Wedding pros

Freeman · Oct 10, 2002

This ain't long division, folks. X is the amount a photgrapher charges for his time, y is the amount he charges for the prints, z is the amount of the total order. Most people are intelligent enough to understand this. If someone wants to spends $500, bottom line, what does it matter if x=$100 and y=$400 or x=$400 and y=$100. They both add up to $500.

Most people don't care. There are tons of portrait photographers out there, so it's not like it's a monopoly. If you don't like the way one operates, there are plenty more around the corner willing to take your money. If you anticipate a huge reorder after the initial shoot, hire the photographer who charges less for prints, even though his initial fee may be higher. Most people know ahead of time what their budget is and order accordingly. Price lists are readily available, many on the internet now.

As for the business model argument that won't die here- if enough customers demand the original images as part of their packages, then more and more photographers will start operating this way. It's up to the photographers to decide that. If the trend starts going toward "creation fees," or whatever you want to call it, then pros will have to decided if they want to follow. They usually go where the money is. I really don't see the point about hammering away at professionals who want to operate their business in a certain way. Customers have the option to go to whoever they want. If they want original images as part of the deal, then they can hire a pro who will accomodate that.

BillDrew · Oct 10, 2002

Andrew said:
Bill Drew said:

to photograph my son's wedding.

Click to expand...

Really?
you hired the photog for someone elses wedding? ( this happens a
lot, and normally the cheapest guy gets the job)
That explains a one thing,
not the least being the person paying is not the couple ( our
customers hire us because of the quality of work, the finished
product and our manner)
geez, photography is (normally) very personal to the couple, I hope
they get to approve of your choice. But on the other hand, a lot
of people cant tell a good photo from one that is merely in focus,
(hopefully thats not the people hiring us)

You didnt buy the dress too did you?

"Hello, K-mart?, whats the cheapest white dress you have in size
10.... ok charge it to my card"

You can tell me to pull my head in if I am getting too cheeky.

I don't think I need to tell you where to put your head: it already seems to be there. No, she was not the cheapest that I found, and no money changed hands until my son and fiancée had spent some time talking to her.

It may come as a surprise to you that not everyone thinks the photographer is the most important person at their wedding.

Steven Lott · Oct 10, 2002

Andrew,

I agree with Bill

You may not have intended to, but you expressed a high degree of arogant artist in this one.

We love to get hired by Dad, does not happen often enough !

In fact what I really like is meeting the Bride & Groom and then the follow-up with Mom & Dad before they choose us

steve
--
Steven Lott
http://www.LottsPhoto.com/ProTips.htm

Bill Drew said:
Andrew said:

Bill Drew said:

to photograph my son's wedding.

Click to expand...

Really?
you hired the photog for someone elses wedding? ( this happens a
lot, and normally the cheapest guy gets the job)
That explains a one thing,
not the least being the person paying is not the couple ( our
customers hire us because of the quality of work, the finished
product and our manner)
geez, photography is (normally) very personal to the couple, I hope
they get to approve of your choice. But on the other hand, a lot
of people cant tell a good photo from one that is merely in focus,
(hopefully thats not the people hiring us)

You didnt buy the dress too did you?

"Hello, K-mart?, whats the cheapest white dress you have in size
10.... ok charge it to my card"

You can tell me to pull my head in if I am getting too cheeky.

Click to expand...

I don't think I need to tell you where to put your head: it already
seems to be there. No, she was not the cheapest that I found, and
no money changed hands until my son and fiancée had spent some time
talking to her.

It may come as a surprise to you that not everyone thinks the
photographer is the most important person at their wedding.

BillDrew · Oct 10, 2002

Steven Lott said:
We do not provide negatives or high res digital files
....
It is style of service as much as it is anything else, not everyone
wants or needs the same thing.

--
Steven Lott
http://www.LottsPhoto.com/ProTips.htm

Very true. One of the interesting things that Dee ("our" pro) said was that when she changed her business model, the most common questions she got was, "What do I do with the negatives?" and "Why do I want the negatives?". Not everybody wants the the negatives, they would much prefer that the pro deal with all of that stuff. She said it is unusual for anyone to really want the negatives, or to have an idea of what to do with 6x6 negatives: she has to sell them on that idea.

