Wedding pros

I just had a thought that might make some friends and maybe even a referral source...

I use one lab for just about everything. What if I let them keep the negatives and digital files for me? They, because of the amount of business I give them, give me a 40% discount from their regular "public" prices. I could split the difference with them (a 20% "commission") and the customer could order direct from them. That way, the customer only pays what they would normally pay the lab, I can trust the output, and I make money for no direct work. I can just hand the customer a cd with low res files that are cataloged (sp?) and catalog the files/negs I give the lab with the same system and voila! I think the customer would respect it because they aren't getting reamed, but I also think they will understand paying more than a WalMart reprint because of the quality, hand checking, etc. Of course, i will still charge them up the ying-yang for the album and my time, but this way I can have the best of both worlds. Think it will work?

--
'In cyberspace, you can't hear the screams...'
'Price is only an issue in the absence of value.'
'Being 6'8' means not having to say you're sorry...'

Equipment list in profile.

Matthew Cromer said:

Of course people have the legal right to spell out that the client
owns nothing and you will charge them $20 for a 5 x 7.

What amazes me is that the people asserting their "right" to do
this don't realize how greedy, scuzzy and insensitive to their
clients they look.

--
my favorite work: http://www.pbase.com/sdaconsulting/favorite_work

Click to expand...

What bothers me is people who don't seem to think the photographer should be paid for his efforts, equipment, business costs etc, etc.

There is probably a forum somewher with people complaing about lawyers charging $20 for a photocopy,a.
ps. I like your photos.

That was never my complaint.

--
my favorite work: http://www.pbase.com/sdaconsulting/favorite_work

You need to retain the rights in all medium for advertising and selling.

Lets say bride magazine wants to run a pic from your portfolio. If you only have portfolio rights it would be a no deal situation. Its in your best interest to do this in the off chance that it can help you promote your business in ways that a portfolio can't. It is a safe way to protect yourself in all way and IMHO I think that a smart business person should do whatever they can to protect themselves.

William Night said:

Just curious, why do you want rights to use their photos in all
mediums, etc?

I'd think that your only real justified use would be a portfolio.
That may be in many mediums, but it's a specific purpose.

Technically your disclaimer seems to allow selling their pictures
to a porn site, or something else. Not that you would, but aren't
they foolish in signing these type of rights away?

Click to expand...

--
Mark Lutz
http://www.visionsphotography.us

I charge on a "per commission" basis. For this, they get their wedding portfolio, the spare prints, the negatives and a CD with any digital images.

I get written permission to use a selection of the prints on my web site for further marketing. I feel it's wrong to make further money from their day. I don't sell copies of the wedding prints to public - I don't feel that is my "right". Plus - my clients tend to be considerable distances away - and putting the reprint business in their hands means they don't feel ripped-off and I don't get bogged down with multiple reprints/packaging/posting/insurance etc etc.

Works for me and my clients ..and I get to sleep at night

Cheers All

Mark

http://www.markrobinson.co.uk

Matthew Cromer said:

That was never my complaint.

--
my favorite work: http://www.pbase.com/sdaconsulting/favorite_work

Click to expand...

Ah, but Matthew, it seems that it is. Why would you call us scuzzy (or appear that way).

I have an upscale clientele who completely understand that I need to feed a family in Fairfield County, CT. I offer packages with one album between 2 and 3 grand, and usually have 5 to a grand in after sales. They know what to expect and return for one family function after another!

I do not think you understand wedding photography and use words without thinking about who you are insulting and why!

Dan Rosen

Up until the late 50's and early 60's, this was a non-issue. Weddings were photographed in B&W because color was expensive, slow and not very good (IMO). Therefore, any prints from the wedding were done by the photographer in his B&W darkroom. The customer had no facilities to get prints, especially since the negs were probably 4x5 and no one ever thought of asking for the negatives. Also, if there was a wedding album, it consisted of formal groupings. Photographers of this era possesed technical knowledge beyond the scope of all but the most advanced amateurs. They also owned equipment out of the realm of the casual photographer.

More affordable color materials, electronic flash and medium format cameras helped create wedding photography as we think of it. Photographers started to offer full coverage, including candids. Advances in equipment, starting in the late 60's with automatic flashes, coupled with sending film to an outside lab opened the wedding business to anyone who could afford a Mamiya C33 and a Vivitar flash.

