How to not hand over original pictures?

[Ceroneous]

Hi, I was wondering when you sell your works to people but you dont want to give them the copy that has all of the settings info how do you do that? I was told not to give originals unless Im compensated. If anyone has advise or knows what im talking about better than I do please explain. Thanks

[gooble]

It depends on what you're selling.

Are you talking about stripping EXIF data? If they want some low resolution digital files you could strip the EXIF data, which you can do in Photoshop by exporting for web.

I think what most people do is sell a product based on their work not the work itself. So I'd imagine that many people avoid selling anything but low resolution images (like for a wedding) or don't sell digital files at all.

I think that most photographers would charge a very high rate if the client wants the original digital file. Like $1000 or more per image depending on the work and the client. But I'm new to this so those with more experience can probably answer better.

[Mathiau]

do not send them TIFF / raw, i think most people send them jpegs saved, selling the original raw file meas they buyer can do what ever they want with it, thus avoiding you basically.

I agree if someone wants the RAW format, they pay through the nose for it.

[tim]

You should sell JPG files, as they're universally understood. RAW is useless to most people. TIFF is usually unnecessary, and I don't sell those. Strip the EXIF data from a JPG using something like EXIFer - free but windows only.

[Ceroneous]

OK thanks, I think it is the EXIF data im trying to get rid of so they see just the image and not the shot information. I shoot only in Jpeg since I dont have to edit the pictures.

[photoguy6405]

I can't help it, but I always chuckle when someone suggests that an individual image is worth $1000 as a high-res file. If it's something like a portrait or wedding, I mean, which would have a very limited audience. I could see how other stuff might be.

Anyway, it'd have to be the rare image that would ever earn a return of anywhere near that by itself in terms of print/low-res sales, so I always figure the price is meant more to discourage a sale more than an actuall value.

[KIPAX]

Why strip the EXIF ?

[TeeJay]

.... I shoot only in Jpeg since I dont have to edit the pictures.

Please don't take this wrong - but you must be one amazing photographer if you don't need to edit your images in any way!

TJ

[Andrushka]

wow, you must be one heck of a sales person! i genuinely say that as someone who struggles in that area... what is your sales secret?

[Ceroneous]

Also If you want to give me some CC TeeJay Id appreciate every bit, I'm here to learn :)

[Andrushka]

Why strip the EXIF ?

i am curious about this too - anyone?

[poloman]

I see absolutely no point in stripping EXIF info. In fact, a law may be passed soon called the Orphaned Works Law. This would mean that if you don't add your name and copyright to a digital file, it could be used for any purpose whatsoever without consulting you. There is an article about this in the March Range Finder magazine. I wouldn't sell images too cheaply. I offer a slide show DVD set to music. The images can't be printed but the slide show can be played on a DVD player.

[derky82]

I see absolutely no point in stripping EXIF info. In fact, a law may be passed soon called the Orphaned Works Law. This would mean that if you don't add your name and copyright to a digital file, it could be used for any purpose whatsoever without consulting you. There is an article about this in the March Range Finder magazine. I wouldn't sell images too cheaply. I offer a slide show DVD set to music. The images can't be printed but the slide show can be played on a DVD player.

Good call! I was just goign to refer to the latest Rangefinder edition... I defintiely wouldn't be stripping EXIF if I were planning on selling the file. Though I certainly am not at the Pro level... so there may be some reason that I am not aware of.

- Derek

[tim]

I strip EXIF because my customer have no need to know how I took the shot. I add copyright information though.

[derky82]

I strip EXIF because my customer have no need to know how I took the shot. I add copyright information though.

That makes sense. That was pretty much the point that the article made, is that your copyright info should remain intact. (they just happened to lump it into the EXIF data.)

-Derek

[JTVal]

It depends on what you're selling.

I think that most photographers would charge a very high rate if the client wants the original digital file. Like $1000 or more per image depending on the work and the client. But I'm new to this so those with more experience can probably answer better.

$1000per image? Do you have some blackmail material of a governor or something?:lol:

If you asked the bride/groom for $1000 for the digital file you may get punched but you certainly would not get recommendations from them. My price for a digital file is about $30-50 for MOST photos.
They also get a lower res shot though and most of the time I put my copyright info on it.
I sold a picture recently that is going to be used in a low budget movie.
I got $50 for it. You may think I got robbed but it was a picture of a parachute harness that is going to be digitally entered into the movie.

It was to help with a special effect. $50 was fine. It took me 37 seconds to get the shot.

Now, if I was shooting the poster for the next big blockbuster I would expect more.

[gooble]

$1000per image? Do you have some blackmail material of a governor or something?:lol:

If you asked the bride/groom for $1000 for the digital file you may get punched but you certainly would not get recommendations from them. My price for a digital file is about $30-50 for MOST photos.
They also get a lower res shot though and most of the time I put my copyright info on it.
I sold a picture recently that is going to be used in a low budget movie.
I got $50 for it. You may think I got robbed but it was a picture of a parachute harness that is going to be digitally entered into the movie.

It was to help with a special effect. $50 was fine. It took me 37 seconds to get the shot.

Now, if I was shooting the poster for the next big blockbuster I would expect more.

Well I may have gone over the mark with $1000, but I was thinking along the lines of for an ad campaign or something like that. Not every image of a wedding. However, wouldn't a fairly high price be in order for someone to buy several portrait shots, say if they were a model/actor/professional of some sort?

