Wedding pros

[gary affleck]

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

The negs and or digital files are a tool, not the end of the process. You are also giving up any money you should get from sales beyond the B&G. What about images you might want to use for advertising, etc. Next you'll be asking the contractor that put in your swimming pool to give you his bulldozzer that he dug the hole with to you.

 

[gary affleck]

Why do you want to "sell" pictures of the clients wedding to the
client? Why not charge more up front, then provide prints at a
very reasonable cost and the full-res files on a CD so the client
can make their own prints if desires? I suspect the vast majority
of clients would prefer this kind of cost structure and to have
control of the images of their own wedding.

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

Yeah, like they would know how to retouch,print and finish the images.

 

[gary affleck]

I still think the traditional model where the photographer retains
everything and doles out prints is a bad idea, but I can support
the idea that a photographer doesn't want lousy prints damaging
their reputation.

I certainly wouldn't accept that arrangement for any wedding I am
paying for. It's my daughter's wedding, I'm paying the
photographer, and I would want full rights to the images I paid him
or her to take. If he or she wanted copyright but allow me
reproduction and non-commercial use rights I would be fine with
that.

It really seems to me that as the public becomes more sophisticated
and more "wired" they are going to have less and less patience for
the traditional business model where they have to beg the
photographer for (very high priced) prints of their family's
wedding. And I remember 8 years ago feeling very resentful once I
found out that "my" wedding pictures weren't mine at all.

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

Did you see a price list before you booked the photographer? So now pros are not supposed to make a living. Who paid for their education, equipment,repairs,overhead of the studio,film,their house and car, etc, etc, Oh yes and their talent. You going to tell me you would not hire a pro who's work wasn't the best around because they didn't give you the negs, go somewhere else

 

[gary affleck]

I know it's foolish to assume anything, but I would expect someone
who's paying $7,000 for a wedding package to know exactly what's
coming with that package.

I've contracted with many clients for programming. Nobody has ever
insisted that they want the right to use the programs without the
encumberance of any additional contracts. They don't because it's
obvious that if you ask to buy something, you own it.

The commercial software industry has EULAs in everything that claim
to remove your right to resell software (as you would with a book),
to benchmark the software, and other things. Saying "It seems
slower than the old system" could be a contract violation. This
sort of thing is expected in the software world.

Would I be justified in doing this to my clients, expecting them to
know how the software industry functions?

I don't think so. And I don't think photographers are justified in
doing so either. It's slimy and dishonest to try to sneak a clause
like that past someone.

I think you have it all wrong. Slimy and dishonest? Since when is having your contract in B&W spelled out for them to see dishonest? And nobody is sneaking anything past anybody.

 

[Idclick1]

What is rational is that the photographer maintains the negatives.

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

I never hide that fact from my
clients.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

You are kind of shooting from the hip on that one. $5000 + for the negatives? Come on now!

Besides I would not sell the negatives at any price, It is my reputation on the line. Bad Wal-Mart prints can kill the good reputation I have worked hard to build over the years in just a few days.

If you came to my studio wanting the negatives, I would tell you to keep looking for a photographer that would do that.

No amount of advertising can beat the good reputation and word of mouth business I have made for myself.

When a client questions why I am more than other photographers or why I do not give away the negatives all I have to do is show them prints made by me and my pro labs and then show them prints made by Wal-Mart, K-Mart and RightAid from the same negatives.
That normally ends the debate faster than anything I can say.

Bob

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.

 

[Idclick1]

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!

That purposeful vaugeness was what I experienced. I had to outright
ask the photographers I talked to. They certainly didn't volunteer
this, the onus was on me the consumer, to know about the specifics
of the photography industry. Then many of the people I spoke to
tried to subtly dodge the question.

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?

Are you selling shots of the park I just happened to have my
wedding it, or are you selling shots I specifically paid to have
done?

If you were selling shots of the park I think you might have a
valid analogy to software/music created for sale to everyone. And
the software industry only limits use by EULAs, after-sale
contracts which are plainly void in all other circumstances. No
reason to expect otherwise in software. It's just like all
industries, warranties always disclaim everything*. (except where
prohibited by law.)

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. [...] 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.

I'm glad you enjoy your job. I tend to like mine too. But that
doesn't change the fact that I'm being paid to do something for a
client. The industry I'm in is irrelevant. If I was paid to build a
house, or paint a fence, or write a program, the results belong to
the person who paid me to do it.

Same thing with a photographer. If you contract with me to photograph your wedding and provide you with X number of prints then that is what I do. You own those prints, and I have filled my obligation to you.
If you want more then you pay for more.

Just like if I paid a contractor to paint my fence I would not expect him to paint my house at she same time for the money I paid him to paint the fence.

Bob

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. [...] 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".

