What's the deal?!

[Wil_Bloodworth]

I've been browsing through a lot of other photographers websites lately and have come across the fact that A TON of them are giving the customers the negatives/originals. What's up with that?!

Has it become so competitive that the, for lack of a better term, *guys on the bottom* will do anything at all to simply "get the gig"?

Will someone please explain the madness to me!

- Wil

[123canon]

is it true pro's or pro am's with a website? what kind of price are they charging for the originals? i am pro am at the moment and normally won't sell MY files and when i do it is usually at a premium.

[tc82742]

yes and no. i do think mass giving of the negs does cheapen their work.. to an extent.
there are sometimes that it is worth handing over the negatives. so, i price accordingly.. what would i want to make if i gave over the negs.
i do birth photography, and i will NOT make a decent print order of someone having a baby. i dont see a 16x20 of baby's head crowning over the crib.. so, i offer digi negs for birth photography. but their maternity and newborn portraits have to be ordered through me at my current pricing. that is when i make my profit.

just handing over negs for 100.00 or 200.00 for a portrait session only takes money from your pocket.
200.00 is generally my LOWEST order that i receive. typically closer to 400.00 or more.
so, with that being said.. selling your negs for so cheap only takes money out of your pocket.

[Wil_Bloodworth]

There really isn't a way to tell by looking at just their websites if they are a Pro (full-time photographer) or pro-am (part-time photographer). And it is completely random. The prices I've seen range anywhere from $1K with ALL images on a DVD to $4K for the same.

The only option I have for providing the originals is: After 3 years from the wedding date, the couple can purchase the originals for $199. I don't guarantee any images after 5 years but I give them the option to have them after 3.

- Wil

[Wil_Bloodworth]

Originally Posted by tc82742

yes and no. i do think mass giving of the negs does cheapen their work.. to an extent.
there are sometimes that it is worth handing over the negatives. so, i price accordingly.. what would i want to make if i gave over the negs.
i do birth photography, and i will NOT make a decent print order of someone having a baby. i dont see a 16x20 of baby's head crowning over the crib.. so, i offer digi negs for birth photography. but their maternity and newborn portraits have to be ordered through me at my current pricing. that is when i make my profit.

just handing over negs for 100.00 or 200.00 for a portrait session only takes money from your pocket.
200.00 is generally my LOWEST order that i receive. typically closer to 400.00 or more.
so, with that being said.. selling your negs for so cheap only takes money out of your pocket.

I completely agree. There may be times when it is prudent to give away digital prints instead of physical ones. The case I was referring to is just weddings so I completely agree in non-wedding scenarios.

- Wil

[Wil_Bloodworth]

Maybe I am in the dark... the WPJA (Wedding Photojournalist Association) even has a column in their *find a photographer* grid that indicates whether or not the photographer will provide negatives. Click the following link to see what I'm talking about... and notice that it shows our beloved Leslie Spurlock has "negatives available".
http://www.wpja.com/wedding-photogra...journalist.htm

I guess "negatives available" doesn't necessarily mean they're giving them away though.

- Wil

[Frazzled LaShawn]

I would like to preface this by saying....I have only been serious about photography for a short time.


OK I got married 3 years ago and hired a photographer that charged me a flat rate for his services and all the negatives. I was a single mom on a tight wedding budget and couldn't afford to have spectacular pictures done. I got what I paid for. The pictures are cookie cutter wedding pictures. But they worked for what I wanted.

I don't think he was good enough to demand much more from me to be honest. It would be like me demanding a large amount of money for a wedding. I am just not close to good enough yet.

So yea, people like that are probably cheating themselves out of money, but I don't think they are taking money from true pros. The people who hire them just aren't going to shell out large amounts of money for pictures. I wish I could have.

[HotHolly]

Yea, the digital negs craze is getting worse. Its the norm to include negs in a wedding package - whether you're a pro or not. When I got married, things were still film, and I tried to buy the negs then. The answer was a flat 'negs not for sale.' It didn't matter if the photog was in NY or TX. Still no. Still not the norm. If you wanted pictures, you bought those - not the negs. I think digital has severely changed the photography marketplace.

[ggeen]

For the record, I am strictly amateur hour here. On the rare occasion when someone asks me for a digital copy of an image, I provide only a low res, 800x600 resized, jpeg. This is generally good enough for them to get some 4x6" prints but gets really grainy when trying to enlarge pat 8x10.

