Don't give them a CD.

[chrishunt]

There's a good chance that your customer's will ask you for a CD of all their photos. There's also a good chance that you will oblige them. This is not only a bad idea for your business, it's a bad idea for your customer.

Why??

You spend hours culling your photos down to a set that you feel proud to deliver. You then color correct, crop, and export. This may take your days. You then grab a subset of your culled set and edit them in painstaking detail... adding sepia, removing skin defects, maybe adding a vignette. After your editing, you pull up a slideshow on your calibrated monitor and awe at your amazing artistry. You are so good.

The customer is waiting and she is EXCITED! As a final step, you export all your photos to jpg and upload to a web gallery. You send the bride a link. She cries. Now you take those same images, stick them on a CD, and mail them. You may even meet the customer in person to deliver this CD. You are done, the customer is happy.

Sounds good yeah?

Except the next day, the same customer brings their wedding CD of beautifully exported, color-calibrarted images to KMart and has them all printed to 4x6 prints in one hour. She then uploads the contents of the CD to Facebook and they are heavily compressed, cropped, and put in an album called "my professional wedding photos" for the entire world to enjoy. The caption on them says "taken by bob, my wedding photographer"

As a photographer, this should make you cringe. Not only does the customer never see how good your images really are, any incoming business to you will judge your work based entirely off KMart prints and facebook photos. EW!

Don't do this!

You are hired for a reason: you have vision and you know how to use a camera. You are an artist. The customer is not. You do not let them edit your photos, so do not let them present your photos.

Attending the wedding, getting the photos, and editing the photos are all important steps, but all this effort is wasted if you do take the time to present your photos properly as well. Put them in an album, have them printed at your favorite lab, make a DVD... do something! Once the customer sees the photos in their hand at a much higher quality than their local KMart, their mind will explode and you will blow the minds of all their young almost-getting-married friends who look at the same album.

In the end, what the customer sees and holds in their hand is all that matters. Control this, do not give them a CD. ;)

[AlexMoPhotography]

How do you find enough brides to stay in business that don't want a CD in this day and age?

I would say about 100% of everyone who has asked me to shoot their wedding asked for a CD of images. Ok, exactly 100%.

The only other option is to raise my prices a little and throw in my own 4x6's. Then maybe withhold the CD of images til later?

[AngelKatie413]

In my experience (although I know this is highly debatable) I have found it to be a good business practice to give the brides a CD - under the right circumstances - and here's why:

I only give them the CD when they get the album. They've been able to order any prints through me and this is sort of the final product. It also pushes them to get their album approved faster.

I give them "proof" images on the CD. It's explained that any print photos are color-corrected and enhanced, hence the higher price tag that they command than going to K-Mart.

In my opinion, a good photo is a good photo, printed from whcc or kmart. When your client sees the difference in quality, they will order from you. You're selling YOURSELF as much as your photography - so be a nice happy photographer and give them what they want :)


There's a good chance that your customer's will ask you for a CD of all their photos. There's also a good chance that you will oblige them. This is not only a bad idea for your business, it's a bad idea for your customer.

Why??

You spend hours culling your photos down to a set that you feel proud to deliver. You then color correct, crop, and export. This may take your days. You then grab a subset of your culled set and edit them in painstaking detail... adding sepia, removing skin defects, maybe adding a vignette. After your editing, you pull up a slideshow on your calibrated monitor and awe at your amazing artistry. You are so good.

The customer is waiting and she is EXCITED! As a final step, you export all your photos to jpg and upload to a web gallery. You send the bride a link. She cries. Now you take those same images, stick them on a CD, and mail them. You may even meet the customer in person to deliver this CD. You are done, the customer is happy.

Sounds good yeah?

Except the next day, the same customer brings their wedding CD of beautifully exported, color-calibrarted images to KMart and has them all printed to 4x6 prints in one hour. She then uploads the contents of the CD to Facebook and they are heavily compressed, cropped, and put in an album called "my professional wedding photos" for the entire world to enjoy. The caption on them says "taken by bob, my wedding photographer"

As a photographer, this should make you cringe. Not only does the customer never see how good your images really are, any incoming business to you will judge your work based entirely off KMart prints and facebook photos. EW!

Don't do this!

You are hired for a reason: you have vision and you know how to use a camera. You are an artist. The customer is not. You do not let them edit your photos, so do not let them present your photos.

Attending the wedding, getting the photos, and editing the photos are all important steps, but all this effort is wasted if you do take the time to present your photos properly as well. Put them in an album, have them printed at your favorite lab, make a DVD... do something! Once the customer sees the photos in their hand at a much higher quality than their local KMart, their mind will explode and you will blow the minds of all their young almost-getting-married friends who look at the same album.

In the end, what the customer sees and holds in their hand is all that matters. Control this, do not give them a CD. ;)

[Peacefield]

While I agree with the sentiment, it just flys in the face of the market. I've never met with a client that didn't come in with a full expectation of getting their hi-res images on DVD with full rights to print, reproduce, etc. I suspect I would have booked exactly none of those clients if I didn't accomodate that expectation.

To me, it's not unlike raising kids (though I'm sure everyone has different views about that, too). You don't hide them from the bad stuff, you educate them about the bad stuff so they know how to make good decisions for themselves. One of the first things I do during the initial consultation is show the couple some prints from my lab, and then some of the same images from Costco, and one from Shutterfly. As you all know, a world of difference. And that's before the retail version start to fade which I always point out. I also price my prints fairly agressively. Enough where I'm satisfied with the total revenue generated but low enough to keep the temptation to go to Walgreen's to a minimum. And I even talk about not uploading them to Facebook for the reasons you describe. I use Zenfolio for my on line gallery and there's a facility to allow anyone to link to the gallery or even a full screen flash-based slide show. Now I no longer have something to discourage, I have something to encourage; I want them to share the this because it not only looks great, it brings them into my site.

Don't swim against the tide; success comes a lot easier if you swim with it. It's just a matter of finding ways to make it work for you.

[jonwhite]

I am betting you haven't shot that many weddings Chris and therefore not met that many brides because "do I get the CD of images" is usually one of the first questions most brides ask and if the answer is no then they tend to move on to someone else unless you have a very strong brand or profile which means they specifically sought you out for your artistic approach.

Regards images on Facebook then that shouldn't really be an issue anyway as its in your best interests to share your fave images on their yourself before the bride and groom get chance to put any up and by doing that it means you have control over how they will look and also get the publicity for them when people start tagging other people in them. If your a photographer and aren't loading images up to facebook then your missing out imo!

Couples wanting the CD/DVD of images is only going to get more important as we move from printed framed prints to digital photo frames, the traditional model of the photographer keeping the negatives is an old and dying one I think.

I don't disagree that albums and quality printed products should be something that you offer, we offer a range of quality albums, prints and other products and still do well by them because people recognise the difference in quality, but B&G's still want that CD/DVD!

[tim]

Two thoughts:
- If you don't offer a CD you won't get the booking, period. I just talked to a girl in London, her two requirements are a nice album and a CD of high resolution images. Without both she wouldn't have booked.
- Most places do at least reasonable prints so long as the supplied file's ok. Not often perfect, but pretty good. I educate my customers about where to get images printed, and encourage them to order though me if they want the best prints or retouching.

The "no CD" approach isn't practical any more, except perhaps at the VERY highest end or for traditional locations/customers. Good luck with your approach.

[tfizzle]

I couldn't disagree more with the OP.

For portraits I edit/correct around 25 images but I have the option of them buying the rest of the images I didn't pick for a price.

I give them the 25 edits in one folder and the other .jpg in another folder. If they want to buy printing rights they have to buy all the photos.

So at the beginning they get watermarked images of all that I have picked (say 60) and 25 of my picks for PP. They know this is a part of the process/package. They then submit which ones they want ordered from the package they have ALREADY paid for (prints). If they want the printing rights for what they've seen from all images on the CD they can buy them afterward.

It's worked well for me and I would have no problem giving the bride a cd with images. As long as you get your expected pay first there really isn't a problem with walmart prints or facebook posting.

You are hired for a reason: you have vision and you know how to use a camera. You are an artist. The customer is not.

Do your job/vision/and know how to make good images regardless of the ability for them to print/process them. People will see that.

You are forgetting something inherent in your post. You are serving a "customer" and not being a snot-nosed artist that needs to limit everything about his work. Maybe you just need to work like that . . . many have shown that they don't need to and they are doing fine.

[RT McAllister]

She then uploads the contents of the CD to Facebook and they are heavily compressed, cropped, and put in an album called "my professional wedding photos" for the entire world to enjoy. The caption on them says "taken by bob, my wedding photographer"That's why you give the bride carefully downsized and "web ready" pics along with the ones she's going to print.

Would you rather she only bought prints then scan them on some cheesy consumer scanner and mangle them up herself? (After she sends you a scathing email because she's forced to do this of course).

[tim]

I couldn't disagree more with the OP.

For portraits I edit/correct around 25 images but I have the option of them buying the rest of the images I didn't pick for a price.


Ah here I disagree with you. Portraits and weddings are totally different business models, with weddings paying reasonable session fees, and portraits not. I don't offer a CD for portraits, though after a print's purchased I offer individual digital files.

[tfizzle]

Ah here I disagree with you. Portraits and weddings are totally different business models, with weddings paying reasonable session fees, and portraits not. I don't offer a CD for portraits, though after a print's purchased I offer individual digital files.

and that's fine, it doesn't take me any extra work to offer them after I already make my session/print profit. I pick my 25 that I like, process them, and then shoot them the watermarked cd with the other quick picks that I like (I do quickly edit them).

After they see them they can buy the unedited .jpg if they want. I've already made what I want to make and if they want to buy them (portraits) then it's no skin off my back. They would just be photos of people/families sitting on my hard drive not being bought/used.

