do you give CD/DVD of wedding pictures

[Sglshotkw]

If you offer a CD/DVD to your B&G do you give them the unlimited rights to print the pictures? and do you give them all to them or how many?

[tim]

Some of my packages include the CD, for others they can buy it. The CD contains all the images that were in their proofs, and rights to print them for themselves or others. It explicitly doesn't give people rights to give away copies of the digital images, and requires an images posted online to have my logo - the CD contains a copy of low res watermarked images as well as the high res.

[form]

Typically budget photographers like me give the CD/DVD, while those who charge $2k on up tend to offer the CD/DVD as an extra option and/or with restrictions.

[Peacefield]

I use to offer it as an option, but more and more, there is an expectation that a hi-res DVD is included. I've gone to including it with all of my packages, even the base package. I'm not too concerned about it as my prices for prints, albums, etc are pretty reasonable for the difference in quality so most couples come back to me for the prints anyway.

[USER876]

What are the drawbacks of giving away the pics on CD with full printing rights?

[form]

No ability to continue to sell prints or images.

[tsw910]

What are the drawbacks of giving away the pics on CD with full printing rights?

well .. most of the wedding photographers uses the images to make the "real" $$ from a wedding ..

lets just say a wedding photographer charges 1500 to just show up and cover the wedding .. for a 10 hour session .. it breaks down to 150 per hour .. which to most that is really nice! .. BUT !

now, from all the images from the wedding without giving the CD, the photographer can sell enlarged images or albums for a good percentage .. a good sales person can sell his album for at least $1500 and up ... and with enlarged photos can fetch for 100 per .. now, from the coverage of 150 per hour + 1500 for album + prints which can be upwards of $500 .. now from all that equals to $3500. so now you just made $2000 from image sales .. was that worth not giving the CD?

but that doesn't go without saying that we spend alot more time and effort on blown up images for print .. so thats also time taken

it basically comes down to personal preference .. and who your clients are ...

[stathunter]

It depends on the clients--- I typically can price the DVD into the package-- but most that purchase the dvd package still get prints from me--- many want the dvd but do nothing with it after--- or loose it.

[USER876]

I'm on a few wedding forums, and it seems the couples now want the DVD with the full res files or it's a deal breaker. They would rather print them off of snapfish, uncorrected I guess for a much lower price. I think a lot of them, however, don't understand the retouching process and prep to print and how ordering from the photographer does have those advantages.

[egordon99]

All my jobs (not too many so far) have been "You get the DVD with full res JPGs and rights to make prints for personal use" I basically charge enough up front for my time so I'm not relying on hopefully selling prints. This model works for me (don't have to deal with "after the shoot" anything once I give them the CD, nor setup a way to get prints ordered/delivered) and my clients like it. This is the 21st century, and there are many great ways to make albums/books/holiday cards as long as one has the full-size JPGs.

Could I make more selling prints? Perhaps, but I'm a crummy businessman and my clients are happy so......

[egordon99]

I DO process each image (pretty much just "ACR slider tweaking") so if they do go to Snapfish and make "uncorrected" prints, they should get something pretty decent. I go to Costco for my personal prints, using the same process I use for my clients, and I'm very happy with the prints.

[acousticvibrations]

im a buget minded tog, Normally $150 per hr.

I give dvd rights away.

Referrals, referrals, referrals

[USER876]

Typically budget photographers like me give the CD/DVD, while those who charge $2k on up tend to offer the CD/DVD as an extra option and/or with restrictions.

LOL...in my area TRI-STATE, 2-3K would be considered budget. Most of the popular photographers are charging 4-5K, and the higher end packages / outfits 6-7K. These prices including shooting + albums.

[egordon99]

I'll probably regret saying this, but my first (and as of now only :( ) wedding, I charged $300, for an engagement session, coverage on the day of from 5 PM - Midnight, and provided a DVD of about 600 images. The couple LOVED the pictures!

When I got "booked", I hadn't done any paid work (although I had lots of experience shooting indoor events/parties) so I really didn't know what to expect (and I was somewhat caught off guard!)

