The Wedding Files: Digital Files vs Paper Output

[robertwgross]

Several years ago, before modern and practical DSLR cameras, the medium format film shooter "owned" the wedding photography business. Then there were 35mm film shooters also, and they did a good business. There were plenty of multi-thousand dollar wedding jobs to be had, and there was good profit in reprints.

Then, as they say, the world changed.

Every kid is running around with a 6-megapixel DSLR, and every one thinks that he can shoot a wedding. That competition has lowered prices, so now there is a lot of business, but only for $1000-1500 wedding jobs.

The DSLR photographer needs to be able to perform those jobs and still make a profit. Let's see. There is no film cost. There is no developing cost. Hmmm. Next is cutting out the cost of proofing.

On one wedding job, my entire output amounted to one CDR of many image files. No prints. No nothing else. Cheap and dirty was the way the market had turned.

The B&G would take the CDR to some drugstore machine and get all the prints they wanted there.

---Bob Gross---

[Moppie]

A little OT, but relates to what your talking about.

I work for a sercure paper recycling company, we take all the printed work from peoples offices and destroy it.
As a result I often get into conversations with customers and friends about the amount of waste paper generated, and why.
The why always turns out to be quite simple, its because many people find it much much easier to take in information off a printed page than off a computer screen.
There is something about holding the words in your hand, having them bound into a folder or book that makes them easier to read and understand.
So the majority of people dealing with electronic data still print it out to read it, emails, reports, law statues from legal databases etc etc. The whole lot gets printed, read, referenced, then when no longer needed thrown in the bin to get destroyed and recycled.

It however is a trend that is changing. The last work related thing I printed was my CV, everything else I do I send via email or the network to who ever its intended for, if they want to print it to read its up to them.
The differnce in attitudes towards printed media, and digital media comes from differnt generations exposure to both.
Like most people my age (late 20s and younger) I have grown up with a computer in front of me, I can take in information off a computer screen just as easily as I can from a printed page.

I don't need to see a printed image or document to fully understand and appreciate it. My mother on the other hand, along with most people from her generation still need to see a printed image or document to be able to fully read and understand it. My mother admits to still printing most of her emails so they are easier to read, and I know she is not the only one.


This of course has an impact on you giving clients thier wedding photos in a purly digital format.
The B&G might be able to take in the photos from a small LCD screen on a portable DVD player, the MOB however might not. While the B&G will see it as a great idea, they can print what they want, when they want, and they got a FREE DVD player, the MOB might feel a little cheated and short changed because she dosn't have any prints to hold in her hands.

However as MOBs retire to thier graves, and the current generation of computer and digital literate B&Gs become MOBs and FOBs I think providing wedding photos in a purly digital format will be the norm.
Getting into it now, even as an option, might leave you with a smaller potential market, but its a market that will continue to grow and be limited only by the number of people still getting married in 10 years.

Personaly I would prefer digital copys should I ever get married, and I know Im not alone.
A good friend got married nearly 2 years ago and I took some candid photos with my A40 while a pro used a film SLR. While the pros photos are generaly better, my photos provided on a CD get looked at more on the computer. The wedding albums got put away in boxs and the top of cupbourds, the wedding CD is sitting beside thier PC with other discs, and the whole lot sits in a folder on thier HDD. One photo even gets used as a windows background.

[robertwgross]

How did the client take to the idea of files-only?

Did you have problems with the client coming back complaining that the lab couldn't print the pictures properly?


The client was seeking a rock-bottom deal and had already been turned down by other photographers that had a more traditional film and proof approach. The client seemed to jump on the CDR proposal.

The only trick was that I furnished a copyright release with the CDR, using the unique number on the disk for reference. Otherwise, many drugstore labs will not print them for fear of infringement.

Normally for a wedding, I might spend an hour in preparation, four hours shooting the ceremony and reception, and then another six or eight hours at the computer mangling the images. In that specific case, it was only about an hour or two at the computer.

---Bob Gross---

[Moppie]

Moppie:

You know, I follow what you're saying.