BTW they buy the printing rights when they buy the extra .jpg also which they don't get with just buying a package.

[ScullenCrossBones]

Every bridal magazine has a checklist item for your photographer to make sure you get a CD of your images. You might as well try to stop the ocean with a cracker.

Personally, I think the great fear of providing a CD of images is caused more by a business model that depends on the sale of many and large prints. I understand that fear. But the market has changed. Photographers need to price their services based on services provided, rather than upsell ability.

Just my personal opinion. YMMV

[sapearl]

Totally agree - fear of lost prints sales. Heck, I have that fear. I didn't particularly sell a lot of very large prints, but I did do a fair trade in 5x7's and 8x10's.

So the solution: Include a hi-rez DVD of the images and add $400 - 600 to the overall cost of the wedding package, or throw it in if they purchase one of the more expensive albums?

.....Personally, I think the great fear of providing a CD of images is caused more by a business model that depends on the sale of many and large prints. I understand that fear. But the market has changed. Photographers need to price their services based on services provided, rather than upsell ability.

Just my personal opinion. YMMV

[Martin Dixon]

The customer is always right!

I can only aspire to shooting weddings for cash, but I have married and it is unbelievable how every service wants to double prices if they know it's a wedding. I am very keen that everybody can earn their honest crust but it is really annoying that photographers usually appear to the want best of both worlds - get paid to do the shoot + keep copyright and get a hefty profit from all the prints. Don't they want to be shooting not storing and printing?

I agree that the photographer should be allowed to sell whatever services they like, and many couples will want the works, but others will be primarily paying for the skill of the shoot (and the photographer should feel good about that!). I think it better that they ask for "extras" rather than feel mean when they can't afford to print 100's copies for all their friends.

As has been said elsewhere and extends far beyond photography, we all need to adapt to the developing market. It must be hard to earn money photographing weddings, but it is essential that the offering gives people what they want.

I am sure all POTNers advocate more quality, less quantity and it is up to the seller to sell the idea of a few great images rather than a load of mediocre ones. Usually there are official and friends photos and they are ALL valued. Against all our "principles" I would have thought a tiered selection could help - a number of top quality retouched shots, a set of set pieces & must haves + a bunch of you might want these too. If you can sell the top stuff then they might ask for more lesser pics to be upgraded if they really like your stuff.

It is tough losing control of your images and having them on facebook, but in the end they are only your babies and have to be let go in the end!

[Dennis_Hammer]

It's actually worse than do I get a CD with pictures. It's I only want to see the packages that include a CD.

Also I include low res web version just for the facebooks of the net that butcher the compression/resizing. And I explain in detail about where and how they should get the images printed most of the time using Costco's printer profiles while editing, sending them there to get prints.

[raiyo]

Not giving a print back-up (CD) to your customer isn't going to work out. You have to think in there shoes also. You charged them such and such amount and they know its worth it, but it is costy to them. They want to print some other photos out via Kmart to frame up or give away. The quality of the prints might not be the same as yours, but the image is there. If you have a good eye and took fantastic pictures, it will show on those low quality prints. Your customer will see the quality difference. If they wanted something large to be printed out, they might come back to you. If not, most of the time, they might end up going Kmart or what not. Without some sort of back-up isn't going to flow. What if the photographer of your wedding passed away and you don't have a back-up of your wedding photos? It just won't work.

[sapearl]

Since photographers in the past rarely included the negatives, there never was any backup.

And seriously, if they make the decision to have their work banged out at K-Mart, I really don't believe they care about the the quality difference of the print and likely would not see those differences. Raiyo, I don't know if you saw it but there's a related thread here you may find interesting:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?p=9202418#post9202418

Not giving a print back-up (CD) to your customer isn't going to work out. You have to think in there shoes also. You charged them such and such amount and they know its worth it, but it is costy to them. .........

What if the photographer of your wedding passed away and you don't have a back-up of your wedding photos? It just won't work.

[chrishunt]

I appreciate the conversation here, thanks.

FYI - I've only shot 11 weddings and every one of them got a CD.

I'm not trolling here, I just wanted to hear opinions on the idea of keeping the CD. I have seen success with both... although saving to disk and dropping in the mail is by far more common.

My desire to keep the disk has nothing to do with money. I just care too much about presentation I suppose. If only there was a way to motivate customers to spend the extra dough on some decent prints/albums! Shoot, I'd sell the prints with no margin if I could get them to pay the extra for a decent lab.

In the end, I know I will never shoot a wedding without offering a disk :)

[gravy graffix]

I did a test between good ole SAMS CLUB's fuji frontier printer, and W H C C and yeah, 99.1% exactly the same. I really wanted to use WH... but man I dunno. Now I do not have LONG term color holding test, but initial color and paper quality are for all intensive purposes, are spot on with each other.

I agree tho, I would rather be in control of the prints for the reasons the OP stated. As far as face book, I include a set of "social site" friendly sizes. I do not want them resizing them in paint or letting the applet doing it.

[tim]

I can only aspire to shooting weddings for cash, but I have married and it is unbelievable how every service wants to double prices if they know it's a wedding. I am very keen that everybody can earn their honest crust but it is really annoying that photographers usually appear to the want best of both worlds - get paid to do the shoot + keep copyright and get a hefty profit from all the prints. Don't they want to be shooting not storing and printing?

Even charging what seems like a lot of money for photography, most photography business are barely profitable. Add up equipment price, maintenance, and repair, prints, albums, petrol and travel expenses, accounting expenses, bank charges, health insurance, professional and indemnity insurance (professional insurance is EXPENSIVE), freight, computer, software and upgrades, storage, advertising, national association memberships, education and courses, etc, etc, etc. Then of course there's income tax, GST, and VAT. Between that wedding photography is only enough to pay the mortgage and put the food on the table if you're a high end photographer.

And of course we know wedding photography takesa lot of time (http://www.wildphotography.co.nz/blog/wellington-wedding-photographer-blog/2009/wedding-photography-myths/), it's not just show up and take some photos then burn them onto CD - at least not if you do it right.

[dynamitetony]

as mentioned, the problem has become that if they cant have a disc they will not hire you and they will hire someone that will give them a disc

sometimes things are market driven, and this is one thing where if all the clients want it, you have to do it or you may lose out to the competition

[RT McAllister]

And of course we know wedding photography takesa lot of time, it's not just show up and take some photos then burn them onto CD - at least not if you do it right.

What is the definition of "right"? (That's rhetorical, don't answer).

I think I've mentioned here before that I know a couple of those, "pump & dump" shooters that do just that - shoot and burn all in the same day. They will cull images in camera, burn and toss a DVD into the bride's lap on the way out the door. I've even shot for one of them before. They're cheap by most standards and indeed cater to a different market but they do ok and never seem to lack bookings or referrals.

This doesn't seem wrong to me. It's just another business model.

[picturecrazy]

If one is charging a low rate that attracts the budget brides, then of course they're gonna print at Kmart. What do you expect?

But the disc is something most have come to expect. But in the higher end market, they expect the disc, AND a beautiful album, AND some high quality professional prints. Yes, some will still print at Kmart, but most will still order prints through you, even though they have the disc. Educate clients about quality, and attract those who want quality. Then convincing them to get the GOOD stuff is not very hard.

[Mark1]

There is another twist to the CD thing. Thoes that go to the wall portrait conferance are starting to cut out small prints. And by small I mean 8X10 and smaller. I have talked to a few who have been and they will print them when asked, but refer to them as "gift prints". They now focus on selling 24, 36, or larger prints. They will give a CD of final edits that were in the album and a few select others for them to print on there own.

[cdifoto]

Give? No. Sell? Hell yes!

Holding digital images ransom in a digital world only makes you look like a douche.

I prefer to emphasize the disk sale and encourage them to make all their own small prints - saving them a boatload of money and me a boatload of time. I also encourage them to come to me for any large prints, because I have the original source file and can massage it to the perfection it needs to be for such a large display.

Besides, I make about the same amount of money on a mounted 11x14 canvas print than I do on 10 luster 4x6 prints, and obviously retouching 10 images is more work than retouching one.

[Cdeming]

Give? No. Sell? Hell yes!

Holding digital images ransom in a digital world only makes you look like a douche.

I prefer to emphasize the disk sale and encourage them to make all their own small prints - saving them a boatload of money and me a boatload of time. I also encourage them to come to me for any large prints, because I have the original source file and can massage it to the perfection it needs to be for such a large display.

Besides, I make about the same amount of money on a mounted 11x14 canvas print than I do on 10 luster 4x6 prints, and obviously retouching 10 images is more work than retouching one.


This is what I was going to ask about. I'm still in the process of setting up my business model, and I've noticed a lot of photographers in my area sell the Hi-res images on a CD for an extra cost (around $300) on top of the original wedding package. What do you guys think of that?

[sapearl]

I'll be taking this approach myself - but thinking more in the area of $400-600. The caveat would be that if the client purchased one the most expensive packages, I just may start including it at no extra cost.

This is what I was going to ask about. I'm still in the process of setting up my business model, and I've noticed a lot of photographers in my area sell the Hi-res images on a CD for an extra cost (around $300) on top of the original wedding package. What do you guys think of that?

[tim]

I'll be taking this approach myself - but thinking more in the area of $400-600. The caveat would be that if the client purchased one the most expensive packages, I just may start including it at no extra cost.

That's what I do - $500 in lower packages, it's included in the top package.

[Peacefield]

This is what I was going to ask about. I'm still in the process of setting up my business model, and I've noticed a lot of photographers in my area sell the Hi-res images on a CD for an extra cost (around $300) on top of the original wedding package. What do you guys think of that?