My interest in getting the negatives is not in getting the job done cheaper - using that as the basis for picking someone is a good way to get a bad job done: in photography, automobile repair, lawn mowing (what happened to the flower bed?), ... I like dinging about with photos so I want to be able to do that with the full knowledge and permission of the photographer.

Anyone who thinks they are going to get the same job done cheaper by getting the negatives is almost certian to have a nasty surprise coming. We are going with a mid to low level pro simply because we don't have a lot of money and the photography isn't anywhere near the top of the list of things to spend money on. Other folks have different amounts of money and different priorities about how to spend it.

There is room in the world for all kinds of different ways of doing things.

Jim DeLuco · Oct 10, 2002

Matthew Cromer said:
I'm interested in how many of you give up your negatives / digital
files for weddings versus how many of you do not and find that idea
repugnant.

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

What I have started to do is to give the digital files as a gift if the total order (package plus any other orders) reaches a minimum. I also offer to print any future orders at 50% off my retail. This will hopefully still capture any significant future orders. I require a $50.00 minimum order...which would be $25.00 for these clients.

I give them the right to copy/print them but the studio retains the ownership of the image and the copyright.

I don't currently market it as a..."you get the negs if you get this minimum"..I haven't quite figured this all out yet.

My reasoning for giving the files is that a rarely get a significant order after about six months. They ALL say, "I'll be back at holiday time" but rarely do a holiday order. Part of that is my lack of direct marketing, however.

I should be following up in October to that year's brides to remind them about lab deadlines and poke them a bit. That reminds me. I gotta go draft a letter.....

--
Jim DeLuco
DeLuco Photography
http://www.delucophoto.com

gpb11 · Oct 10, 2002

I think the majority of the discussion is aimed not at the photographer who is CLEAR about the X + Y = Z concept, but instead it has been initially aimed at the pro's who sell the X and don't mention the Y, or gloss over it quickly so the customer ends up thinking their cost is X and doesn't figure out the "+ Y = Z" part until it's too late.

As honest and up-front as I imaging most folks here are, there are still plenty of "pros" out there who operate in the "hide the +Y=Z" part of the equation.

Those are the ones the initial posts (I believe) are railing against, as they are not being honest and forthright from the beginning.

IMHO, the X + Y = Z model has a lot of benefits. But it needs to be spelled out clearly, not only in the contract but also verbally. (I still have little sympathy for folks who don't actually READ a contract before signing it, but I do agree with the comments against the sneaky pro's who hide the backend costs)

freeman said:
This ain't long division, folks. X is the amount a photgrapher
charges for his time, y is the amount he charges for the prints, z
is the amount of the total order. Most people are intelligent
enough to understand this. If someone wants to spends $500, bottom
line, what does it matter if x=$100 and y=$400 or x=$400 and
y=$100. They both add up to $500.
Most people don't care. There are tons of portrait photographers
out there, so it's not like it's a monopoly. If you don't like the
way one operates, there are plenty more around the corner willing
to take your money. If you anticipate a huge reorder after the
initial shoot, hire the photographer who charges less for prints,
even though his initial fee may be higher. Most people know ahead
of time what their budget is and order accordingly. Price lists
are readily available, many on the internet now.

As for the business model argument that won't die here- if enough
customers demand the original images as part of their packages,
then more and more photographers will start operating this way.
It's up to the photographers to decide that. If the trend starts
going toward "creation fees," or whatever you want to call it, then
pros will have to decided if they want to follow. They usually go
where the money is. I really don't see the point about hammering
away at professionals who want to operate their business in a
certain way. Customers have the option to go to whoever they want.
If they want original images as part of the deal, then they can
hire a pro who will accomodate that.

Idclick1 · Oct 10, 2002

William Night said:
William Night said:

William what do you feel would be a fair price for a photographer
to charge to shoot a wedding and to give away the negs. ????

Click to expand...