Digital photography has once more changed the field. Now, any number of "negatives", each as good as the original, can be made. The average consumer can by an inexpensive scanner and good photo printer and make however many copies of your $80.00 wedding 8x10 they desire.

I'm glad I'm no longer in the wedding photography business, given the current state of affairs (and my lack of desire to chase around after a bride 30 years my junior!). If I were, though, I think I'd shoot digital. I'd charge for my time. My standard package would include my time and full jpegs converted from raw with no post processing. My deluxe package would include post processing in Photoshop. I would show samples of the difference when booking. I would offer printing as a service, sending the files to an outside lab to make them. I would sell them for a reasonable amount. As far as protecting my reputation, the jpegs I'd hand over would be color corrected. I think any prints they would make or would have made would be much closer to the originals than the film prints customers used to get. Furthermore, they could bring the images up on their computer and see if they were grossly out of whack. Most monitors, of course, are not calibrated, but I think most are enough in the ballpark to allow the customer to judge. Like it or not, digital copying is going to happen. Legalese and threats will not prevent it. I think it's best to realize the reality and build my business model around it. The question is whether this business model will allow a viable business.

I'll conclude with the philosophy that allowed me to book as many weddings as I wanted. Customers like to be treated with respect and honesty. They also like choice, but sometimes you have to guide them in their choices. If they do not think they are getting value, nothing you do will please them. If they started arguing about price (as opposed to asking legitimate questions), I did everthing I could to get them to hire someone else, because it was never worth the headaches to come. The overwhelming majority of people are nice and will meet you at least halfway. When you enter into a relationship with that attitude, you'll find that it's true. If your conversations and contracts tell them subtley (sic) or not so subtley you mistrust them, you'll have a higher percentage of trouble.

Regards,
Doug

Matthew Cromer said:

I see a lot of frustration and anger out there about the
"traditional" business model where the photographer charges a low
fee to take the pictures and then charges a lot on a per-print
basis. That is how my wedding was shot and even at that time (over
8 years ago) I thought it was really a bizarre business model and I
resented the photographer and felt he was "putting one over" on my
mother in law.

I would certainly never hire a photographer for anything on that
basis.

Obviously the photographer has no particular interest in the
pictures except as examples of his or her work product. The family
of the bride or whoever pays for the photographs obviously has a
pretty large interest in the images. I certainly wish I had the
negatives from my wedding to scan and share.

I get the feeling that this business practice originated as a way
to "bid low" and then get them to pay much more than they expected
after the wedding. In this day and age I can't see any good reason
to stick with this kind of scheme. Believe me, when a customer
pays $7,000 to have their wedding photographed and a set of nice
albums, then find out later that you want to charge $1,000 or more
for negatives or a full-resolution CD, this customer is going to be
less than thrilled with you.

I really think this "old business model" is going to fall by the
wayside as more sophisticated customers start questioning why they
can't have full-resolution CDs and new wedding photographers offer
the digital negatives and explain more clearly how the "old
business model" takes control of their memories away from them.

Is there anyone who really likes the "traditional" model and thinks
it is in the best interests of the customer? Or is it just a
matter of "the way things always were" seeming safer than the
"brave new world" where the customer is empowered?

--
my favorite work: http://www.pbase.com/sdaconsulting/favorite_work

Click to expand...

Doug,

Good post. I have 1 question...

Who are these photographers getting 80.00 for an 8x10??? Are we talking one or two or the average in your area?

I charge 22.00, most of my competitiors 25-35.00 in an upscale region. I wouldn't be able to keep a straight face!

Dan Rosen

Off the top of my head I can name at least 4 that are in the $60-80 range for 8x10 one of them charges over $200 for a foamcore matted 16x20. Now is that ridiculous or what. These guys also force brides and who ever else wants to buy reprints to attend a slide show there is no proof album to look at. At this show they must order what they want at one time. Any orders after the slide show are frowned upon and up charges apply. This is not user friendly IMHO. By charging for your time you don't have to hold brides hostage just to make a buck.

FYI this is a standard package for these guys. $1500 is 3-4 hours you have no proof album you have to watch a slide show and you get no candids. Quite the bargain huh. I live in an area with some old school photogprapers and I am constantly getting business from them

dan rosen said:

Doug,

Good post. I have 1 question...

