Is this the future

[ssim]

I was surfing today through a number of photographers websites and was somewhat disappointed to see so many people that are doing wedding photography give away the original images on a CD. Is this the way the market is shaping up for wedding photographers. To me it just doesn't make any sense to give away the one thing that will almost guarantee you subsequent sales.

I've done my fair share of weddings in both film and digital mediums and have always made more off of the resale of additional albums and enlargements than I have off of taking the wedding itself. This is akin to just handing the client an envelope full of negatives, speaking from my film days. This would have been unheard of.

I suppose that this is the way to go if you are only interested in doing just the wedding without having to worry about all of the post processing. I do however feel that this is just lowering the bar. I'm not necessarily advocating you shouldn't do this if it works for you. I am interested in the reasoning behind this when there is so much more money to be made in the post event sales.

[JaertX]

No way man...I agree...it's lowering the bar.

Of course, it depends on what market you're going after. I know a guy here in town that will shoot for two hours at a wedding for $250 and give all the images on cd. Another studio averages (it's rumored) $8k to $10k a wedding and doesn't "give" anything out. A friend of mine is in the $3k-$7k range and will raise her rates next year and she doesn't give anything out and is busier than she wants to be.

It may be a harsh opinion of mine, but I think the whole idea of giving out your images on cd is for photogs that either don't take it serious and don't care to (which is fine, really) or loser photogs working on putting themselves out of business. Is that harsh? Lol.

Some interesting dialog about this over at ourppa.com as well.

(edit) - USD on those numbers, btw.

[buffalophotographer]

Well with a lot of people doing their own post processing and scrap booking and think that they can save money or are tired of the same old albums provided by the photographers. I personally build the cost of the album and the copyrights into my price so the customer get a pro album and when they print their own they see the difference in quality and still come back to me for extras.

[dgcorner]

I hear what you're saying... I'm actually surprised that it is trending this way. One would think that the photog has the right to keep the files and earn a little more from subsequent orders.

Then again, it probably also depends on the contract between photog and customer. Maybe the photogs couldn't be bothered reproducing the prints...

[VanceW]

So far, I have all of one wedding under my belt, and that was done for a freind, and done at a very cut rate price.

But the deal I offered him was this. 4 8x10's and 4 5x7's prints, and all other images would be reduced to 5x7 and burned to a CD so that he could print any others that he and his bride would want for an album.

The next wedding I do, if given the chance, will definately be for more money, and the only way I'll offer the CD's is if they are willing to pay the additional price, and they'll still be reduced in size. :)

[tim]

I find this more prevalent among lower end photographers, as a drawcard to make the sale. I offer these for an additional fee, quite a reasonable fee, but still a fee.

[carl1645]

We also offer the disc for sale but on the release licence we give it states that the images are for personal use only, no manipulation or editing allowed and should any wedding suplier ask for pictures of there products, cake, dresses etc then they must be referred to us. I found last year that people would still order reprints from us and buy the disc as well, especially if they were wanting large reprints.
Carl

[scorpiojo]

What I have done to compromise is give low resolution images of 100 to 150 kb and have them pay a fee for the real deal if they come back. The high resolution images are a barganing chip and is worth $

[PIXI_666]

Hmmm....yes i guess some photographer's offer this, if i were to give away my negatives (CD of high res photos) id be charging quite a bit for them. Usually back in the day i remember Wedding Photographers using film, giving you the proof book or contact sheets, and then you would get your enlargements - after 5yrs the B&G can then purchase the negs for $500 +

I still dont think id give away the CD of all my images...i personally think you make most of your sales off reprints anyway?

Del

[jamiewexler]

I give a lower rez CD with the option to buy the high rez for a fee. I also offer online ordering. You know what? Giving a CD hasn't affected my print sales at all that I can see. And last year I was a budget photographer, so you'd think the couples I worked with would have printed their own. Maybe some did, but they gave the online gallery out to their friends and family who ordered thousands of dollars of prints from me. I think, when it comes down to it, couples like the idea of having a CD of the images, but once they have it, realize how much work it is filling all of the print orders for their families.

[dengli]

Whose wedding is it any way and if you retain the images yourself are you not just trying to squeeze more money out of clients who have probably paid big bucks for the priviledge of hiring you in the first place??

