Reading mode: Light Dark

Brides want traditional "print" proof albums...

Go to last post
HI. Been shooting digital for over 4 years. In fact..i've never owned a film camera. Currently own the D60, S2 Pro and 1D, and have owned almost everything in between. I've found that proofs from digital is easier when sublet out to another printing company. Online places are easiest. I usually create a white border on 3.5x5 proofs (photoshop batch) and upload them to photoaccess.com - Here you can order 3.5x5 images for your proofs. It's about .35 cents each. So..for 500 images is around 180 dollars. Try running 500 prints from a printer on photo quality paper using up ink and calculate time and money spent. Not worth it. I plan ahead and usually add this proof option into the wedding package. Hope this helps.

digitalguy
Calvin Wilson said:
--After a dozen years of shooting weddings with medium format film
cameras, six months ago I began shooting 100% digital. However,
while some wedding clients are computer literate (and others, not),
all have asked for traditional "print" proof albums. This, or
course, defeats some of the advantages of digital shooting, but not
all.

However, that notwithstanding, how do you wedding photographers
handle your requests for "print" proof albums? I'm interested in
the logistics of your procedure in getting a printed proof album to
the bride, after shooting the wedding.

I assume you use a commercial printer, maybe even one of the online
companies.

Kind regards, Calvin Wilson
Click to expand...
 
digitalguy,

I'm wondering what file size you're sending and how long it takes to upload 500 images. Seems like it would be hours.
 
Bob Neil said:
William Night said:
Here you go again, trying to equate your lack of service as
"quality". There are honest photographers out there who will strive
to take good pictures for their clients, without needing to hold
them hostage for vastly overpriced prints.
Click to expand...
How can you say what is a overprices print? Have you walked in my
shoes and made the print? NO! You have no idea what the
photographer has into his work. So how can you say he is vastly
overpriced!
Click to expand...
Do your prints cost the client more than they would pay if they had comparable prints done themselves at a decent store? If so, they're overpriced.
Idclick1 said:
If you are told before hand what prints cost and that the
photographer retains the copyright no one is being bilked on
anything!

If you want the copyright and negatives you should be willing to
pay for them.

If the photographer will not sell them at any price then simply
move on to a photographer who is willing to sell them off.
Click to expand...
You don't have the right to the copyright, so I'm not paying you for anything, other than perhaps the convenience of not having the negatives/files and not having to get scans done.

You can go on and on, but it comes down to you not owning images of me that I paid you to create.
 
digitalguy said:
digitalguy
Calvin Wilson said:
--After a dozen years of shooting weddings with medium format film
cameras, six months ago I began shooting 100% digital. However,
while some wedding clients are computer literate (and others, not),
all have asked for traditional "print" proof albums. This, or
course, defeats some of the advantages of digital shooting, but not
all.

However, that notwithstanding, how do you wedding photographers
handle your requests for "print" proof albums? I'm interested in
the logistics of your procedure in getting a printed proof album to
the bride, after shooting the wedding.

I assume you use a commercial printer, maybe even one of the online
companies.

Kind regards, Calvin Wilson
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
William Night said:
Bob Neil said:
William Night said:
Here you go again, trying to equate your lack of service as
"quality". There are honest photographers out there who will strive
to take good pictures for their clients, without needing to hold
them hostage for vastly overpriced prints.
Click to expand...
How can you say what is a overprices print? Have you walked in my
shoes and made the print? NO! You have no idea what the
photographer has into his work. So how can you say he is vastly
overpriced!
Click to expand...
Do your prints cost the client more than they would pay if they had
comparable prints done themselves at a decent store? If so, they're
overpriced.
William Night said:
If you are told before hand what prints cost and that the
photographer retains the copyright no one is being bilked on
anything!

If you want the copyright and negatives you should be willing to
pay for them.

If the photographer will not sell them at any price then simply
move on to a photographer who is willing to sell them off.
Click to expand...
You don't have the right to the copyright, so I'm not paying you
for anything, other than perhaps the convenience of not having the
negatives/files and not having to get scans done.

You can go on and on, but it comes down to you not owning images of
me that I paid you to create.
Click to expand...
Actually, the laws of the United States, the European Union, and most other countries contradict your statement completely. The US Copyright Law gives photographers copyright for their lifetimes plus 75 years after they die (copyright being held by the photographer's heirs). Even if it's a picture of you. Even if you pay for the service. Even if the picture is of poor quality, even if the photographer charges too much. Even if you kill him! In that case, his kids still own your pics, you don't. Not for another 75 years....longer than the average person lives.
--
Chris Crawford

http://www.crawfordandkline.com
 
Christopher Crawford said:
William Night said:
You don't have the right to the copyright, so I'm not paying you
for anything, other than perhaps the convenience of not having the
negatives/files and not having to get scans done.

