a drawer for all eternity[/i][/b] they could get copies made if they ever needed them.

I have found it useful to 'educate' people as to what a bad print can look like - wont name the high street printer begining with B, or another beginning with je... and how there prints compare to what I get from my preferred supplier - people are surprisingly receptive to it, and comment that they didnt realise the differences. Hence my recommendations of printers to clients for run o the mill stuff - one of whom is actually photobox - there stuff is good, reproducible and their service /turnaround is also excellent. The other supplier is not much more expensive - certainly in the realms of high street prices and is in fact who I use to get client prints done should they buy off of me. I also warn clients that should they choose not to use my recommended suppliers, then its on their heads. Plus my contract expressley forbids derivative works (eg babies on cluds with lil' angel wings) - no one to my knowledge has taken the mick yet - possibly because they either havent told me (highly likely) or that they like what I have delivered and havent felt the need

Enlargements, framed prints etc are another matter - I have a preferred pro supplier for those, who are not cheap at all but their stuff is excellent - in fact I use them to produce artwork/prints for the walls at home

Incidentally, whilst people have mentioned processing time for images, no one has factored in the time it takes to sort an order for prints out. For example, last wedding I did, bride and groom wanted prints + album - easy. Plus on top they wanted 4 of 1 print for anunt mabel, 3 of another for cousin jim etc etc - so you end up with multiple orders for the same print, which when they arrive, you have to sort, double check etc - all adds to the time taken and cost to the end customer by the time you factor in your hourly rate - suddenly your 20p print actual becomes much more expensive even before the photographer factors in his profit etc

We had a photshoot done a year or so back by a nice chap. Fully aware of the fact that you dont get the files from previous experience.

However, his price list made everything crystal clear.

CD with printable files £Mega Bucks
CD With slideshow to let family see pictures to choose prints £FOC
Various sizes of prints £xxxx
Other options £xxxxx

So it was easy to see that we could have the option of the files, but we would have to pay for them. He gave us a slideshow of the photoshoot and that was sent around the family to choose. I dont think anything was underhand and if we didnt agree we could quite easily compare his prices with others.

So if you arent dealing with someone who lists his prices like above find someone who does.

We actually paid for what we wanted, then got a friend to do something with a copy of the slideshow which enabled us to get very passable copies of the whole photoshoot for emailing and desktop pictures. Didnt feel guilty as there is no way i would have paid for them and they were just replacing our own point and shoot pictures which would happily have done the job.

Incidentally, whilst people have mentioned processing time for images, no one has factored in the time it takes to sort an order for prints out

Strangely enough, I'm sat watching image processor converting loads of full size files to 7.5x5" print size, after ten mins in Bridge control+clicking a client's selection of 100 prints!

Then I'll spend another twenty mins swearing at the pro lab's ftp upload system 😀

In a few days, I'll get the photos, spend twenty minutes wrapping them in tissue paper, putting them into a £20 print box and writing a hand written compliments slip.... It does all addd up doesn't it 😯

EDIT: forgot about the 15 min drive to the Post Office as they've shut down all the local ones 🙁

Anyway, back to the OP.
I just remembered Andy Heading, top bloke, and top mountain biker. The only downside is that Matlock's not very local to Oxford.

[url] http://www.shoot-the-kids.co.uk/index.html [/url]

Strangely enough, I'm sat watching image processor converting loads of full size files to 7.5x5" print size, after ten mins in Bridge control+clicking a client's selection of 100 prints!

Then I'll spend another twenty mins swearing at the pro lab's ftp upload system

In a few days, I'll get the photos, spend twenty minutes wrapping them in tissue paper, putting them into a £20 print box and writing a hand written compliments slip.... It does all addd up doesn't it

EDIT: forgot about the 15 min drive to the Post Office as they've shut down all the local ones

If you don't like the admin, why don't you just concentrate on taking and tarting up the pictures then 😆

EDIT: I think Iodius has captured the main points perfectly. Its a bit of an outdated way of generating income and clearly at odds with current technology and peoples' expectations. The forward looking ones will get it and move on, the rest well....

I hate the admin, but can't afford a secretary. You want a badly paid job? 🙂

the-muffin-man - Member
If you employed an architect to design an extension would you pay them a royalty every time you used it!?

I hate the admin, but can't afford a secretary. You want a badly paid job?

No, I want you to concentrate on what you are good at - taking images and post processing. Charge me a reasonable daily rate for doing that, and then let me worry about getting them printed and packaged according to my own preferences.

Its not about reducing revenue streams, its about resting control form the togs and recognising that some folk don't like the traditional way of working.

If I let my clients do all their own printing then it's very much about reducing revenue streams. Potential client X sees Past client Y's big print on the wall. PC Y got the print done on the high street. It's dark and has an interesting colour cast.

PC X is thinking about having a portrait done and makes a mental note not to use the same photography studio as PC Y. Photographer loses potential client.

Why would you want to wrest control from those that know what they're doing anyway?! As pointed out above, it won't save you any money, and you're almost certain to get worse prints..

EDIT: I'm also very good at spending obscene amounts of money on a high quality monitor, a monitor callibrater, setting up colour profiles and liasing with my lab to ensure I get exactly what's on my monitor.