How would you feel if you were locked into going to that
restaurant? Perhaps because you accepted a cheap cattering offer
and didn't read the fine print. Now imagine that your meal costs
$300, totally unreasonable, especially because the restaurant
across the street, exactly the same except for the contract binding
you, charges only $100 for an identical experience?

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. [...] 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.

The jewellery (or diamond specifically) industry is illegal in the
United States, it's a monopoly and exists only to drive independent
companies out of business and drive up the price of what would
otherwise be a commodity.

But, luckily for consumers, artificial diamonds are being produced,
that are in all ways (except for being higher quality)
indistinguishable from natural diamonds. Consumers are flocking to
these because they definately feel that there is an amount too
great to pay.

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?

I think clients place a very high value on your work. That's why
they pay well over a thousand dollars in many cases to get you to
do your work. But that's completely unrelated to your holding the
rights. I doubt anyone sees how that premium value to you enhances
their value at all.

 

[martin_crombie]

I had a case recently where a bride was getting married and both
she and her Mum, important that, were interested in using me.

I didn't pressurise them or naythign to get the deal as, well, they
came to me via reccomendation. Anyhow, for several weeks I was, at
the back of my mind, expecting to get a call confirming the shoot
and then, as you can imagine, I heard that another photographer had
been used.

That was no, pardon the expression, skin off my nose and I am, to
this day, unsure whether they used a different photographer or
whether they had a favourite 'uncle' do it.

Anyhow, a fortnight ago my girlfriend was taking some prints which
I had done - D60 and 2100 - to a client and bumped into the Mother.
She showed the Mother the photos and immediately the Mother asked
if I would do 40 prints of her daughters images. My girlfriend
quoted £20 per print and the Mother agreed immediately thinking she
had done a good deal for me.

Now, I have to admit that I have not seen the images yet, but I
seriously wonder what the quality of the images are - excellent (If
so why didn't whoever took them print them out?), average, poor? I
tend to think it will be one of the last two and hence I am
actually reluctant to agree to do them until I see them - I most
likely will decline as, although it is money, I do not want for
someone to go around with poor images saying that Janek did these.

Anyhow, I digress... I suspect that it was a fav 'uncle' who took
the photos on the cheap and now, realising perhaps their error,
they are hoping for a rescue of some sort. I have started another
thread questioning what the future holds for photographers as more
people go digital. I can see pros and cons.

Janek.

I made the mistake of giving a client a set of negatives early on
in my career. The client took the negatives to K-Mart and had
prints made.
The prints were covered with dust spots and were the most sickening
blue green cast you have ever seen.
This girl showed the prints around to her friends, two of them were
girls that had weddings booked with me. Both of these girls wanted
to cancel with me because of the terrible quality of prints that
the girls thought I made. It took a long time to live that down and
I know I lost a lot of work from people seeing the bad prints made
by K-Mart thinking that was my quality. As a Pro Photographer your
work is what makes you or breaks you.
Do you really want people to get the wrong idea about what kind of
photographer you are?
I said never again will I let negatives out of my control.
Your work talks for you, let it speak volumes of your quality.
The studios that I have seen that give away the negatives. with the
job seem to only stay open about three years maybe four. Do you
want to join them?

Bob

Hey Janek its OK you as an IT consultant picking up a camera at the weekend as well as earning a salary, how are you different to the "fav" uncle?

 

[Kenny Caudill]

William Night wrote:

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.

William,

If I buy a print of a Picasso or a Rembrandt painting, in your opinion, do I have the right to reproduce it, frame it and give to my friend as a gift? If I like my copy of PhotoShop, can I reproduce it and give a copy to my nephew? If I enjoyed Ann Rice's latest novel, can I photocopy it to send to all my friends?

Don't denigrate photography as a non-copyrightable art form. I sell single copies of my images to clients who can't afford to pay what I feel the unlimited use of the original image is worth. My cost for making the image has no relationship to the cost of creating a print. My cost is years of study, tens of thousands of dollars worth of camera & computer equipment and years of starving while trying to establish a business.

Opinions like yours will remove portrait & wedding photography from the budgets of all but the rich. Only those that can afford original paintings will be able to purchase photography services if everyone believes it is thier right to copy a photographers prints at will. We will have to charge exorbitant creation fees to stay in business.
Kenny Caudill

 

[Matthew Cromer]

,

If I buy a print of a Picasso or a Rembrandt painting, in your
opinion, do I have the right to reproduce it, frame it and give to
my friend as a gift? If I like my copy of PhotoShop, can I
reproduce it and give a copy to my nephew? If I enjoyed Ann Rice's
latest novel, can I photocopy it to send to all my friends?
Don't denigrate photography as a non-copyrightable art form. I
sell single copies of my images to clients who can't afford to pay
what I feel the unlimited use of the original image is worth. My
cost for making the image has no relationship to the cost of
creating a print. My cost is years of study, tens of thousands of
dollars worth of camera & computer equipment and years of starving
while trying to establish a business.
Opinions like yours will remove portrait & wedding photography from
the budgets of all but the rich. Only those that can afford
original paintings will be able to purchase photography services if
everyone believes it is thier right to copy a photographers prints
at will. We will have to charge exorbitant creation fees to stay
in business.
Kenny Caudill

What does fine art photography (where you create an image for yourself to sell to many clients) have to do with wedding photography (where the only clients are the family that hired you)?