I did that early on; my very first digital weddings. VERY low res images on disk included, but they could either buy the hi-res disk for $300 or I would include it free with the purchase of $600 worth of albums, etc (good money for me at the time). They bought (either through cash or product purchases) the hi-res disk 100% of the time. Once I had a few weddings to show in my portfolio and began advancing price, I quickly just built it into my base price so I didn't have to deal with producing two disks and working the sale. Now that I've advanced price again to something closer to middle market, I can't even imagine the disk as anything other than something that is simply included in the cost of shooting the day.

Unlike Tim or Sapearl, I do not offer packages; a base price for shooting the day; albums, etc., are all available ala carte. Just the way I prefer to manage the sale.

[sapearl]

As long as it works, you're not killing yourself for minimum, and you're making a decent profit, that's all that counts ;).


.....Unlike Tim or Sapearl, I do not offer packages; a base price for shooting the day and albums, etc., are all available ala carte. Just the way I prefer to manage the sale aspect.

[Cdeming]

I'll be taking this approach myself - but thinking more in the area of $400-600. The caveat would be that if the client purchased one the most expensive packages, I just may start including it at no extra cost.

That's what I do - $500 in lower packages, it's included in the top package.


Thanks for the quick response! That's what I was thinking, that I'd charge for a CD with the lesser packages but include it in the most expensive one.

Now another question, do you charge for the CD with your portraits or just include it in the cost of the session?

[Peacefield]

I'm much more weddings than portraits, but I have done a few. I essentially work them the same way; $X for the session and that includes the hi-res DVD plus on-line gallery. Prints, etc. all ala carte. But I don't think this is the conventional model.

[amonline]

Wake up. It's almost 2010. ;) :D

[tim]

Now another question, do you charge for the CD with your portraits or just include it in the cost of the session?

For portraits I sell individual images, but only once a certain print spend has been met. I don't really want to sell files at all. I might include facebook sized images with big prints, not sure yet. I don't do many portraits.

[charger912]

So what does everybody do about e-shoots? A lot of photogs include those shoots in their wedding packages, but are they treated as a portrait session, with only print sales as Tim mentioned or are the images given on a CD like for weddings?

[sapearl]

Very often E-Shoots are used as the "carrot on the stick" special.... the hook; "Book now and I'll throw in a complimentary e-session that is typically worth $xxx.00 at no extra charge." It's a good way to boost bookings if your volume is down (just so long as you don't give away the store.)

Call it a semi-candid/semi-formal portrait session. It's what you make of it, and you go with the flow, the mood, the ideas of the b/g. It's an opportunity to be really creative, when you don't have the pressures and time constraints of the wedding day.

I may or may not include a high rez disk at no or extra cost. Again, it would depend upon the overall package being contracted, or sales completed.

At least that's how I view it. ;) - Stu

So what does everybody do about e-shoots? A lot of photogs include those shoots in their wedding packages, but are they treated as a portrait session, with only print sales as Tim mentioned or are the images given on a CD like for weddings?

[form]

Photos on dvd are an integral part of wedding photography now; I think many people want/expect them. I know that 99% of the jobs I get (or used to) are based on offering the DVD disc of retouched photos. I used to lose about 2-5% of jobs partly because I didn't offer albums. A number of couples specifically said, "I just want a disc of images, how much will that cost?"

[charger912]

Very often E-Shoots are used as the "carrot on the stick" special.... the hook; "Book now and I'll throw in a complimentary e-session that is typically worth $xxx.00 at no extra charge." It's a good way to boost bookings if your volume is down (just so long as you don't give away the store.)

Never thought of it like that. It just goes to show that I've got a TON to learn about this business Thanks! ;)

[Peacefield]

For me, e-sessions also work like a wedding; so many $'s to shoot, they get the DVD and on-line gallery included, and I price my prints pretty reasonably. Not unlike Stu, I'll use it as a carrot. I'll only give it away if it's a winter wedding since that's such a slow time. I won't give it away during busier seasons, but will only make it available as part of a full wedding package; the couple can not purchase just an e-session.

[sapearl]

They had to drag me kicking and screaming to this new concept ....:lol:.... much like when they pried my Hasselblads from my cold and curmudgeonly hands and kicked my a$$ into the digital world - but I now accept this is the "new normal. "But you will pay my pretties..... don't make me call the flying monkies."

Yep - they'll get their disk, but it will cost them one way or another ;).

Photos on dvd are an integral part of wedding photography now; I think many people want/expect them. I know that 99% of the jobs I get (or used to) are based on offering the DVD disc of retouched photos. I used to lose about 2-5% of jobs partly because I didn't offer albums. A number of couples specifically said, "I just want a disc of images, how much will that cost?"

[tfizzle]

I don't offer a disc in my lowest portrait package. I had to ask the last client to get their print order in to me. I gave them a disc with all the photos that I thought were good. 60-70 images with 25 of those being PP.

And when I messaged them to get their print order to me guess what they did? They said that they would like to buy the disc with all images w/o watermarks so they can go print their own.

That's extra money for the minimal time I spent on the .jpg extras that I threw on the disc after editing thing promised 25 that they would get.

So I have my prints already paid for and now all I have to do is export the photos without watermarks and I have some extra cash from the portrait session.

I didn't have to upsell, drag them into more prints or try to get them to buy a higher package. I just put them on a disc, watermark them, and tell them that if they want the watermark off and printing rights that they can buy it. About 5 more minutes of work on what I've already done for more money.

[cdifoto]

You could say

"Buy $2000 worth of products and get this $200 print for free" or
"Buy $5000 worth of products and get this $500 disk for free" or
"Buy 100 photos and get 10 more free" or
"Buy any package over $1000 and get 10% off"

They're all offering a 10% discount. :)

It really doesn't matter how you go about offering people better deals when they spend more money. It's semantics.

[cdifoto]

As far as my treatment of engagements - I have an hourly rate for shooting and anything else is extra. I treat them as if they're weddings price-wise because I put the same effort into both. I will offer a product credit if they're booking the wedding with the engagement session but because of my pricing structure I don't need the wedding to do the engagement or vice versa.

Having a standard rate for all of my shooting means I don't have to push products. I can hand each person a catalog and let them make their own decisions, at home, with no pressure.

Some people balk at my portrait rates but others see how it's fair to everyone concerned. Usually the people balking are the ones looking for the Sears pricing structure. If that's what they want, I literally recommend Sears. And I don't do it sarcastically or mean-spirited. I genuinely recommend them as likely suiting their needs better.

[tim]

I don't offer a disc in my lowest portrait package. I had to ask the last client to get their print order in to me. I gave them a disc with all the photos that I thought were good. 60-70 images with 25 of those being PP.

And when I messaged them to get their print order to me guess what they did? They said that they would like to buy the disc with all images w/o watermarks so they can go print their own.

That's extra money for the minimal time I spent on the .jpg extras that I threw on the disc after editing thing promised 25 that they would get.

So I have my prints already paid for and now all I have to do is export the photos without watermarks and I have some extra cash from the portrait session.

I didn't have to upsell, drag them into more prints or try to get them to buy a higher package. I just put them on a disc, watermark them, and tell them that if they want the watermark off and printing rights that they can buy it. About 5 more minutes of work on what I've already done for more money.

Many professional portrait photographers have average sales of $2000 or more. I'm guessing with what you've said above that you don't, and also that you're not likely too.

Most photographers need to learn about business, and sales, I think.

[cdifoto]

Depends on your definition of "many" :)

[tfizzle]

Many professional portrait photographers have average sales of $2000 or more. I'm guessing with what you've said above that you don't, and also that you're not likely too.

Most photographers need to learn about business, and sales, I think.

I don't that's for sure. I'm not a "professional". I have a full-time job and get photo jobs by word of mouth on the side. There aren't many photographers in my area and there's only one other real legitimate place but they are pretty spendy in comparison to the income in my community.

The other photogs are pretty old have have an old time look to their shots. Also, our community contracted a guy who is a professional last year for T&I sport shots and they were rather unimpressed.

He showed up to the wrong place in town, didn't have papers for the parents to fill out, and the proof shots he provided were really bad. Out of the three I saw each one had a different WB and the skin tone was a range from pale orange to over-contrast orange.

So by your standards (and my own) I'm not a professional but when it comes to what I've seen around here I'm a step-ahead of any real competition. Not many people know about me yet.

I also do what's easiest for me in my current situation. This format is easy and I'm not concerned on making a lot of money. I can say that it buys my gear and then some which makes it enjoyable for me while also offering photos that people love.

[tim]

Professional is really a sales and marketing term in this context. You're not a professional, even if your photos are better. The key is the transition, and how to make it worth your while. Once you start making money, paying tax, and claiming expenses it gets real. And less profitable, really.

[Karl Johnston]

You wedding guys have such exciting threads over here. :p

[tim]

Well we could talk about Tiger Woods, shaking babies, balloon boy, or other, but it's a wedding forum.

[cdifoto]

Let's talk about other...we haven't discussed that in a lonnng time.

[PMCphotography]

Well, to the OP:

-Even if they do buy super high quality prints form your expensive, color calibrated monitor...

they can always scan the prints on their $20 scanner with dust in it, make a crummy jpeg and get it printed at kmart, then upload it to facebook for their friends to see.

Does that seem like a better idea than giving them a cd?

[cjcastan]

unfortunately now-a-days everyone wants a disc whether they know what to do with them or not.

I include them in my collections because people have to have it since the bridal magazines and Martha Stewart tell them too. Even if they print them at kmart / sam's etc. Granted I start @ 3250 but that's a different story.

so to keep them coming back for more you have to have a USP. Mine is art prints. I print on art paper (prefer Hahnenule sugar cane right now) and heavily work the images. I then show the prospective clients the regualr out of the camera image printed on standard photo paper and then the worked image on fine art paper.

