Here's a different question...

[pantherburr]

Instead of doing the 'normal' setup where one gives a whole album of pictures to the bride and groom, I'm giving the happy couple copies of the pictures on a disk to so with as they will (go to a printer, go to Walmart - whatever) as I'm trying to do wedding photography on a discount budget for my clients. Here's the kicker - in my contract it says that the pictures can't be reproduced without my permission. I had a client point this out, and I'm stymied. Can I just pop in a clause that says that the couple can reproduce with no questions asked as long as I cover the "unauthorized use/commercial use" with the rest of the contract? Any ideas that don't make this seem so onerous?

[jfrancho]

You'd have to ask your lawyer to get the exact verbiage. Personally, I'm not willing to part with the image files in a "budget package" but that's your call. I've been processing and fixing others' wedding files for $15 an image plus the price of the print, which is $10-$100. Saves me the trouble of going to the wedding and shooting.

[Naturalist]

I would not be giving them photos on a disc unless I charged thousands of dollars for it. You are screwing yourself out of a lot of sales.

The only way to get around your clause is to either amend the clause, remove the clause, or remove the disc.

I vote for the latter.

[craigsexton]

a simple copyright release form will suffice. But they should be aware that they must keep this release form to prove release. But now adays, all printing shops including wally world are wanting copyright release forms for anything that looks like a picture that didn't come straight from your camera.

[pantherburr]

jfranco - thanks for that information. I'm really not looking to make a living out of this (and obviously I won't from what I'm hearing), but looking to fill a niche in a small town. I'm not parting with the image as I retain the original - my concern is commerical use specifically. But I wil definitly run in past my lawyer. Craig - I had that exact thing happen to me when I brought some pictures in from an amusement park. they checked the back but (I believe) because it was one of those automated cameras from a ride, there was no copyright. Naturalist - I suppose I could look at this as a glass half empty situation, but I am trying to fill a need, and being an amateur photographer, I can't see myself trying to gouge my clients. But thank you for that comment, it is certainly food for thought, although I don't see the difference from holding onto negatives and providing the originals. Anyone with a half-decent scanner would be able to make a copy.

[jfrancho]

You should check out what Benji is doing - he's from a small town of 10,000, and does fantastic work. You might PM him to get some of the specifics on how he delivers his packages.

[kenn]

Originally Posted by pantherburr

jfranco - thanks for that information. I'm really not looking to make a living out of this (and obviously I won't from what I'm hearing), but looking to fill a niche in a small town. I'm not parting with the image as I retain the original -.

2 things: No 3

1. You will have to give each customer a release signed by you telling Wal Mart it is ok to print, and they may still not print them.

2. Ask your self this, How much are they spending on flowers ? If the answer is several 100's, you next thought should be which lasts longer flowers or photos. Your photo should be more than the flowers.

3. ( Voice of Experience) The lower your price, the more headaches you will get. The bridal couple will not listen to your suggestions, why because you are cheap and they paid more for the flowers, so we will arrive at the church when we want, etc, we will pose when we want etc...

And lastly, by charging lower than the norm, you are affecting every photographer by devaluing what we do. Our creativity is worth something.

I live in a small - med size town and least expensive package, which includes me and the couple get's a set of proofs is 1200.00. Less headaches the couple listen to what I suggest and they usually spend more.

[jfrancho]

I've thought about this a bit more. A friend of my wife is getting married next year, and has been pricing out photographers. She balked at my $1600 opening bid, and said she found someone that will give her the full res images (untouched) for $800. I am assuming those are jpegs. No prints, no album, just CD's. I asked her if she knew how to design an album layout, crop, retouch, and order prints, etc. and she figured she'd go to a kiosk at the grocery store for that. I then showed her how an image can come to life, starting with a raw image through a final file, ready for print, along with an actual print I had. I explained that for me or someone else to go through and process and order the images would probably run about $400 plus the cost of prints. I believe the demonstration may have opened her eyes.

I don't care if I shoot her wedding - I'll probably have to go to it anyway - but I did offer to do it the "CD" way for $1000. For that, I would do some general processing in ACR/DPP, but nothing special, like B&W, sepia, vignettes, etc. That would cost $15/image + print.

I do want to address this one statement:

And lastly, by charging lower than the norm, you are affecting every photographer by devaluing what we do. Our creativity is worth something.

I agree that creativity is worth the price of admission. However, I reject the notion that amateurs (I would include myself in this group, since I have a day job) can actually negatively impact the market. In fact, I think its impact has just the opposite: more competition means either the status quo must evolve with the new business model, or lose business. There is a ton of opportunity out there, and because of the ubiquity of digital photography, the consumer is more educated. The good customers are able to see the value in a good photographer, and what they can do. Just think of how you can offer so much for so little overhead. Has there ever been a time when you can offer so much?

[Mark McCall]

Originally Posted by jfrancho

I reject the notion that amateurs (I would include myself in this group, since I have a day job) can actually negatively impact the market. In fact, I think its impact has just the opposite: more competition means either the status quo must evolve with the new business model, or lose business.

I agree completely.
The low end market cannot survive without the high end market, and visa versa. You can't have one without the other.

In every product that is for sale, there are three levels...good, better, best.
Kia, Chevy, Cadillac
McDonalds, Applebee's, Spago.
Generic, Store Brand, Name Brand

It's up to each of you to decide what level of product your selling, and where you place yourself in the market.

I don't see a single thing wrong with selling a CD as long as your making as much or more than you would have if you'd sold prints/album.

[Phyllisva]

Originally Posted by pantherburr

I'm giving the happy couple copies of the pictures on a disk to so with as they will (go to a printer, go to Walmart - whatever)

I would NEVER tell a bride to go to walmart !!! Don't you want final approval on the way YOUR photos look ?? This is your reputation . You spend all the time learning your trade just to let WALMART make green prints and now YOUR name is crap . which would you perfer your name associated with ....beautiful professional looking prints OR 12 cent walmart reprints ??