|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/29/2008 03:48:55 PM · #1 |
I'm wondering if anybody has come up with a new and innovative pricing model that is a better match for the digital age?
Most local photographers are clinging to traditional pricing models with a sitting fee and package or al a carte pricing for prints. But, I have encountered many people that are challenging this model and looking for something different. Some people see the sitting fee as the price for the work done and want digital versions of the images that they can print themselves. I'm not a fan as this as it reduces my efforts as a photographer to an hourly rate and takes away an opportunity for follow on sales to extended family and friends. I can argue that the client pays for the end result, the prints, rather than my time, but then how do I explain that sitting fee?
I believe that good photography is valuable to our clients and have no problem charing a premium price for well executed work. I just need a pricing model that doesn't leave my clients thinking I'm charing an outrageous hourly rate AND an outrageous markup on print, it needs to be one or the other.
|
|
|
|
05/30/2008 01:08:57 AM · #2 |
I hate it when photographers give away their images on CD for the customer to print--it really gets on my nerves. It's the equivalent of photographers in the past giving away their negatives, which they NEVER did.
I simply charge by the hour (instead of a sitting fee that covers a certain amount of time). Why? I don't want my customers, or me, to feel rushed. Basically, they buy as many hours as they want and I give them unlimited shots, unlimited poses, unlimited locations (and charge for mileage beyond certain point), unlimited outfit changes--whatever they want to do with the time they purchase.
Then, I simply upload the images to smugmug and they can go on and choose what they want. Post processing fees are built into my image prices and I don't fully PP the images until they order.
It's quite simple and the customer gets a huge variety and number of shots. As you know, more variety and more shots equals more print sales most of the time.
It's quite simple and gives the customer the widest range of possibilities and products. They aren't limited to print packages and I offer a full range of sizes and other products. |
|
|
|
05/30/2008 02:57:40 AM · #3 |
Thanks Kevin,
Not that you have to give out your print prices, but have you gone for a smaller markup on the prints or have people been ok with what they know is a large markup? I'm just curious as I try to sort this out in my head. I do agree though that giving away images on a CD just doesn't seem right and I definitely don't want it as part of my pricing model |
|
|
|
05/30/2008 03:57:43 AM · #4 |
What is wrong with giving away CDs/DVDs with pictures? What you invest is your time and this is what you should be paid for. Whether a customer orders five prints or five hundred, the amount of work for you is the same, I hope. So why should they pay you for additional prints?
If you fear you are not going to make enough money, simply raise the price for the session. I think this is a more honest model than attracting people with a low initial fee and then ripping them off with print sales (it's like the cheap printer and the outrageously expensive ink cartridges). Customers are more likely to come back and recommend you if they don't feel taken in.
Furthermore, nowadays people might like to send digital versions of their pictures to friends and relatives, include them in their own albums, print them on pillows, etc. Let them do it, it's no additional work for you and your customers will be happy. |
|
|
|
05/30/2008 07:36:30 AM · #5 |
I take a chance with mine, but it seems to be working well.
I don't charge a sitting fee at all. I simply require them to order prints through me if they like the photos and want to order. I do offer a CD option, but it's pretty pricey and only has rights and file sizes for 4x6 prints. They may add additional files in larger sizes to the CD for a set price per addition. The CD also is available at a discounted price when a certain level of prints are purchased. I actually have only had one person order the CD and that was because they ordered so many prints that I deep-discounted the CD as a one time option for them before delivering the prints.
I do charge a fee upfront for a wedding and the CD cost is considerably higher priced. I don't do a lot of paying jobs, but I am happy with my profit levels on the jobs I have done lately. I seem to be getting a lot more referrals so I must be doing something right.