The people then understand the difference between professional and what they can do. The CD seems trivial then since they know they can't work images the I do for them and they have no access to printing like I can do.

Some buy, some don't but at least it gives me something different over the comp.

[Adaptive]

That's why you provide a low resolution resized copy in a separate folder inside the CD so they don't go cropping and bastardizing the photos. AND to add more impact all of the low resolution (i call them web resized images) have your logo & website link carefully placed somewhere in the corner or on a border.... Much better than making them do it themselves and they will appreciate you thinking ahead........... :) It only takes about an extra 30 minutes to run another export in photoshop/lightroom to do the resized images, then however long it takes to run your images through the batch watermark program.

:)

[cdifoto]

That's why you provide a low resolution resized copy in a separate folder inside the CD so they don't go cropping and bastardizing the photos. AND to add more impact all of the low resolution (i call them web resized images) have your logo & website link carefully placed somewhere in the corner or on a border.... Much better than making them do it themselves and they will appreciate you thinking ahead........... :) It only takes about an extra 30 minutes to run another export in photoshop to do the resized images, then however long it takes to run your images through the batch watermark program.

:)

Better yet, have one action that does it all as a single process. Press go & walk away. ;)

[Adaptive]

Better yet, have one action that does it all as a single process. Press go & walk away. ;)

true.dat

[shomat]

The "no CD" approach isn't practical any more, except perhaps at the VERY highest end or for traditional locations/customers. Good luck with your approach.

I was going to respond, but this says it all.

Furthermore, I don't think it's at all unfortunate that clients want photos on disc nowadays. There are so many great things you can do presentation-wise with digital files. I know I'd want them, and I'd never hire a photographer who refused to hand them over.

[bnlearle]

I've gotten prints from W H C C and compared them with walmart, costco, and another local store printer. I couldn't pick which one was the clear pro print when compared. I've done this probably five times with about 20 different prints? Not one time would I have put a dime on the one I thought might be the pro lab.

Pro labs are really there for quality (in regard to lasting), imo. But now since prints don't require that anymore (as it's so affordable to get another print, you just don't need to be guaranteed that your 8x10 will last 143 years) it just isn't all that important that they last forever. Albums, for example, NEED to last a long time because they have additional value (not easy/cheap to get another one, someone professional has to make it, etc.). I know photographers get pissed at me for saying this, but I totally believe that as a whole photographers overstate the differences in the final print.

UNLESS you mildly process your images and will do professional processing on the pro prints. Then there is added value for the pro print. But I don't tell my clients "be sure to print through me because anything else looks terrible!" I just don't believe that to be true.

Bobby

[RT McAllister]

Not one time would I have put a dime on the one I thought might be the pro lab.You would be surprised at how many so-called pros actually get a lot of their smaller "lab work" done at these places. :D

I take personal stuff to a fuji kiosk all the time. The matte finish is great and so is the dye. It never matches my monitor (prints are too dark) so I have to adjust accordingly but you can't beat 15 cent 4x6's. I couldn't even print them at home any cheaper.

[tim]

I did the same print comparison a few years ago, and there wasn't much between the labs. I could see minor differences, but the quality was good with them all.

[myjunk]

The way I do it is like this. (I haven't yet start to incorporate hard Copies into my pricing)

in the DVD, I have 2 folders
1) High Resolution ( For Printing)
--> In here, the pics are the full 18MP (or whatever i crop to) and outputed at 240ppi
2) Low Resolution (for computer viewing)
--> In here, the pics are resized to max 1280 (height or width)
--> I batch resize them using Irfranview. (I find it to be an OK program and the output seems acceptable.) What do you guys use to batch resize them? 400-1000+ pics?

I've never considered putting in the watermark on the low resolution pics. I think I'm gonna start doing this.

I'm also considering on putting a disclaimer on the DVD with a statement that is along these lines

"Pictures printed through a 3rd Party and not w/ the photographer may not be as good quality comparatively"

I know that line means Crap once it leaves my hand. but.. what can I do eh.. better to protect me in some manner.

[PMCphotography]

I always show the clients a print that I personally sized down and sharpened (and maybe burned the edges a bit, or whatever.) And a print that came from walmart. Sometimes the difference is obvious, sometimes not. Like you said, you can't control what they do with the disc, all you really can do is educate them.

[Adaptive]

I've never considered putting in the watermark on the low resolution pics. I think I'm gonna start doing this.



Yeah it's good because you know the couples are going to post the pictures on myspace, facebook anyways.
Not to mention the hundreds of family and friends they will send the images to through email

Free advertising, why not!
:)

[tim]

I batch resize them using Irfranview. (I find it to be an OK program and the output seems acceptable.) What do you guys use to batch resize them? 400-1000+ pics?

Photoshop. I do 3000px as full size, 600px with watermark as web size.

[myjunk]

Adaptive : Yeah.. As I said, for some reason, I've never considered doing that. But I am going to start.


Tim : Hmm. 1000 pics batched using PhotoShop? Interesting. Never done it before. I wonder how is the difference.

BTW,may I ask, how come fix it at 3000px? I understand the web-sized one thouugh

[tim]

Tim : Hmm. 1000 pics batched using PhotoShop? Interesting. Never done it before. I wonder how is the difference.

BTW,may I ask, how come fix it at 3000px? I understand the web-sized one thouugh

I do it all the time, maybe not with 1000 pics but that'd be fine, but. I do it with 500 images often. RAW files are opened in ACR and batched out. PSD files are done using the image processor which is designed to do exactly what you want. Image processor works for any file type, including raw, but batching raw using acr is much faster.

I fix to 3000 px as I have a variety of cameras and use both full raw and mRaw, and I want a consistent size for the customer. I also remove exif for a customer cd.

[myjunk]

I do it all the time, maybe not with 1000 pics but that'd be fine, but. I do it with 500 images often. RAW files are opened in ACR and batched out. PSD files are done using the image processor which is designed to do exactly what you want. Image processor works for any file type, including raw, but batching raw using acr is much faster.

I fix to 3000 px as I have a variety of cameras and use both full raw and mRaw, and I want a consistent size for the customer. I also remove exif for a customer cd.

So I take it you're a PS predominant guy. I'm more of LR right now and only so select files in PS.

Never thought of the consistent size argument. But perhaps there's merit in that.

Removal of Exif. Is there any reason for doing that?
For me, I'm renaming the files w/ the following format.

name-sequence#-lens-iso-aperture-shutter_speed.jpg

Its a habit of mine to be able to view the settings w/o going through multi clicks for the exif

[tim]

I use Bridge mostly, which is basically the same as Lightroom, I process perhaps 1% of images in Photoshop, but I do prints, sharpening, and finish album layouts in PS too.

I remove exif as the customer doesn't need to know what is says, and it can only create questions. I rename images based on customer name and sequence number for the final files - so for Jane and Fred they'd be JF001 and up. Again, the customer doesn't need to know the aperture or any other technical details.

[fotoworx]

There's a good chance that your customer's will ask you for a CD of all their photos. There's also a good chance that you will oblige them. This is not only a bad idea for your business, it's a bad idea for your customer.

Why??

You spend hours culling your photos down to a set that you feel proud to deliver. You then color correct, crop, and export. This may take your days. You then grab a subset of your culled set and edit them in painstaking detail... adding sepia, removing skin defects, maybe adding a vignette. After your editing, you pull up a slideshow on your calibrated monitor and awe at your amazing artistry. You are so good.

The customer is waiting and she is EXCITED! As a final step, you export all your photos to jpg and upload to a web gallery. You send the bride a link. She cries. Now you take those same images, stick them on a CD, and mail them. You may even meet the customer in person to deliver this CD. You are done, the customer is happy.

Sounds good yeah?

Except the next day, the same customer brings their wedding CD of beautifully exported, color-calibrarted images to KMart and has them all printed to 4x6 prints in one hour. She then uploads the contents of the CD to Facebook and they are heavily compressed, cropped, and put in an album called "my professional wedding photos" for the entire world to enjoy. The caption on them says "taken by bob, my wedding photographer"

As a photographer, this should make you cringe. Not only does the customer never see how good your images really are, any incoming business to you will judge your work based entirely off KMart prints and facebook photos. EW!

Don't do this!

You are hired for a reason: you have vision and you know how to use a camera. You are an artist. The customer is not. You do not let them edit your photos, so do not let them present your photos.

Attending the wedding, getting the photos, and editing the photos are all important steps, but all this effort is wasted if you do take the time to present your photos properly as well. Put them in an album, have them printed at your favorite lab, make a DVD... do something! Once the customer sees the photos in their hand at a much higher quality than their local KMart, their mind will explode and you will blow the minds of all their young almost-getting-married friends who look at the same album.

In the end, what the customer sees and holds in their hand is all that matters. Control this, do not give them a CD. ;)

Strong views....but you don't bother to come back to your own thread.

Strange.

[RT McAllister]

I use Bridge mostly, which is basically the same as Lightroom,Adobe Bridge is nothing like LR. Sure, you can use it to cull but that's about it.

Most useless and bloated piece of crap Adobe makes. (Aside from acrobat and premiere).

[tim]

Adobe Bridge is nothing like LR. Sure, you can use it to cull but that's about it.

Most useless and bloated piece of crap Adobe makes. (Aside from acrobat and premiere).

You obviously don't understand Bridge. I've been using it for many years, Lightroom and Bridge share the same ACR core. CS4 Bridge is a huge improvement on earlier versions. The difference is Lightroom is more of an image management system, with lots of bells and whistles, whereas Bridge is a browser that gives you access to ACR. You can do the same things to images with Bridge as Lightroom, but LR adds a lot more management features, and some headaches to go with them.