Then again, I am not trying to make money at this. Photography is just a hobby, enjoyment, fun. The 800x600 low res .jpg files make great backgrounds or screen savers which is why many want digital imaging.

Have any of you pros though about providing this type of service?...for a fee of course.

[jeffkohn]

I think charging for the prints as opposed to your services puts the emphasis in the wrong place. Photogs like to say, "you're not paying for ink on a piece of paper, you're paying for my time and skill and creativity". But if that's the case, why is the business model based on charging for "ink on a piece of paper"?

It used to be that the only prints most average folks ever made were 4x6 glossy snapshots. But now, everybody knows they can get 8x10's and 11x14's for a couple bucks as Walmart/Sams/etc, so when they're charged $40 for an 8x10 they feel ripped off. Why not avoid the confusion by charging for what they're really hiring you for. Make sure that the up-front cost of the session covers what you need to charge, and any print sales are just a bonus.

To me the work-for-hire model makes a lot more sense for portraits/people photography. Let's face it, the images only have value to the client, it's not like you're going to sell them to anybody else.

The only argument that makes some sense is wanting to maintain complete control over the finished product, but for portraits I think that only really works at the high end, and that's different from basing your business model on print sales. I don't think that argument holds much water if you're just drop-shipping prints from MPix.

[bbailey]

If the photographer is charging accordingly, I don't see the problem, especially if it is in addition to a package that includes prints. Now if they are giving them away, as you stated in the first post, then I can certainly understand how other pros would be disturbed.

I would think the money you would make selling the print ready files up front would be worth more than the hassle involved in having to dig up the files again and produce a print because a family member wanted an additional 8x10 a year later.

[srwatters]

Originally Posted by jeffkohn

I think charging for the prints as opposed to your services puts the emphasis in the wrong place. Photogs like to say, "you're not paying for ink on a piece of paper, you're paying for my time and skill and creativity". But if that's the case, why is the business model based on charging for "ink on a piece of paper"?

It used to be that the only prints most average folks ever made were 4x6 glossy snapshots. But now, everybody knows they can get 8x10's and 11x14's for a couple bucks as Walmart/Sams/etc, so when they're charged $40 for an 8x10 they feel ripped off. Why not avoid the confusion by charging for what they're really hiring you for. Make sure that the up-front cost of the session covers what you need to charge, and any print sales are just a bonus.

To me the work-for-hire model makes a lot more sense for portraits/people photography. Let's face it, the images only have value to the client, it's not like you're going to sell them to anybody else.

The only argument that makes some sense is wanting to maintain complete control over the finished product, but for portraits I think that only really works at the high end, and that's different from basing your business model on print sales. I don't think that argument holds much water if you're just drop-shipping prints from MPix.

I have been saying exactly this ever since I got into digital photography. The business model MUST change or you risk your client base disappearing. Whether this takes 1 year or 10, I can't say, but it will come and complaining about it won't make it any slower.

Thanks Jeff for offering your technical and business opinions here. I for one appreciate it!

[brad]

Yea, I've been saying the same thing for a while now, myself...

My wedding packages still do not include files, but a CD is available. I priced this CD at a level that was about equal to my average print sale of a wedding... I am about to redo the entire way I price weddings, though.. and I may include a CD as part of that pricing structure.

My general portrait sessions ALL include the CD. I'm not "giving them away" and I resent any implication that a "real pro" wouldn't do that. I am selling a service that produces a CD of digital images. For my actor and corporate headshot clients, this was a requirement anyway.. they need to do large quantity reproductions at a printer that I do not have control of.. or they need to use those images on business cards, websites, etc... it was a nightmare to try and price all of those things differently and the client felt like they were being "nickled and dimed" to death.. so the model changed. Then I was looking at my pricing later and realized that I was charging my regular (non-headshot) clients more and they were getting less (just prints, no CD)... and was doing that for no other reason than they weren't an actor or business-person. So the pricing model changed again.

Now.. I still offer prints from the online gallery... but honestly, I don't WANT to have to handle all those 4x6, 5x7, 8x10 orders... if I'm going to order a print for a client, I want to be ordering something special for them.. a large mounted piece or a canvas wrap. Something they can't just get anywhere. Something that makes people go "wow.. where did you have that done?"

Will I do the same when I reprice my wedding packages? I haven't decided, yet.

[picman]

Relevant article by Doug Box that was in TPPA magizine:
http://photocamel.com/forum/intervie...-doug-box.html

[CaptainTom]

Another article in a recent PPA .