Some people...

[garnerfoto]

What is it with some people? Just who do they think they are?

A week ago a friends band competed in a competition at which I was shooting. They won, and part of the prize was the opening slot for a national touring band. They invited me out to shoot again, which I did. During set change the promoter (whom I had talked to the previous week) stopped me to ask if I was going to shoot the entire show. I said I was if it was OK. Mind you 1 in 10 people had their cameras with them as well. He said it was OK for me to shoot if I sent him pics. I told him I would send him a few of what turned out. He demanded a copy of everything. I told him I don't do that. He insisted. To shut him up, I agreed.

So now I'm thinking I'll just send him some resized pics, maybe 200 pixels on the long side. He won't be able to do much with them, and I have kept my end of the bargain, as he didn't specify a quality or resolution. Nothing in writing.

I'll also include a readme.txt specifying ownership rights and usage limitations.

I wonder if he's getting everything everybody else shot? I bet not.

What a jagof.



Thanks for listening while I vent.

[jfrancho]

Just tell him nothing came out that he could use. You wouldn't really be lying to him then.

[MTalley]

Send him a couple dozen, post-processed with a good Gaussian Blur. Next time he sees you at a show, he won't care. :D

[Steve Parr]

I shot a band in Indianapolis recently, and sent some resized pictures to the guitar player. He's now asking me if I can send him everything I have. Well, of course I can, but I can't do it for free.

I'm waiting to hear back from him...

Steve

[garnerfoto]

You guys are great. I love your thoughts and ideas on this.

Here's a couple shots from this show. Slaughtered (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=90520)

[DwightMcCann]

Oh, I know this problem well! I now have a $100 fee for the time it takes me to burn a CD and ship/deliver ... I don't charge for the pictures if I am already being paid for them by someone else (which is the usual case for me) and the requestor has a "legitimate" interest and this fee for my time usually separates the men from the boys. So while I have never figured out what the fascination is to "get all the images", it is not rare and I will oblige, but I need $100 for my time. I have made about $300 this way and drastically reduced the number of CDs requested. Oh, and I am always very clear, verbally and in writing, about the copyright and use of the images on the CDs ... "Looking" is not akin to using to "Advertise".

[garnerfoto]

That is a wonderful idea Dwight. Probably too late for this event, but I will keep it in mind for the next round of "Who wants to be a greedy ba$$tard?".

[PhotosGuy]

So now I'm thinking I'll just send him some resized pics, maybe 200 pixels on the long side. He won't be able to do much with them, and I have kept my end of the bargain, as he didn't specify a quality or resolution. Nothing in writing. :D:D I love it! "Oh, you wanted full size pics? You should have said! I'll have to charge you for those. Let me explain to you about "Rights"!" ;):D

[Steven M. Anthony]

To shut him up, I agreed.



It seems to me that you agreed to do something in the heat of the moment and now you wish you hadn't agreed to. That's not HIS fault... I suppose you could spend the time resizing all the images, but it would likely be quicker to just drop them all--as-is--on a disk and be done with it.

[Steve Parr]

You know, giving this some more thought, I come up with this:



He demanded copies of everything. You agreed. Fine.



If I were you, I would first send him a letter (not e-mail) informing him of the total amount due in order for you to send him the pictures. He will, in all likelihood, scoff at this, and condescendingly remind you that he never signed anything agreeing to this.



You then take that opportunity to remind him that you never signed anything in which you agreed to send him the pictures.



I like Dwight’s idea, and will be putting that into practice…



Steve

[Jesper]

When I go to an event to shoot something, I make a lot of photos with my 10D.

But all those photos that are coming right out of my camera are just my raw material - not all of them are good, most of them need some minor brightness, contrast and/or colour corrections, they need to be sharpened, etc., and ofcourse not all of those hundreds of photos are keepers. I often make multiple photos of the same subject and pick the best one of those when I'm behind the computer.

Non-photographers don't understand that it works like that - they don't know the photos on my CF card are only a half finished product.

So I'd never give just anybody the photos right off my CF card.

[Longwatcher]

I suppose you could spend the time resizing all the images,

Just wanted to mention that using DPP (and maybe PS) using batch processing it takes about 20 seconds of MY time to just resize a set of images so I think resizing and sending is an excellent idea.

ctrl-a
file-batch process
select size
select directory to go to (this is usually what takes so long as sometimes I have to create a new directory)
go little puppy and then do something else while computer busy running the batch resize.
come back when done.

what takes time is white balance, cropping, healing and other fixes required to be done on an individual basis.

Just felt the need to mention in case you didn't know it could be done that easily.

