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.

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

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.

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.

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 a disc of their images to keep in a drawer for all eternity 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 7.5×5" 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.

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

Strangely enough, I'm sat watching image processor converting loads of full size files to 7.5×5" 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.

Why would you want to wrest control from those that know what they're doing anyway?
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 7×5.

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 your face?…

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

Nobody would want the copyright to mine 😆