Asking Photographer For All Raw Files...Should I?

01/18/2007 11:48:28 PM · #126

LOL, nope!

Originally posted by karmat:

Originally posted by Adrionni:
Nope, not Florida ;)

Originally posted by idnic:
Your wedding in Florida by chance? Maybe we can work something out.... ;)

Western North Carolina? Eastern Tennessee? Upstate South Carolina? Southwest Virgina? I'm willing to drive. :)

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

01/18/2007 11:49:26 PM · #127

Originally posted by muckpond:

i want to thank you guys for getting this thread back on track and off the pissing contest train. :)

Sir, yes sir. ;)

fotomann_forever

01/18/2007 11:50:15 PM · #128

Originally posted by idnic:

Originally posted by muckpond:
i want to thank you guys for getting this thread back on track and off the pissing contest train. :)

Sir, yes sir. ;)

LMAO

downtherabbithole

Canon EOS-30D

01/18/2007 11:50:44 PM · #129

wow, thats a tough question.

without pissing someone off this is a hard approach. offer to buy them, but be ready to pay as much for them as you would for prints. he as a photographer needs to pay the bills as we all do. Wedding photographers are a hard lot, b/c we have to pay the bills all year long and make money in a small wedding season. Plus who wants to just make ends meat?

Out of respect for the business, don't try to be cheap, but don't overpay for the pictures either. as a photographer you understand the value of an awesome image and how much talent it takes to make it.

Sigma 15mm f/2.8 EX Diagonal Fisheye for Nikon

01/19/2007 12:02:21 AM · #130

HA! I can see it now -

Customer has photog print all they think they'll need for generations to come

Customer has like 10 kids

Each kid has 10 kids, lol

35 years down the road, customer runs out of photos

Customer can't locate or contact photog

Technology changes which allows for fast, high qual imaging capturing (this isn't far fetched! imagine what today's technology will look like 35 years from now =) )

Customer reproduces images and everyone is happy - except for the deceased, MIA, retired photog!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I do understand why photogs don't readily hand out their work on CD / flash drives, but in the end, does it really impact the bottom line? Especially if the cust is just going to scan them in and reproduce them b/c they can only work with what they have?

edited to say I do understand why photogs don't readily hand out their work, typo.

Originally posted by idnic:

Originally posted by Adrionni:
That's great! Many photogs do what they want to do because they feel the client isn't up to speed on the different processing options!

So let me ask you this: Do you give your clients a guarantee for their photos over time? What if 25 years down the road they want more pics and you are long gone (out of business, deceased, or MIA)?

No, I don't promise I won't be hit by a bus tomorrow. They better order what they want now! lol I do keep a gallery open for them for one year.

Message edited by author 2007-01-19 00:07:38.

muckpond

Nikon D200

01/19/2007 12:04:10 AM · #131

Originally posted by idnic:

Originally posted by muckpond:
i want to thank you guys for getting this thread back on track and off the pissing contest train. :)

Sir, yes sir. ;)

i hate pulling the car over and whooping butts. :)

lynnesite

Canon EOS-1D X

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM II

01/19/2007 12:05:07 AM · #132

I've handed over RAW files once--with a contract. I knew there was no way they'd let themselves be represented by poorly processed images, I retained the copyright and portfolio use. Part of the agreement was that I would post-process a few dozen if they wanted, digital delivery. But I was paid thousands for the four days of work.

I'd do that again if I had faith in the customer's ability to get the most out of the RAWs. In this case, not a lot of OTHER people are gonna be interested in a single wedding's photos and it's possible to front load the charges to be happy ever after IMO.

01/19/2007 12:05:36 AM · #133

Understood, understood. I hope the photog would see the value in the time and effort gained by handing over the pics and walking away to the next opportunity, especially if I'm paying him a good price.