I now charge ~$150/hour for my events (pretty much Bar/Bat Mitzvahs in my local community) and I still just provide the final JPGs on a DVD.

A local photo-buddy (shoots Nikon :) ) charges $3K for a wedding, but that includes a decent amount of prints, an album, and a second shooter.

[ghostman]

My sister is getting married and during her hunt for a photographer, a DVD of the photos was a requirement. That makes complete sense to me and would be a requirement of mine as well. I'd never hire a photographer that doesn't give a DVD of photos.

In a no-DVD, print-only deal, what if the prints are destroyed? Am I supposed to depend on my photographer to have kept a backup? No way. As long as the photographer factors it into his pricing, then there shouldn't be a problem.

[USER876]

My sister is getting married and during her hunt for a photographer, a DVD of the photos was a requirement. That makes complete sense to me and would be a requirement of mine as well. I'd never hire a photographer that doesn't give a DVD of photos.

In a no-DVD, print-only deal, what if the prints are destroyed? Am I supposed to depend on my photographer to have kept a backup? No way. As long as the photographer factors it into his pricing, then there shouldn't be a problem.

I agree with you, but in the film days, the photographer kept the negatives most of the time, so yes....you were at this mercy!

[tim]

well .. most of the wedding photographers uses the images to make the "real" $$ from a wedding ..

That's the old pre-digital business model. These days photographers most wedding photographers make most of their money up front.

My sister is getting married and during her hunt for a photographer, a DVD of the photos was a requirement. That makes complete sense to me and would be a requirement of mine as well. I'd never hire a photographer that doesn't give a DVD of photos.

In a no-DVD, print-only deal, what if the prints are destroyed? Am I supposed to depend on my photographer to have kept a backup? No way. As long as the photographer factors it into his pricing, then there shouldn't be a problem.

Did it have to be included, or available? Making the CD/DVD takes a bit of time, by the time you fully process each image. When people want the CD I tell them the price and explain what goes into preparing the images so they're all ready for printing, people understand that they pay for my time and expertise.

[cory1848]

The problems I start to see isnt the fact that a DVD/CD is included, but now couples want rights free DVD/CDs included. I have no problem giving a print releases, but any full rights request I get, I either explain to them that full rights is different than print rights and you really dont need full rights or I pass on the job.

This goes along the lines of asking for the RAW files and expecting those to be included as well. Not happening...

[stathunter]

The problems I start to see isnt the fact that a DVD/CD is included, but now couples want rights free DVD/CDs included. I have no problem giving a print releases, but any full rights request I get, I either explain to them that full rights is different than print rights and you really dont need full rights or I pass on the job.

This goes along the lines of asking for the RAW files and expecting those to be included as well. Not happening...

I had a couple that was gung-ho about getting RAW files from me. I tried to tell them that this is not what they want. They were listening to a friend for this wisdom. So I sold them a package (priced accordingly for RAW) and when I delivered the photos to them-- a few days later they contacted me-- telling me that they could not see the photos.
I reminded them of the several emails and calls to them about RAW files. They then realized that the advice of the friend may have been wrong. Then I sold them another package for jpeg photos that they could see.

[egordon99]

That's great! Yeah, most folks (1)Wouldn't be able to open/view the RAW files, and (2)If they could, their attempts at processing the files would look nothing like your own processing "style"...

When you hire me, you're hiring me to deliver pictures based on both my SHOOTING style, and my PP-ing style. So no RAW will be given out :)

Did you refund/credit the amount you charged them to give them the RAWs?

Next time someone asks to have RAWs included in their package, tell them you now only shoot JPG :)

I had a couple that was gung-ho about getting RAW files from me. I tried to tell them that this is not what they want. They were listening to a friend for this wisdom. So I sold them a package (priced accordingly for RAW) and when I delivered the photos to them-- a few days later they contacted me-- telling me that they could not see the photos.
I reminded them of the several emails and calls to them about RAW files. They then realized that the advice of the friend may have been wrong. Then I sold them another package for jpeg photos that they could see.

[egordon99]

To add, if I did deliver RAW files to a client who somehow was able to view them directly, they most likely would have to ask for a refund as I shoot indoors with AWB :)

(I do shoot a grey reference card if I think it's going to be hard to get it right/close in ACR)

[USER876]

Funny!

