Pros & Cons of releasing/selling digital images...

[CatchingUp]

what to do...what to do...?

I know this is a reoccuring topic, I would think. To release/sell your digital images, or not.

I got back into photography a few years ago, just for fun and enjoyment. I teach full time so it wasn't like I was looking for a new job or career.

But like many businesses, what started out for fun has started making some decent money for me as a 'side job/career'. It has enabled me to buy lots of neat toys to further enhance my 'hobby'. :- )

I don't charge huge fees for my work, largely in part because I don't live in a market that commands the type of money one could make in a larger city. But I digress.

I am running more and more into people who want a disk of the images for their computer screen savers or to print for themselves.

When I first started shooting weddings, I asked some friends who were photographers about this and they were emphatic at the time about NOT releasing images for multiple reasons. - risk of shoddy printing, cutting into their own print profits, etc. So I sided with that argument and have not done that myself.

But people keep asking. They want them as 'back ups' in case of loss; they want to put images on their computers. ( I guess they could scan the prints they purchased).

I recently talked to a full time wedding photographer who had been resisiting this as well, and finally has started selling the disk themselves.

I guess the handwriting is on the wall - it is the growing trend and I doubt it will change.

So do you just start selling the disk and wash your hands of it?

What to do, what to do?

[cdifoto]

Pros: Quick buck.
Cons: Reduces/Eliminates chances of post-event sales.

I sell a disk of medium resolution images at a fair price. I put a 2nd folder of web sized and optimized images next to the medium. I charge a shooting fee I can live with. Everyone is happy.

I think photographers who absolutely refuse to give customers what they want are going to find themselves running out of work.

[eigga]

Start by offering the digital files as a perk. Like once they reach a certian order amount they become available or only offer them if a certian print size is purchased.

When I first offered digital files the only option was a CD of their order. So to get the digital image they had to buy at least one print. That way I knew they would see a high quality print first.

I sell a lot of digital files and prefer that. It works for me and my clients love that I offer them...gets me a lot of jobs becuase organizations want that now.

I think photographers who absolutely refuse to give customers what they want are going to find themselves running out of work.

Well said and I am gaining those jobs :)

[strmrdr]

prints are going the way of the dodo bird.
After all how many prints can you actually hang on your walls without it looking tacky.
Make sure your contract specifies exactly what your are delivering for the digital files.
I have been involved as an expert witness in a couple lawsuits because the advertised high resolution files were not high resolution.

[CatchingUp]

I have been involved as an expert witness in a couple lawsuits because the advertised high resolution files were not high resolution.

So in a 'legal' sense, what constitutes a 'high resolution file' ?

I do appreciate the responses thus far. I guess it makes more and more sense.

[eigga]

I use the term Full Resolution.. I figure think that makes it more clear.

For my medium or low resolution I state exactly what size print they can expect to make without losing quality.

[Gentleman Villain]

Crush the competition by giving away digital. Digital images are the best advertising ever and a decent photographer will get more business from referrals than he'll lose in reprint sales. Some people worry about the quality of the prints....c'mon...this ain't the Louvre...Who cares? More potential customers will see the digital files than the actual prints anyway since the clients will email the digital pics to all of their friends. .. it's all good. Photographers have been gouging people with reprint sales for too long anyways...it's time for that out-dated business model from the last century to disappear for good..

If there is a market for something....fill it....If customers want something...give it to them....Plus it's always fun to drive the other photographers in town out of business (or at least make them look bad)

Just one man's opinion:p

[superstes]

I think it all depends how you market it.

http://www.thisisventure.co.uk/Products/make-a-statement.aspx?c=viewProduct&id=141

[cdifoto]

I do fairly well with single large prints but that's about all people want to buy before they start feeling creepy. It's kind of pretentious to have a bunch of pics of yourselves all over your house and it's presumptuous to think others would want one or more. lol.

The CD is great for my clients to print their own snapshot sizes and/or post to the web. The large stuff where quality is important or a special mount, they can get from me.

[superstes]

It's kind of pretentious to have a bunch of pics of yourselves all over your house and it's presumptuous to think others would want one or more. lol.

These are aimed at people who have money to pay, and it's not just about self gratification, dig a little deeper
http://www.thisisventure.co.uk/images.aspx?cat=4

A client having a great photo set of themselves or their family plastered all over their house surely is to our benefit.

[cdifoto]

I'm all for selling stuff but I won't push it. That's not my style because it makes me feel sleazy. I'm a wedding photographer, not a family portrait photographer. I don't sell pics of kids to their parents, I sell pics of couples to themselves. A couple having more than one large picture of themselves in their home is a bit much. One is plenty. Everything else can be in an album, on a disk, or on facebook. They know this as well as I know this.

Moderation is classy.

[superstes]

I think photographers who absolutely refuse to give customers what they want are going to find themselves running out of work.

I know a few people who would pay good money for this type of cheese if available here in the South of France, as soon as one person has one it becomes the Mode.

Edit: Hey cdi, you edited your post I was replying to, not fair :D

Steve

[strmrdr]

So in a 'legal' sense, what constitutes a 'high resolution file' ?