Why do you expect me to answer you when you can't be bothered to
answer me?

Fair is charging for your time. The fact that you're giving away
negatives is irrelevant as those should by any rational measure be
the property of the client.

What is rational is that the photographer maintains the negatives.

What is rational is that the photographer puts this in his price list and on his contract and makes it very clear to his prospective client he keeps the negatives. I never hide that fact from my clients.

William Night said:
Fair is whatever is required for him to make a profitable living.
Depends on the area, his costs, the client expectations,
competition, and many other variables.

Then why do say some photographers are charging too much.

Are you looking at his books? Do you time him with a stopwatch to see how long he spends on an order?
How do you know what he has into his product?
Maybe his prints are dye transfer prints.

I have made several wedding albums for clients that were all Dye transfer prints.
Naturally I would not expect you to know anything about that prosess.

I will say this my printing bill came in at over $7000.00 but you would say I should not charge over $400.00 for that album using your logic.
The client wanted the ultimate wedding album with a super long print life.

I do not believe you know as much about professional photography as you think you do.

Your saying all photographers charge too much and **** people would be like my saying all software designers **** clients!

Unless you are seeing the photographers books and know how many hours the photographer spends on the clients photos before and after the shoot you have absolutely no business saying a photographer in raping his or her clients. No more so than I have the right to say software designers **** clients.

William Night said:
For your information, I paid $1000 for my wedding photos, three
hours of shooting, using a Canon 1D, poses and candids. I have all
rights to all the photos, except for portfolio rights. I feel I got
a fair deal. Other photographers were offering less for the
up-front cost but likely would have gone much higher with prints.

My complaint with them wasn't the up-front cost, it was their
deceptiveness, not wanting to tell me I wouldn't get the negatives.
Even $.05 / print is unreasonable when what I really want is the
high-quality digital original.

What you paid was what sounds like a fair price.

Unless you figured the total cost, you might find the lower up front cost guy may have came in about the same price.

Most pros need to make about so much on a job to even make it worth going out on a job.

I think the reason many photographers have gone with the lower up front cost is because of "customer resistance" to a large commitment up front.

From the clients side of the fence, "What if I do not absolutely love my photos? What if the photos are just so so good but not great?

That is why many photographers do charge a lower price up front, we want to let our work do the talking and knock the clients socks off so the bride and family want to buy photos.
In the beginning or the end most times it works out about the same cost.

But with the lower up front cost the client risks less and the photographer tries harder.

Bob

Freeman · Oct 10, 2002

gpb11 said:
(I still have little sympathy for folks who don't actually READ a
contract before signing it, but I do agree with the comments
against the sneaky pro's who hide the backend costs)

Which backend costs are you referring to specifically?

Idclick1 · Oct 10, 2002

Matthew Cromer said:
You haven't explained why you think it is more profitable to price
the shoot low and charge dearly for prints, versus charging more
for the shoot and charging a low price for the prints and giving a
copy of the digital files. Unless the only way to make a profit is
to "hook" them with a low price then skin them alive on the
backend. Somehow I find that unlikely.

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

I think the reason many photographers have gone with the lower up front cost is because of "customer resistance" to a large commitment up front.

From the clients side of the fence, "What if I do not absolutely love my photos? What if the photos are just so so good but not great?

That is why many photographers do charge a lower price up front, we want to "let our work do the talking" and knock the clients socks off so the bride and family want to buy photos.
In the beginning or the end most times it works out about the same in cost.

But with the lower up front cost the client risks less and the photographer tries harder to make great photos the client wants.

gpb11 · Oct 10, 2002

Poor phrasing on my part, sorry.

"Backend costs" refer to costs to the client, not costs to the pro.

Specifically, I'm referring to the cases where the pro pitches a low-priced wedding package to the bride to get the sale, but glosses over or hides his intention to make up for that low price through high-priced additional print sales. Operative words here are "glosses over" and "hides". I think it's a fine model PROVIDED that it is fully disclosed up front.

freeman said:
Freeman said:

(I still have little sympathy for folks who don't actually READ a
contract before signing it, but I do agree with the comments
against the sneaky pro's who hide the backend costs)

Click to expand...