Whats the issue with giving full rights vs print rights?

[stathunter]

Did you refund/credit the amount you charged them to give them the RAWs?



Refund......... no such word in my dictionary. I warned them several times about RAW files but they acted as if my input was beneath them. They quickly found out that picture viewer has a difficult time with RAW. I charged them dearly for their mistake-- it was not my mistake and if anyone wants RAW I will certainly sell them what they want but like anything---there is a price.

I think in today's world people really expect to have the dvd--- I work it into my price but really find that after they get it-- they do nothing with it. I always try to work a few prints into my package-- so when they compare my prints with what they get at Walmart --- they come back to me for prints and everything else.

[egordon99]

Full rights would mean that they could take a shot and sell it to Coca Cola to use for their big advertising campaign. And you would get nothing!

Personal printing rights allows them just that - They can make prints (or mugs/t-shirts/photo books) for their own personal use.

Basically, they can't take your photo and make money off of it. Printing a picture and giving it to Aunt Martha, fine! Selling mugs at the art fair, not fine :)

[tsw910]

like in Scott's situation .. most couples think that the "raw" files are pictures that comes out of our cameras but in jpg form, which most photographers shoot in RAW .. not knowing that the "RAW" files are raw files that needs a software to view them .. so they get stuck with files that aren't viewable .. and it usually because they either own a SLR or has a friend that does .. and regardless of the case, they will ask for it and can't get the pictures to come out the way they want and then they would have to pay again to get it re-done ..

[stathunter]

like in Scott's situation .. most couples think that the "raw" files are pictures that comes out of our cameras but in jpg form, which most photographers shoot in RAW .. not knowing that the "RAW" files are raw files that needs a software to view them .. so they get stuck with files that aren't viewable .. and it usually because they either own a SLR or has a friend that does .. and regardless of the case, they will ask for it and can't get the pictures to come out the way they want and then they would have to pay again to get it re-done ..

I do a lot of weddings--- and this was one rare situation. It is not the norm. This couple told me that a family member is a graphic artist and would edit files in RAW format. The family member/friend did not come through and they were left in the dark.

Many of my potential customers specifically ask for the dvd and when they do they understand they will have to pay extra for it. I work it into the price in a way that is comfortable-- but even if you do so-- I would HIGHLY suggest that you also sell them or give them a few prints from your source (mine typically is mpix or whcc) then they compare your prints with their Walmart prints---an bingo you have more residual income.

[egordon99]

I should give that a go for my next booking......I've thought about going the ExposureManager route to handle prints, things are still in the early phases for me though...

I think the economy here has taken its toll on B'Nai Mitzvot as all the ones I've worked have been fairly low key (at least from what I remember when I was younger and they were pretty much a "wedding") so the parents have jumped at the opportunity to have a "cheap" photographer (me!) that still took decent pictures.

The one wedding I shot, the bride told me she spent $1K on her daughter's Bar Mitzvah photographer and only had 10 prints (or maybe it was 100 proofs?) to show for it :(

I would HIGHLY suggest that you also sell them or give them a few prints from your source (mine typically is mpix or whcc) then they compare your prints with their Walmart prints---an bingo you have more residual income.

[tsw910]

I do a lot of weddings--- and this was one rare situation. It is not the norm. This couple told me that a family member is a graphic artist and would edit files in RAW format. The family member/friend did not come through and they were left in the dark.

Many of my potential customers specifically ask for the dvd and when they do they understand they will have to pay extra for it. I work it into the price in a way that is comfortable-- but even if you do so-- I would HIGHLY suggest that you also sell them or give them a few prints from your source (mine typically is mpix or whcc) then they compare your prints with their Walmart prints---an bingo you have more residual income.

oh ok .. i thought it was a common thing for you as it is for me lol .. i get ask alot for RAW files and some do and some dont understand the RAW files are RAW files, which i will never give, DVD of hi res yes, but not raw ..

i guess the situation that you mentioned seems like it was something i run into lol

and agree with the WHCC prints and the walmart or home photo printer prints .. thats why when i go meet with clients, i bring a portfolio of printed images on different types of paper and then they'll see the difference .. but of course i put the metallic paper up front first lol the woo and ahh paper as i call it lol

[USER876]

Full rights would mean that they could take a shot and sell it to Coca Cola to use for their big advertising campaign. And you would get nothing!