With film I wouldn't give the negatives away as they are the only source of original image information. Digital files are essentially different and old considerations do not
apply. Wedding couples are unlikely to make hugh sums of money from their own images unlike images taken for corporate clients and I find that they (the bride and Groom) still come back for reprints because of the higher quality that I can provide with both post processing and printing.

To each his (her) own

[song4themoon]

Well I admit I am one of THOSE that give them away. My reasons....
I am new to the business and it is a great way to get customers as I go and gain experience I will raise the prices for this.

Also.... I luckily dont have to earn a living with what I do. It makes me happy to give people the opportunity to get something they usually couldnt afford. That gives me more back than some extra money, seriously.

My main concern is the actualy "act" of photography and afterwork on the computer. I dont do my own prints, I order them out. I am not interested in selling prints and making lots of money of of it ... in the end the client will only order a few prints because they can not afford more and everything else is sitting here unused when the client could use them and would love to have them if he could afford it.


I bet many of you may disagree but I hope it gave a little bit of insight why some photographers add the proofs

[JeffJensen]

Is it the future? Probably. But you don't "give" them away - you price up front. Look at your sales records (you do keep records, dont' you?), determine your average print sales and build that into your pricing. Not relying on print sales can be liberating - and it is a marketing tool
Is it prevelant among low-end shooters? Yes
Is it prevelant among high-end shooters? Yes
You must be prepared to adapt!

[rlhphotos]

I find this more prevalent among lower end photographers, as a drawcard to make the sale. I offer these for an additional fee, quite a reasonable fee, but still a fee.


I dont consider myself a low end photographer for my area at least, and I give out the CD's becasue yes it does make the sale and two Ive made my money off them already no need to continually charge people for reprints. Im comfortable with the stream of business and Im not worried about reprint money all that much...If they loose their original CD then they get charged for a second one. Then again Im trying to target a lower budget audience also for now since this is just a side job. Maybe when my wife goes full time with this gig, we'll restructure the pricing but for now it works for us.

[barryburgard]

I work in the education setting (kindergarten through high school). I see so many families that can not afford a read pro so I offer myself as an alternative they can afford. I will do senior pictures and weddings with very limited budgets. I like to say that I'm not as good as the high priced pro's but I am a lot better than "Uncle Joe!" I feel it is a service to my customers and it makes me feel good as well. I do only basic editing (color correction and sharpening) and burn to CD for them to print. That gives the customer a way to budget for prints as they can be afforded. I offer more highly processed and special conversions for an additional fee. I hope this gives you some more insight into this practice.

Barry

[sapearl]

Your copyright is your copyright and I'm really not sure what the difference is between your celluloid negatives or your "digital negatives." These are YOUR original images; I see no difference.

As a wedding photographer you are in business to do business and not give the store away. If the client wishes to purchase reprints from my negs and/or digital files, I am not forcing them to do that. I will charge them a fair and reasonable price though with PS post processing creative time and effort. They will also get strict quality control output of the prints.

But yes, the times they are 'a-changing, and I have to take a second look at my pricing model.

I currently offer package pricing: B&G get my time for the day, x-number of proofs in a proof album, x-number of enlargements in a finished book, all for a set fee. When clients ask about purchasing a CD of images, I explain that a high rez disk(s) of images can also be had for $$$$$, further explaining that this represents calculated "lost" sales that I likely will not get from them since they can make their own. Being up front about this I've never had a potential client take offense or become unreasonable.

Photographers in my area offer currently offer high resolution disks for $700 - 1000. Personally I feel this is a bit on the high side and offer mine for about $500, in ADDITION to my package price. And still, my pricing is mid-range for the region. But you're right, it's a decision we each will have to make as there are no "industry standards."

Whose wedding is it any way and if you retain the images yourself are you not just trying to squeeze more money out of clients who have probably paid big bucks for the priviledge of hiring you in the first place??

With film I wouldn't give the negatives away as they are the only source of original image information. Digital files are essentially different and old considerations do not
apply. Wedding couples are unlikely to make hugh sums of money from their own images unlike images taken for corporate clients and I find that they (the bride and Groom) still come back for reprints because of the higher quality that I can provide with both post processing and printing.

To each his (her) own

[Moppie]

I think there is possibly a shift towards new comers to the market putting a value on thier time, rather than thier images.