[Curtis N]

using DPP (and maybe PS) using batch processing it takes about 20 seconds of MY time to just resize a set of imagesI absolutely love the batch processing capabilities of DPP. I don't know if RSE or ACR can do the same or not. I use it for the initial conversion from RAW to TIFF, then when I'm done messing with the TIFFs I use it again to create low-compression JPEGs to send to the lab.

Another thing that I haven't tested, though, is what happens when you use DPP to batch resize a bunch of images that aren't the same size to begin with, and maybe not the same aspect ratio, either. Anybody know?

[cjm]

Just wanted to mention that using DPP (and maybe PS) using batch processing it takes about 20 seconds of MY time to just resize a set of images so I think resizing and sending is an excellent idea.What? You can resize images all at once with a program? Man alive I wish I knew that long ago it could have saved my hundreds of hours. What is DPP called and what version is current?

To the OP, I like the idea of 200 pixel resize and I LOVE the idea of giving them a slight blur. The idea for a bill is good too. Like the nerve of this guy! Who is he to demand photos for free? If he wants free photos he can go out spend $2000+ on the equipment and take them himself!

If it was I, I would either ignore his request be convienently forgetting to send them or I would only send him the photos I have no intention of keeping anyways. Because unlike some people I know, I do not save every picture I take, I only save the best ones I take and usually chuck the bad ones.

[ssim]

What? You can resize images all at once with a program? Man alive I wish I knew that long ago it could have saved my hundreds of hours. What is DPP called and what version is current?



Write yourself an action and then you can batch run this. It is relatively simple to accomplish.

DPP = Digital Photo Pro which Canon supplies with it's DSLR's now. I'm not sure what the current version is as I don't use it myself relying on C1 and Photoshop to accomplish my workflow.

[Steven M. Anthony]

Just wanted to mention that using DPP (and maybe PS) using batch processing it takes about 20 seconds of MY time to just resize a set of images so I think resizing and sending is an excellent idea.

It still comes down to the fact that metaltom agreed to do something and now doesn't want to fulfill his part of the bargain. All these "screw the guy" ideas just end up hurting metaltom--or at least don't help him any.

Suck it up, metaltom. Follow through with what you know you promised to do and learn something from it.

[johnnybfan]

It still comes down to the fact that metaltom agreed to do something and now doesn't want to fulfill his part of the bargain. All these "screw the guy" ideas just end up hurting metaltom--or at least don't help him any.

Suck it up, metaltom. Follow through with what you know you promised to do and learn something from it.

I don't think that meteltom would be reneging on his word to send resized photos. It doesn't sound like he told this guy that he would give him anything other than "copies".

[Maureen Souza]

Send him a couple dozen, post-processed with a good Gaussian Blur. Next time he sees you at a show, he won't care. :D

:lol: :lol: :lol: I think that is a most excellent idea!!!

[Steven M. Anthony]

I don't think that meteltom would be reneging on his word to send resized photos. It doesn't sound like he told this guy that he would give him anything other than "copies".

It's not what he specifically said to the guy--it's what he meant that is important. It sounds like metaltom didn't think of short-changing the guy until after the fact. This suggests he had full resolution images in mind when he made the deal--as any reasonable person would if they didn't specify otherwise.

But hey, if the post hoc rationalizations and semantics somehow make you feel better, go for it. But the fact that metaltom felt the need to discuss the issue on an open forum suggests he knows short changing the guy isn't really the right thing to do--and he's just looking for others to tell him he's right.

Well I don't think he is right in this case. Sure, the guy was out of line demanding all metaltom's images. But metaltom had a choice presented to him and he agreed to give over copies of the photos. It seems clear he should just do what he promised and do it to the best of his ability and in an honest fashion.

Is that so hard?

[Curtis N]

What is DPP called and what version is current?Here is Canon's propaganda page for Digital Photo Professional:
http://photoworkshop.com/canon/dpp/index.html

Scroll to the bottom of that page and read the fine print. There's a link to the download page, and information on what you need to make it work.

[garnerfoto]

It's not what he specifically said to the guy--it's what he meant that is important. It sounds like metaltom didn't think of short-changing the guy until after the fact. This suggests he had full resolution images in mind when he made the deal--as any reasonable person would if they didn't specify otherwise.

What I had in mind at the time was a few pics at 600-800 pixels on the long side. That was my original offering, although resolution wasn't discussed, as most non-photographers don't understand it. Once he started demanding, I just thought "Yeah, you'll get everything, how hard is it to rename all the files I feel like sending." I actually felt more honest when I originally posted than I did at the moment.