Personal printing rights allows them just that - They can make prints (or mugs/t-shirts/photo books) for their own personal use.

Basically, they can't take your photo and make money off of it. Printing a picture and giving it to Aunt Martha, fine! Selling mugs at the art fair, not fine :)

Have you ever heard of a couple selling their wedding prints for money?

[egordon99]

No, but someone (you?) asked about the difference between a full release and a personal release.

Also, sometimes a "full release" means "I assign the copyright completely to you, you now completely own the photos as if you had taken them yourself. Have fun!"

Normally you'd want to just license the digital files for specific use(s); in the case of wedding photos, the specific use would be "personal prints/books/mugs/t-shirts"

Have you ever heard of a couple selling their wedding prints for money?

[kenshinvt]

Funny!

Whats the issue with giving full rights vs print rights?

It's best to think of a copyright as a "bundle of rights" rather than a single concept. These rights are defined by statute and include the right to reproduce, prepare derivative works, distribute copies, perform, and display the copyrighted work.

You can "assign" (sell) these rights in exclusive or non exclusive fashion. So a wedding photographer giving a "permission to print" DVD is assigning a nonexclusive right to reproduce the copyrighted images to the couple. However, the photographer is still retaining the other rights such as the right to distribute which, e.g., would cover selling the images to a third party or otherwise sharing them with the public.

[cory1848]

If a couple wants full ownerships rights, that means I no longer have the ability to use those photos in my portfolio, I am not longer able to sell those photos to the client or family/friends, basically its the same as just deleting them all. Why would I want to do that?

[kenshinvt]

If a couple wants full ownerships rights, that means I no longer have the ability to use those photos in my portfolio, I am not longer able to sell those photos to the client or family/friends, basically its the same as just deleting them all. Why would I want to do that?

OP was asking about the right to print (reproduce) which is different than full ownership rights. See my post about re copyrights. You can't give away your copyright ownership unless you do something explicit, like giving them an exclusive assignment or license.

[cory1848]

OP was asking about the right to print (reproduce) which is different than full ownership rights. See my post about re copyrights. You can't give away your copyright ownership unless you do something explicit, like giving them an exclusive assignment or license.

The OP used the term "unlimited" rights. If they are just print rights, they are limited. There is a difference so thats why I posted that. If the B&G are specifically asking for unlimited rights, I bet that is in the contract which means that is releasing ownership in writing. I would think a contract would constitute an exclusive assignment.

I see a lot of posts where people use terminology incorrectly. I also see brides doing this as well. A bride may ask for full rights released images but really she means she just wants to be able to print them at Walmart. Its up to the photog to educate that person as to what is full rights and what is limited print rights, etc. If you write full rights released in your contract and something goes wrong and you get sued, guess who wins ownership of all your images.

[Sglshotkw]

Thanks for all the replies, I see the talk brought lots of discussion so must be a good point on copyright information.

Good points on giving unlimited rights (basically meaning giving up all rights of the pictures you took) and limited rights (printing/mugs/teeshirts)


Thank you all

[kenshinvt]

If you offer a CD/DVD to your B&G do you give them the unlimited rights to print the pictures? and do you give them all to them or how many?

The OP used the term "unlimited" rights. If they are just print rights, they are limited. There is a difference so thats why I posted that.

You are leaving out part of the original statement. The OP used the term "unlimited rights to print the pictures." Giving someone the right to reproduce images is normally unlimited unless stated otherwise. If you wanted to limit it, you would say "you have the right to print X number of images." Or alternatively, "you have the right to print images for X duration of time." That would not only be silly, but those options would also be realistically unenforceable. You can give away unlimited ability to use one of the bundle of rights in a copyright without giving away the others.


If the B&G are specifically asking for unlimited rights, I bet that is in the contract which means that is releasing ownership in writing. I would think a contract would constitute an exclusive assignment.