I just sold use of a picture of mine in a niche consumer product and got $150 and I'd have considered selling the image outright for $500-600 so $1000 does not seem that far out there.

[tim]

Commercial, portrait, and wedding pricing are all quite different from one another.

[jbimages]

That makes sense. That was pretty much the point that the article made, is that your copyright info should remain intact. (they just happened to lump it into the EXIF data.)

-Derek
copyright, photographers details, caption, title, rights usage terms, etc. are all in IPTC data, not EXIF.

EXIF data is the camera make, exposure details, lens used, camera serial number, camera owner's name (If you have set in in the camera), etc.

[derky82]

copyright, photographers details, caption, title, rights usage terms, etc. are all in IPTC data, not EXIF.

EXIF data is the camera make, exposure details, lens used, camera serial number, camera owner's name (If you have set in in the camera), etc.

Ohhh! Thank you for the explaination. I guess I had always been under the impression that all the metadata was referred to as the "EXIF." I'm still new to this, so I appreciate you taking the time to explain the difference.

-Derek

[jbimages]

Ohhh! Thank you for the explaination. I guess I had always been under the impression that all the metadata was referred to as the "EXIF." I'm still new to this, so I appreciate you taking the time to explain the difference.

-Derek
IPTC goes back to around the 1970's, long before digital cameras and got its name from the International Press Telecommunications Council, one of the groups responsible for the standards.
There is a bit of history at http://www.controlledvocabulary.com/imagedatabases/iptc_naa.html along with a link that describes the fields that photoshop uses.

[JTVal]

Well I may have gone over the mark with $1000, but I was thinking along the lines of for an ad campaign or something like that. Not every image of a wedding. However, wouldn't a fairly high price be in order for someone to buy several portrait shots, say if they were a model/actor/professional of some sort?

I just sold use of a picture of mine in a niche consumer product and got $150 and I'd have considered selling the image outright for $500-600 so $1000 does not seem that far out there.


For a major advertising campaign then yes, the number would be in the thousands, I guess.
I've still not sold anything on that level but maybe someday...
The picture is only worth what YOU want for it. If you find someone to buy it at the price (or higher) than you're good. I found that many people are fickle when it comes to price. But if you look at my photo link you'll see that I've got more than just my caerma equipment and ability involved.

[bacchanal]

I think the idea behind $1000 an image for a RAW file isn't so much that one would be selling RAW files for $1000, the point is really that one wouldn't be selling the RAW files.;)

[transcend]

$1000per image? Do you have some blackmail material of a governor or something?:lol:

If you asked the bride/groom for $1000 for the digital file you may get punched but you certainly would not get recommendations from them. My price for a digital file is about $30-50 for MOST photos.

This pricing is ridiculously low.

[Blender7]

I think 1000 for an image file is insane. I am currently selling mine for $15 with no copyright and they have all access to the file. Is that to cheap?

[transcend]

I think 1000 for an image file is insane. I am currently selling mine for $15 with no copyright and they have all access to the file. Is that to cheap?

Yes.

[Alexajlex]

It depends what kind of settings you are referring to.

If I was looking at a pic and was thinking "How did they do that"
It would more than likely be a question of the look, skin tone, etc.

It would not be a question of what shutter speed, AP, ISO, DOF, WB they used, (was flash used), focal length since I have a pretty decent understanding of how these things work. These are the settings that are typically embedded in the EXIF file.

So if someone had a Jpg and I wanted to get the look (again not looking for AP, ISO, DOF, etc.)

I'd load that in ACR (you do have ACR setup to open JPGs, right?).

Then I would load up one of my own similar RAW files and start playing until I get close to the look. I flip back and forth between the 2 pics to check my progress. I know that you can't do everything in ACR and there is a point where I just stop save the settings as a new ACR preset. I then move on on to PS with both files opened and continue to adjust mine until I get the look similar to the other file.


It is just like the Dave Hill "look" has been captured in an ACR preset (granted that Dave does a lot of work with the light itself so the ACR preset will get you close but you have to do some light work as well"

http://www.scottkelby.com/blog/2008/archives/1094

[gooble]

I think the idea behind $1000 an image for a RAW file isn't so much that one would be selling RAW files for $1000, the point is really that one wouldn't be selling the RAW files.;)

Why wouldn't you sell a RAW file. If I wanted to buy the copyright on an image I'd sure as heck want the RAW file if there was one.

This pricing is ridiculously low.

Agree.

I think 1000 for an image file is insane. I am currently selling mine for $15 with no copyright and they have all access to the file. Is that to cheap?

Yes.

[mbellot]

I think the idea behind $1000 an image for a RAW file isn't so much that one would be selling RAW files for $1000, the point is really that one wouldn't be selling the RAW files.;)

Why? Our wedding photographer sold us all ( > 500 ) the negatives from our wedding, even the ones that never made it into the proof book, for ~ $200.

Thats about $0.40 per original, not bad for MF IMHO. ;)

[gooble]

Why? Our wedding photographer sold us all ( > 500 ) the negatives from our wedding, even the ones that never made it into the proof book, for ~ $200.

Thats about $0.40 per original, not bad for MF IMHO. ;)

Was that in addition to the prints they made and sold you as well as the cost of the shoot?