Forum menu
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!?
Actually if you built your extension then used those drawings to build other similar extensions elsewhere and they found out, then yes you would get sued as your license to use those designs and drawings is limited in the contract and T&Cs and after that if you want to we can get on to IPR.
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 isn't the original print lasting longer than a jpg (which is a pretty weak argument as it doesn't consider transfer of a file from one format to another, multiple back-ups etc. A digital file would last almost forever on a benign format such as a flash card (bear in mind they use identical technology to black box recorders on aeroplanes and are almost indestructible).
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 😆
I find it odd that someone else can have the copyright to your face?...
... to that particular rendering of your face - but remember someone will already have patented your DNA and the royalty demand is in the post...
[url= http://www.copyright4clients.com/faqs ]http://www.copyright4clients.com/faqs[/url]
the above info is for commercial/advertising/editorial photography but it outlines the basic principles of copyright and image rights.
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.
I think we come full circle. I suspect that that price would be pretty big, and hence a lower price for a lesser service is offered.
[url= http://www.xtranormal.com/watch?e=20090929103500534 ]lifted from Seb Rogers' blog.....[/url]
based around the life of a commercial 'tog and 100% NSFW.... but very funny...
FWIW - my approach is that wedding clients have paid me pretty well for my services so, whilst there is a price on my 'JPEG's on disk' option they may well get it as pat of the deal - either a a 'thank-you' when the job is done or, if needs be a sweetener to swing the booking - only if needs be and only if they appreciate the value of that offer...
My POV being - a. the shots are there, i'd rather they were out there on facebook etc, being used, advertising my services eve, that sat on a collection of disks and drives gathering dust.... I find after sales are minimal as most guests snap away on camera phones etc and are happy with what they get....
Portraits - again it's a cost option and as in the example above - all costs are quoted up-front..... if they don't like it, they walk, if not you (appear to*) have a client who values what you do....
In either case - copyright is only released on a 'personal use basis' - lets be honest here - what can I / we do to control subsequent use - not much - but, you never know when someone might get famous / infamous.... - hence i do keep hold of copyright - and yes - I [i]laughingly [/i] refer to this 'hope' as my pension fund.... 😀
*unlike one earlier this year - came to the studio 'loved my work', knew the prices, commented on how favourable they were compared to their previous shoot - with V****re.... had a stunning shoot at their place - then came back after the viewing and then got all arsey when we started to add up costs..... 🙄
re: getting Asda to print professional pics...they stopped my order...I ordered some prints from jpegs I sent online selecting the option of picking the prints up in store...a couple of hours before I was to pick them up I had a phone call saying that as the images looked like professional photos I would need to bring proof that I held copyright for the images...I was pretty stunned to be honest (and wondered how I would prove ownership). I can only imaging that Asda had a part-time photographer working in-store that day!
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.
So is that a foolproof way of protecting the original images?
So is that a foolproof way of protecting the original images?
Obviously not, but it's good enough for me. Why do you ask?
I do know photographers who keep two external hard drives at friends houses, backing them up once a month, in case of theft or fire...
Obviously not, but it's good enough for me. Why do you ask?
Curious as to see how you handle such valuable files. I would be very disappointed to find that, in the event of having to go back to the photographer to get a reprint or an additional image printed, to be told they had lost the original .raw files.
Personally, in the case of digital files we keep on behalf of clients, we do something similar to the other photographers you mention - dual raid server + daily, weekly and monthly backups kept off-site and archive to one set of DVDs kept on-site and a further set kept off-site. Digital files are very valuable and, as has been pointed out earlier in this thread, a valuable source of additional revenue.
Just another point - there is also the question of how the photographer sees themselves, and how they want to work. I can imagine that a photographer sees himself as providing the best print he can, that that is his "product", and that is what he takes a pride in, not just showing up and pressing the button. In that case, I can see that he would not want to delegate part of his artistic process to Asda, or to have his work used in a product that does not meet his standards. Of course that may cost him money, but photographers don't generally go into it with the idea of getting rich.
Cheers all. Very helpful - and sorry I haven't said this sooner, things here have been a bit manic!
doc_blues, would you please email me? Address given by clicking on name above post!
Thanks STW!