A contract would constitute whatever is written on the face of that particular contract. If it stated that it was an exclusive assignment that releases all copyright rights, it would do just that. If it didn't explicitly specify exclusive rights, a court certainly wouldn't interpret it that way.


I see a lot of posts where people use terminology incorrectly. I also see brides doing this as well. A bride may ask for full rights released images but really she means she just wants to be able to print them at Walmart. Its up to the photog to educate that person as to what is full rights and what is limited print rights, etc. If you write full rights released in your contract and something goes wrong and you get sued, guess who wins ownership of all your images.

This is very true. I think part of the problem is on the photographer's end as well in not providing enough education to clients or using inconsistent terminology. For example, some photographers use "permission to print" when they really often mean "right to reproduce."

Is that difference pedantic? No, not at all. If the bride wants to make a backup copy for her personal use, permission to print doesn't explicitly give her that right yet "reproduce" would. Conversely, if the bride starts selling copies that she has printed out, she may have a claim that "permission to print" wasn't limited to just the "right to reproduce." In other words, she could freely distribute the copies she printed out.

I think it would also be great if photographers started putting a mini FAQ concerning what a bride can and cannot do with her images based on the rights she was given.

[USER876]

I think in reality most B+G and ignorant the the whole rights thing and prob do what they want with the pics. And in the end the photographer never knows.

[kenshinvt]

I think in reality most B+G and ignorant the the whole rights thing and prob do what they want with the pics. And in the end the photographer never knows.

Ultimately I think that's true. You could probably say that much of the time when B&Gs violate copyright law there are no "actual" damages to the photographer, either.

The whole discussion of copyright law really turns on setting up the situation so that you, as the photographer, are prepared for that hypothetical "what-if" scenario. As in, what if the bride does something with the images that does hurt me financially or otherwise I don't want done--have I given away my rights?

[ejicon]

out of curiosity, what are the sizes of these images that are delivered onto cds/dvds?

[PhotoMatte]

you have a few options when it comes to giving your clients a disc (CD or DVD) of their images. You can always give them a disc full of lo-rez files, good enough to share with family and friends, post on Facebook, etc; but still be able to charge them later on when they want to order large (larger than 5x7) prints and/or albums. If you give them full-rez discs you may lose out on the chance to make any $$ after the wedding. That being said, my most-requested package is the one where I include a full-rez DVD (I charge a lot up front for the wedding on that package). When I send them their DVD I also send them a link to my online photo-ordering site, where they can order prints, books, etc. I also include a sample copy of my high-end photo albums and tell them they can order those from me whenever they want. What usually ends up happening is that the B&G keep the DVD and pass the photo-ordering URL on to their out-of-town friends and relatives. Those folks order prints from me and the B&G order albums from me and, occasionally, prints (I tell them if they take their DVD to Walmart or Costco, their images are going to look as if they came from Walmart or Costco).

[PhotoMatte]

PS: Whenever I give my clients a disc (of any resolution) I always make sure they get unlimited printing rights for life but I retain the copyright. This is in the contract, btw, so if they have any issues with a lab not allowing them to print the images they can just point to the part in the contract that gives them unlimited printing rights.

[tim]

out of curiosity, what are the sizes of these images that are delivered onto cds/dvds?

Native camera resolution, or however I cropped it to look best. Q10 sRgb jpeg, exif removed, average size 1.8MB. I also supply a watermarked 600pixel image for use online that's about 40-80kb.

[ejicon]

Native camera resolution, or however I cropped it to look best. Q10 sRgb jpeg, exif removed, average size 1.8MB. I also supply a watermarked 600pixel image for use online that's about 40-80kb.


great.. thanks a lot

[rockfordhx]

I am new to the wedding scene but are you guys saying that if you deliver a CD/DVD that the images are not post processed? You are only post processing images that you print?

[acousticvibrations]

No, I process all images that i give them.

Personally, i also give them B & W Copies on a second DVD.