I think it's hard to set up a pricing policy that seems fair to both parties. I just sold my first canvas and I thought I priced it pretty high, but they didn't even blink an eye at the price. |
|
|
|
05/30/2008 08:22:08 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by Sam94720:
What is wrong with giving away CDs/DVDs with pictures? What you invest is your time and this is what you should be paid for. Whether a customer orders five prints or five hundred, the amount of work for you is the same, I hope. So why should they pay you for additional prints?
If you fear you are not going to make enough money, simply raise the price for the session. I think this is a more honest model than attracting people with a low initial fee and then ripping them off with print sales (it's like the cheap printer and the outrageously expensive ink cartridges). Customers are more likely to come back and recommend you if they don't feel taken in.
Furthermore, nowadays people might like to send digital versions of their pictures to friends and relatives, include them in their own albums, print them on pillows, etc. Let them do it, it's no additional work for you and your customers will be happy. |
We never give out files on CD/DVD. For an example why, I've been reading wedding photography forums here in Perth lately and there is a lady who is extremely unhappy with her photos from the photographer. The thing is, the photographer has given her the files on disk and she's gone and had them printed, probably at the local convenience store. They came out looking crap in terms colours looking very red. Having worked at one of these places myself for a number of years the colour difference between the machines was horrendously different. So now because of the printing that photographer has had his/her name sullied for a very long time.
We still use the simple method of charging a sitting fee and charging for prints which we organise ourselves, knowing then that our customers are getting good quality and calibrated colouring as it should be. We do not charge an arm and a leg for the prints. Compared to other photographers in our demographic we are very cheap. We have very happy customers and many return customers. Our model works pretty well for us.
EDIT: Just to add, our business has grown over 200% in the past 6 months with this model. We have the occassional person ask if we supply the files on disk which we carefully take the time to explain to them that we don't. I even had one customer last week tell me that by law I HAD to give her the files on disk. If people don't understand then I'm happy not to have their business. Sure, we are in business to make money, but both  -bec- and I have a lot of pride in our work and we will do our utmost to supply that to our customers. There is no way we could just hand over our files to someone else to do with as they please.
Message edited by author 2008-05-30 08:27:41.
|
|
|
|
05/30/2008 08:29:10 AM · #7 |
Surely you have to be in control of the final product, as that is what your reputation is based on?
If you give away/sell cd's then the final product could come out rubbish. Why not just sell a cd as part of the package but only with web/wallpaper sized images on it? Say 1024 wide or less. |
|
|
|
05/30/2008 08:42:14 AM · #8 |
I am trying to find out pricing too for my studio that I am opening this Sunday. I know it's a short time to figure that out, but I have many options. One of them is this, and worked well in the past.
Sitting fee: not too much, but the work I do, and charged by 30min and one hour. If it takes more than an hour, I charge whatever I charge 30 minutes time until shooting ends.
Process fee: I do touch-ups, and enhancements on all my photos. I don't even show anything right after I am done with shooting. There is a "cleanup process" and I do that first. Everyone knows that before we start shooting. I include this fee at the end per photo bases since some photos need less work than others.
Prints and CDs: I do offer prints, about 5 business days turnaround. Very nice prints and inexpensive. People want to save time and order from me usually. They do get better photos than they would do by themselves. I also give CDs, but not the raw images. I do tell people that CDs they will get contain cleaned up version and resized version of the photos that they could print up to 8X10... which still good size... but over that they have to come back to me for the larger prints.
Packages also available but they are for weddings and special events... basically outside studio jobs. I also go to house calls, for babies and pets.
Besides in studio hourly based charge, my outside hourly charge is different because of the spending such as gas and travel time...
I have changed the figures a few times. I think I am getting close to a set numbers until the opening. I want to answer all the pricing questions on opening day :) |
|
|
|
05/30/2008 08:43:35 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by rob_smith:
Surely you have to be in control of the final product, as that is what your reputation is based on?