[sapearl]

Whoah there..... back up the bus a bit. It may not be perfect - don't know any app that is, but it's done right by me for several years now ;). Not only do I cull, but I WB, exposure, contrast, etc. adjust thousands of files a year with the program. It's a bit slow on my old machine, but it delivers the goods.

Adobe Bridge is nothing like LR. Sure, you can use it to cull but that's about it.

Most useless and bloated piece of crap Adobe makes. (Aside from acrobat and premiere).

[RT McAllister]

You obviously don't understand Bridge.

And you don't understand LightRoom.

Bridge is nothing more than an image browser that allows you to shell into ACR and Photoshop. It's only an intermediate filing system and organizational tool to collect all the various media used by all the CS applications for convenience - that's what it was designed to be - hence the name, "bridge".

LR has adjustment and development tools "built in". So many in fact that going outside of LightRoom to do what you need isn't even necessary most of the time. It's got filter presets, package printing, web gallery tools, etc. It lets you create virtual copies of any RAW file you have (as many as you want) and limit your actions to just those. You can make HSL adjustments, tonal adjustments, sharpening, CA, even Lens corrections and LR will remember them. (etc., etc., etc.,)

So no... Adobe Bridge is not, "basically the same as LightRoom".

[tim]

You're right that Lighroom does web galleries and printing, not sure what filters are. ACR does "HSL adjustments, tonal adjustments, sharpening, CA, even Lens corrections", plus presets, and every other image processing function in LR, so they're also available in Bridge. Bridge is more limited, but in terms of processing images it does much the same as LR - just without the organisational bits and a few bells and whistles. Bridge and Lightroom fulfill the same role.

[RT McAllister]

ACR does "HSL adjustments, tonal adjustments, sharpening, CA, even Lens corrections", plus presets, and every other image processing function in LR,

ACR does those things, not Bridge. Somehow you think they're one in the same - they aren't. Bridge just launches ACR the same way it does Photoshop. LR's functions are standalone and the workflow is non destructive and database maintained.

Just to be clear, I'm not dissing anybody that uses Bridge. After all, it comes with CS4, Photoshop and other Adobe apps. But I wouldn't talk a photographer out of getting LR using the argument that Bridge does the same thing.

[tim]

ACR does those things, not Bridge. Somehow you think they're one in the same - they aren't. Bridge just launches ACR the same way it does Photoshop. LR's functions are standalone and the workflow is non destructive and database maintained.

Just to be clear, I'm not dissing anybody that uses Bridge. After all, it comes with CS4, Photoshop and other Adobe apps. But I wouldn't talk a photographer out of getting LR using the argument that Bridge does the same thing.

I'm quite clear on what does what - ACR does those functions for both LR and Bridge, it's just LR gives an alternate interface that some people like. ACR is just a software component that can be accessed either via the default interface Bridge/PS provide, or manipulated via an API an alternative UI like LR does.

It's really down to personal preference about workflow.

[myjunk]

sorry if I started something distructive, but I'm gonna put my 2 cents here.

LR and Bridge serves 2 purpose (to me) and like RT said, Bridge, to me is just management (and not a very good one at that IMHO though I have very limited exposure to it), LR on the other hand, is near a full fledged development tool like PS. (though on a scale to 1 to 5, 5 is PS, LR would be ~4 i say)

LR does not use ACR, where ACR is an external program called upon to do the bidding in Bridge. This does not happen w/ LR where it happens internally. Okay, perhaps you can just say that in LR, ACR and LR is integrated within itself where Bridge, it's an external program.

Tim : You're right, the client does not need to know the exif and perhaps I will consider removing them in the future as well as having a constant naming scheme like what I do for the web-sized ones.
eg: client_sequence#.jpg

[tim]

LR does not use ACR, where ACR is an external program called upon to do the bidding in Bridge. This does not happen w/ LR where it happens internally. Okay, perhaps you can just say that in LR, ACR and LR is integrated within itself where Bridge, it's an external program.

This is wrong, or at least misleading. ACR provides the core image processing for both Bridge and Lightroom, Lightroom just provides an alternate interface and extra functions that aren't in ACR.

[10megapixel]

I've gotten prints from W H C C and compared them with walmart, costco, and another local store printer. I couldn't pick which one was the clear pro print when compared. I've done this probably five times with about 20 different prints? Not one time would I have put a dime on the one I thought might be the pro lab.

Pro labs are really there for quality (in regard to lasting), imo. But now since prints don't require that anymore (as it's so affordable to get another print, you just don't need to be guaranteed that your 8x10 will last 143 years) it just isn't all that important that they last forever. Albums, for example, NEED to last a long time because they have additional value (not easy/cheap to get another one, someone professional has to make it, etc.). I know photographers get pissed at me for saying this, but I totally believe that as a whole photographers overstate the differences in the final print.

UNLESS you mildly process your images and will do professional processing on the pro prints. Then there is added value for the pro print. But I don't tell my clients "be sure to print through me because anything else looks terrible!" I just don't believe that to be true.

Bobby

What Pro lab are you using? I can definitely tell the difference from my local Wal-Mart, Walgreens, and 1 hour photo prints compared to the pro-lab prints I have done. I show the side by side difference to clients and they are amazed. The color is always off at the cheaper place...always.

[myjunk]

This is wrong, or at least misleading. ACR provides the core image processing for both Bridge and Lightroom, Lightroom just provides an alternate interface and extra functions that aren't in ACR.

Like I said, in LR, ACR and LR is integrated and combined w/ bells and whistles.

Bridge is just well, bridging the gap between ACR and Bridge itself.

In any case....:)

[bnlearle]

What Pro lab are you using? I can definitely tell the difference from my local Wal-Mart, Walgreens, and 1 hour photo prints compared to the pro-lab prints I have done. I show the side by side difference to clients and they are amazed. The color is always off at the cheaper place...always.
I said one of the labs in the above post ;)

I don't know. I tend to think that photographers that have these HUGE differences are stacking the deck by doing more processing to the pro prints or something. I've printed all kinds of prints at Wal Mart, Costco, Walgreens... there just isn't a real huge difference. In fact, in my experiences, there isn't any identifiable difference at all.

I really should get like ten back and forth prints done and show them here -- and then have people vote without knowing. I'll bet you any amount of money that you won't get 10 for 10 -- or even 8 for 10 ;)

Bobby

[sctbiggs]

I never have a problem selling prints and we give away the digital images.... If you're using good professional printer and have good samples of all the print options and styles, they will order from you and not go to the local big box store exclusivly. Clients will know and understand the difference if you do a good job of explaining it to them.

As for web compression... just give them a cd designed for web upload. And slap your logo on all those. Fairly simple solution to your "Oh No, it's the end of the world" rant. :)

[RT McAllister]

This is wrong, or at least misleading. ACR provides the core image processing for both Bridge and Lightroom,No, it does not. If you use Bridge for RAW processing it needs ACR. LR does not. Stop interchanging Adobe Bridge with "ACR" in your posts and you'll be less confusing. They are 2 different things.

I've printed all kinds of prints at Wal Mart, Costco, Walgreens... there just isn't a real huge difference. In fact, in my experiences, there isn't any identifiable difference at all. I think where the pro labs can still "one up" the cheap kiosks is in the dyes and pigment inks they use. Of course that's impossible to show a client until you have a faded print from Costco that's 50 years old.

And the people I shoot for seem to have no problems selling at least a few prints... just not to the bride & groom (who typically just get their DVD's and albums). Family portraiture at a wedding is pretty big around here and since folks are generally spread out across the country it's rare when 3 or even 4 generations get together all at once. Most of these people will never see (much less obtain) the couple's 5mb copy of the jpeg on DVD to print themselves - just the facebook version maybe. And these types of photos are wall-hangers for them so they don't balk at spending $20 for each 8x10 they order online.

[John the Geek]

No, it does not. If you use Bridge for RAW processing it needs ACR. LR does not.

They BOTH need ACR. Bridge launches the plug-in separately, LR uses it internally with it's own interface. BOTH use - and require ACR.

[RT McAllister]

They BOTH need ACR. Bridge launches the plug-in separately, LR uses it internally with it's own interface. BOTH use - and require ACR.LR only uses the specific RAW camera support wrapped in ACR - not the application UI itself which is called by bridge.

[turbo212003]

I sell CD's(Dvd as data). When I do, I say this to a potential bride...

I will upload all the images onto my fulfillment company so you can order them without having to run around and deal with crowds. I have had 50% success with that approach.

[sctbiggs]

I sell CD's(Dvd as data). When I do, I say this to a potential bride...

I will upload all the images onto my fulfillment company so you can order them without having to run around and deal with crowds. I have had 50% success with that approach.

good thought there.

[sapearl]

I want to make sure I understand this - via the fulfillment company you are really just selling them the IMAGES and not the image files. Is that correct?

I sell CD's(Dvd as data). When I do, I say this to a potential bride...

I will upload all the images onto my fulfillment company so you can order them without having to run around and deal with crowds. I have had 50% success with that approach.

[sctbiggs]

I want to make sure I understand this - via the fulfillment company you are really just selling them the IMAGES and not the image files. Is that correct?

believe IMAGES is what was meant. Company I use is going to start to offer downloads of images sometime in the future. So I can charge per download of image. Just like the music companies do now. Hope it works out. Would save me the headache of making DVDs and such. I won't be the one wasting time on it. The client will.

[sapearl]

Thanks Scott - very interesting if that's the case. Never thought of it before but it would be the next logical move for wedding and event photographers I suppose.

believe IMAGES is what was meant. Company I use is going to start to offer downloads of images sometime in the future. So I can charge per download of image. Just like the music companies do now. Hope it works out. Would save me the headache of making DVDs and such. I won't be the one wasting time on it. The client will.