And I think you might be slightly missing my point, possibly showing the perspective you are looking at things from, that of a generation familiar with a printed medium, and prehaps distrusting of the digital one. :D
While you clearly live and operate with in it with little trouble, your comments about the aurthority and permanance of the printed word show you don't quite trust it.

On the other hand there is a complete generation of potential B&G's who make no ditinction between printed and digital media, and the generation that follows them may infact hold more faith in digital than printed media.
Copys of thier photos in a digital format may infact be of more value to them than prints.


You final comments about the comsumer being able to have even more control over the out put, and effect the creative desicion are a great idea!
And I couldn't agree more.
I spent sometime with my friends cropping and doing some basic PS manipulation to one of the photos I took at thier wedding. If I was a charging for the photos then this surly would have counted as an added value.


Prehaps instead of charging less for digital copys of wedding photos presented in a DVD player, you should instead be charging more, and include a copy of Photoshop elements or other basic editing program.
Or offer them an opertunity to spend an hour with you, infront of your PC, going over creative options for thier photos.

The digital world is upon us, and it will overtake and consume the printed one.
The technology exists now to work as digital photographer with zero paper output.
All thats needed is a contrinued change in faith from a belief in printed media, to a belief in digital media.

[jgbeam]

I have never shot a wedding but it seems to me that a very attractive way of presenting wedding photography would be to make an abbreviated printed album (just the B&G, wedding party and close relativesand friends, maybe a dozen shots)for the coffee table and a more comprehensive slide show album which could be either viewed or projected. The slide show, if well designed, can be very elegant, funky, or whatever suits the desires of the B&G. It can have music as well.

The mini-album should satisfy the traditionalists and the slide show should go over well with the younger folks. Keep the original files. The slide show will use reduced files that won't print well in large sizes. If anyone wants an enlargement they can pick one from the slide show and order it from you. You can even include ordering info on the CD.

Just a thought.

Jim

[rick barclay]

First off, I know nothing about wedding photography, but I know of someone who recently was
married and had some sort of confrontation with his photographer because he misunderstood
the connection between the wedding pictures and copyright laws. My point is that the wedding
photographer printed the pictures on a type of textured paper that couldn't be scanned or
reproduced at the originals' quality, soooo, why don't you just do that?

Also, it seems to me that a traditional wedding album would be much preferable to receiveing
a dvd and player with my wedding pictures attached. The simple reason is I can hold an album in
my hand; it's much more protable than a dvd player; doesn't need batteries or a cord, etc., etc., etc.

[mackb]

I have never shot a wedding but it seems to me that a very attractive way of presenting wedding photography would be to make an abbreviated printed album (just the B&G, wedding party and close relativesand friends, maybe a dozen shots)for the coffee table and a more comprehensive slide show album which could be either viewed or projected. The slide show, if well designed, can be very elegant, funky, or whatever suits the desires of the B&G. It can have music as well.

The mini-album should satisfy the traditionalists and the slide show should go over well with the younger folks. Keep the original files. The slide show will use reduced files that won't print well in large sizes. If anyone wants an enlargement they can pick one from the slide show and order it from you. You can even include ordering info on the CD.

Just a thought.
Jim
WOW, what a great Idea. I currently use a video editing program that would allow me to make a slide show with maybe numbers in the corners and music. The video would be DVD format not JPEG's so there is no worry of the B&G printing the pictures.One drawback could be B&G or Mom and Dad not having a DVD player that will play DVD-r or DVD+R's.

Before anyone say's it......It would be possible to make a slideshow in very little time.

Something else I was thinking does a proof book of .19-$0.29 pictures really cost that much?

[cricket]

I tried something new on the last wedding I shot (Dec. 10).

I mainly use medium format, and have incorporated a little digital as well, for fun actually. I was asked to do my boyfriend's neice's wedding and they couldn't afford me, even with the "family discount." They really wanted me to do it so, I went back to them and offered to do it for less, but with a difference in the way they'd get their "package." (I had been thinking about this for a while).