If you give away/sell cd's then the final product could come out rubbish. Why not just sell a cd as part of the package but only with web/wallpaper sized images on it? Say 1024 wide or less. |
They will still try to print them at 100dpi and get crap results. :)
|
|
|
|
05/30/2008 08:43:50 AM · #10 |
The current, traditional model of pricing photography has developed over teh past 150 years and it works - you can tilt at windmills if you want, but the current model works well and it's what people have grown up with. Those that think customers that think differently will always exist in every field and are never happy - any price it too much. I often feel that way about healthcare for example.
The session fee is for your time to shoot the session and create the proofs. They are not obligated to buy anything. If they pick a pose to purchase then you have more time editing and retouching that image and having it printed, inspected, perhaps framed or mounted, packaged for delivery - and probably a guarantee that if they don't like it you'll redo it. If they buy 2 poses you have twice the work. Buying multiple prints of the same pose is little more than pushing a print button a second time so sure, the second copy could be discounted (and often is - hence 'packages' are based on pose counts more than print counts).
Stop thinking like a cheap ass consumer and start thinking like a business person - or else you won't be a business person for long as you'll not make a profit, and without profit your business will fail.
They call to shcedule an appointment (10 minutes). they come in and you chata bit, talk about the session -what they want, clothing, etc. (10 minutes) The session is 30 minutes. Proofing (copying, converting, backup, etc) is another 30. How you proof will vary of course. I do projection proofing and a session takes 45 minutes on average (again, a phone call, chatting, etc adds some to this -you don't have to say hello to the baby you just shot, but it's good for sales to be nice and friendly!) Now you go back and edit the images, send them off to the lab (or print them), open the UPS box when it comes back, sort out the pics (Only one client? That will have to change or you won't stay in business, so allow time for more work here than you'll do in the beginning). You have to deal with the paperwork - their order, payment, the lab invoice, etc. This all takes time and you need paid for this time - if you worked for someone else you'd expect to be paid for this time. Then you call to say it's in, and when they come to pick it up you chat some more - ask for referrals, etc. 15 minutes.
that adds up to about 3 hours, plus some editing time or framing. Your time may vary some, but you may also have travel time or time to set up the studio - cleaning, lights, change backdrops, get out/put away props, etc. I know I'm in my studio 15 minutes before the appointment. Some folks arrive late adding to your time spent on that client.
You can figure your cost of business, but I need about $80/hour so that 3 hours needs to generate $240 in sales at the minimum, preferrably $120/hour or $360.
You can give them 10 images on CD if you want - edited or not. Edited wil look better, but takes time - so you best charge for that. Unedited? Then in addition to the risk you run from them making bad prints you're giving them as shot images...being on DPC should have taught you that's the way to a brown ribbon. You're after the green ribbon so do what that takes and no more.
You can discount the sitting fee, give them a credit toward the prints, etc. You can sell a package - perhaps $295 and include the session and some prints or a print credit (see - you've made your minimum sale this way!) or if you want a fee and ala carte you can do that. Alacarte is higher as you've no guarantee they'll buy anything. THey might do a $39 sesison and spend $100 - $139 for 3+ hours of work and prints means you're losing money, well, not getting paid for your effort (after you deduct overhead, etc)
Fair pricing? What I consider fair my wife may not so that term is meaningless. (haircuts, jeans, shoes...compare what is 'fair' and people will disagree!) Charge as much as the market will bear - if you do good work, offer a nice experience for the client you can charge a good bit. McDonalds and Starbucks both sell coffee. McD's sells on price, Starbucks sells on status, experience, etc.
Mercedes and Tiffany's don't care that few can afford what they sell. Photography is also a luxury good - not everyone can afford it. That's not your problem.
Message edited by author 2008-05-30 08:46:47.
|
|
|
|
05/30/2008 08:49:23 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
Photography is also a luxury good - not everyone can afford it. That's not your problem. |
That's the gist of it right there. People don't need photography to survive. Its not a necessity, its a luxury. We have to think of it that way and, to be sucessful, give the client a luxury experience so they feel they're getting their money's worth.