[RT McAllister]

Would save me the headache of making DVDs and such. I won't be the one wasting time on it. The client will.You mean you'd make the couple download 500-700 hi-res photos after paying you all that money? :D Man, I hope you rethink this. With this kind of system I think you still give your clients a DVD but anybody else would have to pay for downloading them.

[sctbiggs]

You mean you'd make the couple download 500-700 hi-res photos after paying you all that money? :D Man, I hope you rethink this. With this kind of system I think you still give your clients a DVD but anybody else would have to pay for downloading them.

No... package with the images and package without the images. If you opt for not all the images you can download each individually as you choose. And yes, just as you said. Guest would be able to download. The only question then comes, how to do low res images with logo... Would have to upload two sets. Doesn't sound so appealing afterall. :confused:

[RT McAllister]

No... package with the images and package without the images.

Ok, I'm with you now.

The only question then comes, how to do low res images with logo... Would have to upload two sets. Doesn't sound so appealing afterall. :confused:Maybe the image company just takes your master set of pics, down-sizes them and then puts the word, "proof" over them?

The more I think about it, this idea is starting to have merit. Especially if you sell "zero" prints.

[sctbiggs]

Ok, I'm with you now.

Maybe the image company just takes your master set of pics, down-sizes them and then puts the word, "proof" over them?

The more I think about it, this idea is starting to have merit. Especially if you sell "zero" prints.

yea, but i'd rather have my logo strategically placed. As I do now. And that's time consuming on 500 images. Typically have the client pick favorite 20 or 30 and I give those with logo as low res for online posting.

[turbo212003]

I want to make sure I understand this - via the fulfillment company you are really just selling them the IMAGES and not the image files. Is that correct?

Sell prints I mean.:)

[tim]

Photographers Shopping Cart lets you sell individually downloaded images.

[sctbiggs]

Photographers Shopping Cart lets you sell individually downloaded images.

linked?

[tim]

linked?

Here you go (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=photographers+shopping+cart).

[Gel]

The customer is always right!

I can only aspire to shooting weddings for cash, but I have married and it is unbelievable how every service wants to double prices if they know it's a wedding.

When someone books me for a wedding they get a set price usually 30% higher than my hourly rate.

For that they not only get me for the day, but get free photoshop retouching (If you take a good picture in the first place it won't need much).

Plus I will travel to them, spend up to two hours finding out and discussing their needs, drive back, liase with the other services such as the church and car hire (to make sure they land in the spot I will be, e.g. some limos can't park near the church). I'll also go to the church and reception to take test shots so there are no suprises on the day.

All of which takes time, which I expect to be compensated for within reason.

To the OP : Give them one set of images for printing, one for facebook or as a compromise, ask the bride to only upload 10 to facebook linking to your site with the full res ones on.

[stagi]

I sell them the images at a premium price, also when I give them the images I give them a list of people I suggest they have the images printed at and let them know the importance of the printer. When they are spending good money on the disk I have found they really value that and don't want to go to walmart for cheap prints.

[myjunk]

I'm a nice person (perhaps too nice). I do not sell prints (yet) and I find selling prints to be just a hassle. (but would like to sell albums in the future)

I provide clients additional stuffs. (simple things)

Facebook size (w/ watermark) -> 720px max
Computer Viewing size (w/ watermark) --> 1024 or 1280px max
Full Res (w/o watermark ) --> 300ppi

I leave it to them on where they want to print it out. (although I do also recommend that they go through if, but mostly they don't and have yet to receive bad feedback on bad prints)

[dovaka]

if i told people i dont give out any kind of electronic format pictures up front i would never have any work. everyone expects to be able to put pics on facebook and what not, half the time i do it for them and send them the link. from my experience 99% of people out there cant tell the different between a good picture and some random POS snapshot unless there side by side not to mention ALL the pictures on facebook are compressed to hell and people are use to seeing them that way.

[JustinL]

I'm a nice person (perhaps too nice). I do not sell prints (yet) and I find selling prints to be just a hassle. (but would like to sell albums in the future)

I provide clients additional stuffs. (simple things)

Facebook size (w/ watermark) -> 720px max
Computer Viewing size (w/ watermark) --> 1024 or 1280px max
Full Res (w/o watermark ) --> 300ppi

I leave it to them on where they want to print it out. (although I do also recommend that they go through if, but mostly they don't and have yet to receive bad feedback on bad prints)

FYI I've had facebook images look best at max 600 pixels

As for sellig prints - I had a bride tell me she wouldn't go with me unless I had online prints set up. 5 months after I uploaded them I have yet to sell a single print from her wedding (and I didn't give her a DVD either)

[sapearl]

Prints have become a finicky thing anymore. I know a lot of people who have their walls lined with beautiful matted and framed wedding pieces, and that's what they expect from a service standpoint...... and then there are others who just want to send images via their IPhone or other electronic media (too bad for them if it's not backed up and batteries go dead.)

In the past I've made substantial money on prints. But this has changed along with today's changing business model. I still do enjoy print sales although to a lesser degree.

With an online gallery the b/g can point friends/relatives there to make their own print purchases, if they want something tangible and more substantial than electronic media. This way THEY don't have to incur the cost - seen this happen many times ;).

I did a wedding a couple of months ago..... still waiting for their album picks, but in the meantime people from that day have been mailing me orders. In honesty, they are not individually large but collectively they are starting to add up.

.......As for sellig prints - I had a bride tell me she wouldn't go with me unless I had online prints set up. 5 months after I uploaded them I have yet to sell a single print from her wedding (and I didn't give her a DVD either)

[benesotor]

Can't you send a proof CD with watermarked images... then when the client is happy with them, you offer your printing service?

This way the client has to come back to you whether they want you to print or not...

Orrrr what I did, host the photos on photobox pro gallery, they can view the photos and print from there, and you can choose how much to charge (money goes to your bank account)

[tim]

Print sales have probably dropped by 80% in the past 2 years, and that's only over the few years earlier. I put the images online mostly as a courtesy, so peoples friends can see them. I still sell prints but generally only small orders and probably on 1/3 of weddings.

[JustinL]

Tim could digital frames be killing print sales that much? Just a thought it could b attibuted to dig
frames - only guessing here

[sapearl]

I doubt it's the frames - it's the ease and portability of sharing digital media, across the web, on FB, via your blackberry, blog, or gallery. You simply can't do that with a physical framed print or "solid" album. The younger generations - for good or bad - does not put the same value on traditional print image or photo albums.

Tim could digital frames be killing print sales that much? Just a thought it could b attibuted to dig
frames - only guessing here

[bnlearle]

Tim could digital frames be killing print sales that much? Just a thought it could b attibuted to dig
frames - only guessing here
People are wise to professional printing, imo. They know now that if they have the digital negatives, and they can get prints and reprints whenever they want, the selling point from the pro that his print will last 4000 years just isn't a big selling point.

For example, you have a 20x30 print from a pro for $250, let's say. Well you can get that anywhere for under $30. Let's say that that print will last 20 years. They can get a reprint themselves in 20 years -- probably even cheaper than now. Whereas in the film days, you had to buy direct from the photographer, so the prices were much more expensive, now people have the option of printing themselves. And, unless you do extra goodies to your final prints that don't exist on the DVD, the prints at most places really don't look all that much different than WH CC or Bay Photo. Photographers swear that they do, but I've done tests with all of them.

And I still sell pro prints at a premium. So this isn't me ranting because I don't sell prints anymore. Just being realistic ;)

So to sum it up (generally speaking), people don't need prints to last forever as they can reprint more economically and people don't believe that there is that much of a difference between their local photo lab and what you can give them.

Bobby

[tim]

People ordering prints from us are mostly paying for convenience, since the couple almost always has a high res disk and i'm sure they copy it for anyone who asks even though they're not supposed to.

I've never sold prints based on longevity, I sell it based on retouching and having the best quality prints available.

[PMCphotography]

Couples have told me that they order prints from me because it's "easier." Sure they can take the disc down and get pprints made themselves, but that takes time and a lot of couples just want prints they can pop in frames or give to family straight off.

[sapearl]

Same here - the issue of longevity only comes up once in a while, and it's not the selling point. They don't know how to remove wrinkles, blemishes or the odd relative that ruins every family get together.... especially weddings. Nine times out of ten it's a matter of quality and convenience, plus my prints are very reasonably priced.

People ordering prints from us are mostly paying for convenience, since the couple almost always has a high res disk and i'm sure they copy it for anyone who asks even though they're not supposed to.

I've never sold prints based on longevity, I sell it based on retouching and having the best quality prints available.

[bnlearle]

I didn't say longevity was the only thing -- I compared quality. I'll make any of you a bet of whatever amount of money that I can get 20 of my random prints done at Wal Mart and the lab of your choice -- and you won't be able to pin point a real majority.

Now, like I said, if you do extra goodies to images that are purchased for printing, that's additional value. But quality of the prints alone? I don't think people believe that there's reason to pay $40 for an 8x10 from a photographer or $3 for one from their local lab.

Bobby

[tim]

Print orders take me ages, once images are processed. Even charging NZ$10/US$7 for a 6x4 once you add up the time, the costs, the courier costs, etc, I make almost no money. That's why I do batches of prints, once a month, I get a little economy of scale.

[thechickencow]

At my wedding, I recieved all of my shots as 4x6'es, as well as DVD's with the shots on them. The 4x6'es were what I believe was the photogrpaher's intent to control the prints that most people will see, and she did a great job on them.

[tim]

At my wedding, I recieved all of my shots as 4x6'es, as well as DVD's with the shots on them. The 4x6'es were what I believe was the photogrpaher's intent to control the prints that most people will see, and she did a great job on them.

That's what the album's for!

[nuffi]

Here you go (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=photographers+shopping+cart).

Hi Tim.