So basically, I offered to shoot the wedding in 35mm film and use digital. Yes, I was cringing a little (35mm), but I knew it would be ok...

I offered to get the film processed at Costco 1 hr photo (Please don't choke) and have CD's made of everything and 4x6 proofs made as well. I have used this lab many times for my personal 35mm and digital snapshots, and they are good quality (ask for NORI, she's a great machine).

They were surprised, understandably, but I offered to do medium format at a much higher rate with no CD's, and they took the 35mm option. I did show them several examples of the quality, and they said they thought it was great!

So, what they got was 4 rolls of 35mm negs, the CD's and 4x6 proofs, and 2 CD's of digital files (about 120) with 4x6 proofs of those as well. I made copies of the digital CD's for myself because I liked those shots best. I told them to go get the CD's copied right away and to put them somewhere safe.

It felt great to see them on Christmas and have everybody there looking at the proofs. They were very happy with what they got! I made a few 8x10's straight off the CF card for the Brides Mom, my soon to be Sister, and the quality was excellent! It also felt good to know that I don't have to store the negs or anything but a piece of paper (the contract)!

Now, I wouldn't do this with just anybody. Having worked in labs both 1 hour and commercial, and the experience I have with shooting weddings, I felt pretty confident about what I did. I would like to find a way to make this approach a little more acceptable, mainly the "Costco" part. It worked for these guys, but probably wouldn't be acceptable with most other folks. I haven't found a good lab for printing proofs and CD's from digital yet, as I said I mainly do weddings in medium format.

I think there is a way to do this better!

[cricket]

Bloo, your making me worn out just reading about the album! I do not like that part at all. Like you said, I just want to shoot the wedding!

What my (almost) Neice is going to do is order her own album and learn how to put it together herself (sigh)!

I told her that I don't want to do that part!

As far as the lab not printing your work well... I agree. That's one reason why I chose to get the proofs done with the CD's; so I could see them (that and of course, curiosity!). Most were printed fine. No dust at all. Some needed to go darker, some a little lighter, I told them to tell the lab to do corrections when they order prints. Most people do not realize that when a person is printing your photos, they can manipulate the density and color. Depends on the person much more than the machine or lab! I've heard so many people say it's just their camera...

[Tom W]

How about this - offer a package that gives them no prints, but a CD full of proofs suitable for 4X6 prints (1200X1800 pixels or maybe 1000X1500 even). If they want an album, you can make one for a fee. If they want cheap enlargements, they can make them from their low megapixel proofs. If they want good enlargements, you will make them high-resolution top quality enlargements. Framing is extra.

Maybe some combinations of CD/proofs/albums/enlargements for various price points above the basic quote. Dang, I should be in marketing.

[Moppie]

It IS a little disturbing to think about what some of the prints might look like, and how it might reflect upon my work if the lab isn't very good...


Mmmm, I think that comes down to how educated the public is about such things, or more importantly, how educated you can make them :)


Time for you to start writing a book I think, but I want a free copy if you quote me :p

[Tom W]

A little OT, but relates to what your talking about.
.....


I didn't quote the whole post as its pretty big. But I have to comment on the "paperless office" concept. Where I work, I usually have 4-5 windows open on my main PC. I have other screens as well, but only one acts as the main PC. The problem with not printing in the work environment is that the screen only has so much area. Whereas I can spread papers all over the desk, I can't do that effectively on my CRT. Too small.

Two other issues that make printing more desirable: First, I can't lay in bed and read my monitor. Second, I can't read it while I'm in the .... well, that room. Third (OK, I meant 3), I like to have hardcopy next to me while I'm using the computer. I might be a little weird, but on-screen help stinks when compared to a manual.

OK, I've dragged this thread waaaaay off topic for a second or two, but I did so for a reason. And that reason is that there is nothing as nice as a great big high-quality print. Its still the best way I know of to look at an image.

But I am old - maybe that's just because I've been looking at paper for 45 years.