I was thinking about something similar the other day, and the accesiblity of information on the internet has lowered its value.
10 years ago if you want information that was close at hand you had to spend several thousand dollars on a set of encyclopedias. Now you just open Google.
As a result information has lost a lot of its value, and since photographs are often viewed as being information (especialy when in a digital format) they are being under-valued, but both new photographers, and new customers.

Its all part of the market adjusting to a new medium, must be a very trying time to be a proffesional photographer at the moment.

[JaertX]

Is it the future? Probably. But you don't "give" them away - you price up front. Look at your sales records (you do keep records, dont' you?), determine your average print sales and build that into your pricing. Not relying on print sales can be liberating - and it is a marketing tool
Is it prevelant among low-end shooters? Yes
Is it prevelant among high-end shooters? Yes
You must be prepared to adapt!

which high-end shooters?

[DocFrankenstein]

Everybody with a Drebel claims to be a photographer and wants to shoot and get money for it. One recent example is the pro whose assistant needs better lenses, but doesn't know what an aperture is.

Maybe there's clientelle that doesn't mind non-processed images... maybe they don't know any better... maybe they can't afford to pay.

I'm sure there were similar worries 20 (or 30? ) years ago, when people were shooting medium format and the 35mm film was starting being used. I can see people worrying - "Is this the future? No more medium format - just inferior 135?"

It also might be an indicator of professionalism. If you give away your raw files - the clients tinker all they want. For you to be able to process the raw files, you need to calibrate your monitor to your printer... which costs money and processing time.

I'm ranting. ;)

[kampphoto]

personally i give my clients a copy of their full res images on CD. why do i do this? well i do this becuase it is what i want when i have my wedding photos taken next year. i have seen some of the god aweful post processing some photographers do to their images, and personally i wouldn't pay for a print of something i didn't like. all of this may be because i know photoshop, and i'd be much more apt to do my own post and prints.

now don't get me wrong for my clients i do post processing, and i do give clients printed photos with the package, but i like to give people an option to do their own post, and get re-prints as they see fit. i am more then busy enough doing other things then to spend time running to the printers and keeping track of how my 5x7's people want.

this all may change in the future, but for now it's what works for me. if you're a photographer that doesn't give your clients a copy... well thats how you do business. for the photographers that do give away a copy of all the images... thats how they do business.

in this day and age if you want to survive in business you need to learn how to adapt and change... and try to give your clients what they want. 90% of people i deal with want their full res files and i think more and more people will want them, and for those photographers that don't do it... well more business for those of us who do.

[JaertX]

Okay...I stand corrected on this one. Apparently there are some who still sell files/negatives. David Roberts (founder of WPJA) does. Of course, he still shoots film and doesn't charge much (in comparison to what I would call "high end"), but he sell his negatives nonetheless.

http://www.ctphotojournalist.com/rates/5-9hours/index.shtml

[tim]

$500 per hour... wow.

[sapearl]

I still offer album packages which includes time, proofs in an album and a finished book with specific number of enlargements, all for a flat fee. I make no mention of providing negatives or disks.

However, I am starting to get more requests for a DVD of the images which does tell me something about "market expectations." When the client makes the inquiry, then I quote a high resolution disk price, which is in addition to the package price. After all, that disk can represent lost sales.

Some here have offered to include, at no extra charge, a low rez disk with their albums as a way to provide screen images but still avoid potential lost "print" sales. I like that idea too and may adopt it, but I am concerned that the client may attempt to print from this disk (in spite of warnings) and then represent this work to other potential customers, as the type of quality I provide.


Okay...I stand corrected on this one. Apparently there are some who still sell files/negatives. David Roberts (founder of WPJA) does. Of course, he still shoots film and doesn't charge much (in comparison to what I would call "high end"), but he sell his negatives nonetheless.

http://www.ctphotojournalist.com/rates/5-9hours/index.shtml

[newbie_photog]

I know of a top end photog locally that offers a Digital album on cd but the way it is written to the cd they cannot be copyied or printed from the CD. There are ways around that but it can be difficult unless you know exactly how to decript the cd. I am undecided weather or not to offer a cd, I think I may for now while I am still learning just as an incentive for people to use me as their photog.