GREAT PROGRAM CALLED, WATERMARK PROFESSIONAL 6. not 7.0

[jmborkowski]

This sounds like a good approach:

http://homepage.mac.com/thebecker/iblog/B533212817/C2084452993/E20061023111726/index.html

[ehduque7]

Hi Everyone. I'm glad I stumbled upon this thread. My fiance and I are actually in the process of interviewing and picking a photographer for our wedding. All the people we have interviewed have included a DVD of the images in their packages. As photography is the most important part of the wedding to us, our budget for photography is anywhere from $3,000-$5,000.

I've been reading through all the contracts from different photographers and the clauses around use of the images on the DVD has really confused me. This thread has really helped me out in understanding the contracts a little better. Thanks!

[stathunter]

Hi Everyone. I'm glad I stumbled upon this thread. My fiance and I are actually in the process of interviewing and picking a photographer for our wedding. All the people we have interviewed have included a DVD of the images in their packages. As photography is the most important part of the wedding to us, our budget for photography is anywhere from $3,000-$5,000.

I've been reading through all the contracts from different photographers and the clauses around use of the images on the DVD has really confused me. This thread has really helped me out in understanding the contracts a little better. Thanks!

Congrats on your upcoming wedding! All the best to you and your fiance!

[ehduque7]

Congrats on your upcoming wedding! All the best to you and your fiance!

Thanks for the congrats!

We are very excited and have been very busy with booking our venue and all our vendors. It has been a joyous time for us and we can't wait till the big day. On the other hand it has been a very stressful time as it has become difficult to plan a wedding that costs $$$ in this tough economy.

[acousticvibrations]

Thanks for the congrats!

We are very excited and have been very busy with booking our venue and all our vendors. It has been a joyous time for us and we can't wait till the big day. On the other hand it has been a very stressful time as it has become difficult to plan a wedding that costs $$$ in this tough economy.


lol,

congrats on your big day coming,

Forget the Economy, you live in Cali.

I watch house hunters, and cry when i see small houses for $500,000-$750,000. Or 1 bed condos for million.

its been 4 years now for me. I spent roughly $16,000 for reception, DJ & photog. I would have trimmed it down to $8000 after hindsight.

Good luck!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Craigslist is great spot to find great rates on services. ie DJ & Photog.

[ehduque7]

Yes, houses do carry their costs well here...especially where I am currently living. So it works for people who already own homes.

The problem of course is when you don't own a house/condo/townhome and are trying to buy one but the small homes or small condos cost too much $$$. (my situation) haha...so it works for some and not for others.

Thanks for the congrats and input!

[ejicon]

Wow...call me old fashion, but that's way too much money for a wedding. What happen to a small inexpensive wedding? I guess you can barely get away with paying 16,000 for all of that in today's dollar... ouch

[PhotoMatte]

Congrats on your upcoming wedding! All the best to you and your fiance!

Not to be an ambulance chaser:eek:, but I am a professional wedding photographer who travels all over for weddings. When is your wedding? You can check out my site at the bottom of this email (it's my signature).

[USER876]

We are getting married in the north east and I wish our wedding only cost 8-16K. Places around here won't even talk to you unless you have 150-200 people minimum and average prices are 130-150 a person (not including tax and tip). A low priced venue would be around 80ish/pp and high end places are around 200+/pp. So for the reception only that is like 20-30K already and thats usually about half the total cost (after you add in music, flowers, video, photographer, dress, honeymoon,etc).

[ejicon]

/\ Nice Photos PhotoMatte... would like to see your blog or gallery for more samples

[ehduque7]

There is no way we can have our wedding for only 8-16K. So Cal is very expensive. The reception on its own will already be 16K+. Then you factor in photrogaphy, flowers, cake, DJ, party rentals, invitations, wedding bands, honeymoon, etc...the price just shoots up exponentially it seems haha.

Either way, it's a one time thing that we are very excited about. We've both been enjoying the planning phase very much.