If you ARE selling photos of someone's private wedding to other parties I'm sure many people would be outraged, and I suspect that the profits for this are very low.

Either I am going soft in the head, or what you said above has nothing to do with wedding photography at all and is a complete red herring.

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

 

[William Night]

Yeah, like they would know how to retouch,print and finish the images.

Then sell the "negatives", with all that implies, after any needed work has been done.

 

[William Night]

If I buy a print of a Picasso or a Rembrandt painting, in your
opinion, do I have the right to reproduce it, frame it and give to
my friend as a gift?

Actually, yes. Copyrights expire.

If I like my copy of PhotoShop, can I
reproduce it and give a copy to my nephew? If I enjoyed Ann Rice's
latest novel, can I photocopy it to send to all my friends?

Did you commission these works, paying all the development costs? If so, and you don't have this right, you've been gyped.

If you didn't pay the R&D costs for Photoshop, it's not comparable to photos the client payed for you to create.

There's a big difference between art you produce (landscapes, whatever) and then sell prints of to various customers, and prints made specifically at the request (and expense) of the customer.

Don't denigrate photography as a non-copyrightable art form.

I'm not calling it that. I'm saying it's a trade, the same as plumbing. You hire a professional, they provide a product or a service and you own results. The fact that photography doesn't always work this was is a bug that should be worked out.

I
sell single copies of my images to clients who can't afford to pay
what I feel the unlimited use of the original image is worth.

Original use of their image you mean. Who's the picture of? Who paid for it?

My
cost for making the image has no relationship to the cost of
creating a print. My cost is years of study, tens of thousands of
dollars worth of camera & computer equipment and years of starving
while trying to establish a business.

Opinions like yours will remove portrait & wedding photography from
the budgets of all but the rich. Only those that can afford
original paintings will be able to purchase photography services if
everyone believes it is thier right to copy a photographers prints
at will. We will have to charge exorbitant creation fees to stay
in business.

Read the X+Y=Z post in this same thread.

 

[dan rosen]

Yeah, like they would know how to retouch,print and finish the images.

Then sell the "negatives", with all that implies, after any needed
work has been done.

William,

Respectfully, all the pros on this forum have heard your feelings and they are valid.

BUT PLEASE STOP BEATING A DEAD HORSE! These threads are becoming cluttered with the same ideas over and over. I'm sure you have more to contribute.

Dan Rosen

 

[William Night]

If you have the latest Photoshop (v7), you'll find a 'web photo
gallery' option in the 'Automate' section of the file menu.

Well, right you are. I haven't used much of PS7 yet.

That sure was easy.

 

[William Night]

The negs and or digital files are a tool, not the end of the
process. You are also giving up any money you should get from
sales beyond the B&G. What about images you might want to use for
advertising, etc. Next you'll be asking the contractor that put in
your swimming pool to give you his bulldozzer that he dug the hole
with to you.

The "negatives" are the final product, at least in the mind of the customer who wants to be able to have pictures of their event. If you provided prints at market rate, it wouldn't be an issue for most people and the prints would be just part of the process. But start attaching the copyright to the negatives (which is what asking for negatives is usually understood to mean) and they become the final product. And now that many clients want to view their pictures on the computer, the prints are just an irrelevant part of the process, a perk maybe, for not required.

 

[William Night]

Respectfully, all the pros on this forum have heard your feelings
and they are valid.

BUT PLEASE STOP BEATING A DEAD HORSE! These threads are becoming
cluttered with the same ideas over and over. I'm sure you have
more to contribute.

Then read another thread.

People keep asking the same silly questions, or making the same silly statements about how customers could never figure out how to get prints done, or how pros would vanish suddenly if they didn't keep negatives. As long as they make half-baked statements why should I refute them?

This whole thread is about the issue of providing negatives (or not). If you don't care about the issue, I recommend one of DPReview's many other threads, many of which I'm not posting in, if you wish to concentrate on those.

 

[William Night]

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.

You are kind of shooting from the hip on that one. $5000 + for the
negatives? Come on now!
Besides I would not sell the negatives at any price, It is my
reputation on the line.

First you question the high price I name, then you say that it's not high enough?

I admit, I didn't get a dollar figure. One of the pros I talked to about my wedding said basically "I wouldn't sell the negatives for less than five or ten times my basic rate."