I'm in the midst of a pricing restructure across all lines of my business.... about 12% increase on average.... but... I've also tweeked the "experience" to make the clients feel they're still getting what they want.
|
|
|
|
05/30/2008 08:55:55 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by Nusbaum:
Thanks Kevin,
Not that you have to give out your print prices, but have you gone for a smaller markup on the prints or have people been ok with what they know is a large markup? I'm just curious as I try to sort this out in my head. I do agree though that giving away images on a CD just doesn't seem right and I definitely don't want it as part of my pricing model |
My prices are still in line with what other good portrait photographers charge. But, I can do this because I don't do photography for a living.
If you do photography for a living and need to inflate the prices a little more, just explain to the clients that the print prices include the retouching (which they would normally have to pay extra for).
The good thing about inflating the price of prints with retouching costs is that you collect the higher rate over and over again with reprints and if family members purchase prints. |
|
|
|
05/30/2008 08:59:27 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by Sam94720:
What is wrong with giving away CDs/DVDs with pictures? What you invest is your time and this is what you should be paid for. Whether a customer orders five prints or five hundred, the amount of work for you is the same, I hope. So why should they pay you for additional prints? |
It sounds like you think the customer owns the pictures we take. I'm not just being paid for my time, I'm being paid to produce a creative product and I own that product at the end of the day.
That's like saying Mercedes should just charge me for their time to make the cars and then give the cars away when they're done.
Originally posted by Sam94720:
If you fear you are not going to make enough money, simply raise the price for the session. I think this is a more honest model than attracting people with a low initial fee and then ripping them off with print sales (it's like the cheap printer and the outrageously expensive ink cartridges). Customers are more likely to come back and recommend you if they don't feel taken in. |
See Mercedes example above.
Originally posted by Sam94720:
Furthermore, nowadays people might like to send digital versions of their pictures to friends and relatives, include them in their own albums, print them on pillows, etc. Let them do it, it's no additional work for you and your customers will be happy. |
If they want to send the pictures to their friends, they can buy a web-sized picture CD. Again, you're acting from the position that the customer owns the pictures I take--and that's not the case. |
|
|
|
05/30/2008 09:19:34 AM · #14 |
Thanks for the explanations everyone. I understand that not giving out digital files has two benefits:
- Customers get quality prints from you and you don't run the risk of them printing them somewhere else, getting bad results, complaining and hurting your reputation.
- Customers only pay for good work. If you take bad pictures, they don't buy any prints. So this is a benefit for the client.
I understand your motivations, but I have the impression that this model is outdated. Photography has become more accessible to the masses now, everyone can take their own pictures, print them onto pretty much everything and send them around in digital form. Some people might not even be interested in prints, but only in digital images to be used on their website, for example.
I understand that you don't want to give away unedited or raw files. You're providing a final result which includes some editing and you don't want to give customers intermediate results of lower quality. Giving them only small versions might be a good compromise, but again you run the risk of them trying to print them in big sizes because they don't understand pixels.
About the Mercedes analogy:
Originally posted by KevinG:
That's like saying Mercedes should just charge me for their time to make the cars and then give the cars away when they're done. |
This is exactly what they do. They charge you once and then you can drive with your car as often as you want. Your model would mean that you only pay a thousand bucks for the car, but it remains property of the company and you have to pay an expensive price for every minute you would like to drive it. |
|
|
|
05/30/2008 09:30:59 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by Sam94720:
Your model would mean that you only pay a thousand bucks for the car, but it remains property of the company and you have to pay an expensive price for every minute you would like to drive it. |
Oh B*ll*cks, that sounds like my lease agreement! |
|
|
|
05/30/2008 10:19:52 AM · #16 |
Originally posted by KevinG:
Originally posted by Sam94720:
What is wrong with giving away CDs/DVDs with pictures? What you invest is your time and this is what you should be paid for. Whether a customer orders five prints or five hundred, the amount of work for you is the same, I hope. So why should they pay you for additional prints? |
It sounds like you think the customer owns the pictures we take. I'm not just being paid for my time, I'm being paid to produce a creative product and I own that product at the end of the day.