No, I want you to concentrate on what you are good at - taking images and post processing. Charge me a reasonable daily rate for doing that, and then let me worry about getting them printed and packaged according to my own preferences.

Its not about reducing revenue streams, its about resting control form the togs and recognising that some folk don't like the traditional way of working.

Find a photographer who wants to work that way then, don't demand that everyone change their working practices to suit you. Free market and all that.

Edit: and the post above shows you why that's not too likely to become the norm...

Ian Munro, the-muffin-man et al.

I think the point you are missing is that photographers can choose whatever business model they like and customers can choose whichever photographer they like.

So long as everyone knows what is on offer and what it costs, what's the problem?

None what so ever. That's why a posted a link to a photographer with a business model that the OP wanted.

So the fundamental issue is that someone could make a bad print of one of your images which could then put other potential clients off using you?

I can see the logic in that - I suppose the trick is to price the taking and processing of images at a point where the risk is mitigated.

nbt - I'm not demanding anything. I'm trying to understand why togs use what appears to me to a bit of a dated business model.

[i]Why would you want to wrest control from those that know what they're doing anyway?[/i]
Its about choice. What if I don't like the way you print the images. What if I want to tweak the sharpness or stick an aliens head on my brother in the picture? If I've paid a fair rate for the sitting and post processing, I would be able to do that.

TBH, I don't buy the QC argument, people (as stated before) will just use a flatbed scanner to scan a print, remove the logo from the print and do what they want. Perhaps the photographer should also keep the prints in a locked safe to prevent them being scanned?

The only real advantage I can see in user-removed's argument, is that he can offer a low headline price? My two kids are little shits when posing for photographs, I'd feel bad if a photographer gives up 3 hours to do a shoot for £60 and I don't order any prints through no fault of the photographers. Equally, some of the prices for prints seem excessive, so if I did want more prints, I'd order minimal quantities, and scan them, because I ain't gonna pay £20 for a 7x5.

Why would you want to wrest control from those that know what they're doing anyway?!

Because photographers move on, take other careers, go under... I want to keep the digital negatives of pic's of my kids when they were young until I die...and then pass them on. I can't believe I will be alone in wanting to do that?

That argument comes back to what I said earlier about my grandad not giving clients negatives....

Photos printed at a quality lab will last far longer than the jpeg format or the media they are stored on (my print lab suggests 100 years under glass) - this fascination for wanting the fragile, non-futureproof electronic files is beyond me.

Do you really believe your kid's kids will be able to get hold of a DVD drive? And DVDs have a limited shelf life - I've had a few top quality ones corrupt on me in less than a decade.

So the fundamental issue is that someone could make a bad print of one of your images which could then put other potential clients off using you?

No I think the fundamental issue is one of intellectual property. How do you think the photographers work should be recognised and rewarded?

If I've paid a fair rate for the sitting and post processing, I would be able to do that.

If that's what you want to do, I'd imagine you will be able to negotiate a suitable price. But it won't be the lowest price, and nor should it be.

Actually, maybe there's an upside for the photographer in all this, after clients take their jpegs and print them at Boots they will see the difference between what they got and the properly processed and printed photo from user-removed and pals.

User removed, looking at your website (looks good BTW :-)) you do give clients CD's with the jpegs though?

Ian,

You did also say this

holding onto the digital version and the expecting extra payments to get more images sound pretty much like extortion to me.

Photos printed at a quality lab will last far longer than the jpeg

The point is that the user may want to have additional prints made and are reliant on the photographer being there to do so at a point in the future. Having them for themselves on disk is a security no photographer could offer.

Out of interest, what security measures do you have in place to protect images you take?

No I think the fundamental issue is one of intellectual property. How do you think the photographers work should be recognised and rewarded?

Eh? How about being paid for taking and processing the images. Camera and photoshop operator - perhaps a bit of set design and direction too. May be (dare I say it) at an hourly rate 😯

Does my decorator or plumber claim IPR on painting my living room or fixing my boiler?

If that's what you want to do, I'd imagine you will be able to negotiate a suitable price. But it won't be the lowest price, and nor should it be.

Hooray - you get it 😉 I've never said it should be the lowest price - just a fair one that rewards the time and effort gone into capturing and processing the images. One that also reflects the fact that the user may want to print or manipulate the images later however they may choose.

Out of interest ...

Say you got a painter to do your portrait - does the portrait owner have full rights to any reproduction or image of it? or does that stay with the painter?

Lots of wierd editing going on?!

I'm really not here to make a point, and as with all linear threads, any point becomes hopelessly muddied after about a dozen replies. Still fun though!!

mastiles, to sate your curiosity, I immediately download the raw files onto C drive. All files are then burnt onto a DVD.

Once I've edited them, and processed them, they're backed up onto two seperate external hard drives.

lodious - thanks for the comments, and yes, as I pointed out earlier, I do give my (wedding) clients their photos on disc. I know for a fact that hardly any of them ever print any out.

Finally (and I will stay out of this hereafter, unless I can't help myself), if you really, really badly want electronic files of your children to give to their children, and you're not prepared to pay good money for a pro to take the pics and hand over his files, then don't! Just snap them yourself!

I find it odd that someone else can have the copyright to [i]your[/i] face?...

I find it odd that someone else can have the copyright to your face?...

Nobody would want the copyright to mine 😆