This is bothering me... "proofs included"...?!

[KevC]

I was doing some market research, seeing the relative prices of wedding and other event packages, and I'm shocked to see so many photographers give away their negatives!

I had always believed that negatives and digital proofs are the photographer's own property, and you never give away your proofs because you'll never make any money off of prints. Sure, you can charge a large lump sum but the customer can go and print as many as he or she wants.

Is this common practise in your area? Or am I just really unlucky to live in a city where (it seems) all photographers give away their "digital uncompressed quality proofs so you can print as many as you want"?

[Avalonthas]

as long as they make a minimum initial order (depending on the project, it varies) then i include the digital proofs. Its common practise here and i have enough work so i dont have time to do new orders on older events/projects. If they wanna bring them to a walmart they can knock themselves out, but if they want quality prints then they can come to me, but i charge a hefty price for new packages after i give them the proofs.

[flyfishnj]

I was contacted by my wedding photog about a year after our album came. I bought the negs for $250 7 years ago.

[chtgrubbs]

I think it may be more of a question of terminology. Down here in the South we usually refer to the uncorrected 4x prints which are printed at the time of processing as the "proofs". It used to be that clients were given the proofs to make the selection for finished prints, but some photographers were quite fussy about making sure that the proofs were returned so that the clients would have to buy prints. It would seem that now some photographers are giving them to the clients as part of the package.

[robertwgross]

Every wedding photographer has a slightly different business model.

Some will offer a low-ball wedding package for shooting, but then the B&G end up buying all prints through the photographer at a perhaps-inflated price. Sometimes they like to play games to save money, so they try to get the proofs, scan them, and make their own prints. Of course, that is likely to get limited results.

One guy I know has a completely different deal. He offers different packages, but anything to do with prints is strictly a separate business deal between the B&G and the lab. He tells them this up front, so that they are not confused by pricing, one way or the other.

Another trick is that some labs have a service where they scan the film (or take the digital files) and put up digital proof photos on a secure web site. The photographer looks at them first to weed out anything that is sub-par. Then the B&G are given access over the web. It is arranged so that they can look but can't get a very effective copy without ordering a print from the lab. Then, eventually, the prints are produced by the lab and made into an album by the photographer, if that was part of the package.

---Bob Gross---

[Moments]

These are questions that I get alot from B&G when we meet for the first time. I include the proofs with all my packages. Even though they get the proofs, 200 - 250 of which are in a proofbook, I still get add-on orders and reprint orders. I have a few print orders right now from weddings from last year and one from 2001 at the lab right now. Do I think I have lost some reprints due to people scanning the proofs, Yes, Do I think it is hurting my buisness, not really. I make my money on the inital contract and refferals from clients. Reprints still generate a good amount of revenue per year.

As far as the negatives or Hi-Res files, I do tell the clients that they available for purchase 6 months after the albums are completed for a nominal fee of $100.00. Again I make the money on the initial contract. I also explain that the negatives need to be sent to a prolab as they are not 35mm but medium format square negs. As far as the Hi-res files, I tell the clients that the files have been color corrected for my lab, and I can't be held responsible for the color unless it comes back to me for more prints. I have only had a handful of clients purchase the files so far, so I'll see if any come back for reprints. I have had clients bring the negs back to me to make reprints at my normal prices. I have included the negs in some packages, as it depends upon the job. I also have given a few clients that I did not really wish to see again the negs at the end of the job. On Friday with the finished albums, I gave the negs & Hi-Res files to a client who was one of a group of 7 friends who's weddings I have been photographing over the last few years. That was not the whole reason for giving them the negs. Without ever meeting me in person, but just seeing thier friends albums, they originaly booked me over the phone at my base package of $3000.00 and upgraded to $5200.00 once they recieved the proofs. I made my money and I will get more jobs out of them. That Bride just moved jobs to a company that publishes a bridal magazine and other local bridal publications, so we will see were that goes. She has already started to inquire about me shooting for the magazine.

As far as the proofs and negs/Hi-res goes, I believe it is the right way to do buisnes and I do not do it as a selling feature to entice a booking. I don't wish to seem like I'm a "nickle and dime type photographer". That is a term that I have heard from many clients reguarding this issue.

[Bruce Hamilton]

I believe you're confusing negatives with proofs... A proof is actually what we post here on the forum for other members to see and critique... A very low resolution copy which usually contains a watermark of the word proof or your copyright.

[Moments]

Moments,

Your approach makes sense since you're making a decent fee up front.

It's a good idea that you're covering yourself regarding color balance. The client has to realize that there's a tradeoff: if they get the negs/files, they have to do the work that you'd have done had you kept the files and taken responsibility for output.