Jared

[DocFrankenstein]

I know of a top end photog locally that offers a Digital album on cd but the way it is written to the cd they cannot be copyied or printed from the CD. There are ways around that but it can be difficult unless you know exactly how to decript the cd. I am undecided weather or not to offer a cd, I think I may for now while I am still learning just as an incentive for people to use me as their photog.
Anybody can decrypt a CD. There's tons of freeware for the purpose.

The market has their expectations, you have your business.

If I were shooting, I'd probably wouldn't release the digital images at all. Big or small.

It's my work and my reputation - the client's winpaintbrush and walmart labmonkeys don't enter the equation. Prints only.

[StealthLude]

Dont give em SH1T!!!! =)

Its in all photographers best intrest to hold on to their masters or negatives... I wouldnt not even bring up that I can put it on a CD unless they asked for it. And if they did, I would tell them, It would still need to be post processed, and everything done my our lab, which is my bedroom. And as Tim said, CHARGE A FEE.

Depending on how much work went into it, I would charge quite a bit, because I would factor in the cost of my prints + additional prints that may have been ordered.

Terrible other photographers are "lowering the bar"

[StealthLude]

I know of a top end photog locally that offers a Digital album on cd but the way it is written to the cd they cannot be copyied or printed from the CD. There are ways around that but it can be difficult unless you know exactly how to decript the cd. I am undecided weather or not to offer a cd, I think I may for now while I am still learning just as an incentive for people to use me as their photog.

Jared

Id have that CD ripped in 5 min. Too many people out there, and too much software avalible to do stuff like that. Any 12 year old with an internet connection can take care of that.

Giving stuff out on CD should be last resort. One thing I will make, or have made, is using apples DVD Studio Pro, is photo SlideShow CDs.. The resolution of the picture is for a Home TV, so ripping and printing off that would make the printed image look like crap.

[sapearl]

As I mentioned earlier several clients and potential customers have inquired about purchasing disks of their weddings. But once I quoted a price for the digital files "in addition" to the cost of coverage and main album, they seemed to lose interest.

Another alternative is to offer low rez previews on the web for clients as well as their family members. Clients can place credit card orders on the site and then the photographer places the request with the lab. A couple of other pros in my area do this and have realized some modest sales. i haven't decided one way or another yet.

[sapearl]

Does anyone have experience using " collages.net " for generating wedding or portrait sales?

[Curtis N]

It's my work and my reputation - the client's winpaintbrush and walmart labmonkeys don't enter the equation. Prints only.Flatbed scanners are cheap and common. Photo quality inkjet printers are cheap and common. Copying a print is nearly as simple as printing a jpeg from a CD. Output will depend on original print size and operator skill.

This is conjecture. I don't know how many people would make their own copies of wedding prints just to save money. But perhaps this apparent shift in the "standard" wedding photog business model stems from a realization that many people have the ability to duplicate prints anyway. God knows most people don't care about copyright.

And the average dude with his own scanner and printer might do more damage to your work and your reputation than the same guy with winpaintbrush and walmart labmonkeys.

[DocFrankenstein]

Flatbed scanners are cheap and common. Photo quality inkjet printers are cheap and common. Copying a print is nearly as simple as printing a jpeg from a CD. Output will depend on original print size and operator skill.

This is conjecture. I don't know how many people would make their own copies of wedding prints just to save money. But perhaps this apparent shift in the "standard" wedding photog business model stems from a realization that many people have the ability to duplicate prints anyway. God knows most people don't care about copyright.

And the average dude with his own scanner and printer might do more damage to your work and your reputation than the same guy with winpaintbrush and walmart labmonkeys.
Good point. Got me there.

But I think an average bride wouldn't reproduce the printed photo as much as she would a low res digital one.

Maybe the price should include the pictures AND account for the reproduction too?

Or maybe to buy the first print they'd have to pay for the creative side... and the reprints from that image would be at the cost of the print. That would surely discourage the scan and print method. :D

[pixelessays]

creative editing can be a selling point too. i go with first a shopping cart style... have let them preview all smaller res proofs... pick out which ones they want in a book or such... and pay by the photo.

[bpuppy]

I'm think of starting to include an album in my pricing, and printed proofs instead of strictly digital proofing ... my price will go up, but hopefully this will appeal to the more 'high-end' brides ... but then there's no fear of this because all the money you could make is built into the fee.