Who are these photographers getting 80.00 for an 8x10??? Are we
talking one or two or the average in your area?

I charge 22.00, most of my competitiors 25-35.00 in an upscale
region. I wouldn't be able to keep a straight face!

Dan Rosen

Click to expand...

--
Mark Lutz
http://www.visionsphotography.us

Are these guys dragging unsuspecting brides in off the sidewalk and holding a gun to their heads while they sign the contract? Or are the b/g interviewing different pro's and selecting these guys of their own free will?

Please don't think I'm trying to defend ridiculous pricing. I think the ideal business model is where most of the pro's money comes from the up-front charge with a reasonable per-print pricing scheme. As for turning over negatives and directing the bride to a local lab; there is the factor to consider where if the bride cheaps out on the prints she isn't going to assume the blame for the bad prints -- she's going to let her friends and family think it's the pro's fault. Not real sure it's a good idea to place the pro's reputation (something which has real $$$ value as it affects future bookings) in the hands of someone who has no clue about how to achieve good prints.

I am a firm believer in caveat emptor. If someone hires a pro and signs a contract without fully reading and UNDERSTANDING that contract, and verifying all assumptions, then they deserve what they get. The deceitful pro who hides stuff or intentionally misleads the client should get sued and will not be in business much longer. But when it's all clearly spelled out and the client does not bother to fully understand what they're agreeing to before signing on the dotted line, then I have little sympathy for them after the fact.

Again, I'm not trying to defend anyone here. I guess I'm just trying to seek a little perspective. It seems like a lot of posters are writing about what this pro forces his client to do, or that pro holds them hostage, or this other pro rapes his client on print pricing. It's a competitive market (or at least most of them are). With all the awful stuff they're doing, how come they're still in business? Are they in a market where word of mouth is virtually nil?

Or is it possible that either (a) there are enough clients who like that business model that they continue to do fine, or (b) those pros are good enough that clients still choose them despite any misgivings about print pricing?

A lot of people are pitching the "high priced prints" pros as evil slimy scam-artists who prey on poor unsuspecting brides. But is that really the case? Or are they merely providing a service model that is not appealing to some people, but appeals to enough people to keep the lights on?

mark lutz said:

FYI this is a standard package for these guys. $1500 is 3-4 hours
you have no proof album you have to watch a slide show and you get
no candids. Quite the bargain huh. I live in an area with some old
school photogprapers and I am constantly getting business from them

dan rosen said:

Doug,

Good post. I have 1 question...

Who are these photographers getting 80.00 for an 8x10??? Are we
talking one or two or the average in your area?

I charge 22.00, most of my competitiors 25-35.00 in an upscale
region. I wouldn't be able to keep a straight face!

Dan Rosen

Click to expand...

--
Mark Lutz
http://www.visionsphotography.us

Click to expand...

mark lutz said:

Off the top of my head I can name at least 4 that are in the $60-80
range for 8x10 one of them charges over $200 for a foamcore matted
16x20. Now is that ridiculous or what. These guys also force brides
and who ever else wants to buy reprints to attend a slide show
there is no proof album to look at. At this show they must order
what they want at one time. Any orders after the slide show are
frowned upon and up charges apply. This is not user friendly IMHO.
By charging for your time you don't have to hold brides hostage
just to make a buck.

FYI this is a standard package for these guys. $1500 is 3-4 hours
you have no proof album you have to watch a slide show and you get
no candids. Quite the bargain huh. I live in an area with some old
school photogprapers and I am constantly getting business from them

Click to expand...

Mark,

I think it's great you are getting the work. I hate those high pressure tactics. Maybe this is what has people ranting and raving, not good work at a fair price-even though I hold the negs/files.

Keep doing it your way,

Dan Rosen

Andrew64673 said:

What bothers me is people who don't seem to think the photographer
should be paid for his efforts, equipment, business costs etc, etc.
There is probably a forum somewher with people complaing about
lawyers charging $20 for a photocopy,a.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't doubt it. And it's perfectly justified for people to complain about it.