That's like saying Mercedes should just charge me for their time to make the cars and then give the cars away when they're done.
Originally posted by Sam94720:
If you fear you are not going to make enough money, simply raise the price for the session. I think this is a more honest model than attracting people with a low initial fee and then ripping them off with print sales (it's like the cheap printer and the outrageously expensive ink cartridges). Customers are more likely to come back and recommend you if they don't feel taken in. |
See Mercedes example above.
Originally posted by Sam94720:
Furthermore, nowadays people might like to send digital versions of their pictures to friends and relatives, include them in their own albums, print them on pillows, etc. Let them do it, it's no additional work for you and your customers will be happy. |
If they want to send the pictures to their friends, they can buy a web-sized picture CD. Again, you're acting from the position that the customer owns the pictures I take--and that's not the case. |
In some countries, the USA especially, I think you would need to state that clearly in the contract. I believe they could, if it came to it, take you to court and claim the images captured were a "work for hire". Not sure, but in this litigious day and age, better to cover yourself than not.
I also agree about not giving out/selling the CDs. :)
|
|
|
|
05/30/2008 10:26:15 AM · #17 |
The old model isn't outdated. It works and works well.
Your costs have not changed - the price of a physical print is nothing really compared to the effort to make the image. That effort is the same for a digital file as it is for a 30x60 canvas - but the profit on such a canvas is a lot more than it is on a file - people will pay more for a tangible item.
So you spend 3 hours to create the image. You can sell them a digital file or a say a canvas wrap 11x14 and 4 5x7s, 24 wallets and 2 8x10s. The file costs you $1 for the disk. You can tart it up with a fancy package, say $5 and sell it for what? $50? Remember, it's ONE file.
Or you sell them the prints... 5x7 at $12, 8x10 at $24, 3 sheets of wallets @ 14 each, and the gallery wrap for $199. $337 in sales for a cost of around $110 maybe.
$45 vs $227 for the same amount of work.
Now if you could sell the disk for $230 then yeah, your new biz model would work - the same profit. Let the client go to Mpix and get their prints and canvas. But they won't pay you $230 for that file. You're selling more than prints - you're selling convenience, saving them time, confidence in the prints will be right the first time, etc.
I see people balking all the time at the cost of a CD/DVD of wedding images - $395. For 500 or so images. Man, that's 79 CENTS an image and they think it's too much. I may change my pricing on that...$5/image, 100 image minimum and see how they like it!
|
|
|
|
05/30/2008 10:28:19 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
In some countries, the USA especially, I think you would need to state that clearly in the contract. I believe they could, if it came to it, take you to court and claim the images captured were a "work for hire". Not sure, but in this litigious day and age, better to cover yourself than not.
I also agree about not giving out/selling the CDs. :) |
No contract needed. The photog owns the images. The exception is if a contract (as in employment contract) states otherwise. The copyright originates and remains with the creator of the work unless given away in writing. Long history of this so litigous or not it won't change.
|
|
|
|
05/30/2008 10:29:06 AM · #19 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
In some countries, the USA especially, I think you would need to state that clearly in the contract. I believe they could, if it came to it, take you to court and claim the images captured were a "work for hire". Not sure, but in this litigious day and age, better to cover yourself than not.