At the risk of putting you offside, I am gonna pull you up on this. Firstly, simply responding to a post by saying "search google" is generally pretty crappy and impolite, at best. Doing it like this is not just crappy and impolite, but could easily be insulting.

Worst of all, this was a response to a post where someone was asking about a specific application. One that you had brought up. It is totally reasonable to be asked for a link to your specific solution. Your insulting link to a google search that is slow, tedious and emblazoned with the message "How hard was that?" is outta line.

[bnlearle]

Every time I've be "LMGTFY"ed, I've thought it was hysterical -- not insulting ;)

[tim]

Hi Tim.

At the risk of putting you offside, I am gonna pull you up on this. Firstly, simply responding to a post by saying "search google" is generally pretty crappy and impolite, at best. Doing it like this is not just crappy and impolite, but could easily be insulting.

Worst of all, this was a response to a post where someone was asking about a specific application. One that you had brought up. It is totally reasonable to be asked for a link to your specific solution. Your insulting link to a google search that is slow, tedious and emblazoned with the message "How hard was that?" is outta line.

When I give advice why should bother to go to google, search, link, etc, when it's so trivial for someone else to do? I'll fill in the big picture, give the advice from a professional viewpoint, tell people what works for me, and leave the trivial things as a challenge. There are few enough actual working professional photographers here I don't think you want to have us leave because people get grumpy we didn't spoon feed everyone and hold their hands all the way. Starting a business is a challenge, if someone can't use google or doesn't have enough motivation to put a little effort in themselves they're going to fail anyway. That's all i'll say about that, since I have two weddings this weekend (starting in 12 hours) and I have to go assemble my gear, my lounge looks like a camera store exploded.

Plus lmgtfy is funny :p

[Balliolman]

Interesting discussion -- bookmarked.

[RDKirk]

As for sellig prints - I had a bride tell me she wouldn't go with me unless I had online prints set up. 5 months after I uploaded them I have yet to sell a single print from her wedding (and I didn't give her a DVD either)

Some pretty convincing anectdotal evidence among photographers indicates that the enthusiasm for actually owning the pictures decreases significantly every time clients view them, even if online. They see them online, make screen captures to email to friends and family, and the desire to buy is extinguished.

Basically, best sales come if made immediately on first showing.

Added: In another thread, I discussed how extensively I consult with my clients prior to the session, including having visited their homes and discussed what kinds of wall portraits should hang where.

After all that, I've been able to do something more with a very high degree of success: Sometimes I will actually select, print, and frame the portrait I think is best, and bring it to the preview session ready to hang. So far, it's worked 9 out of 10 times--the wife sees it and says to her husband, "Pay the man."

[nuffi]

When I give advice why should bother to go to google, search, link, etc, when it's so trivial for someone else to do? I'll fill in the big picture, give the advice from a professional viewpoint, tell people what works for me, and leave the trivial things as a challenge. There are few enough actual working professional photographers here I don't think you want to have us leave because people get grumpy we didn't spoon feed everyone and hold their hands all the way. Starting a business is a challenge, if someone can't use google or doesn't have enough motivation to put a little effort in themselves they're going to fail anyway. That's all i'll say about that, since I have two weddings this weekend (starting in 12 hours) and I have to go assemble my gear, my lounge looks like a camera store exploded.

Plus lmgtfy is funny :p

It might be that you haven't actually used a particular photographer's shopping cart. I don't know.... but in the context of the original post, and then the question you responded to, it seemed like you are talking about a specific feature of an app that you're presently using.

Somebody asked you which app *you* used, not where to find one on the net and your response was to lmgtfy. It was inappropriate. If someone asked you "where did you get that camera" you're not helping them by lmgtfy "camera+shop" are you?

You're right about lmgtfy being funny, and that is part of the problem here. lmgtfy is also belittling. Because it amuses you, you're looking for a time and a place to use it. This wasn't it. If it was, I wouldn't have said anything.

If you don't thihk someone's question is worth answering, why take the effort to even click respond?

[Karl Johnston]

There's a good chance that your customer's will ask you for a CD of all their photos. There's also a good chance that you will oblige them. This is not only a bad idea for your business, it's a bad idea for your customer.

In the end, what the customer sees and holds in their hand is all that matters. Control this, do not give them a CD.



I don't do CDs, I find them tedious, slow and a money sink.

I find people like prints and albums a lot better. Something they can get in their hands that's personal.

CD, what if the printer screws it up?
What if their monitor is uncalibrated and they think the pics are garbage?
What if the CD doesn't want to work or gives them a virus (off chance)?
What if they print somewhere that screws it up?

Then it looks bad on me. Besides, printers are superior to most printers out there and I can get rates most consumers can't get through trade houses.

Things like that ran through my head, followed by client feedback. So now I don't do CDs and it's helped me out a lot. CD gives them the potential, even at low res. , to edit those watermarks out and do them infinitely for free.

So many photographers care what everyone else is doing, who cares...not I. Photographers often on here talk about how they care what other photographers in their area are doing..price isn't everything. Quality is everything. Personalization is everything. I didn't bother reading 9 pages, though I agree with Chris Hunt.

[tim]

If you don't thihk someone's question is worth answering, why take the effort to even click respond?

I did think it was worth answering, and the link provided the answer. I just wanted to have a little fun with it.

[sapearl]

The animation was a different twist on things ;).

I did think it was worth answering, and the link provided the answer. I just wanted to have a little fun with it.

[cdifoto]

It might be that you haven't actually used a particular photographer's shopping cart. I don't know.... but in the context of the original post, and then the question you responded to, it seemed like you are talking about a specific feature of an app that you're presently using.

Somebody asked you which app *you* used, not where to find one on the net and your response was to lmgtfy. It was inappropriate. If someone asked you "where did you get that camera" you're not helping them by lmgtfy "camera+shop" are you?

You're right about lmgtfy being funny, and that is part of the problem here. lmgtfy is also belittling. Because it amuses you, you're looking for a time and a place to use it. This wasn't it. If it was, I wouldn't have said anything.

If you don't thihk someone's question is worth answering, why take the effort to even click respond?

Lazy AND easily butt-hurt. The two most important personality traits an entrepreneur should have.

[sapearl]

Karl - I agree with everything you are saying regarding uncalibrated monitors, mediocre print services, non-functioning CD platforms, cutting into print sales...... and perhaps you've found all this to be true for your market area.

Unfortunately none of this makes any difference anymore in the large urban areas. It was mentioned in one of these threads - perhaps it's even buried earlier in this one - but most new brides simply don't care about how we USED to do things.

They want what they want. They want the disk, the online gallery, the ability to broadcast across social media sites.... all those things that are NOT traditionally how we used to do things. The business model for most has shifted. Personally, this was a painful realization after all my years of selling print services. Oh, people still get enlargments but it's nothing like the past.

I don't care either what other photographers are doing - I work my own style, set my own prices, configure my own packages - but I do pay attention to what other photogs are offering and successfully selling, because my target market is doing exactly that same thing. The brides are sharp and finicky shoppers. If I offer an OLD product model that is skewed from what most others are offering.... AND that they are successfully selling, then I could end up hurting in the long term.

And has been pointed out earlier, shopping brides who don't see a CD option on your site will leave it in a matter of seconds and go to the next vendor who DOES; sad for us.... but true. - Stu

I don't do CDs, I find them tedious, slow and a money sink.

I find people like prints and albums a lot better. Something they can get in their hands that's personal.

CD, what if the printer screws it up?
What if their monitor is uncalibrated and they think the pics are garbage?
What if the CD doesn't want to work or gives them a virus (off chance)?
What if they print somewhere that screws it up?

Then it looks bad on me. Besides, printers are superior to most printers out there and I can get rates most consumers can't get through trade houses.

Things like that ran through my head, followed by client feedback. So now I don't do CDs and it's helped me out a lot. CD gives them the potential, even at low res. , to edit those watermarks out and do them infinitely for free.

So many photographers care what everyone else is doing, who cares...not I. Photographers often on here talk about how they care what other photographers in their area are doing..price isn't everything. Quality is everything. Personalization is everything. I didn't bother reading 9 pages, though I agree with Chris Hunt.

[dovaka]

CD, what if the printer screws it up?
how would this be your fault if someone else printing them screws up the print
What if their monitor is uncalibrated and they think the pics are garbage?
i would say that 99% of clients i have ever had couldnt tell the difference between a snap shot and a studio shot that i took an hour to setup. perfect example when i have a party at my house i play all kinds of stuff on my lcd tv threw my computer and it looks like crap everything is way to warm and bright but everyone that comes over thinks its awesome.
What if the CD doesn't want to work or gives them a virus (off chance)?
im not sure how you could even manage this but i guess if it did happen it wouldnt look that good for you
What if they print somewhere that screws it up?
again how would this be your fault and as i said most people cant tell the difference


its in the qoute

[sapearl]

I do symphathize with karl on the matter of "what if another photo finisher screws up or makes a hash of your carefully crafted file..."

The truth is, it's not your fault - but the reality is it can become your problem, since now that crappy printer or photo finisher is representing YOUR WORK.

This is today's sad state of affairs that most of us have to face. I see the only antidote being a higher level of personalized service, different products, and "better marketting and education" on our part: "Mrs. Jane Doe, if you purchase a print from me not only do I apply additional photofinishing and artistic effect to it, but all prints are produced by a pro commercial lab.

The other thing is print pricing. There has been somewhat of a buyer rebellion/backlash against obnoxiously high pricing for prints.

It is important to keep the quality print out there as an option, and at an appropriate price point. But I have seen some folks adhere to really ridiculous pricing schedules for the common 5x7 and 8x10. This is one of the factors that has helped drive clients to a "disk solution."

its in the qoute

[dovaka]

I do symphathize with karl on the matter of "what if another photo finisher screws up or makes a hash of your carefully crafted file..."