You can go on and on, but it comes down to you not owning images of
me that I paid you to create.
Click to expand...
Actually, the laws of the United States, the European Union, and
most other countries contradict your statement completely. The US
Copyright Law gives photographers copyright for their lifetimes
plus 75 years after they die (copyright being held by the
photographer's heirs). Even if it's a picture of you. Even if
you pay for the service. Even if the picture is of poor quality,
even if the photographer charges too much. Even if you kill him!
In that case, his kids still own your pics, you don't. Not for
another 75 years....longer than the average person lives.
Click to expand...
Well, my info packet from Industry Canada (the government body tasked with reforming Canadian copyright) says "The author of a work is usually the person who creates it. Where the work is a photograph, however, the owner of the initial negative or photograph (if there is no negative) is deemed to be the photograph's author. This rule of authorship of photographs deviates from the general rule that the human creator is the author of a work [...] The rule means that photographers who do not own the negative or photograph hold neither the copyrights nor the moral rights in the photograph."

It's pretty obvious that if I pay you to make a photograph, I own the results, as the owner of a photograph, I own the copyright . Most Canadian photographers have a contract which changes this but contracts that change basic assumptions are often found to be unenforceable unless both parties really understood the issue.

So basically Canada does the only sensible thing, it treats photography as work-for-hire, in cases where someone else owns the results (as in, work-for-hire).

As a data point, when I went to the copyright summit recently a representative of a Canadian photography association (CAPIC?) brought up this issue as needed immediate reform. Everybody was of the opinion (based on who spoke, and general indicators of support) that all segments of copyright law should be similar (no photography exemptions, etc) but that the photography (work-for-hire) model was the one they think should be everywhere, as the default. And you must admit, this makes sense... If a consumer hires someone to make something, they should be able to use it in all ways. They don't understand that the law is weird in this issue, so make the law support them. Businesses are assumed to have a better grasp of the law (and more lawyers) so they can handle writing a contract to achieve the results they desire.

More than this though, I'm referring to the moral idea of you owning a picture of me that I'm not allowed to use. It's crass and absurd. Even if I thought the law supported it here, I wouldn't comply. And, I don't know anyone who doesn't work as a photographer who would.
 
William Night said:
Well, my info packet from Industry Canada (the government body
tasked with reforming Canadian copyright) says "The author of a
work is usually the person who creates it. Where the work is a
photograph, however, the owner of the initial negative or
photograph (if there is no negative) is deemed to be the
photograph's author. This rule of authorship of photographs
deviates from the general rule that the human creator is the author
of a work [...] The rule means that photographers who do not own
the negative or photograph hold neither the copyrights nor the
moral rights in the photograph."

It's pretty obvious that if I pay you to make a photograph, I own
the results, as the owner of a photograph, I own the copyright .
Most Canadian photographers have a contract which changes this but
contracts that change basic assumptions are often found to be
unenforceable unless both parties really understood the issue.

So basically Canada does the only sensible thing, it treats
photography as work-for-hire, in cases where someone else owns the
results (as in, work-for-hire).

As a data point, when I went to the copyright summit recently a
representative of a Canadian photography association (CAPIC?)
brought up this issue as needed immediate reform. Everybody was of
the opinion (based on who spoke, and general indicators of support)
that all segments of copyright law should be similar (no
photography exemptions, etc) but that the photography
(work-for-hire) model was the one they think should be everywhere,
as the default. And you must admit, this makes sense... If a
consumer hires someone to make something, they should be able to
use it in all ways. They don't understand that the law is weird in
this issue, so make the law support them. Businesses are assumed to
have a better grasp of the law (and more lawyers) so they can
handle writing a contract to achieve the results they desire.

More than this though, I'm referring to the moral idea of you
owning a picture of me that I'm not allowed to use. It's crass and
absurd. Even if I thought the law supported it here, I wouldn't
comply. And, I don't know anyone who doesn't work as a photographer
who would.
Click to expand...
Wow. The USA is not like that at all. A consumer who copies a picture can be fined up to $10,000 by the government plus civil penalties awarded to the photographer. There's also a criminal law that calls for prison in some cases, although I'm not sure that anyone's actually gone to jail for copyright violations. Many, many people have been sued and paid civil penalties and fines for copying wedding photos and portraits.
--
Chris Crawford

http://www.crawfordandkline.com
 
Paul R said:
Capture programs don't work with DVD images, they run "outside"
windows. The res would also limit the ability to make a good print.

Paul R.
Click to expand...
some capture directly from the video card buffer. It you see it you can capture it (on computers of course)

--
Gaetan J.
 
Christopher Crawford said:
Wow. The USA is not like that at all. A consumer who copies a
picture can be fined up to $10,000 by the government plus civil
penalties awarded to the photographer. There's also a criminal
law that calls for prison in some cases, although I'm not sure that
anyone's actually gone to jail for copyright violations. Many,
many people have been sued and paid civil penalties and fines for
copying wedding photos and portraits.
Click to expand...
If the Canadian copyright is deemed to reside with the photographer (a contract to that effect) a client could be sued for copying the photo, but as with most US cases, it's limited to actual damages/lost profit. The difference is mainly just that bit of wording which assumes a photo is work-for-hire unless shown to be otherwise.
 