[Moppie]

I wonder how many of the pro's here, who shoot digital, never see a printed copy of thier work?
The whole process, from taking the photo, processing it in photshop, and submitting it occurs digitaly, and they would only see a print if they obtained a copy of the publication, or made thier own print.

And are your concerns of print quality associated soly with wedding photography?
What about shooting a models portfolio?
A question for the glamor and fashion photographers, do you only provide prints to models and agencys, or will you also provide digital copys?



And of course it all asks the question, just how integral to photography is printing?

Is it possible to become a proffesional photographer, and never have an image printed, prehaps submitting all your work to online publication?

[pradeep1]

I wonder how many of the pro's here, who shoot digital, never see a printed copy of thier work?
The whole process, from taking the photo, processing it in photshop, and submitting it occurs digitaly, and they would only see a print if they obtained a copy of the publication, or made thier own print.

And are your concerns of print quality associated soly with wedding photography?
What about shooting a models portfolio?
A question for the glamor and fashion photographers, do you only provide prints to models and agencys, or will you also provide digital copys?



And of course it all asks the question, just how integral to photography is printing?

Is it possible to become a proffesional photographer, and never have an image printed, prehaps submitting all your work to online publication?


Michael Reichmann of Luminous Landscape fame says that the ultimate expression of a photograph is in the print. That may have been true in the past, and may be true in the present, and the near future. But I am not sure how much longer that sentiment will hold. I personally only print maybe less than 5% of my keepers photos. And I print them for giving as gifts or displaying in my home. I do like prints, but they are going by the wayside....and in the future, we may not get requests for prints and prints could become just a quaint luxury, like getting our portraits painted with oil and canvas and hung on walls.

Regarding permanence, as discussed previously, I'd say that with proper archiving and format changing and "uparchiving" (CDR->DVDR->BLURAY->... ) continously would allow your photos to live as perfectly as they are today into the future. Imagine your great-great-great-great grandchild being able to see your picture just like you see it today. Now, that is permanence to me...much more so than with negatives or slides, which have a life of 40-50 years.

But I still do prefer prints...don't know why...maybe I am still old fashioned. :(

[TonyKInTexas]

It comes down to cost / size. If someone whats a 16x20 (or larger) image, that will still be a print for the foreseeable future as the technology to display such a size, while it is here, is too expensive for most people.

And there are differences between the digital image and the printed image (prints to me look more pleasing).

Michael Reichmann of Luminous Landscape fame says that the ultimate expression of a photograph is in the print. That may have been true in the past, and may be true in the present, and the near future. But I am not sure how much longer that sentiment will hold. I personally only print maybe less than 5% of my keepers photos. And I print them for giving as gifts or displaying in my home. I do like prints, but they are going by the wayside....and in the future, we may not get requests for prints and prints could become just a quaint luxury, like getting our portraits painted with oil and canvas and hung on walls.

[robertwgross]

If digital capture ever does become the standard in wedding photography, what size file should the image be? ...

So, do we furnish and/or store HUGE files just in case?

It never hurts to capture too many pixels. Sometimes it is a pain if we have captured too few pixels. Storage is too cheap, and life is too short.

---Bob Gross---

[Vegas Poboy]

I've worked with just a few wedding photographers here (Las Vegas) :) and before seen them do thier best not to give out the any files. Over time and do to the heavy market and alot of people sellling thier work cheap most of them will now sell the files with a package of $900.00 or more or just files only and print your own.

The file size is your normal 8x10 crop @ 300 dpi of a jpeg which I think is about 3.5 to 4. megapixal. This can be an easy 11x14 print with the minor post processing done to it. I have seen way larger prints with a good file & print company that knows what thier doing.
I do chat with some of the old meduim format folks who is starting to convert over to DSLRs only because of the time spent and the photoshop wedding albums is demand. I've had mixed feeling on both types of media formats and learned that everyone is not PC friendly. So I provide the web viewing & proof books to my customers.