Which backend costs are you referring to specifically?

Idclick1 · Oct 10, 2002

William Night said:
William Night said:

Thw brave new world that you talk about will only result in the
extinction of Professional photographers.
No one will want to shoot weddings as a pro if a profit can not be
seen from his hard work.
Don't say it will never happen. It already has happened with the
professional video photographers in my area of Mid- Michigan.
No one can find a pro video photographer to shoot a wedding for 75
miles of the city I am in. You ask why? No profit in doing it! That
is why!
Pro Still wedding photographers will be going the same way with
your model. And your model is what killed the Video wedding biz.

Click to expand...

The only thing that's dying is your ability to make money with
your old models. You haven't given a single reason why you can't
charge enough up front to cover the money you'd have made from
selling the service plus selling prints. Really, all we can
conclude is that your print prices are so high that your profits
are unreasonable.

If you can't make a profit, someone else will come in and they'll
charge what they need to charge. People, wanting a photographer,
will pay.

Do you need help with this? If you charge $x to shoot, and you make
$y profit on prints, you'll charge $x+y up front and you'll make
just as much money !

What is so hard to understand about this? Please explain why you
don't think it'd work.

I think the reason many photographers have gone with the lower up front cost is because of "customer resistance" to a large commitment up front.

From the clients side of the fence, "What if I do not absolutely love my photos? What if the photos are just so so good but not great?

That is why many photographers do charge a lower price up front, we want to let our work do the talking and knock the clients socks off so the bride and family want to buy photos.
In the beginning or the end most times it works out about the same cost.

But with the lower up front cost the client risks less and the photographer tries harder.

I may go to the higher up front way of doing things just because of copying my photos.
But I know it will make a lot of client resistance to the higher up front cost.
Most clients feel the big up front commitment is not comfortable to them.

Bob

Louis Pang · Oct 10, 2002

Hi,

I take photojournalistic style wedding pictures in a small town in Malaysia. I am pretty sure I am the only one doing it. All the photographers I know go for the standard shots...family standing together with bride and groom and say cheez. Nothing wrong with that, provided those are not the only shots a photographer take.

So pretty much the market is sacurated with such photographers.

After I displayed some of my work taken in a church event, a soon-to-be married couple asked me to be their photographer for their wedding two weeks from now. They said they liked my style.

Now, I am in a dilemma on how to charge them. Making money is not that critical as I wanted to establish a reputation and make my style known. But I also know that if I revised my price, my new clients could be unhappy that I am charging them more than the previous ones.

How should I charge them? Here, photographers charge $80 per roll of film shot, inclusive of prints and developing. They also give the negative away (hoping they'll do reprints).

I will be shooting digital with a S2 Pro. Here is what I want to offer:
a. 150 4x6 prints
b. a Video CD that contains all the prints w/ background music, titles etc.

(I thought it is nice that the whole family could sit around the tv and watch the wedding photos as a family as supposed to fighting over an album)
c. I charge for reprints
d. Proofs on Flip Album

I have to post them to be printed because there isn't any digital lab in town.

Now I seek your wisdom on how to charge and what business model to go. I would describe myself as a good amatuer. I had won the gold and silver award for photojournalism in town recently.

Louis

Idclick1 · Oct 10, 2002

Michael very well said.

Bob

Michael D. Davis said:
Greetings All,

I have read the threads to this post with great interest. There is
a lot of food for thought here, and that is precisely why I find
this forum so useful in my professional business. Thanks Phil! You
have really given us a great venue to express our views and share
information with one another.

First of all let me begin by stating that I have been creating my
portrait and wedding images digitally for the past two years. I had
to pick up a film camera once this year, and only because the
commercial client insisted that I shoot slides. Well, she flew in
from Texas and I didn't wish to disappoint her. So, I gave the
client what she desired. She was happy and so was I. But, she was
an educated client and not unreasonable in her request - something
that seems to be less frequent in this technologically advanced age.