I do appreciate the responses thus far. I guess it makes more and more sense.
There is no case law anywhere that I have found so it comes down to your expert against theirs:
In my opinion there are 2 ways to figure it for print and 1 way for electronic display:
1: camera settings for common camera's for that use, if your camera says the resolution delivered is low or its lowest setting your in trouble.
2: Recommended optimal size for printing as defined by the pro labs
at a size that a consumer would reasonably expect to print. (8x10 and aprox 6MP)
3: 1080P for images advertised as HD/HR for electronic display

Note: this is not legal advice, consult an attorney licensed your area for legal advice.

[medic583]

My sister got married about two summers ago... and one of the first questions she asked a potential photographer for the wedding was "can I have digital photos for facebook?".

The wedding photographer had never done this before and had just got her first digital camera (film shooter) but after consideration said sure.

Now... the photographer was happy as she got another wedding in for the summer, my sis was extremely happy as all her friends that she went to university live around the world (from the polar regions on expeditions to Europe, Asia, across North America, you name it) had the chance to see the wedding photos.

For me... the one thing I noticed... the photogs name or watermark was not on the photos anywhere visible (which would have been great marketting for her and my sis wouldn't have cared) and the other thing... no post was done on them... straight to cd out of camera.

So my thoughts just getting into photography are.. even though most of the pics taken that day were meant for web viewing for friends and family spread out globally... the photos should still have some post done on them (even if only low res, ya still want them to look good) and yes... having a signature or web address of the photographer would have been a good idea in my opinion as it would direct viewers to the photographer for possible sales in the future. (Given... she might not have watermarked them as no post was done and it was her first foray into digital... but... for future shots... ).

The low res shots, watermarked with post done would have been the ultimate outcome in this day and age where people are spread out globally... prints in an album are only seen by those whom are sitting in the living room.

Yet... having the availability of getting prints done along with the digital ones is always a given as well as my sis is quite proud of the album she has sitting in the house for all to see.

Any... just a simple view from a consumer (relative of one) in this day and age... and know for a fact that times are changing and people go with what they want and who they want... which may not be what you want or you at all if you don't offer the services they are looking for. :)

[CatchingUp]

This whole discussion really has me rethinking a lot of things.

I guess it really does make sense to let folks have the images now days given the multiple avenues of options people can go with their digital images.

So here's a follow up question -

Remember how Olan Mills used to have their little logo in the bottom corner of all the prints you ordered - ? Would it be acceptable to do something similar - to put your name on some place that would not be a distraction but still present so if/when the pictures were printed or reproduced elsewhere, your name would still be 'out there'?

[eigga]

Remember how Olan Mills used to have their little logo in the bottom corner of all the prints you ordered - ? Would it be acceptable to do something similar - to put your name on some place that would not be a distraction but still present so if/when the pictures were printed or reproduced elsewhere, your name would still be 'out there'?

You can do that if you want them to be able to use it on the web only but once you add a logo most printing companies will not print it. I occasionaly have walmart or costco call me to verify and I dont use logo and incude a copyright release notice (coverted to a .jpeg) as part of the CD

[medic583]

CatchingUp... honestly... I think it would have been great marketting for my sis' wedding photographer to have put a logo on her web prints. Really... they would be too small to print out anyhow (you can lower the resolution and size specifically for web) and then seeing all the "proofs" or whatever you want to call them would give the client a reason to purchase the prints they want without the logo.

The one thing I do have to wonder about... the pricing schedule must be looked at as well though... if one puts in all that time and the client doesn't order any prints period (is just happy with web shots)... maybe that can be taken into consideration and the photog can charge more for the time to make up for the lack of print sales?

[strmrdr]

This whole discussion really has me rethinking a lot of things.

I guess it really does make sense to let folks have the images now days given the multiple avenues of options people can go with their digital images.

So here's a follow up question -

Remember how Olan Mills used to have their little logo in the bottom corner of all the prints you ordered - ? Would it be acceptable to do something similar - to put your name on some place that would not be a distraction but still present so if/when the pictures were printed or reproduced elsewhere, your name would still be 'out there'?
if you are advertising them for printing no, for web size add it at the bottom so it doesn't interfere with the image itself.
Put it in your contract that it is there.

What a friend of mine does is delivers ~300 images color corrected and white balanced in lightroom.
He exports 2 sets of images: 1 full res for printing no watermark, one 800 pixels on the large side with a small watermark for the web.
The disk has 3 folders Print Web and EditingDemo.
With lightroom the web export is a 2-3 clicks and a nice value add.
He then picks 10 images or so and does full edits on them so they can see what extended editing can add to the image.
They are put in the the EditingDemo folder on the disk.
The demo images are used for his portfolio.

He shows them some samples of 20x30 prints and explains how at that size how extended editing makes for a better image.
There is a lot of money in a couple large prints for not a ton of work compared to doing it for 20 8x10s.

[CatchingUp]

I don't think I would ever sell/release unfinished photos. Not even interested in that.

[medic583]

I don't think I would ever sell/release unfinished photos. Not even interested in that.