[TonyKInTexas]

For special events like weddings, portrait sessions, concerts I shoot in RAW. For snapshot stuff, mostly JPG though I will also shot some of that in RAW because of my workflow.

...

If digital capture ever does become the standard in wedding photography, what size file should the image be? Should the photographer shoot the biggest file he can in the belief that he can rise to the occasion should a large size reprint be required in the future?

And I think that this ties into the idea that the print is the final ideation or realization of the image.

So, do we furnish and/or store HUGE files just in case?

[Jon, The Elder]

Been following this with some interest. For what it is worth- here is my last years scenario.

Got involved in shooting horse and riders at competitions throughout the Spring/Summer. Mostly candid shots of the horse/riders together, with some after competition images.

Sent low res proofs to my database, with password protected "albums". Customer made choice, and either e-mailed me size and quanity or mailed in an order form. Provided on the site.

End of year banquet - provided a slideshow as part of the evening. Proof book of prints circulated around - orders filled out - orders delivered in time for Christmas. Cash or Check.

Results = Association requests for more involvement on my part for coming year. (More orders expected). Referrals to other associations within the Equine community.

It seems that for the most part - my customers are not equipped/ or inclined to print their own images YET.

But as Dylan says - "times-they-are-a-changing".

Database example -- www.pbase.com/jpferguson

[GerryDavid]

and I wonder WHY anyone would even bother with output. For the price of a "good" leather album with fancy-schmancy mats you can supply a small portable DVD player. Actually, I was pricing small DVD players this weekend and they were actually LESS than what a wedding album would cost.

Most people already have a dvd player, so you could be wasting your money in giving them one. I could be mistaken but I think you said in a previous post that you targeted the upper end customer as well, and if they got this cheap dvd player, it would probalby hit the garbage right away since they probably already have a high end entertainment system with a high end dvd player. Just a guess.

Besides the wedding album, theres the newer wedding books that are like yearbooks. The ones ive seen offered usually start at $500 but you can get it done at $100 out of your pocket, making it rather profitable. But time consuming in putting it together. At least at first until you get a general template designed that you can use for most weddings and just drop the pictures into each spot and send it off.

Consider the time it takes to: put together a proof book, sort through the negatives,run to the lab, order the enlargements, order the album and mats, plan the layout, execute the layout, and build the book.This comes to at least two days' work.

Instead of a proof book you could offer a proof dvd. I seen one piece of software that prevents it from being copied *although this could be hacked* and lets customers print an order form right from the dvd. This way you avoid doing the proof book.

Instead of running to the lab you can pick an online lab that you trust. And their not expensive either.

You can even host pictures on websites and let customers order prints right from it, they print it and mail it right to the customer. Theres no print id's to keep track of, reprint forms, trips to the lab, contacting the client to give the print to, or even credit card setup since the site can take care of it for you, all for a reletivly small fee which includes the credit card fee. Plus the customer takes care of the s&h.

One site that can do this is http://www.smugmug.com/ (http://www.smugmug.com/?referrer=5bQxXhVZY6En2%20) and the referral code 5bQxXhVZY6En2 can save you $5. The pro account is $100 which lets you sell prints. You set the price for each size, and you can even offer printables like mugs, keyrings, mousepads, etc. Another good thing about this site is you upload your original images and later if you loose the images for what ever reason, you can order a backup cd from the site, I think they keep 2 backup copies of everything you upload. And you dont have to worry about the customer's getting the originals, you can restrict access to the originals blocking them from seing them. You get unlimited storage, and I think 8gb's of bandwidth a month.

Another one I seen is www.pictage.com which is $50 a month in the basic package. Its like 200 pictures limit but looks really professional. Also this one offers metalic paper which looks really nice. Also I think you can get the picture surface thing that makes it harder to scan the pictures to reprint, and reduces fingerprints, I forget what this is called.

One of the reasons why I quit the wedding business is because the reprint business died when almost everyone owned a scanner and a printer. I'd call the B&G and ask why there were no reprint orders, and they'd TELL me that they scanned the proofs and printed their own reprints. (I gave up on the idea of educating people on the subject of copyright. This concept seems to be lost on the general public).