I have read a lot in these posts about photographers charging
outrageous fees for reprints, but not enough up front. The
implication is that this is somehow "scuzzy" or "cheating" the
client. A few level headed individuals did point out, and rightly
so, that no one forced that bride, or groom or bride's mother to
retain the services of a professional that did not specifically
state that the negatives or digital originals became the property
of the wedding couple and their family and friends. I would
certainly take issue with anyone who was purposely vague about this
when having a client sign a creation agreement. That would
definitley be wrong. But, in my opinion, humble or not, I certainly
cannot fault the professional that should choose to retain the
rights to their created work!

How does this differ from a music and visual entertainment industry
that places copy restrictions on their created work? Or a software
industry that licenses the rights of use to a person instead of
selling them unlimited rights?

Yes, I know that some will make the arguement that the images
created at a private and personal family event, or of a group or
individual have no value except to the subjects in the created
images. I certainly do hope that this is truly not the case. When
I create an image I do it for myself as well as for the subject. I
chose my field of endeavor not only as a means of supporting myself
and my family and providing us with a lifestyle that we desire, but
also as a form of creative expression. Whether I choose to use a
canvas and paint, a welding torch, my voice or a musical
instrument, I am still creating a work that is conceived by me with
the willing participation of my client. They commission me to
create something special for them - a catalyst for their memories
if you will. This is not a task that I take lightly or treat as
just another widget to be produced. That is why I make it worth my
while and do charge enough "up front" to make my created work worth
"their" while, not mine.

In respect to prints and the fees that are charged for them, If I
may, please allow me use an analogy to put this in, hopefully, the
proper prospective. My wife and I love to to go out to eat. We
also love gourmet cooking at home, both for ourselves and friends.
Now we know that when we make reservations at our favorite French
restaurant that we will not be spending less than $100 or more for
a fine meal. We also have enough personal cooking experience to
understand that the material costs of the meal that we will be
enjoying is a mere fraction of what we are paying for it. But, we
choose to frequent this restaurant anyway, and we don't complain
about how we are getting ripped off for paying more for one glass
of wine than what we could purchase a whole litre bottle for. We
enjoy the experience and feel quite good about being able to enjoy
it. It makes us "feel good".

Now lets relate this to the experience that a client has with a
quality professional photographer. As a photographer I know that
the better that I can make a client feel, the less they will
complain about the price of an 8x10. You see, my goal is to create
an image that they are going to be pleased with because of what it
says about them and this time in their life. I strive to make an
image so unique or personally emotional that no amount of money
would be too much to ask for it.

Now, if you feel that this is an outdated model for running a
business I suggest that you look at the jewlery industry and
diamonds in particular. By controling supply and marketing
specifically to the emotional meaning of giving a diamond to
someone you love, the industry has succeeded in creating a demand
for a percieved limited supply of goods. The emotional value is
what it is all about! I simply choose to limit my supply by
pricing my fees at a point where the images I create will have a
higher value, therefore creating a specific demand for them. It is
completely up to the purchaser to decide for themselves if the
value of the image I create is worth the fee that I ask for them.

I will leave you all with this question to ponder. If we, as
professionals, supposedly the experts at what we provide, do not
place a premium value on our created work, can we blame our
clients if they do not place a high value on it either?

--
Michael D Davis
Studio D Photography
http://www.studiodphotography.com

Jim DeLuco · Oct 10, 2002

Louis Pang said:
Hi,

I take photojournalistic style wedding pictures in a small town in
Malaysia. I am pretty sure I am the only one doing it. All the
photographers I know go for the standard shots...family standing
together with bride and groom and say cheez. Nothing wrong with
that, provided those are not the only shots a photographer take.

So pretty much the market is sacurated with such photographers.

After I displayed some of my work taken in a church event, a
soon-to-be married couple asked me to be their photographer for
their wedding two weeks from now. They said they liked my style.

Now, I am in a dilemma on how to charge them. Making money is not
that critical as I wanted to establish a reputation and make my
style known. But I also know that if I revised my price, my new
clients could be unhappy that I am charging them more than the
previous ones.

