We don't need prints, just your CF images

[Ed Gerson]

An increasing number of people want me to do classical portraiture (formal dress btw) in the studio, as well as outdoor scenarios to show activity situations such as ice skating, camping, etc. We're talking the lighting, the backdrops, the works. Sounds fun, huh?

The catch is they're not interested in photographs, they just want the image files, one guy even asked for them directly out of the camera.

These people often just want to "share" the images with relatives in other countries, advertise on matchmaker websites, etc. I suggest I can always dumb down high resolution images for the internet after the actual photographs have been delivered, but they're not really interested in the photographs, they want the image files. High resolution image files for the internet.

Interested in feedback on this issue, and how others are adapting. "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're still not after you!" as they say.

[larry_angier]

If you can't amaze them with facts, baffle 'em with b.s.

I'd give them the song & dance that you are shooting "raw" files as a professional and each needs to be properly processed with your studio software before they are useable. Most people don't have a clue what a raw file is and then you can have a line-time for your "digital processing" to make them useable for their computer.

If they insist in trying it anyway, shoot the image on florescent light balance or some other non-standard setting and let them see themselves that the image looks bad until you use your "magic software" to process them into your beautiful work that they expect. Then watermark the images with your copyright, etc.

Lacking that, you could always explain that until you have had a chance to edit and view the work and what you deliver is a reflection of your reputation, you will not release it until it meets your high standards. To do otherwise puts you in bad light.

Besides, if they were to take one of your images not specially prepared (downsized) for the web, it will clog their outbox because the image is too big and will probably crash the mail system of their recipient. E-mail images and attachments must be properly sized.

In fact, I had that problem a few days ago when a colleague sent me a bunch of jpeg files for my magazine and after he was nearly done, the system kicked them back to him and told him his message was too big.

In the good old days of 1-2 megapixel images and jpeg capture, a couple of photos would e-mail just fine. But with today's cameras creating file sizes much larger (10-21 mp) can not easily be mailed. It is a problem to send one, let alone a bunch of images via e-mail.

Most web sites also want smaller images. To give them too big an image creates problems to the servers and sites and may create a situation where the person uploading such a large image is either banned or asked to properly submit the right size and since this is your expertise, you can do this for your subject for an extra charge... I'd have them show me the site then explain to them (education your customer) that what they are seeing is just a tiny fraction of the image size you are shooting.

Differentiate your equipment and knowledge and use that to your advantage. You may also want to have a minimum booking fee to separate the low-end from the better paying clients. I let people know that I have a $100 minimum to even get the camera out. This keeps me away from the Wal-Mart pricing crowd.

HTH,

[DougAxford]

Our response to that (and we're had enough of them) is to charge whatever an average portrait order( without wall portraits) is. For us, we decided upon $300. and that's what they are told.

So far, no takers. I'm reasonably comfortable with that. A few people have screamed. Well, my hourly rate is the same as my accountant or my plumber. It takes time to take the photo, then extra time to prep it ready to go on the internet or whatever.

I would never consider giving the images without prepping them first.

I may change my mind if the trend continues and we're forced to.

Doug

[michaelnotar]

well i dont plan on doing any weddings in this style, but i have numbers prepared in case.i charge $6/file for a 1000x1400pxl file or $9 for a 2400x3600pxl file. thats every shot, not looked at, dowloaded from card to cd (captured as jpgs). i shoot about 75 shots/hr of wedding coverage all of which are billed at those rates.

yet to use these numbers, but perhaps you can use something similiar in your case.

and those fees are on top of an hourly or sitting fee.

and they are also for personal viewing situations etc.

in situations like this, i would shoot raw+jpg, never give them the card. have heard its hard to proove © owership, so its good to keep a copy of them yourself, raw preferable as its the true origional.


also, all sales final, no returns/credits allowed. only issue replacements.

[KevinStecyk]

Originally Posted by DougAxford

Our response to that (and we're had enough of them) is to charge whatever an average portrait order( without wall portraits) is. For us, we decided upon $300. and that's what they are told.

So far, no takers. I'm reasonably comfortable with that. A few people have screamed. Well, my hourly rate is the same as my accountant or my plumber. It takes time to take the photo, then extra time to prep it ready to go on the internet or whatever.

I would never consider giving the images without prepping them first.

I may change my mind if the trend continues and we're forced to.

Doug

Your plumber costs the same as your accountant? Either your plumber is very expensive or your accountant is terribly cheap.

To me, this is simply a commercial transaction. Decide what you time and effort are worth, and then commit to a business deal.

If you bs them, as proposed previously, that's simply dishonest. I do my best to avoid doing business with dishonest people.

Most professionals compromise between what they want and what the client wants. Clients pay the bills, however. Does that mean you do whatever they want? No, but it does mean that you act professionally.

If I were placed in a similar situation, I would recognize that photography has changed. People want electronic images. Some will even want to retouch their photos. So, I would make sure I could accommodate such requests.

If the client wants to retouch the photo, you must address the copyright issues up front.

In short, I would make sure that I charged for my time and skill. The physical and electronic media would be of little consequence to me. I would be similar to a lawyer. I would not care if you went home and made a million copies of the contract. The value is not the paper copy of the contract, but the intellect to create the contract. Similarly with photography, the value should NOT be the physical or electronic media. Rather, the value should reflect the skill, time, equipment and other resources required to effect the photographs.

Just another point of view.

Regards,
Kevin

[Ed Gerson]

A sold image file can be public domain file in every way but legal. What I find most disturbing is that family, wedding, senior portrait, baby photos, are up for grabs; anybody can repurpose and redistribute your family album.

I have a price for digital images, its not cheap, and it will not get cheaper, this business decision I can handle. More people are going to be asking for digital files. We adjust to the market, we prosper. We whine, we go out of business.

Once an image file is handed over these images may be used for advertising, for pornography, to embarrass, to get even. Once on the internet, its gone free. I cannot monitor nor control this, neither can the purchaser, nor the people in the picture.

This may be an interesting liability issue in the years to come: just how much liability does the purchaser have once they have shared an image? Can people who get the image via email be sued for sending it to third parties without the permission of the new "owner" of the image? For now I'm adjusting to the market. Nevertheless, the eventual fate of my images is of great concern.

[KevinStecyk]

Originally Posted by Ed Gerson

A sold image file can be public domain file in every way but legal. What I find most disturbing is that family, wedding, senior portrait, baby photos, are up for grabs; anybody can repurpose and redistribute your family album.

I have a price for digital images, its not cheap, and it will not get cheaper, this business decision I can handle. More people are going to be asking for digital files. We adjust to the market, we prosper. We whine, we go out of business.

Once an image file is handed over these images may be used for advertising, for pornography, to embarrass, to get even. Once on the internet, its gone free. I cannot monitor nor control this, neither can the purchaser, nor the people in the picture.

This may be an interesting liability issue in the years to come: just how much liability does the purchaser have once they have shared an image? Can people who get the image via email be sued for sending it to third parties without the permission of the new "owner" of the image? For now I'm adjusting to the market. Nevertheless, the eventual fate of my images is of great concern.

You might wish to read the following websites:

Photos/Pictures of The Model Release

and

Photo Business/Industry Analysis: Model Release Primer

Dan discusses many of these topics.

[Pro Photo Store]

Visit the B&H Pro Photo Store for the best Gear Prices and regular specials!

Brilliant Color for any Digital SLR
White Balance Cap
The Pros Agree on ColorRight
What People Are Saying