The above can help limit the scan quality which would help encourage them to go to you for the reprints, or encourage them to buy the originals from you for a nice bit of money, which sounds like you would prefer so you wouldnt have to interact with them anymore.

It just seems to me that shooting digitally and then supplying paper prints is a step backwards.

I would have to disagree. Theres something nice about holding a picture. The monitor is ok but its not to conveinent. Plus if theres a power outage you cant see it. If the cd degrades, the pictures are lost forever.

Between people not backing up thier digital pictures from thier hard drive, and the hard drives crashing, to people just backing them up to a cd and later find it unreadable, ive heard people predict there will be alot of pictures lost from this decade. There isnt as many hard copies made.

Got involved in shooting horse and riders at competitions throughout the Spring/Summer. Mostly candid shots of the horse/riders together, with some after competition images.

Sent low res proofs to my database, with password protected "albums". Customer made choice, and either e-mailed me size and quanity or mailed in an order form. Provided on the site.

By using a site like smugmug you wouldnt have to worry about order forms. They can order directly from the site.

Smugmug even lets you email the pictures directly to the site. Although I wouldnt want to try this over a cell phone with a gig or two worth of files, hehe.

setiprime, how do you like pbase? I had them last year but between their customer support *took 5 emails and a over a month to get a response* and their image linking to other sites/forums not working for days I switched to smugmug. Its $2 more after the referral for the basic account, but thier forum support is great. You get $10 a referral, so if you get 3 referrals your next year is free. 7 referrals and you can upgrade to the pro account, etc.

[GerryDavid]

Heres a twist on your dvd player idea, give them a digital photo album and put thier pictures on the 1gb memory stick inside it. I dont know how much these actually sell for though but if you could arrange to get a wholesaler. I wouldnt suggest buying alot at once since each year they would be out of date and a huge price drop, hehe.

[tim]

What's wrong with using a CD or DVD? A memory stick might be a little more reliable, and a bit more flashy, but they're a lot more expensive too.

[GerryDavid]

Because the digital photo frames that I have seen online use memory sticks, not cd's or dvd's. :0) All it is is a lcd screen in a frame with some electronics on the back. I think there are even some that gathers the pictures from the net wirelessly from a specified server.

[Moments]

While at my lab today, the topic of paper proofs came up. The lab does have some photographers that use on-line proofing and others like me that use paper proofs for both film and digital. The lab person I was speaking to said that they have seen studios going back and forth from paper proofs to on-line proofs to gang proofing on an 8x10 page. Some studios use a little of each. I guess it depended upon thier client.

As far as my clients, they ask if I shoot digital and if so do I supply paper proofs or a cd, because they want paper proofs. I have been talking to and asking potential clients in our initial meetings about thier thoughts on digital wedding photographers that they have seen. Most have told me that they were unimpressed with what they have seen. They have not liked the quaility of the images that they have looked at. It usually is that they think the images look "plastic" "dead" "flat" and "pixelated". And they also don't like the fact that they don't get real prints. When they look at my samples and proofs from digital, they are usually surprised that the images are digital and happy that I use paper proofs. In the last two years, I have only had one person pick out the digital samples I have against the film ones. I think that the idea of paper proofs is comforting to the potential clients I have seen.

Yes, I would like to do away with the cost and time involved with paper proofs, and proof books, but right now I don't see my potential clients going for that. But I'm thinking of starting off saying the proofs are on CD or on-line, and giving the option of paperproofs at an extra cost. I guess I have to size up the next couple as to the direction I will take.

How about comments or stories from you out there that do shoot at least 30+ weddings (that include Bridal Albums) per year, and that have made the switch from paper to display proofs or even have tried and switched back if so. How did it progress to that point etc? Did you get a lot of static at first? Has any of you given paper and a CD to start out? Lets hear about real situations from working Wedding Photographers.