How should I charge them? Here, photographers charge $80 per roll
of film shot, inclusive of prints and developing. They also give
the negative away (hoping they'll do reprints).

I will be shooting digital with a S2 Pro. Here is what I want to
offer:
a. 150 4x6 prints
b. a Video CD that contains all the prints w/ background music,
titles etc.
(I thought it is nice that the whole family could sit around the tv
and watch the wedding photos as a family as supposed to fighting
over an album)
c. I charge for reprints
d. Proofs on Flip Album

I have to post them to be printed because there isn't any digital
lab in town.

Now I seek your wisdom on how to charge and what business model to
go. I would describe myself as a good amatuer. I had won the gold
and silver award for photojournalism in town recently.

Louis

Alot depends on the market and your costs. If you are the only one doing this sort of photography then perhaps the market will demand a bit more than the traditional photographer, who has more competition.

I would add all your costs, and the number of hours that you plan on spending on each wedding....including consultation, wedding day, post processing/handling and post consultations. calculate what you believe is a fair hourly rate and add your hourly rate to your costs.

For example, if you are shooting digital and shoot about 300 to 400 shots per wedding, you will probably spend about four hours post processing to edit down, prepare the lab order, prepare the reorder kit for the bride, etc...

You will probably find that for a typical 8-9 hour wedding booking you will spend about 20 hours in total on that wedding. If you want to get $20 per hour for your time, then you will need to charge $400 in addition to your costs. If you want to get $50/per hour for your wedding coverage time and $20.00 per hour for everything else, then the calculation may be different.

Then add the costs. Don't forget that in addition to the direct costs of proofing, etc. there is depreciation of your equipment. If the S2 cost you $2400, and you depreciate over 5 years, then your cost is $40/mo for that one body, $80/mo for two bodies (you do need backup). Add in the lenses, etc...

You may have to allocate $100 or more per wedding for equipment depreciation, depending on how many weddings you do. Now you have to add in your cost of the work space...heat, light, power, maintenance, furniture, and on and on...

You can see how this adds up quickly.

Now, do you want to make a profit? Then add a factor to the total. If you have an accountant or a tax person, you may want to set up a meeting to talk about the typical expenses to consider.

--
Jim DeLuco
DeLuco Photography
http://www.delucophoto.com

Idclick1 · Oct 10, 2002

Deeddawg said:
As honest and up-front as I imaging most folks here are, there are
still plenty of "pros" out there who operate in the "hide the +Y=Z"
part of the equation.

Those are the ones the initial posts (I believe) are railing
against, as they are not being honest and forthright from the
beginning.

IMHO, the X + Y = Z model has a lot of benefits. But it needs to
be spelled out clearly, not only in the contract but also verbally.
(I still have little sympathy for folks who don't actually READ a
contract before signing it, but I do agree with the comments
against the sneaky pro's who hide the backend costs)

freeman said:

This ain't long division, folks. X is the amount a photgrapher
charges for his time, y is the amount he charges for the prints, z
is the amount of the total order. Most people are intelligent
enough to understand this. If someone wants to spends $500, bottom
line, what does it matter if x=$100 and y=$400 or x=$400 and
y=$100. They both add up to $500.
Most people don't care. There are tons of portrait photographers
out there, so it's not like it's a monopoly. If you don't like the
way one operates, there are plenty more around the corner willing
to take your money. If you anticipate a huge reorder after the
initial shoot, hire the photographer who charges less for prints,
even though his initial fee may be higher. Most people know ahead
of time what their budget is and order accordingly. Price lists
are readily available, many on the internet now.

As for the business model argument that won't die here- if enough
customers demand the original images as part of their packages,
then more and more photographers will start operating this way.
It's up to the photographers to decide that. If the trend starts
going toward "creation fees," or whatever you want to call it, then
pros will have to decided if they want to follow. They usually go
where the money is. I really don't see the point about hammering
away at professionals who want to operate their business in a
certain way. Customers have the option to go to whoever they want.
If they want original images as part of the deal, then they can
hire a pro who will accomodate that.