I also agree about not giving out/selling the CDs. :) |
No contract needed. The photog owns the images. The exception is if a contract (as in employment contract) states otherwise. The copyright originates and remains with the creator of the work unless given away in writing. Long history of this so litigous or not it won't change. |
Excellent. Thanks for the correction!
|
|
|
|
05/30/2008 10:51:00 AM · #20 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
Stop thinking like a cheap ass consumer and start thinking like a business person - or else you won't be a business person for long as you'll not make a profit, and without profit your business will fail. |
I probably made my point rather poorly on my first post because I am definitely not trying to approach this like a cheap ass consumer. My goal with the post wasn't to suggest that photography is more accessible and therefore my rates should drop... my problem is that I think the old model of higher priced prints suggests that the effort and cost is in the printing. But, everybody knows they can get a digital file and print it themselves these days, so the value I provide there is making sure the print quality is good. My value as a photographer is in the initial capture of the images, the editing and post processing. They cannot do this themselves and get the results that I produce, so this is were I feel justified in charging a premium. If I bury this in the print price, I'm frustrated as hell when somebody orders 2-4x6's. If I put it all in the sitting fee, I'm scaring people.
Just as stock photography has changed, I think portrait work is changing as well. I have more time invested in the first processed version of an image than the film guys ever had but I have less time on a per print basis (no spotting or retouching of actual prints). I was simply looking for a model that shifted the clients perspective on what they were paying for. As far as I'm concerned we are justified in charing more with digital... perhaps it's more accessible on the low end but meeting client's expectations is taking more time, training and expensive equipment than it was pre-digital.
|
|
|
|
05/30/2008 10:55:05 AM · #21 |
Originally posted by Nusbaum:
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
Stop thinking like a cheap ass consumer and start thinking like a business person - or else you won't be a business person for long as you'll not make a profit, and without profit your business will fail. |
I probably made my point rather poorly on my first post because I am definitely not trying to approach this like a cheap ass consumer. My goal with the post wasn't to suggest that photography is more accessible and therefore my rates should drop... my problem is that I think the old model of higher priced prints suggests that the effort and cost is in the printing. But, everybody knows they can get a digital file and print it themselves these days, so the value I provide there is making sure the print quality is good. My value as a photographer is in the initial capture of the images, the editing and post processing. They cannot do this themselves and get the results that I produce, so this is were I feel justified in charging a premium. If I bury this in the print price, I'm frustrated as hell when somebody orders 2-4x6's. If I put it all in the sitting fee, I'm scaring people.
Just as stock photography has changed, I think portrait work is changing as well. I have more time invested in the first processed version of an image than the film guys ever had but I have less time on a per print basis (no spotting or retouching of actual prints). I was simply looking for a model that shifted the clients perspective on what they were paying for. As far as I'm concerned we are justified in charing more with digital... perhaps it's more accessible on the low end but meeting client's expectations is taking more time, training and expensive equipment than it was pre-digital. |
I noticed with some of the forms that came from school, they charged for the retouch work. $x per pose... of course then the prints too were outrageous and with the time they spent on each kid, it didn't seem like it was to compensate fairly for no sitting fee.
For my niece's senior photos, they paid me $250 for the sitting and I let them pick 6-8 poses to order prints from. Almost had a heart attack when they sent out the online proof library for all the family to see and pick which ones they wanted. I didn't want to spend time customizing a photo for one print, etc.
Then for them since it was family, I just passed on the MPIX cost for the prints. But I would have added on to that for others obviously.
|
|
|
|
05/30/2008 11:19:56 AM · #22 |
I've been using the trail of Sucessware (not priced for the faint of heart) to take a objective look at my pricing... and after putting in all the costs involved in doing a portrait session including my time, benchmarking that my cost of sale (COS) should represent 30% or my price, I'm not even close to that (i think the closest I came was 48%) I'm willing to bet if you really took a look at what it cost you to do what you do this conversation would be very different. even for just a CD (and it's never JUST a CD) there is a lot that goes into making it... your prices need to reflect that regardless of if it's upfront in a 'sitting fee' or in the cost of the CD itself
that said I try not to do CD with the exeption of Weddings and then they're low res. |
|
|
|
05/30/2008 11:45:02 AM · #23 |
Originally posted by Sam94720:
About the Mercedes analogy:
Originally posted by KevinG:
That's like saying Mercedes should just charge me for their time to make the cars and then give the cars away when they're done. |
This is exactly what they do. They charge you once and then you can drive with your car as often as you want. Your model would mean that you only pay a thousand bucks for the car, but it remains property of the company and you have to pay an expensive price for every minute you would like to drive it. |
No, that's not what Mercedes does. Mercedes charges for time, materials, marketing, and then marks up the product for a lot of profit.