During the last two years that I shot weddings, the quality of labwork in my area had dropped so low that I was happy to part with the negatives. With the exception of one lab, labs in my area weren't worth the powder it'd have taken to blow them all to Halifax.

I'm wondering, though, what kind of proof book you used that could hold 200-250 proofs. Were you using a full-sized album and 3 1/2" x 5" prints? Or were you using one of those three-ring binder types of proofbook?

Bloo Dog,

My bigest complaint is about labs. Mine is ok, but I do run into problems all the time. Not as much with color, but management of the multiple jobs I run at a time. For the most part they do a good job and I could not see any other lab being too much better, unless they are a small operation. The problem with small labs are that they are usually expensive and the final product is not that much of a noticable difference that the clients would see. I have been struggling with the thought of bringing all my printing in-house but it looks like the overhead for the equipment will be too much. 80K to 150K just for the equipment. I have thought about high end color managed inkjets, but the consumable costs vary and it looks like it might cost more to produce an 8x10 especially when you factor in the time to colormanage and print one, than just sending it to the lab for $2.75 each.

As far as the proofbooks I use, they are the Topfight PBMS-3-45/46. The are a three ring binder type and I mix my 5x5 and 4x6 proofs in it. 5x5 are two on each side and the 4x6 are 3 on each side.

[CappuccinoDavid]

Well I know WalMart will not let you print unless you have a writen doc from the photographer. I know I've had problems trying to get some proofs done that were mine. It took lots of red tape for me to do it. But if you give them proofs with a watermark and low res then they would either have a bad picture or they come back to you. But what about the enlargement you sell, they can get some copies of them. What is a photographer to do ???

[DaveG]

I was doing some market research, seeing the relative prices of wedding and other event packages, and I'm shocked to see so many photographers give away their negatives!

I had always believed that negatives and digital proofs are the photographer's own property, and you never give away your proofs because you'll never make any money off of prints. Sure, you can charge a large lump sum but the customer can go and print as many as he or she wants.

Is this common practise in your area? Or am I just really unlucky to live in a city where (it seems) all photographers give away their "digital uncompressed quality proofs so you can print as many as you want"?

Be shocked as much as you want but it's simply a business decision by the photographer, and one that I made a long time ago.

I'd rather get the wedding and make some money up front while "giving" away my negatives (digital negatives now). If you want to keep your digital negatives and can, fine. But if the market place demands otherwise, then that's the way it goes. Surely you don't pay $1000 more for an airplane ticket than you have too, and that's what wedding clients have come too. I heard a lot of bleeting from a PPOC guy about how I could "Make more money." if I kept the negs. I did twenty weddings that year and he did three. He also told me about what a joy their November's are when wedding clients are trying to get prints from them for December first, so they can mail them out as wedding gifts! What was a perfectly happy wedding experience has now turned sour.

Me I like to book it, shoot it, deliver it, and forget it, as quickly as possible.

By the way the ownership of the negatives, digital or otherwise is completely based on the agreement you enter into with the bride and groom once you are hired. There is no absolute rule one way or the other if it's mentioned specifically in your contract. If there is no contract then it's probably work for hire and the client owns your stuff, just like the widget you made for them when you worked in their factory.

[CappuccinoDavid]

Yes I guess your right.

[Avalonthas]

I think it may be more of a question of terminology. Down here in the South we usually refer to the uncorrected 4x prints which are printed at the time of processing as the "proofs". It used to be that clients were given the proofs to make the selection for finished prints, but some photographers were quite fussy about making sure that the proofs were returned so that the clients would have to buy prints. It would seem that now some photographers are giving them to the clients as part of the package.

Film Proofs are very different from Digital Proofs. Digital proofs are basically the actual unedited file you took the photograph with. Maybe diff in USA but thats how they reffered to here.

[natalka]

Since having gone digital, I no longer print proofs because I no longer have film processed. 4x6/3x5/5x5 paper "proofs" were a by product of film processing ie the only way to really see the photographs/images was to have them printed, and then they were called proofs. Now, the way I proof the images to my clients is in a proof magazine as well as online proofing. I work with the edited proofs only...no extra paper waste, and only print the proofs that are "keepers".

And yes, I do give away (with an album package) and sell the digital files as well. And since I have gone digital, I have sold more DVD's of the digital files than I ever even had interest for the film negatives. The files are just another product that can be added-on sales.

Natalie

[natalka]

The couple keeps the proof magazine. I certainly don't want my house filling up with these things. I don't care if they try to scan a thumbnail sized image...really, how good of a reproduction can they make from an image that's approximately 1.75" x 1.25"? Plus, they take the PM with them wherever they go: work, relatives, parents, etc. The other people see the images and might want to order one, so then they go to the password protected online proofing site.

Natalie