It doesn't cost anything like $20 for a photocopy, if someone's billing you that much, they're cooking the books or profiteering. Lawyers get paid $200 or more per hour, secretaries get paid $15, all the lawyer has to do is tell the secretary what to copy and she can do it, finding, filing, and faxing/mailing included.

I don't see how saying that implies that lawyers shouldn't be paid for their time, or that photographers shouldn't. It says though that up-front (and by this I mean honest and open) business dealings are the only fair way to go. If it really cost $10-15 to make a 5x7 print (or anywhere near) people wouldn't be so furious about making sure that they got to make the print, the profit wouldn't warrant it.

See also, my reply to Dan Rosen.

Dan says:

dan rosen said:

Ah, but Matthew, it seems that it is. Why would you call
us scuzzy (or appear that way).

Click to expand...

Because on here, instead of photographers saying that they explain the details to customers, we have ones snarkily saying that the clients should have done their research.

Instead of offering the customer a choice (and billing more up-front to cover your family's expenses) photographers on here have refused to ever consider selling negatives.

I too have to make a living, but that's my problem, not that of my clients. I wouldn't try to trap a client into paying me a lot more than they expected.

dan rosen said:

I do not think you understand wedding photography and use words
without thinking about who you are insulting and why!

Click to expand...

I don't think either Matthew or myself are insulting "Photographers" in general. We're saying that the business practices of those who refuse to deal honestly with their clients and to offer reasonable choices, are sleazy, and if you wish, by extension, so are the people who practice them.

I have nothing against photographers in general. Many of the pros on here seems nice, they don't panic about wedding guests "stealing their poses", or try to trap people into a pay-for-prints package. I dealt with an honest photographer for my wedding and I'm sure many others are just as honest.

I'd call members of my own profession on this kind of thing. In fact, I often have. Many contractors heavily oversell service contracts, making the customers think their company will fall apart without a few thousand dollars a month of contractor time.

I have a huge chip on my shoulder though, for people who misrepresent themselves or their services, especially those who claim it's the victims fault for not knowing enough to detect the trickery.

What I want to know is why you're not with us on this. If you're such a nice guy (and you very well may be) you should be calling for better ethics in your industry. You'd benefit because by your education of the customer, you'd appear even better. And you'd also avoid anyone hating photographers in general because these people would see that you're not a closed group who all act the same.

Try this. If you keep negatives, always tell this to a customer, explain it means they're required to deal with you for prints. If your prints are vastly (say, more than five times) above drug-store prints, explain why and show them an example of both.

This just involves explaining the catches of the business model that aren't obvious to people who haven't worked with a pro photographer before.

(I'd prefer that you offer both business models, but that's a discussion for later.)

Can you do that, or tell us why it's unreasonable to expect that from photographers, without making us think of the word "sleeze"?

mark lutz said:

You need to retain the rights in all medium for advertising and
selling.

Lets say bride magazine wants to run a pic from your portfolio. If
you only have portfolio rights it would be a no deal situation. Its
in your best interest to do this in the off chance that it can help
you promote your business in ways that a portfolio can't. It is a
safe way to protect yourself in all way and IMHO I think that a
smart business person should do whatever they can to protect
themselves.

Click to expand...

Of course it would be a no-deal!? You mean, this is accepted and expected? That if you shot a wedding you might sell photos from it without specific permission from the client?

I can see full rights to a portfolio, but I can't see the right to resell someone else's image and private ceremony like that.

Well anyways, that's why I was questioning the "all rights in all mediums", it sounded like a bit much and now I see that it is.

gpb11 said:

Are these guys dragging unsuspecting brides in off the sidewalk and
holding a gun to their heads while they sign the contract? Or are
the b/g interviewing different pro's and selecting these guys of
their own free will?

Click to expand...

When I started to talk to photographers about my wedding the first few I talked to told me flat out that nobody provided negatives for less than the cost of a new car. (I knew this wasn't true - if it was a union rule it was illegal, and I knew that if it wasn't, that everything has its price.)

Had someone not been as tenacious, they might have believed the first or second person they talked to.

gpb11 said:

I am a firm believer in caveat emptor. If someone hires a pro and
signs a contract without fully reading and UNDERSTANDING that
contract, and verifying all assumptions, then they deserve what
they get. The deceitful pro who hides stuff or intentionally
misleads the client should get sued and will not be in business
much longer. But when it's all clearly spelled out and the client
does not bother to fully understand what they're agreeing to before
signing on the dotted line, then I have little sympathy for them
after the fact.