You're suggesting that Mercedes simply bills you an hourly rate to produce the car and then give you the car after that for no extra cost/markup/etc.
As a photographer, I charge for my time, as does Mercedes (in the price of their product) and then I charge you for the product as well (retouching and prints), as does Mercedes.
Perhaps I should use an analogy that compares better.
Let's say Ansel Adams charges $250/hr to take a picture of your mountain home. Under your model, you suggest he charges you $500 for two hours of shooting and then gives you the negatives because "it's only about time".
Of course, Ansel Adams could print that picture and sell it as fine art for $15,000. But you only paid him $500.
Time has little to do with photography--the end product is where the money is because time isn't creative, the product being produced is creative and people should pay for that aspect. |
|
|
|
05/30/2008 12:01:32 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by Sam94720:
Thanks for the explanations everyone. I understand that not giving out digital files has two benefits:
- Customers get quality prints from you and you don't run the risk of them printing them somewhere else, getting bad results, complaining and hurting your reputation.
- Customers only pay for good work. If you take bad pictures, they don't buy any prints. So this is a benefit for the client.
I understand your motivations, but I have the impression that this model is outdated. Photography has become more accessible to the masses now, everyone can take their own pictures, print them onto pretty much everything and send them around in digital form. Some people might not even be interested in prints, but only in digital images to be used on their website, for example.
I understand that you don't want to give away unedited or raw files. You're providing a final result which includes some editing and you don't want to give customers intermediate results of lower quality. Giving them only small versions might be a good compromise, but again you run the risk of them trying to print them in big sizes because they don't understand pixels.
About the Mercedes analogy:
Originally posted by KevinG:
That's like saying Mercedes should just charge me for their time to make the cars and then give the cars away when they're done. |
This is exactly what they do. They charge you once and then you can drive with your car as often as you want. Your model would mean that you only pay a thousand bucks for the car, but it remains property of the company and you have to pay an expensive price for every minute you would like to drive it. |
No. The print is the final product the image files are the "plans" for the print. They buy the print and can do as they please with it. Hang it on the wall, show it to the neighbors and Aunt Martha or they can use it for toilet paper. Mercedes will sell you all the cars you wish to buy, but unless you buy the company, the plans are not for sale. You want a new Mercedes? You buy it from Mercedes. You don't wander into Wal Mart with the a disk (or twenty) of CAD files, go up to the service counter and ask Billy Bob to make a car for you. |
|
|
|
05/30/2008 12:22:31 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
No. The print is the final product the image files are the "plans" for the print. |
In a sense I agree, but customers like to be able to view their shots digitally now too. The photographer my fiancee and I are going with for our wedding is selling us the shots and part of the bundle is some prints. She also offers a book to go with the package. ($300 extra or so?)
That way, if I take the images off the DVD and get them printed and they look like crap I can blame Wal-mart since I have good prints to compare to.
I get to throw the DVD into the player and can watch a slideshow rather than sitting around a photo album. If I want to look at a book I still have that option though.
The alternative? My mom (*sigh*) was going to take the 8 x 10 my brother gave her, have it scanned, then get it printed at Wal-mart. The photographer would get nothing. Fortunately my brother learned some morals in his travels and forbid her from doing that. Consumers are cheap. Give them a viable alternative however and they might be willing to fork over the dough
Message edited by author 2008-05-30 12:25:15.
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/09/2025 10:34:03 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: 08/09/2025 10:34:03 AM EDT.
|