[sapearl]

Hardcopy proofs, a main album package - these have worked well for me over the years. Calculate all your fixed costs, add the value of your time, total it up and I'm sure you could come up with a very reasonable yet competitive price for your area.

With a set package fee the client knows EXACTLY what to expect and what they are getting, and you assure yourself of a fair and reasonable profit. Both parties walk away happy :D .

I'm think of starting to include an album in my pricing, and printed proofs instead of strictly digital proofing ... my price will go up, but hopefully this will appeal to the more 'high-end' brides ... but then there's no fear of this because all the money you could make is built into the fee.

[twinsrus]

If you aren't careful, people are going to take your "proofs" and make copies, no matter how crappy the resolution. So I figure, offer a package with all the pictures on a CD and nothing else - low end - $700-800. What are you out - one CD. Offer more stuff, but at a price - ala carte. Build a client base and learn how to shoot real photography. Then go for what the market will bear.

My experience in other things not photographic is that, right or wrong, the more you charge, the busier you are. People equate price with quality. Works in schools, works in photography, works in fast cars. Doesn't always guarantee performance. I was at my step sister's wedding where the photographer was hustling my sister at the bar for most of the reception. At the cake shots, I kneeled right in front of him and took the same series of shots. Fifteen years ago, the wedding was $1500. Don't know what that equates to now, but it seemed like a fortune then. Turns out he lost a roll of film, and if I hadn't been there, they would have had very few reception shots.

[Jaymz]

....and learn how to shoot real photography.

I am curious, what do you mean by this?

[sapearl]

I wouldn't be surprised if that's what happens in some cases... that's why I always build enough profit is built into the package price to cover the "lost sales." But doesn't providing a CD make reproduction even easier then, seeing as how they don't really care about quality?

And as for the other..... Gee, some "pro" she picked for $1500 to "make time" instead of photographs - sad situation.

If you aren't careful, people are going to take your "proofs" and make copies, no matter how crappy the resolution. So I figure, offer a package with all the pictures on a CD and nothing else - low end - $700-800.

..........I was at my step sister's wedding where the photographer was hustling my sister at the bar for most of the reception. At the cake shots, I kneeled right in front of him and took the same series of shots. Fifteen years ago, the wedding was $1500. .......

[twinsrus]

Lax -

I meant I want to do all the things I have been looking at on this site. I haven't learned to do that yet. I know how to take good pictures. I'm confident of that. But I want to take really, really beautiful creative pioctures. That takes time and dedication. But I figure it will come, then I can reassess what I'm doing and hopefully, become a really good, creative wedding photgrapher.

[Jaymz]

Lax -

I meant I want to do all the things I have been looking at on this site. I haven't learned to do that yet. I know how to take good pictures. I'm confident of that. But I want to take really, really beautiful creative pioctures. That takes time and dedication. But I figure it will come, then I can reassess what I'm doing and hopefully, become a really good, creative wedding photgrapher.

With enough practice and devotion to the art, I believe anyone can do it. It may take some alot longer than others, heh. :)

[sapearl]

np :D . I understand. When the fellow asks the question: "How do I get to Carnegie Hall?" and the answer is "practice, practice.... practice." It all takes time.

Every wedding you shoot you learn new things about WHAT to do and what NOT to do. And it's good that you're confident because that is a major aspect of the art. What's nice about digital is that you can see most of your results and experiments right away - I'm having a blast with my first dSLR - whereas us film dinosaurs would have to wait at least a couple of days before seeing our mistakes ;) .

Lax -

I meant I want to do all the things I have been looking at on this site. I haven't learned to do that yet. I know how to take good pictures. I'm confident of that. But I want to take really, really beautiful creative pioctures. That takes time and dedication. But I figure it will come, then I can reassess what I'm doing and hopefully, become a really good, creative wedding photgrapher.

[Shockey]

The future is now.
Most brides want to pay just enough to get decent pictures on a disc. They will then share them on line.
The few they do print they can easily get for peanuts at on online photo processor, and yes you can buy high quality prints online.
If they want a book, they will design and order it themselves from an on line book vendor.
I think this is probably around 80% of the market, in numbers of weddings.

Most photos are only ever viewed on line.

There will always be the people with money who will just hire the whole thing out and shop around for the best photographer they can find for the highest quality product.
They don't care that the photographer charges them $50. or a print they can get online for $2. or they the photographer charges them $2000. for a book they could design themselves on line for $400.

