Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Pricing people out of the frame

Options
  • 15-05-2013 1:57pm
    #1
    hyperborean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 655 ✭✭✭


    Hi, my child is in a creche and once a year a photographer comes round and does a series of pictures of each baby in the creche,

    This consists of 3 different angles(pictures). 8 prints are then processed- 3 of 1 (big, medium, small), 3 of another and 2 of the last.

    The photographer does about 50 tiny tots and charges €65 for the set if agreed.:cool:

    Now €65 is steep but as the picture were of good quality we take them, the camera used was a digital SLR and I asked if we could have a copy of them emailed to us.... seems normal enough(maybe I am wrong).

    Firstly I was told no, then after asking why she backtaracked and said she would like €20 per digital copy (3 different angles @ €60 on top of the €65 for the 8 prints)...

    Is this normal?

    If so why?

    Am I wrong in thinking this is a rip off?


«1

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Paulw
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 13,381 Mod ✭✭✭✭Paulw


    Sounds normal.

    A digital copy is worth more than a print, since you can make multiple prints from the digital copy.


  • Options
    #3
    Kenny Logins
    Registered Users Posts: 9,061 ✭✭✭Kenny Logins


    ...then you print off some on 80gm bond on your old €45 Epson, show them to your family, they ask who the photographer was (but don't mention the appalling picture quality) etc. etc.


  • Options
    #4
    DaireQuinlan
    Registered Users Posts: 6,684 ✭✭✭DaireQuinlan


    Why do you feel that it's a rip off ? The photographer makes money from prints. By giving you the images she foregoes any money she might make from the prints in the future. €20 seems cheap when you think of it that way.

    If you think it's a rip off you should consider shooting your own kids. It'll probably cost a lot more in the short term at least though, and if it engenders a long and potentially ruinously expensive addiction to photography, in the long run too :-D


  • Options
    #5
    REXER
    Registered Users Posts: 458 ✭✭REXER


    Did you ever try to get the negatives from the photographer in the days before digital??

    This is exactly the same, the photographer retains the rights to reproduction of the images.


  • Options
    #6
    hyperborean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 655 ✭✭✭hyperborean


    DaireQuinlan wrote: »
    Why do you feel that it's a rip off ? The photographer makes money from prints. By giving you the images she foregoes any money she might make from the prints in the future. €20 seems cheap when you think of it that way.

    If you think it's a rip off you should consider shooting your own kids. It'll probably cost a lot more in the short term at least though, and if it engenders a long and potentially ruinously expensive addiction to photography, in the long run too :-D

    Its 3 pictures, and 8 standard printed copies? €65 I would pay for this, but the digital image of my child is not of value to the photographer as I didnt give permission to use? Why refuse first and then charge more for the digital copy even though it has no further commercial use?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    hyperborean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 655 ✭✭✭hyperborean


    REXER wrote: »
    Did you ever try to get the negatives from the photographer in the days before digital??

    This is exactly the same, the photographer retains the rights to reproduction of the images.

    The negatives were always provided in the time before digital when using a professional photographer?


  • Options
    #8
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,941 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    €65 for 8 prints? that's extremely reasonable.


  • Options
    #9
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,941 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    hyperborean wrote: »
    The negatives were always provided in the time before digital when using a professional photographer?
    no, the contrary. negs were rarely provided.


  • Options
    #10
    DaireQuinlan
    Registered Users Posts: 6,684 ✭✭✭DaireQuinlan


    hyperborean wrote: »
    Its 3 pictures, and 8 standard printed copies? €65 I would pay for this, but the digital image of my child is not of value to the photographer as I didnt give permission to use? Why refuse first and then charge more for the digital copy even though it has no further commercial use?

    Of course they have further commercial use, you might want some more prints of the shots for family, friends, etc etc. If she gives you the digital files you're hardly going to be going back to her for those prints.


  • Options
    #11
    flyingsnail
    Registered Users Posts: 2,752 ✭✭✭flyingsnail


    hyperborean wrote: »
    Its 3 pictures, and 8 standard printed copies? €65 I would pay for this, but the digital image of my child is not of value to the photographer as I didnt give permission to use? Why refuse first and then charge more for the digital copy even though it has no further commercial use?

    But it is, if you ever wanted more prints, then you would be charged. If you have the digital file you won’t order any more prints from the photographer.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    hyperborean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 655 ✭✭✭hyperborean


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    €65 for 8 prints? that's extremely reasonable.