Originally posted by gi_joe05:

jenesis

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

01/19/2007 12:11:08 AM · #134

FWIW, we paid our photographer $800 total. We got 4x6 proofs to keep, an 8 page double-sided album, a couple of 8x10's to frame and all the negatives. Granted this was about 6 years ago and she shot film. Now this was before I'd ever picked up a camera myself and I knew nothing about the business of photography but knowing what I know now, DAMN I got a good deal. :) Actually, I got lucky. She was great and the photos were great. Have I ever done anything with the negatives? No, but it's nice to know I have them for down the road for myself, my children and their children, locked away in a nice fire-proof safe. :)

I only wish I could say the same for my parents & my grandparents wedding photos. Something to think about. :)

fotomann_forever

01/19/2007 12:12:49 AM · #135

Originally posted by Adrionni:

Especially if the cust is just going to scan them in and reproduce them b/c they can only work with what they have?

That is a direct violation of my contract (unless otherwise stated) and copyright laws. Not saying my customers DON'T do it... but legally I could bust their ass for it.

01/19/2007 12:13:26 AM · #136

Originally posted by Adrionni:

See, its my business. I don't want them to print those shots forever. I want them to print those shots now and save them forever, and in a few months or years come back to me for new shots that they will save forever, then come back again.... Think about old film photographers, even if they gave you the film, your great-grandkids can't print that, its all about the prints you buy now and save. If you allow me to print and frame it for you, I'll use archival matting, paper and sealed frames. :)

01/19/2007 12:15:16 AM · #137

How would you know they did it 35 years down the road?

I'm not advocating it, I'm just saying it probably happens quite often.

Originally posted by Shakalaka:

Originally posted by Adrionni:

Especially if the cust is just going to scan them in and reproduce them b/c they can only work with what they have?

That is a direct violation of my contract (unless otherwise stated) and copyright laws. Not saying my customers DON'T do it... but legally I could bust their ass for it.

01/19/2007 12:16:29 AM · #138

Originally posted by muckpond:

i hate pulling the car over and whooping butts. :)

Yeah, sure!

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED

01/19/2007 12:21:03 AM · #139

True, true, but wedding pictures are *in 50% of cases*, lol a once and a lifetime thing.

You're right, and nothing is forever. Even the archival media that is used has a limited lifespan. there's no guarantee that the JPEG format is gonna be around forever, either.

But the ability to capture an image and reproduce it will be around for a looooooong time.

So I guess getting you prints in at least 8x10s is the true answer ;).

Still, not advocating anything, just trying to make sense of how to ensure access to precious images over time.

Originally posted by idnic:

Originally posted by Adrionni:
HA! I can see it now -

Customer has photog print all they think they'll need for generations to come

Customer has like 10 kids

Each kid has 10 kids, lol

35 years down the road, customer runs out of photos

Customer can't locate or contact photog

Technology changes which allows for fast, high qual imaging capturing (this isn't far fetched! imagine what today's technology will look like 35 years from now =) )

Customer reproduces images and everyone is happy - except for the deceased, MIA, retired photog!

See, its my business. I don't want them to print those shots forever. I want them to print those shots now and save them forever, and in a few months or years come back to me for new shots that they will save forever, then come back again.... Think about old film photographers, even if they gave you the film, your great-grandkids can't print that, its all about the prints you buy now and save. If you allow me to print and frame it for you, I'll use archival matting, paper and sealed frames. :)

Message edited by author 2007-01-19 00:22:50.

rlinn3

Nikon D100

01/19/2007 12:21:59 AM · #140

$15k for a few pics??? What are you SMOKING??? LOL. Photography is not rocket science, and it's not that serious.

Sorry folks, you misunderstood. $5,000 is 3 times my usual fee. I could never justify $15K. I'm not a moron & I do not take myself too seriously.

But these are once in a lifetime shots for the couple and It's how I make my living. I used to give a CD but have had too many complaints from couples after they or a "Friend" have butchered them. It serves my reputation better to do it so I know they are done right.

01/19/2007 12:24:57 AM · #141

Originally posted by Adrionni:

So I guess getting you prints in at least 8x10s is the true answer ;).