Click to expand...

Hoho. Auto mechanics, or computer repairment must love you! I could stick any number of useless services into a contract and I'm sure only one in ten people could spot them (other than other computer consultants). They'd all be real tasks, but ones that were highly inflated or unneeded.

If I didn't actually lie, I couldn't be sued.

Fair?

gpb11 said:

Again, I'm not trying to defend anyone here. I guess I'm just
trying to seek a little perspective. It seems like a lot of
posters are writing about what this pro forces his client to do, or
that pro holds them hostage, or this other pro rapes his client on
print pricing.

Click to expand...

I'm probably the person you're referring to here.

gpb11 said:

It's a competitive market (or at least most of them
are). With all the awful stuff they're doing, how come they're
still in business? Are they in a market where word of mouth is
virtually nil?

Click to expand...

I didn't know anyone who got married in my area and hired a pro. A few people knew someone who had and offered to get me the name but that never worked when finding a dentist...

I suppose if I came from a large family and knew a lot of recently married women in my area, I'd have had better luck.

As it was, I figured the best bet was yellow pages essentially. Combined with a lot of comparrison shopping, some firm requirements (negatives) and the willingness to do the research.

gpb11 said:

Or is it possible that either (a) there are enough clients who like
that business model that they continue to do fine, or (b) those
pros are good enough that clients still choose them despite any
misgivings about print pricing?

Click to expand...

Perhaps, but I compared the online portfolios of the pros (I used online yellow pages - this might mean you want to get a website if you don't already have one) and I didn't see any quality difference between the pro I picked and any of the others.

We were also having a theme wedding so I didn't put a lot of stock in traditional poses, I looked for quality (as best I could see in a 640x480 pic).

gpb11 said:

A lot of people are pitching the "high priced prints" pros as evil
slimy scam-artists who prey on poor unsuspecting brides. But is
that really the case? Or are they merely providing a service model
that is not appealing to some people, but appeals to enough people
to keep the lights on?

Click to expand...

Well, that's certainly my view of the first few I talked to, the ones who told me that I had no alternative. They had nice low up-front costs but they always wanted to talk packages when I asked about price. And based on some of the people on here, there are others like them.

Some of the pros I talked to said that they didn't provide negatives but that they knew some photographers did and they wished me luck. These I don't have anything against.

And then there's the pros on here and that I talked to who provide negatives, who will do prints but don't push it, and who seem like great fun guys to have shoot your wedding. (Speaking of which, why of all the pros I saw, was only one female. You wouldn't think the wedding-photography business would be so male-dominated.)

I definately don't mean to tar everyone with the same brush any more than I mean to do so about auto mechanics or computer consultants (Me!) by pointing out that they can all be dishonest.

I've gone to giving away my negs. I'm not digital, but hope to be be eventually. I decided to release negatives for the following reasons:

Over the past five years, as scanners have become commonplace in young people's homes, I've seen reprint business drop dramatically. I figure they are going to scan the proofs regardless of what kind of copyright notice I put on them. So they might as well have the negatives.

That said, I also jacked up my price by $200 to cover what I felt was my profit off an average wedding reprint order.

I don't have a studio with a lot of overhead. I'm just a weekend shooter who makes enough to buy equipment and put a little money aside for retirement. I'm sure if I depended on it for my livelihood, I would want even more money for the negatives.

I plan to go digital, but not completely. In talking to brides about digital, they still want a paper album. So I'm planning on doing a digital presentation (pictures to exe) of the reception on CD and combine that with a traditional 4X6 film/paper proof album.

One other issue: My main competitor also gives away his negs. But he uses Wal-Mart Fuji film; I use only Fuji pro and have a pro lab (Flair) process it. He hands the unprocessed film to the client at the end of the wedding and picks up five bills for his services and $20 worth of film.

Matthew Cromer said:

--
my favorite work: http://www.pbase.com/sdaconsulting/favorite_work

Click to expand...

--
Carl Feather
Photographer/Writer
Wish I was in West Virginia

dan rosen said:

I think it's great you are getting the work. I hate those high
pressure tactics. Maybe this is what has people ranting and
raving, not good work at a fair price-even though I hold the
negs/files.