[ejicon]

Good to here and good luck with it all. Keep up posted on everything if you don't mind. I would love to hear how things pan out

[PhotoMatte]

/\ Nice Photos PhotoMatte... would like to see your blog or gallery for more samples

Here are some sample wedding sites (prices have been changed so as not to advertise what I actually charged these folks):

http://www.shutterfly.com/pro/MEmrich/Tuck (wicks)

http://www.shutterfly.com/pro/MEmrich/Jessamyn (schaller)

the names in parentheses are the passwords

[mmahoney]

Most couples want the DVD so I include in all my packages. Back in the day of film & negative storage & scarce printing options it made sense for a wedding photographer to be the source for printing, and it was a nice source of profit.

But this is 2009 :lol: .. many print from home and many are satisfied with the quality & prices of WalMart or Costco, so why argue?

So I leave the 8X10's to Wally and focus my attention on those items they are not easily able to obtain themselves, like custom albums & larger gallery wrap prints.

[acousticvibrations]

Most couples want the DVD so I include in all my packages. Back in the day of film & negative storage & scarce printing options it made sense for a wedding photographer to be the source for printing, and it was a nice source of profit.

But this is 2009 :lol: .. many print from home and many are satisfied with the quality & prices of WalMart or Costco, so why argue?

So I leave the 8X10's to Wally and focus my attention on those items they are not easily able to obtain themselves, like custom albums & larger gallery wrap prints.


Thats so true!

Worst part is every photoshop & photo website now sells cheaper priced wedding albums!

[TriggerMom]

Thanks for the good information everyone.

Worst part is every photoshop & photo website now sells cheaper priced wedding albums!

I think more and more people will want high quality images on a CD because the options of things to do with the photos are more effective. From online scrapbooking (much nicer than a plain album) to collages etc.

For weddings/family photos I think the CD/DVD is good, with an offer to print through me. Other types of photos (sports etc) I am more hesitant to give a CD. Any comments on that??

[ehduque7]

Just to give a quick update...we decided to go with a photographer that gives us the digital files for personal use. Actually, all the photographers we interviewed do this.

Anyways, what we are doing is that we are getting a package that gives us the coverage time we need, our engagement session, the DVD of the digital files, and a flush-mount leather album. We recognize there are many options to get additional prints after the wedding so we will wait to see what our budget allows for then...whether that be ordering more prints from our photographer or going to other vendors for the prints.

It was important for us to make sure the leather flush mount album was in our package from our photographer because that is the one thing you really cannot go out and get on your own since it looks like most album companies only supply to photography businesses.

I do graphic/design work and so our plan is for me to design a photobook and have it printed from a site such as MyPublisher to give out to parents/grandparents/sponsors after the wedding. The quality, although not as great as a flushmount, is good enough for our parents and grandparents...in fact they probably wouldn't even notice the difference and it saves us some money. We will also probably end up ordering some nicer prints from our photographer after the wedding to gift out to our parents later on.

[PhotoMatte]

Just to give a quick update...we decided to go with a photographer that gives us the digital files for personal use. Actually, all the photographers we interviewed do this.

Anyways, what we are doing is that we are getting a package that gives us the coverage time we need, our engagement session, the DVD of the digital files, and a flush-mount leather album. We recognize there are many options to get additional prints after the wedding so we will wait to see what our budget allows for then...whether that be ordering more prints from our photographer or going to other vendors for the prints.

It was important for us to make sure the leather flush mount album was in our package from our photographer because that is the one thing you really cannot go out and get on your own since it looks like most album companies only supply to photography businesses.

I do graphic/design work and so our plan is for me to design a photobook and have it printed from a site such as MyPublisher to give out to parents/grandparents/sponsors after the wedding. The quality, although not as great as a flushmount, is good enough for our parents and grandparents...in fact they probably wouldn't even notice the difference and it saves us some money. We will also probably end up ordering some nicer prints from our photographer after the wedding to gift out to our parents later on.


Have you thought of using SmugMug or Shutterfly for your non-leather albums?

[acousticvibrations]

Have you thought of using SmugMug or Shutterfly for your non-leather albums?

problem is brides can to cheaper than what you would sell them.:o

[tim]

You're not selling a book, you're selling your time and skill to design a book, as well as access to higher quality products that brides can get themselves. I've seen what albums look like when brides design them - it's not always good. I've sold albums that cost $4000, and I know photographers who've sold albums for $10,000.