William Night said:
If the Canadian copyright is deemed to reside with the photographer
(a contract to that effect) a client could be sued for copying the
photo, but as with most US cases, it's limited to actual
damages/lost profit. The difference is mainly just that bit of
wording which assumes a photo is work-for-hire unless shown to be
otherwise.
Click to expand...
Oh, ok. They assume it's work for hire uless specified otherwise, where we assume it's not unless the contract says it. Interesting difference.

There used to be a studio in Fort Wayne, IN, where I live, that always gave their customers the negs for weddings and studio portraits. And they didn't charge a lot for their services as most pros who give away negs do. The reason being that they owned one of only four labs in town that could print a 120 negs. The other places were pro labs that ordinary people didn't know existed, so the studio made the money anyway when they brought the negs back for reprints. It was still a good deal for the customers since they paid 'lab' prices rather than 'photographer' prices for the prints. Labs actually mark up the cost of prints horridly, so there was still huge profit.
--
Chris Crawford

http://www.crawfordandkline.com
 
Christopher Crawford said:
Oh, ok. They assume it's work for hire uless specified otherwise,
where we assume it's not unless the contract says it. Interesting
difference.
Click to expand...
As far as I can tell, yes.
Christopher Crawford said:
There used to be a studio in Fort Wayne, IN, where I live, that
always gave their customers the negs for weddings and studio
portraits. And they didn't charge a lot for their services as
most pros who give away negs do. The reason being that they owned
one of only four labs in town that could print a 120 negs. The
other places were pro labs that ordinary people didn't know
existed, so the studio made the money anyway when they brought the
negs back for reprints. It was still a good deal for the
customers since they paid 'lab' prices rather than 'photographer'
prices for the prints. Labs actually mark up the cost of prints
horridly, so there was still huge profit.
Click to expand...
Seems like a good deal for everyone.

And yeah, mark ups.. I don't know what it costs but it's tech that until recently you couldn't have at home and that sort of thing usually gets marked up. The fact you can get a Canon S900 photo printer for $300 USD or so is changing a lot. There also appears to be a price war going on here (Vancouver BC) because Costco is going 8x10 prints for $1.99 (3-day turn) and $3.99 (1-hour) (Canadian prices). They claim to have a Fuji Frontier. I haven't taken any test prints in yet, but I will soon.
 
William Night said:
Christopher Crawford said:
Oh, ok. They assume it's work for hire uless specified otherwise,
where we assume it's not unless the contract says it. Interesting
difference.
Click to expand...
As far as I can tell, yes.
William Night said:
There used to be a studio in Fort Wayne, IN, where I live, that
always gave their customers the negs for weddings and studio
portraits. And they didn't charge a lot for their services as
most pros who give away negs do. The reason being that they owned
one of only four labs in town that could print a 120 negs. The
other places were pro labs that ordinary people didn't know
existed, so the studio made the money anyway when they brought the
negs back for reprints. It was still a good deal for the
customers since they paid 'lab' prices rather than 'photographer'
prices for the prints. Labs actually mark up the cost of prints
horridly, so there was still huge profit.
Click to expand...
Seems like a good deal for everyone.

And yeah, mark ups.. I don't know what it costs but it's tech that
until recently you couldn't have at home and that sort of thing
usually gets marked up. The fact you can get a Canon S900 photo
printer for $300 USD or so is changing a lot. There also appears to
be a price war going on here (Vancouver BC) because Costco is going
8x10 prints for $1.99 (3-day turn) and $3.99 (1-hour) (Canadian
prices). They claim to have a Fuji Frontier. I haven't taken any
test prints in yet, but I will soon.
Click to expand...
Walmart recently lowered their frontier 8x10 price from $3.95 to $2.98 US$. Even at $2.98 it's marked up a lot considering that at a camera store an 8x10 sheet of Chrystal Archive is about 65 cents (based on buying a 100 sheet box). Of course, Wal-mart buys rolls, and gets big volume discounts...so it's much less for them. I know from working at a lab that used Kodak Royal a few years ago that a 4x6 cost us 6 cents, including the chems to process it! The lab was charging 28 cents for a 4x6 reprint.

Of course, the lab has to pay for that 250,000$ machine, but considering the techs make 50% of a living wage (slavery), they make big money. When I was an assistant manager at a Walgreens, the photo lab was the second most profitable department in the store, after prescription drugs. Cosmetics was third.

by the way..try the Frontier, it's really nice. I like my Epson 2200 better, but you can't beat the frontier for pictures that look like traditional photos...

--
Chris Crawford

http://www.crawfordandkline.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top