    Thats not the point, when any professional photographer takes a family photo or wedding pictures for example, do they only provide the prints and refuse access to the digital copies without further payment?


  • Options
    #13
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,941 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    hyperborean wrote: »
    Why refuse first and then charge more for the digital copy even though it has no further commercial use?
    because it's his work, his copyright, and if he gives you the digital copy, you can print off as many as you like, and further benefit from his work without benefit to him.
    what you are buying is not the paper your prints are printed on, but the benefit and utility those prints bring to you.

    plus, as mentioned above, lots of photographers are wary about giving the means to create further prints out as they lose quality control over the prints, which can affect peoples' view of how good the photographer is.


  • Options
    #14
    hyperborean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 655 ✭✭✭hyperborean


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    no, the contrary. negs were rarely provided.

    Thats funny, in my experience that would be all the time provided?


  • Options
    #15
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,941 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    hyperborean wrote: »
    Thats not the point, when any professional photographer takes a family photo or wedding pictures for example, do they only provide the prints and refuse access to the digital copies without further payment?
    generally speaking, a professional wedding photographer will not hand over the source files.


  • Options
    #16
    hyperborean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 655 ✭✭✭hyperborean


    Quick question, and one most of you would have experience of- If I got married tomorrow and hired a professional photographer to take the snaps they would in all but rare occasions provide me with the prints and keep the digital copies so as to provide further revenue in the future?


  • Options
    #17
    hyperborean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 655 ✭✭✭hyperborean


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    generally speaking, a professional wedding photographer will not hand over the source files.

    Would they hand over a digital copy was my question? On a CD perhaps


  • Options
    #18
    flyingsnail
    Registered Users Posts: 2,752 ✭✭✭flyingsnail


    hyperborean wrote: »
    Quick question, and one most of you would have experience of- If I got married tomorrow and hired a professional photographer to take the snaps they would in all but rare occasions provide me with the prints and keep the digital copies so as to provide further revenue in the future?
    correct
    hyperborean wrote: »
    Would they hand over a digital copy was my question? On a CD perhaps

    Only if it was agreed upon in your contract and you would be charged accordingly.


  • Options
    #19
    hyperborean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 655 ✭✭✭hyperborean


    flyingsnail wrote: »
    correct



    Only if it was agreed upon in your contract and you would be charged accordingly.

    Thanks for the answer, gives me a good insight into the current professional photography scene.


  • Options
    #20
    Judge
    Registered Users Posts: 507 ✭✭✭Judge


    hyperborean wrote: »
    Its 3 pictures, and 8 standard printed copies? €65 I would pay for this, but the digital image of my child is not of value to the photographer as I didnt give permission to use? Why refuse first and then charge more for the digital copy even though it has no further commercial use?

    The digital image does continue to have value to the photographer since the potential is there for the client (you) to seek further copies. How many people are you going to send the digital copies to?

    For instance, let's say that, at a minimum, you want to give copies to your child's grandparents. If the photographer retains the digital image, that's 2 x €65 = an opportunity cost to the photographer of €130. Even if you decide to only buy one extra set and spilt the pictures between the two sets of grandparents, then that's still an opportunity cost of €65. And of course, the opportunity cost rises if copies are wanted for godparents, aunties, etc.

    Now you might argue that you wouldn't buy any extra copies because the price is too high - even if only 1% of the photographer's clients stump up for extra copies, that still represents more income for the photographer than if he/she handed digital copies over for free.


  • Options
    #21
    hyperborean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 655 ✭✭✭hyperborean


    Judge wrote: »
    The digital image does continue to have value to the photographer since the potential is there for the client (you) to seek further copies. How many people are you going to send the digital copies to?

    For instance, let's say that, at a minimum, you want to give copies to your child's grandparents. If the photographer retains the digital image, that's 2 x €65 = an opportunity cost to the photographer of €130. Even if you decide to only buy one extra set and spilt the pictures between the two sets of grandparents, then that's still an opportunity cost of €65. And of course, the opportunity cost rises if copies are wanted for godparents, aunties, etc.

    Now you might argue that you wouldn't buy any extra copies because the price is too high - even if only 1% of the photographer's clients stump up for extra copies, that still represents more income for the photographer than if he/she handed digital copies over for free.

    Its funny, I am having this discussion IRL with some people in the office and in all cases(weddings, christenings, debs) the professional has provided digital copies of the prints purchased.