Click to expand...

I think the reason many photographers have gone with the lower up front cost is because of "customer resistance" to a large commitment up front.

From the clients side of the fence, "What if I do not absolutely love my photos? What if the photos are just so so good but not great?

That is why many photographers do charge a lower price up front, we want to let our work do the talking and knock the clients socks off so the bride and family want to buy photos.

In the beginning or the end most times it works out about the same cost.

But with the lower up front cost the client risks less and the photographer tries harder.

ralanprod · Oct 10, 2002

Louis Pang said:
Hi William,

What program does your friend use for digital proof on CD? I've
read about a program call flip album. How good is it?

I'll start by saying that it does some good things.....

You can encrypt photos so they can't be printed or copied.

You can out a time limit on the cd so that it won't work after a certian date. ( I need that proof order in 30 days or else........)

However, the program is a pain to use, and is very buggy. I've gotten to the point where I can whip out a book in 15 minutes or so, but it has taken me weeks of using the damn thing to get to that point. (and I don't think they look all that great.)

As I said in another thread about this program....
Great concept. Poorly Executed. Way overpriced.
Robert

William Night · Oct 10, 2002

Idclick1 said:
What is rational is that the photographer maintains the negatives.

This is the sticking point. You think your industry should be different than others.

Idclick1 said:
I never hide that fact from my
clients.

Then you're a better man than many of the photographers I talked to.

Idclick1 said:
Idclick1 said:

Fair is whatever is required for him to make a profitable living.

Click to expand...

Then why do say some photographers are charging too much.

Because you can charge too much for a specific part of a job and still not make enough money. If you charged a lot for prints and the client was free to go anywhere, that would be fair. From my experience though, the whole wedding shoot is just an excuse to get leverage to rake someone over the coals with high print fees.

Idclick1 said:
Maybe his prints are dye transfer prints.

If the customer wants dye transfer prints, or gold leaf pages, then fine. But if they're getting it just to justify high fees, then it's not fine.

Idclick1 said:
What you paid was what sounds like a fair price.

It sounded like. In finding the person to shoot digital and give me the negatives I talk to enough people to get an idea of the cost range.

Idclick1 said:
Unless you figured the total cost, you might find the lower up
front cost guy may have came in about the same price.

They might have, had I wanted any prints. (Well, I'm getting a few 8x10s) What I want is to be able to put the pictures up on my webpage, email them to friends and relatives, and view them on the computer.

For the ammount of pictures I'm distributing (and that I wanted to distribute) there's no way a traditional pricing model would have worked. For me or the photographer, for I wouldn't have bought many prints.

Idclick1 said:
I think the reason many photographers have gone with the lower up
front cost is because of "customer resistance" to a large
commitment up front.

I can understand that.

It might also be a good choice for a poor student, or something.

But even if you shoot this way, why not let them buy the negatives later, perhaps for a bit more, but not some unreasonable $5000+ cost for a small wedding that would only generate ~$500 in prints.

Idclick1 said:
But with the lower up front cost the client risks less and the
photographer tries harder.

I think the professional's reputation (and hopefully business ethic) motivate them. Even on jobs that have gone horribly wrong, or where I've misquoted, I've always put my best work in. Not only is it not the client's fault, but as consultants are in a word-of-mouth industry like photographers, it's my advertising.

William Night · Oct 10, 2002

ralanprod said:
What program does your friend use for digital proof on CD? I've

ralanprod said:

read about a program call flip album. How good is it?

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, I can't get ahold of my friend. It's just something they found on shareware.com or something like that. Very cheap and without a ton of "features". Just easy and quick.

ralanprod said:
I'll start by saying that it does some good things.....

You can encrypt photos so they can't be printed or copied.
You can out a time limit on the cd so that it won't work after a
certian date. ( I need that proof order in 30 days or else........)

These are the sort of features the low-end programs don't offer, though copy protection is the biggest cause of compatibility problems and is ultimately pretty useless. (A quick google search can usually find a tool to bypass any scheme.)