Anybody who gets pics from me for the price of a concert ticket gets web ready images, and only the decent ones. My keeper ratio is kinda low. If you want hi-res pics to use for advertising or promoting yourself or your organization, then more money is in order. That is my standard operating procedure. I've yet to receive any complaints, and I do follow up with my clients.

But hey, if the post hoc rationalizations and semantics somehow make you feel better, go for it. But the fact that metaltom felt the need to discuss the issue on an open forum suggests he knows short changing the guy isn't really the right thing to do--and he's just looking for others to tell him he's right.

I only let this out in public as a venting. I don't need anybody to tell me if I'm right or wrong.

Well I don't think he is right in this case. Sure, the guy was out of line demanding all metaltom's images. But metaltom had a choice presented to him and he agreed to give over copies of the photos. It seems clear he should just do what he promised and do it to the best of his ability and in an honest fashion.

Is that so hard?

He wanted copies, he'll get copies. COPIES. Not originals.
Bottom line, these photos are MY intellectual property. I'm being honest letting him have copies to look at. If he wants to make posters, I'll sell MY property.

When I go to an event to shoot something, I make a lot of photos with my 10D.

But all those photos that are coming right out of my camera are just my raw material - not all of them are good, most of them need some minor brightness, contrast and/or colour corrections, they need to be sharpened, etc., and ofcourse not all of those hundreds of photos are keepers. I often make multiple photos of the same subject and pick the best one of those when I'm behind the computer.

Non-photographers don't understand that it works like that - they don't know the photos on my CF card are only a half finished product.

So I'd never give just anybody the photos right off my CF card.

That is exactly right, and exactly the reason I don't allow everything to anybody.



Just some background info.
This is the same guy who one year previous, wouldn't return emails when I offered to shoot a similar event for him. That was a charity event, in which I offered shots to him and the performers, and I also offered 100% of sales of prints to go to the charity. He just couldn't be bothered.

I guess we'll see if he contacts me about these new pics.

[Steven M. Anthony]

What I had in mind at the time was a few pics at 600-800 pixels on the long side. That was my original offering, although resolution wasn't discussed, as most non-photographers don't understand it. Once he started demanding, I just thought "Yeah, you'll get everything, how hard is it to rename all the files I feel like sending." I actually felt more honest when I originally posted than I did at the moment.

From what you said in your original post, this is not what you finally agreed to.

Anybody who gets pics from me for the price of a concert ticket gets web ready images, and only the decent ones. My keeper ratio is kinda low. If you want hi-res pics to use for advertising or promoting yourself or your organization, then more money is in order. That is my standard operating procedure. I've yet to receive any complaints, and I do follow up with my clients.

Then why did you agree to his terms? I believe you have a SOP, but unless you tell people what it is, they don't know what it is. Did you discuss his use of the photos with him before agreeing to his term? If not, that's kind of a sticy issue too. It would be one thing if you had said "Sure, I'll give you web-ready copies--but not for promotional use; for that I charge $..."



I only let this out in public as a venting. I don't need anybody to tell me if I'm right or wrong.

Well, venting is generally an attempt to gain validation for one's pov. Otherwise, what's the point! :)



Just some background info.
This is the same guy who one year previous, wouldn't return emails when I offered to shoot a similar event for him. That was a charity event, in which I offered shots to him and the performers, and I also offered 100% of sales of prints to go to the charity. He just couldn't be bothered.

Sounds like you have some history with this guy that's getting in the way here. That always makes situations like this more difficult to navigate. And maybe that history has bearing on what was or wasn't expected. For me, I try to treat each interaction on its own. I'm not always successful! But I find I feel better about the whole situation if I just "do the right thing" for the situation at hand, regardless of history.

Good luck!

[aam1234]

Another thing that I haven't tested, though, is what happens when you use DPP to batch resize a bunch of images that aren't the same size to begin with, and maybe not the same aspect ratio, either. Anybody know?

Hi Curtis. Have a look here (http://www.photoworkshop.com/canon/dpp/index.html) go all the way to the bottom on the left side, it's called "Patch Process". If I remember correctly, they address your question in that tutorial.

Hope that helps

[Longwatcher]

Another thing that I haven't tested, though, is what happens when you use DPP to batch resize a bunch of images that aren't the same size to begin with, and maybe not the same aspect ratio, either. Anybody know?

As long as you have 'keep aspect ratio' checked correctly, which ever side you chose (vert ot horizontal) to enter a maximum size for will be the largest that dimension will end up for all of your images, the other dimension will be adjusted in size to match that one so as to keep aspect ratio the same. DPP will list, I believe, the first image in the batch, So the other (non selected) dimension on the rest of the shots could be larger or smaller then your first image says it is.

[DocFrankenstein]

Do a set of lowest quality jpegs at 200 pixels resolution.