    Maybe one of you lovely snappers could start a poll on providing digital copies and the revenue withholding really generates as oppposed to the goodwill of a happy customer?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,941 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    it certainly is becoming more common for photographers to provide the image files, as amateurs who do not make a living from photography, but will happily charge for a wedding, eat into the pro's market share.


  • Options
    #23
    Kenny Logins
    Registered Users Posts: 9,061 ✭✭✭Kenny Logins


    hyperborean wrote: »
    Its funny, I am having this discussion IRL with some people in the office and in all cases(weddings, christenings, debs) the professional has provided digital copies of the prints purchased.

    Maybe one of you lovely snappers could start a poll on providing digital copies and the revenue withholding really generates as oppposed to the goodwill of a happy customer?

    But you didn't hire this photographer, if you had you could have negotiated for the files, or they may have been included in the price.


  • Options
    #24
    Judge
    Registered Users Posts: 507 ✭✭✭Judge


    hyperborean wrote: »
    Its funny, I am having this discussion IRL with some people in the office and in all cases(weddings, christenings, debs) the professional has provided digital copies of the prints purchased.

    Maybe one of you lovely snappers could start a poll on providing digital copies and the revenue withholding really generates as oppposed to the goodwill of a happy customer?

    I would say that in most if not all of those cases the provision of a digital copy was included as part of the contract - this may or may not have been made explicit to the client - and the resultant opportunity cost factored into the price charged.

    Given the circumstances under which the photographer is selling their wares, I would estimate the goodwill cost in this specific situation at or close to zero.


  • Options
    #25
    hyperborean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 655 ✭✭✭hyperborean


    Kenny Logins wrote: »
    But you didn't hire this photographer, if you had you could have negotiated for the files, or they may have been included in the price.

    Another question, if after seeing the pictures I didnt like them can I request the photographer destroy the original?

    Now that I have considersed this I will only ever use the services of professional photographers who provide digital copies as well as the prints I purchase, maybe one of you guys someday,

    Peace


  • Options
    #26
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,941 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    hyperborean wrote: »
    Another question, if after seeing the pictures I didnt like them can I request the photographer destroy the original?
    without meaning to be facetioous - yes, you can request, but the photographer is under no legal obligation to accede to your request.

    your comment about insisting on the digital copies is perfectly reasonable - the issue usually arises when services have been paid for without this point being clarified.


  • Options
    #27
    Kenny Logins
    Registered Users Posts: 9,061 ✭✭✭Kenny Logins


    hyperborean wrote: »
    Another question, if after seeing the pictures I didnt like them can I request the photographer destroy the original?

    Now that I have considersed this I will only ever use the services of professional photographers who provide digital copies as well as the prints I purchase, maybe one of you guys someday,

    Peace

    Yeah, I don't see why not..

    I'm not a photographer BTW, but I can see the importance of controlling digital files.


  • Options
    #28
    Paulw
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 13,381 Mod ✭✭✭✭Paulw


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    without meaning to be facetioous - yes, you can request, but the photographer is under no legal obligation to accede to your request.
    .

    Actually, under the Data Protection Act, the photographer has a legal requirement to keep the data for 7 years. So, he may not be able to delete the images.

    I guess it would depend on the situation though.


  • Options
    #29
    DaireQuinlan
    Registered Users Posts: 6,684 ✭✭✭DaireQuinlan


    Paulw wrote: »
    Actually, under the Data Protection Act, the photographer has a legal requirement to keep the data for 7 years. So, he may not be able to delete the images.

    I guess it would depend on the situation though.

    Do the images themselves (as opposed to the client data) actually fall under the remit of the DPA though ? They're a 'creative work', that the photographer has control over. He certainly can't be forced to hand over a copy of the images on request for example, as the DPA would imply if they were accounted 'data'


  • Options
    #30
    pixbyjohn
    Registered Users Posts: 6,250 ✭✭✭pixbyjohn


    Some photographers do supply digital images to clients on a CD but usually they are of very low resolution and only suitable for viewing on a computer and not for printing.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    flyingsnail
    Registered Users Posts: 2,752 ✭✭✭flyingsnail


    Paulw wrote: »
    Actually, under the Data Protection Act, the photographer has a legal requirement to keep the data for 7 years. So, he may not be able to delete the images.

    I guess it would depend on the situation though.

    I have heard this before but I just dismissed it as urban myth. Could you please point out where it says this.


Advertisement