I recommend 20 X 24 or 20 X 30, really you'll appreciate the heirloom quality - smaller prints are more for bookshelfs. :)

01/19/2007 12:25:43 AM · #142

Thanks for the clarification. After you've received the complaints, did you respond with "I'll process them for you for $$$"? More money in the bank!

Originally posted by rlinn3:

01/19/2007 12:28:51 AM · #143

Those are harder to scan in because of their size, and if high res scanners have glass that large, it would take foreeeeever for process that at 600dpi let alone anything higher!

Originally posted by idnic:

Originally posted by Adrionni:

So I guess getting you prints in at least 8x10s is the true answer ;).

I recommend 20 X 24 or 20 X 30, really you'll appreciate the heirloom quality - smaller prints are more for bookshelfs. :)

01/19/2007 12:29:33 AM · #144

Originally posted by Adrionni:

Those are harder to scan in because of their size, and if high res scanners have glass that large, it would take foreeeeever for process that at 600dpi let alone anything higher!

LOL Darn shame. :)

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED

01/19/2007 12:34:20 AM · #145

Still, as best business practice I (independant photographer) want my money now, I want you (the customer) to order as many prints as possible now - not only because I may be hit by a bus tomorrow but because you may. You're seeing your side of the transaction, but remember we don't know if we will ever see or hear from you again from the moment you walk out our studio door with your wedding album. We hope for future business or future prints, but there is no guarantee of that so we need to earn what we need to survive now. Its basic business.

rlinn3

Nikon D100

01/19/2007 12:35:08 AM · #146

Thanks for the clarification. After you've received the complaints, did you respond with "I'll process them for you for $$$"? More money in the bank!

Yes, but they were still upset about the extra money even after an explaination about why it would cost them extra money. Lost a referal and I HATE ticking off customers. So now I do the "storybook type albums, a DVD with a slideshow (But not with Hi-Res images) and a certain number of prints (couples decide how many & how much they want to spend).

As to those who say I would never make anymore money off these prints: That's not true, I have a full model release in my contracts and I have had my wedding photos published. So there is extra money. And I must say almost every Bride that has been published has been thrilled that there photo's were used in a publication.

Neil

Fujifilm X-T30

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

01/19/2007 12:35:44 AM · #147

Originally posted by jenesis:

Actually, that's an interesting point. If you say you must come back to me for reprints, and your contract doesn't state a period of time where they will be available, I imagine it's possible for someone to come back 15 or more years later, want reprints, and be pretty pissed off if you can no longer supply them. Under the right circumstances, I imagine someone could even file a lawsuit against you.

For my wedding shots--that was in 1984--I didn't even think to ask for the negatives. But suppose my house burned down and thus I lost my wedding photos. My own photos are backed up--but not my wedding shots. It would be interesting to see if the photographer was organized enough, and took care enough, to preserve my negatives so I could order another book. Perhaps they have, and perhaps they have a good filing system as well so they could find it. But in reality, by not giving me the negatives, they've made it their responsibility to archive it--indefinitely.

Now I'm not a lawyer, nor am I a wedding photographer. But I find the business position that it places the wedding photographer in "interesting", and I'm curious whether this is something people are prepared for either legally or procedurally. Are you preparing to deal with such a customer? If you are "on your own", how is that going to be handled "beyond your lifetime" when that person's heirs want their photos (or so not to mention our own mortality, what if you decide to go into a different business)? Or do you set a limiting clause in your contract and just protect yourself legally, while potentially leaving the customer unhappy?

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

01/19/2007 12:41:54 AM · #148

But Neil, in your wedding-photography contract you are not promising them images for the rest of time, you are offering 1-professional services, 2-prints (in whateverform) of the outcome of those services 3-to return their money if catastrophe intervenes.

Neil

Fujifilm X-T30

01/19/2007 12:44:27 AM · #149

Originally posted by idnic:

I guess I'm just armchair contract lawyering, but it seems like that's implied by the fact that the photographer is keeping the originals with an offer to make reprints at a later date (which I presume is unspecified).