What you might want to consider is just doing the HTML "by hand". That's what my friend's program does for you.

I can then give you instructions in email (or on the forums) about how to get a CD to autostart any given file, even a data file. (So there's no chance of a virus.)

If I were you, I'd check out Mozilla, the HTML editor in it is great as these things go, it produces standards-compliant HTML that'll work on any computer and browser, even a 486 with Netscape. And once you do a page or two, it's easy to whip off fifty more in a few minutes. (Search and Replace in a good text editor - Editpad is my choice in Windows.)

A nice feature is that you can include the high-res images (you were giving your client the "negatives", right?) and scale them to fit the screen with simple HTML. This way you don't need to shrink them and include two sets of pictures. (Though if you wish to do circular crops or anything, you will.)

I'd recommend taking a bit more time and getting good at doing something like this, than getting a program to do it when its results will be the same, or lesser, and you'll have less control.

If HTML isn't your thing and never will be, you could hire a consultant to do it for $150 - $500 depending on what you required. All rights yours, for any use, commercial or otherwise. That way you could get a very spif looking package.

Or, check out shareware.com and the like. Search for "portfolio" "slide show" and stuff like that. You want one that offers cross-platform viewing.

William Night · Oct 10, 2002

Janek Czekaj said:
One other point is that although you might give people hi
resolution images who exactly is going to have the capabilities to
print them out...

I do not just mean having a printer but having a PC that can cope
with such huge files, color balance, etc. What happens when they
print them out with a green or orange cast and come running back to
you saying the images are awful?

Would you, for example, scale a D60 taken Tiff into an 11x8/A4 for
the client or simply leave the aspect ratio/size intact and let
them figure it out for themselves? Little details like that which
can be time-consuming.

Well, simple picture programs (ACDSee type) offer basic cropping and printing. They'll handle huge TIFFs as easily as little JPEGs, provided you've got a decent computer. But anything with 128MB of RAM and a P3-700 or higher is capable. It's more about printers. My cheap S750 (I didn't buy it for prints) is fairly decent quality. I print off snapshots from my G2 with it at parties. Lab prints are much better, but for quick pics, it's reasonable.

As for getting better prints, you can take them down to the local lab, even a drug-store will do fine small pics, though if I were going for wall-hanging quality I'd definately investigate an upscale solution. Last time I visited her, I discovered my 80yo grandmother was burning CDs on her new computer. It's really quite simple. She's got a G2 (after seeing mine) and she routinely makes decent prints on her mid-range Epson photo-printer. She's capable of taking them to a lab to get better work done.

Are these pro-level solutions? No, but if you require large prints, or want to get archival work done, you'd investigate a different solution than if you were mailing a bunch of vacation snaps to the luddite relatives without a computer.

I was quite suprised what someone who hasn't ever been taught to use a computer, and didn't grow up with one, can do. Now I know where I get the tinkering-gene from.

Jim Murray · Oct 10, 2002

William Night said:
William Night said:

What program does your friend use for digital proof on CD? I've

William Night said:

read about a program call flip album. How good is it?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

William Night said:
What you might want to consider is just doing the HTML "by hand".
That's what my friend's program does for you.

I can then give you instructions in email (or on the forums) about
how to get a CD to autostart any given file, even a data file. (So
there's no chance of a virus.)

If you have the latest Photoshop (v7), you'll find a 'web photo gallery' option in the 'Automate' section of the file menu. This allows you to automatically generate html-based galleries in various styles, including auto-creation of thumbnails and (optional) auto-resize of the main image. All that's then needed is to burn the entire directory onto a CD and you have a software-free, platform independant gallery that can be viewed on just about anything with a CD-Rom and web browser.

Very slick, easy to use, provides various 'security' options (IMO these are of little value but they're there) and can handle multiple directories in one go.

If you've got photoshop, you've got all you need to create effective galleries on CD already.

HTH,

Jim
(amature photographer, pro IT geek!)

Wedding pros

Senior Member

BillDrew

Guest

Leading Member

BillDrew

Guest

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Well-known member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Active member

Keyboard shortcuts