Yea... was kinda shocked at that one... but then again... my sis' photog just got her new Nikon digital and it was her first wedding with it and had never done anything like handing over a cd before... Maybe, hoping it was just the spur of the moment "k.. I'll try it" type thing.

[Karl Johnston]

This has got me thinking about a lot of things. I used to think that watermarks were tacky, but then I had never really given away full resolution images on a disk; just low/mid (2-8 mpxs ) web jpegs, because that's what they are ..for web, not for print. I also know that the majority of money is made through selling the prints, but it had never occurred to me that I should be marketing myself using a small logo. I think that's a great idea and a standard for a lot of photographers, it seems.

[cdifoto]

The webbies I give look just like the pics I post here, only smaller. I don't have my url on them but my logo is there, with my logo incorporating my business name into it (kinda). I don't do detailed editing to them because that would take ages but I do make them nice for viewing. I save the pixel pushing for printed products ordered through me.

[LeeSC]

Things have really been changing with improvements in digital photography and low cost home/ online printing. While I think wedding photography is still a niche that will require a little more restraint over images, I have been contemplating putting together a new format for portrait type work. I have been thinking of charging a set fee for "X" number of images. This would include the PP and the images on CD with a print release. The client could pick their favorite raw images for PP and there would be an additional charge for any images requested above the set number. I would still reserve the right to use the images for advertising purposes. I would also control all raw images so it alleviates the possibility of a "bad photo" getting out.

Consumers are much more savvy these days. The can easily do a google search to find out what prints cost. Granted, there is our equipment cost and time factored in, but that is what the base cost covers.

I recently saw a photographer (who is average at best) asking $40 dollars for two 4x6's of one pose. This was in addition to the sitting fee. I wonder how many photos they sell?

[Karl Johnston]

If they were selling them at all, then there's your question answered right there.

Some people are like that...others don't have the market to do that. Some people can do 1000$ sessions...others just can't go over 150...some can't even go that high.

It's all relative, from what I've seen so far.

[Gentleman Villain]

This has got me thinking about a lot of things. I used to think that watermarks were tacky, but then I had never really given away full resolution images on a disk; just low/mid (2-8 mpxs ) web jpegs, because that's what they are ..for web, not for print. I also know that the majority of money is made through selling the prints, but it had never occurred to me that I should be marketing myself using a small logo. I think that's a great idea and a standard for a lot of photographers, it seems.

Karl, you're right....watermarks are tacky! Also, there is the joke that size of a photographer's logo is directly related to the size of his skill. The bigger the logo = the smaller the skill :D

However, watermarks are perfect for certain types of photography businesses and just depends on the target market. Who is the client? How sophisticated is the client base? The mainstream public shops at Walmart and eats at McDonalds....Do you think they are going to consider a watermark to be tacky? Hell no! They'll think the watermark is "classy" especially if it's in some kind of fancy cursive script. Remember, these are the same people that like heavy vignettes, heart patterns in their bokeh (http://www.alienskin.com/bokeh/images/examples/highlights/Kissing-Couple_Hearts.jpg), star filters, computer generated flare, texture overlays and image borders made out of rope (http://www.photoshopsupport.com/tools/free-brushes/ib-obsidian-dawn-frames-brushes/obsidian-dawn-frames-brushes12.jpg)

There's a joke we have in America that "no business ever won't broke under-estimating the taste of the American public." Not sure how things work in Canada....but one guy's "tacky" is another guy's "classy".....and if a photographer is in the business of selling to the mainstream then it might not be wise to assume that they share your idea of good taste

[bwolford]

If they want a CD of images there should be two tiers (minimum):

1) Watermark (a fine quality logo like the Bryn Alan/Olin Mills corner logo) and keep the resolution LOW. 4X6 quality. I'd still charge a hefty fee unless there were significant print sales OR a large fee for your services.
2) High (full) res logo less images (suitable up to 8X10) for $1000+. Actually look at what the average wedding print sale is in your area and charge that for these CDs, again less any print sales. For example, if the avg print sale is $5000 for a wedding in your area and this B&G buy $2000 in prints, charge them $3000 for the CD. You might consider discounting it further by your shoot fee.

[waple]

I offer digital files for 3x the price of the print. I've never had anyone buy more than 3 of a print so its basically covering the price of the max I'd sell of one image, plus it saves the paper, ink and time cost associated with the print. When I explain the reasoning to them they seem to understand. Just make sure you have a LOW rez version that will ONLY look good on the web and have at least one printable one. I have a 5x7 for $45 and 8x10 for $75.

[photoguy6405]

This is just me, but if I were in the market for a wedding photog as a consumer, the one's who either wouldn't provide good quality digital images (at a fair price) and those who mark up the CDs some unrealistic amount wouldn't even be hired. For good or for bad, the days of being held captive by the photog are rapidly ending.

[strmrdr]

This is just me, but if I were in the market for a wedding photog as a consumer, the one's who either wouldn't provide good quality digital images (at a fair price) and those who mark up the CDs some unrealistic amount wouldn't even be hired. For good or for bad, the days of being held captive by the photog are rapidly ending.

Yep consumers are taking more control.