[acousticvibrations]

You're not selling a book, you're selling your time and skill to design a book, as well as access to higher quality products that brides can get themselves. I've seen what albums look like when brides design them - it's not always good. I've sold albums that cost $4000, and I know photographers who've sold albums for $10,000.

what albums do you sell for $4000?

can you provide a link?

[ehduque7]

what albums do you sell for $4000?

can you provide a link?

I can see albums easily reaching $4000 over here in so cal. Looking at some pricing sheets that we've gotten during our photography interviews I can see how things can add up quickly.

For example, let's start off by saying the couple wants a 12"x12" flush mount album that comes with a leather cover...the starting point on those is abnout $1100. Then say the couple wants more pages...thats about $70-$90 per page (I think its the extra pages that really make the cost of the album skyrocket). Then say they want tootone leather instead of the one color leather...thats about an extra $300-400. Then they also might want an acrylic cover with an image instead of the leather...thats another $300-$400. Then the updates and add-ons keep going and going...so after tax I can see the album quickly hitting $4000. And that's for a 12x12...if they want bigger, of course even more $$$!

[tim]

what albums do you sell for $4000?

can you provide a link?

www.queensberry.com albums. A 50 page 18x12" leather bound pagemount/magazine style album through me will probably cost that, not sure exactly off the top of my head.

[USER876]

Our wedding photographer includes 100 photos (unlimited pages) in a giant 16x16 flush mount album and it's A LOT less than 4K!

[tim]

Remember NZ$4K is anything between US$2K and US$3K depending on the exchange rate. Also i'm not the cheapest photographer around, but i'm nowhere near the most expensive either.

[tsw910]

Our wedding photographer includes 100 photos (unlimited pages) in a giant 16x16 flush mount album and it's A LOT less than 4K!

thats just like saying .. why buy a ferrari when you can buy a scion ..

and also .. did you know there's alot of different types of albums? covers? style? ...

every photographer has their own prices on what they would charge .. same goes for the service itself .. sure i can find a wedding photographer that service all day and albums and everything .. for $500 .. but in the wedding business, it is what you pay for ! .. you paid 500 bucks, you'll get $500 bucks worth ..

[Shooting]

If you offer a CD/DVD to your B&G do you give them the unlimited rights to print the pictures? and do you give them all to them or how many?
I NEVER give my images away. They could take them and go to a drug store to get them printed and when they turn out crappy, the photographer gets the blame for shooting bad images. A bad reputation travels faster than a good one so to give them consistent quality and color, I get them done at the same lab every time. I may give them a dvd slide show of their images set to free music I download but that is all.

[ejicon]

I NEVER give my images away. They could take them and go to a drug store to get them printed and when they turn out crappy, the photographer gets the blame for shooting bad images. A bad reputation travels faster than a good one so to give them consistent quality and color, I get them done at the same lab every time. I may give them a dvd slide show of their images set to free music I download but that is all.


Why don't you explain this to them? I'm sure 75% of the people that do this don't know the real-true process of receiving quality prints from the photographer. It's a simple understatement in such a situation.:o

[USER876]

I totally agree with your point, my wedding photographer was transitioning when we booked them, and had the same opinion....charge a lot for rights, and don't want people editing and printing images in which the final copy may look like crap and the photographer takes the blame....

BUT.....

I am on a few wedding forums, and I'll tell you 99% of the time, if it's not included, the person goes to the next photographer. It's something people really want included in today's times.

[JackLiu]

The professional photographer of my daughter's wedding provided a CD with copyright info attached. There was no mention of unlimited rights. The JPEG images were downloadable and editable.

[Shooting]

Why don't you explain this to them? I'm sure 75% of the people that do this don't know the real-true process of receiving quality prints from the photographer. It's a simple understatement in such a situation.:o

Yep..after I explain it to them they sign with me. I have never lost anyone yet once I explain it to them.

I know one pro photographer who charges what he estimates his losses in reprints would be. Has been reported twice to the Attorny General in our state for providing bad images until it was revealed they want to Fruth Pharmacy and used their instant print machine. I prefer not to go thru all that just to prove myself.

[ejicon]

alrighty. That makes sense... I hear ya