|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/19/2007 12:45:35 AM · #151 |
But in reality, by not giving me the negatives, they've made it their responsibility to archive it--indefinitely. [i][/i]
In my contract I state "Photographer will archive photographs, negatives and electronic files for a period of 5 years. Photographer will contact Client at the end of this period and offer sale of all photographs, negatives and eletronic files to the Client for the going rate at the time sale is offered."
I usually sell the files, (used to be negatives) for a minimal price. So usually no anger or upset. Some buy, some don't. But my liablity is limited. |
|
|
|
01/19/2007 12:45:44 AM · #152 |
In my vast wedding experience , I contract that I will have the originals for one year, barring any unforeseen or uncontrollable disaster, and that I will have them for beyond that year if storage space is available, and that I will give them 3 months notice after the initial year before I destroy them. They can then purchase the disk or say bye-bye.
Obviously, storage is not an issue for me, yet, and I actually had a bride order another almost full set of 4x6s for a one year anniversary thing.
go figure.
Actually, I do this with most things that I shoot.
Disclaimor: I am NOT a wedding photographer. |
|
|
|
01/19/2007 01:10:02 AM · #153 |
Originally posted by idnic:
Uhm, who's fighting? This is called a discussion with many points of view. Read along. Its educational. ;) |
Actually, from the moment I exited the conversation and left my office, it appears it degenerated into nothing more than name calling. I'm very surprised it hasn't been locked yet, and I'm hoping it will be. The sheer attitude and disrespect that (many) people are spewing is embarrassing to DPC as a whole.
ETA: And that's when I move this to the ignore bin.
Message edited by author 2007-01-19 01:10:28. |
|
|
|
01/19/2007 02:47:34 AM · #154 |
Personally, I found it very educational... it is nice to read from the customer PoV.
|
|
|
|
01/19/2007 03:25:26 AM · #155 |
Quite an interesting discussion. I can see points from both sides. However, it seems to me that there is little value to the photog to keep the RAWS after a certain period of time has passed. By that point, whatevr it may be, the money in reprints would seem to me to be something of a low return - especially compared to potential problems if you have contracted yourself to look after the files.
For example, if you say you'll keep shots for a year or five years, do you have duplicated off-site storage for all those shots? If you do, you're paying for that. If you don't, you're paying for liability insurance on losing the shots. All that for maybe another 8x10? Doesn't seem worth it.
I see the point from the professional integrity angle - you may not want your name attached with poorly processed versions of the shots. So do some damage limitation, make sure your package includes some processed work, suggest that your name is associated with them and not anything the couple comes up with. Really I can't see why any couple would want to do a shabby job processing and display that over and above something that you as a professional will come up with, but who knows?
Anyway, I'm far from a wedding photog, or indeed any kind of paid photog, but I don't believe that the original request is as unreasonable as some would suggest.
Our own wedding photog was happy to provide both prints and negatives (film obviously) of all the shots - even the "outtakes". As a techy person, I could put a shot or the 35mm neg in my scanner and have a better-than-raw file in no time. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 09/01/2025 08:57:36 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/01/2025 08:57:36 AM EDT.
|