Click to expand...

That's exactly the problem. If I thought I could build a decent album at the prices the pro would charge, and that my negatives would either always be there, or would be given to me in a few years, I'd have been a lot less reluctant.

Of course, one of my requirements was digital as well, (negatives only in the business sense) so that I could build a CD-slide show to send to relatives who I wouldn't have spent $200+ to send a detailed album to. (And because I prefer pictures on the monitor, my 21" monitor looks nicer to me than prints).

But yes, if I hadn't gotten the run around, I wouldn't have been so negative about it.

jblann said:

I use one lab for just about everything. What if I let them keep
the negatives and digital files for me? They, because of the
amount of business I give them, give me a 40% discount from their
regular "public" prices. I could split the difference with them (a
20% "commission") and the customer could order direct from them.

Click to expand...

Sounds like a good business decision. It's honest - the customer knows what's going on, and it saves you from having to deal with the non-creative side of the business.

At that point though, are you making enough money (20% per) to bother with the whole pay-for-prints things? At that price it seems like it's just a way to get clients to print with a good lab. (Which might be a good idea.)

Carl Feather said:

That said, I also jacked up my price by $200 to cover what I felt
was my profit off an average wedding reprint order.

Click to expand...

Makes perfect sense.

Carl Feather said:

I plan to go digital, but not completely. In talking to brides
about digital, they still want a paper album. So I'm planning on
doing a digital presentation (pictures to exe) of the reception on
CD and combine that with a traditional 4X6 film/paper proof album.

Click to expand...

A friend of mine does scrap-books that way, they're quite nice and it's a shareware program. It lets her do special backgrounds, annotations, etc, and specify links. Burn it on CD with an autostart file and it'd be perfect. Nice professional looking results for something so cheap. (I think it spits out HTML so they could even use it for a webpage.)

You could even put the raw jpegs in a directory on the CD for them to examine in more detail.

This isn't where you'd make the money so something cheap and quick like this is probably desired, especially since it looks quite nice.

Carl Feather said:

One other issue: My main competitor also gives away his negs. But
he uses Wal-Mart Fuji film; I use only Fuji pro and have a pro lab
(Flair) process it. He hands the unprocessed film to the client at
the end of the wedding and picks up five bills for his services and
$20 worth of film.

Click to expand...

Why not take a very demanding photo and have it printed a few places. Keep them and show the results to clients. "This is what Walmart does to prints, the photo lab here looks much better." A picture is worth a few kilo-words.

dan rosen said:

Doug,

Good post. I have 1 question...

Who are these photographers getting 80.00 for an 8x10??? Are we
talking one or two or the average in your area?

Click to expand...

That price was hyperbole that came from another poster. Since I'm out of the business and don't have anybody in the market for wedding photos, I have no idea what's being charged. When I went back to school in 1985, we were charging $10.00/8x10. $22-$35 seems comparable after factoring in inflation.

BTW, we almost never had a couple come back and order prints later. It was make or break on the original album and the parent's albums.

There are fewer and fewer times folks dress up, and from the few weddings I've attended lately, not many dress up now. We used to bring a background and set up a portable studio, photographing the wedding party and anybody else who'd like to be photographed. We did a fair amount of business selling these portraits.

If I was still in business, I'd like to try a marketing technique I read about a couple of years ago. I can't remember the photographer. At the time, he was dreaming of the future of wedding photography. His idea, especially for weddings with one family from out of town, was to host a brunch the morning after the wedding. When a guest arrived, they'd be shown the wedding photographs. They'd place their order and the prints would be made during breakfast. The guests would pick up their order on the way out. Visa/MC gladly accepted. Between the typical wedding photos and any family groups you could take, I think you could do well. I don't think printer speed is quite there yet. Even with a bank of six printers, it might be hard to crank out enough prints on demand. Anyway, I like the idea. Here's someone thinking about how to exploit the new technology instead of railing against it.

I tip my hat at all you wedding shooters out on the front line.
Doug

dan rosen said:

I charge 22.00, most of my competitiors 25-35.00 in an upscale
region. I wouldn't be able to keep a straight face!

Dan Rosen

Click to expand...