People will argue quality....truth is most of the wedding market can't tell a quality photograph from a bad photograph....and very few are willing to pay the extra money to get the higher quality product, because good enough works.

[sapearl]

Hi Mike - I agree with much of what you are saying.... wow, talk about resurrecting an old thread :D. Things have gotten much worst since those first posts.

It all goes back to consumer education. The more educated the buyer is, the more they know about what they really WANT to purchase vs. what they don't care to buy. Some are easily snookered, and there are plenty of bogus pro's and poor amateurs out there to take advantage of the unwary.

Yes, printing has vastly improved over the years and it's possible to get great hardcopy images for extremely reasonable pricing now.

But what many b/g's don't realize (or don't care about) when they purchase a disk form the shoot & burner is that many apply minimal to no PP to the images. This is where quality photofinishing will really shine, retouching is included, and artistic effect will enhance the image. When you shop for price alone, this is often what gets left out. And those deficiencies will show up anywhere..... be it framed print, album, iPhone, Facebook, Online Gallery, or email.

[mickificki]

Read most of the posts on here, and I honestly don't know the trend of most wedding photographers, but the ones I visited all offered full sized digital copies (jpegs, not raw files).

The pictures came out great, so I wouldn't consider my photographer a low-level one.

I respect most of your opinions, and do agree that you need to make money, but frankly, I find it comical to the nth degree that you think it's YOUR copyright.

YOUR copyright, when I'm paying THOUSANDS of dollars for someone to take pictures at MY WEDDING??

My photographer gave us all the pictures he took, and I will happily purchase more "parents" albums from him, because he is the Photoshop expert who can touch up pictures and make them look great. I, like 95% of all people, don't have Photoshop skills and the eye to make the pictures look great.

You don't need to protect YOUR property in order to make money. Make your pictures available to your clients and I guarantee you they will ask you to touch up pictures and purchase albums, at which point they will "SHOW YOU THE MONEY!".

[sapearl]

Yes - it is our copyright and not that of the buying client unless relinquished in writing. Read U.S. copyright law. You have paid thousands of dollars for his expertise, time, PP of the digital files, and possibly some prints and albums. But you do not own the copyright.

That being said, when I include the high rez disk in my package I do so with the intent of giving the client the full rights to reproduce the images for his/her personal use. I will include a letter stating this, as well as a readme file on the disk should the photofinisher or printer of their choice challenge their right to having the images printed.

Btw micki, I'm glad you were pleased with the hard work of your pro. You are likely an honest person with integrity but there are plenty of folks out there who routinely rip-off images and use them for a variety of purposes. That's why intellectual property needs to be protected. This is why our images are copyrighted. Why do you feel it is comical that we are trying to protect our creativity?

Read most of the posts on here, and I honestly don't know the trend of most wedding photographers, but the ones I visited all offered full sized digital copies (jpegs, not raw files).

The pictures came out great, so I wouldn't consider my photographer a low-level one.

I respect most of your opinions, and do agree that you need to make money, but frankly, I find it comical to the nth degree that you think it's YOUR copyright.

YOUR copyright, when I'm paying THOUSANDS of dollars for someone to take pictures at MY WEDDING??

My photographer gave us all the pictures he took, and I will happily purchase more "parents" albums from him, because he is the Photoshop expert who can touch up pictures and make them look great. I, like 95% of all people, don't have Photoshop skills and the eye to make the pictures look great.

You don't need to protect YOUR property in order to make money. Make your pictures available to your clients and I guarantee you they will ask you to touch up pictures and purchase albums, at which point they will "SHOW YOU THE MONEY!".

[RT McAllister]

YOUR copyright, when I'm paying THOUSANDS of dollars for someone to take pictures at MY WEDDING??Then you must certainly have issues with every book author and movie producer who sold you the end result of their efforts.

My photographer gave us all the pictures he tookMost do. Nothing new here.

Photographers don't hide behind copyright laws and "horde" the images
they take just to piss people off or because they have some grand plans to display them in the metropolitan art museum down the road.

Like the books you buy, they protect their products so people can't claim the expertise as their own or modify the product from its original form. It's really quite simple.

You don't need to protect YOUR property in order to make money.No offense but this is really an asinine statement.