Their rate was around $600. I picked a round number.

Bad Wal-Mart prints can kill the good
reputation I have worked hard to build over the years in just a few
days.
If you came to my studio wanting the negatives, I would tell you to
keep looking for a photographer that would do that.

As you have the right to. There are eight photographers who said that to me. I only hold a grudge against the ones who I had to prod into saying it.

No amount of advertising can beat the good reputation and word of
mouth business I have made for myself.
When a client questions why I am more than other photographers or
why I do not give away the negatives all I have to do is show them
prints made by me and my pro labs and then show them prints made by
Wal-Mart, K-Mart and RightAid from the same negatives.
That normally ends the debate faster than anything I can say.

And if I showed you the results made by a pro lab from your negatives that was, as close as anyone short of a pro perhaps, the same as your prints, but for less money... What then? Would that change your opinion?

btw, feel free to delete parts of the old message dialog when replying. Just save enough to preserve context.

 

[dan rosen]

You miss the point. Redundancy is epidemic here. We working pros use this forum to gather information and share ideas. I followed this thread because this issue impact my livelihood!

Again, I did not say you didn't have valid points, we are all too busy to have the same hammer repeated.

Dan

 

[Idclick1]

I am with Dan. I particularly don't need the preaching from someone who is not a professional photographer and has no idea what it truly is like out in the trenches every day.
A Computer programer should talk about what he knows.

I would not be going into a Pro computer programers forum, insulting the programers saying you guys **** your clients!

Bob

You miss the point. Redundancy is epidemic here. We working pros
use this forum to gather information and share ideas. I followed
this thread because this issue impact my livelihood!

Again, I did not say you didn't have valid points, we are all too
busy to have the same hammer repeated.

Dan

 

[Idclick1]

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.

You are kind of shooting from the hip on that one. $5000 + for the
negatives? Come on now!
Besides I would not sell the negatives at any price, It is my
reputation on the line.

First you question the high price I name, then you say that it's
not high enough?

I admit, I didn't get a dollar figure. One of the pros I talked to
about my wedding said basically "I wouldn't sell the negatives for
less than five or ten times my basic rate."

Their rate was around $600. I picked a round number.

Bad Wal-Mart prints can kill the good
reputation I have worked hard to build over the years in just a few
days.
If you came to my studio wanting the negatives, I would tell you to
keep looking for a photographer that would do that.

As you have the right to. There are eight photographers who said
that to me. I only hold a grudge against the ones who I had to prod
into saying it.

No amount of advertising can beat the good reputation and word of
mouth business I have made for myself.
When a client questions why I am more than other photographers or
why I do not give away the negatives all I have to do is show them
prints made by me and my pro labs and then show them prints made by
Wal-Mart, K-Mart and RightAid from the same negatives.
That normally ends the debate faster than anything I can say.

And if I showed you the results made by a pro lab from your
negatives that was, as close as anyone short of a pro perhaps, the
same as your prints, but for less money... What then? Would that
change your opinion?

It will not happen. the Wal-marts and K-Marts do not come near the quality. Or print life!

When Other peoples prints are turning red and orange my prints look as good as the day the client picked them up.
My clients have even told me this.
This is just a fact.

Bob

btw, feel free to delete parts of the old message dialog when
replying. Just save enough to preserve context.

 

[Idclick1]

If I buy a print of a Picasso or a Rembrandt painting, in your
opinion, do I have the right to reproduce it, frame it and give to
my friend as a gift? If I like my copy of PhotoShop, can I
reproduce it and give a copy to my nephew? If I enjoyed Ann Rice's
latest novel, can I photocopy it to send to all my friends?
Don't denigrate photography as a non-copyrightable art form. I
sell single copies of my images to clients who can't afford to pay
what I feel the unlimited use of the original image is worth. My
cost for making the image has no relationship to the cost of
creating a print. My cost is years of study, tens of thousands of
dollars worth of camera & computer equipment and years of starving
while trying to establish a business.
Opinions like yours will remove portrait & wedding photography from
the budgets of all but the rich. Only those that can afford
original paintings will be able to purchase photography services if
everyone believes it is thier right to copy a photographers prints
at will. We will have to charge exorbitant creation fees to stay
in business.
Kenny Caudill

What does fine art photography (where you create an image for
yourself to sell to many clients) have to do with wedding
photography (where the only clients are the family that hired you)?

If you ARE selling photos of someone's private wedding to other
parties I'm sure many people would be outraged, and I suspect that
the profits for this are very low.

Either I am going soft in the head, or what you said above has
nothing to do with wedding photography at all and is a complete red
herring.

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

Kenny has it right you are soft in the head!
Another non pro telling us all how we should run our businesses. LOL
No red herring with Kenny's post, but you have a whole bucket of them!

Bob