The truth is, it's not your fault - but the reality is it can become your problem, since now that crappy printer or photo finisher is representing YOUR WORK.

This is today's sad state of affairs that most of us have to face. I see the only antidote being a higher level of personalized service, different products, and "better marketting and education" on our part: "Mrs. Jane Doe, if you purchase a print from me not only do I apply additional photofinishing and artistic effect to it, but all prints are produced by a pro commercial lab.

The other thing is print pricing. There has been somewhat of a buyer rebellion/backlash against obnoxiously high pricing for prints.

It is important to keep the quality print out there as an option, and at an appropriate price point. But I have seen some folks adhere to really ridiculous pricing schedules for the common 5x7 and 8x10. This is one of the factors that has helped drive clients to a "disk solution."

and at the same time if you dont give them a cd a lot of them are going to scan the pictures to put online or to make future copies of them making it far worse in my opinion since 100's of times more people will see there picture onine then a crappy printed 8x10 they have in there house

[nuffi]

I did think it was worth answering, and the link provided the answer. I just wanted to have a little fun with it.


Part of the problem I have is that you didn't provide an answer. As I read it, the original question was about which app *you* use, not how do I find one of the bazillion that come up under a google search.

Telling someone to search google is never providing an answer in any case.

Responses that contain no more content than a google search are a waste of time, annoying, and generally bring down the value and quality of the forum they're on.

When you started out here you were as full of basic questions as anyone. Now you're full of "I'm a pro and you should be nicer to me or I will take my pro knowledge ang quit this place!" Now, a lot of that might be justified. I love your work, and for the most part I really appreciate the responses you give to people. But I don't remember seeing any of your queries answered with a terse "Search google" response. Poeple took time out to response usefully, helpfully, and with great information.

It seems that you're too busy now to give a meaningful response, but not too busy to have fun at another's expense.

[sapearl]

Absolutely - right on all points :cry:. Either way, much of the old business model is pretty much toast for this type of work.

and at the same time if you dont give them a cd a lot of them are going to scan the pictures to put online or to make future copies of them making it far worse in my opinion since 100's of times more people will see there picture onine then a crappy printed 8x10 they have in there house

[nuffi]

Lazy AND easily butt-hurt. The two most important personality traits an entrepreneur should have.


I wasn't the one who posted the original question, so I don't know why you're getting out your insults to aim in my direction. I *might* not have been bothered to respond if it was a simple "google it" post, but Tim had taken the effort to go and disguise it as though it was a link to the app that he uses.

About as useful and friendly as a rikroll. And sure, the first time you see a rikroll you might think "O okay, that was lame, but kinda funny" and if you're like most people on the net it seems that your second response will be something like "I ain't gonna be the only one!" and so you set out to get the next person you see. And the next person. And so do they. And so on. But it isn't funny for long, someone is always the butt of the joke, it is a waste of people's lives and bandwidth... I don't see this as being much different. The world would have been much better if no-one could have been bothered.

I can assure you, I am neither lazy, nor easily butt-hurt. This is just a little bugbear of mine, so I picked up on it. And Tim's response was... something taht I couldn't leave alone.

edit: and I'm not an entrepenuer, either. :p

[yoopergirl]

Or you could always charge for a CD?'

Personally I like CD's and I wouldn't hire a wedding photographer without one.

[sapearl]

And this is what a lot of folks are doing these days - either charging "extra" for the CD or simply building it into the general overhead cost of the whole job.

What do you feel would be an appropriate upcharge for 400-600 processed weddng images on a disk?

I define "processed" as images that are adjusted for WB, exposure, shadow, highlight.... global characteristics like that, and NOT creative/repair photoshopping work like eyeglass reflections, hair/stain removal, closed/red eye, blemish removal, etc.....

Or you could always charge for a CD?'

Personally I like CD's and I wouldn't hire a wedding photographer without one.

[dgirl33]

Here's my take on it. Granted, I'm a bit of a newb having just finished my first year of weddings, but I did manage to book over a dozen:D As everyone else has said, brides want a cd/dvd. Even incredibly talented photographers who have been doing it the old school way for 20+ years have seen the value in switching to the cd method and charging a bit more upfront. Personally, I include a flash drive with all their photos and reprint rights, but I also offer professional prints for a very reasonable price. I don't plan on making a huge profit off of these photos because I've already charged my price in the orig. wedding package.

The Bottom Line: Yes I may be the artist who creates the photos, yes I love what I do, and yes I want to build a great portfolio and be busy, busy for years to come but why do I do wedding photography?? Because I have the privilege of using my talents and abilities to hand someone beautiful photos from one of the most important days of their life. 2 years after their wedding, I'll have plenty of new photos to proudly display in my portfolio so why hold their cherished wedding photographs captive so I can make a few extra bucks? Ultimately, they mean a lot more to the couple than they ever will to me.

[Karl Johnston]

I can see where you are all coming from, though I can't speak from the lengthy experience of many in larger areas I can only comment in relation to my business.

[sapearl]

I'm actually somewhat jealous that the "traditional" business model still works in your area Karl ;). Even though I always tried to charge a fair price, print making was still a somewhat lucrative business.

I can see where you are all coming from, though I can't speak from the lengthy experience of many in larger areas I can only comment in relation to my business.

[Karl Johnston]

Niche businesses are a specialty of mine :D ....But maybe that's where photography needs to go, too. Twice I have been approached this month for doing portraiture in the form of PAINTINGs. Now THAT is a lucrative market.. people are willing to pay THOUSANDS per painted portrait of their family. Maybe traditional, personal, unique is where photography needs to go..and target a tighter market. How much does a volume-sale based photographer net? Without going into personal specifics, would a VP (volume photographer :D) consider $5000/month lucrative? If less than 2000...I question how any volume based photographer survives.

You know what, I thought this was in the portrait forum. LOL. woops...eject eject eject...disregard me :D

[sapearl]

I would say not too many at all, if that is their sole source of income.

But that's where a lot of folks here have wedding work as their second job, or they have a spouse with a good paying job, or they are retired.... that sort of thing. I've been doing this professionally (part time) for 35+ years thanks to a decently paying FT job. Without that, I'd have gone out of business many years ago had I tried to make a full time go of it.

I need to check your site out again Karl. If you're starting to do "painting" techniques that's something I'd like to see :D.

.....If less than 2000...I question how any volume based photographer survives.

[Thumbsup]

What a great thread. Great read on different opinions. Makes you think.

[tim]

Responses that contain no more content than a google search are a waste of time, annoying, and generally bring down the value and quality of the forum they're on.

Yeah, well i've posted a shedload of useful information, and I know a lot of the people here pretty well, so I feel like I can have a little fun once in a while.

More here (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=persistent).

[bnlearle]

I was just about to spend a lot of time on why I completely disagree with Karl's post previously -- as it makes little sense in regard to wedding photography -- then I saw that he thought this was the portrait forum ;)

Bobby

[SnapsbyPoteat]

I know I should listen to this advise about not giving out C.D.'s and trust me I really don't want to. However, with my first wedding coming up in March, I felt like I had to offer more than just my services and the pictures posted on a gallery on my web-site. The bride did tell me that any larger pictures she would order through the website.
Hopefully I won't hate myself for it later, and that this will be a one time thing.

[bnlearle]

If you want to have a chance at succeeding in this business, it won't be a one time thing. Obviously there are some people who do this and succeed -- but this is VERY rare and those that do this are usually better than most of us will ever be ;)

[sapearl]

I'm not clear on this - did she request a CD of the images, or did you just decide to provide one in the package?

I know I should listen to this advise about not giving out C.D.'s and trust me I really don't want to. However, with my first wedding coming up in March, I felt like I had to offer more than just my services and the pictures posted on a gallery on my web-site. The bride did tell me that any larger pictures she would order through the website.
Hopefully I won't hate myself for it later, and that this will be a one time thing.

[SnapsbyPoteat]

I'm not clear on this - did she request a CD of the images, or did you just decide to provide one in the package?

I told her if she wanted one it would be $100 extra added on to the total price. She agreed. I was just real unsure how to go about it since it is my first, but like I said, I don't plan on doing it again.

[sapearl]

Ah, I see - I don't know how many images you are providing nor how much PP, but at $100 she's getting a pretty good deal. Thanks ;).

I told her if she wanted one it would be $100 extra added on to the total price. She agreed. I was just real unsure how to go about it since it is my first, but like I said, I don't plan on doing it again.

[SnapsbyPoteat]

yeah I know, I wish I could charge more, but right now I'm just trying to get my foot in the door and get a portfolio. plus it's for a good friend. Don't really care too much about making the dough- it's enough to help me get another lens I'm looking at for this wedding and future ones.

[yoopergirl]

And this is what a lot of folks are doing these days - either charging "extra" for the CD or simply building it into the general overhead cost of the whole job.

What do you feel would be an appropriate upcharge for 400-600 processed weddng images on a disk?

I define "processed" as images that are adjusted for WB, exposure, shadow, highlight.... global characteristics like that, and NOT creative/repair photoshopping work like eyeglass reflections, hair/stain removal, closed/red eye, blemish removal, etc.....


The wedding photographer my brother hired charges $500 per CD. $1200 to shoot the wedding.

[bnlearle]

I charge about $2k for a disc of images for those that book my bottom package (that doesn't have a disc) -- but then I build it in to all the other packages as included. But the "appropriate upcharge" would be pretty dependent on your current pricing structure.

[cdifoto]

The wedding photographer my brother hired charges $500 per CD. $1200 to shoot the wedding.

That's where I'm at right now. I fully and willingly acknowledge that I'm no Bobby. Besides, I don't shoot 4.3 billion images that I have to cull down to 2.2 million for the disk(s) either. ;) :p