Make your pictures available to your clients and I guarantee you they will ask you to touch up pictures and purchase albums, at which point they will "SHOW YOU THE MONEY!".Like I said, the photos are indeed made "available" to clients. You can print them, email them, share them on the web (usually)... even wipe your arse with 'em if that's what you want to do... (all quite legal I might add).

You just can't sell them, modify them or give them away to your brother-in-law who is an aspiring photographer that needs a portfolio of his own.

Very liberal terms if you ask me.

[sapearl]

Micki - here's another example that may illustrate the copyright concept a bit better.

While my father was alive he was a Cleveland artist of some reknown for many decades. His work got into shows, exhibits, sometimes won awards, and enjoyed periodic sales. He wasn't big into marketting though and painted for the sheer pleasure of it....much as many of us photographers here do.

Back in the '80's and '90's he sold several oils to a local law firm. The owner was a collector and respected my dad's work a great deal. His law firm was taking out a full cover ad on the back of the local Yellow Pages and he wanted to use one of the paintings he'd purchased as a backdrop for the text.

The lawyer clearly owned the painting. But he did NOT own the copyright; dad never sold those. But he did approach my father, in writing, asking for permission to copy his painting for the stated advertising purposes. They came to an agreement.... perhaps some sort of licensing or "use" arrangement (it was more than 20 years ago) and everybody was happy.

The point is, the lawyer was correct to seek publication permission because he did not own the copyright or the publication rights. But my dad was a reasonable sort, knew these folks, and worked out an agreement to everybody's happiness.

......I respect most of your opinions, and do agree that you need to make money, but frankly, I find it comical to the nth degree that you think it's YOUR copyright.

YOUR copyright, when I'm paying THOUSANDS of dollars for someone to take pictures at MY WEDDING??
.....You don't need to protect YOUR property in order to make money. Make your pictures available to your clients and I guarantee you they will ask you to touch up pictures and purchase albums, at which point they will "SHOW YOU THE MONEY!".

[PhotoMatte]

I was surfing today through a number of photographers websites and was somewhat disappointed to see so many people that are doing wedding photography give away the original images on a CD. Is this the way the market is shaping up for wedding photographers. To me it just doesn't make any sense to give away the one thing that will almost guarantee you subsequent sales.

I've done my fair share of weddings in both film and digital mediums and have always made more off of the resale of additional albums and enlargements than I have off of taking the wedding itself. This is akin to just handing the client an envelope full of negatives, speaking from my film days. This would have been unheard of.

I suppose that this is the way to go if you are only interested in doing just the wedding without having to worry about all of the post processing. I do however feel that this is just lowering the bar. I'm not necessarily advocating you shouldn't do this if it works for you. I am interested in the reasoning behind this when there is so much more money to be made in the post event sales.

When wedding photography backed its way into the digital age, kicking and screaming, it changed the way the whole business is run. In the past (using film), the photographer was completely dependent on making most of his/her money after the wedding on prints, enlargements, etc. A lot of established pros I've spoken with over the years have tried to hold on to this tradition, where they can make more money after the wedding than they did shooting the wedding. The problem with this approach is that, like it or not, almost every wedding these days will have quite a few guests that have decent, pro-sumer cameras and lenses...and they give away all of their images to the B&G. In no way am I implying that these guests' images are anywhere near as good as the images we shoot for a living, but the expectations that they could be are definitely out there among younger brides and grooms. One way to compete with this misperception is to offer our clients images on a DVD. I don't think we should be doing that for free, however. Think of it this way: if a traditional photographer used to make $1000 for shooting the wedding and another $3000 after the wedding (with prints, albums, etc), why not change our business model and charge $5000 up front, then tell the B&G that your price includes images on a DVD, as well as a small album credit? That way you look as if you're 'giving away' the images (but don't relinquish your copyright, just printing rights), when you're actually making just as much money as you used to. This isn't a devious practice, it's just practical for both parties: the photographer gets paid what he/she is worth and the clients gets what they want -- a great wedding photographer and the images on a disc.

[sapearl]

Matt, you make some very good points and I agree with much of your rationale. And that's what I do now, building the high rez disk into the front end of the package. Btw - in the future please use paragraph breaks. You will get more readers and it will also make it much easier on us old geezer's eyes.;)