Nice Blurb about not showing all the pics....

[Tanya De Leeuw]

Originally Posted by cdifoto

If you manage expectations before the shoot, it's not a problem. You don't have to hide it in a contract somewhere with negative legalese.

It's not hidden at all. I go through every paragraph in the contract with my clients to ensure that they read it and understand it.

One of the reasons I have a contract is that everything is covered, and that I don't forget to discuss any aspect of the shoot with the client up front ... if it's just done verbally, the client quite possibly/conveniently won't remember that you told him/her ... and you'd have no proof to the contrary.

Photography is my second career. I come from the travel industry where people constantly tried to pull the "but you never told me" stunt, which was why we had detailed booking agreements, itineraries, information sheets, etc. I want to approach photography with the same attitude ... all info clear and up front, in writing, so that no-one can say afterwards that "you never told me".

If that means dealing with some less-than-positive aspects of the work, so be it. If there's anything in my contracts that clients are unhappy with or not willing to accept, they will say so, and we can work out a compromise. No biggie.

[gonzogolf]

I think there is room for both. If you use a contract for a simple portrait session then it probably ought to be in there in the language Lisa has used. But a softer and more positive and perhaps even frank explanation before the shoot.

[cdifoto]

Yeah I guess if anyone threatens to sue me for it I'll throw it in mine too. My contracts lay out exactly what they get though, which specifies the number of poses that will be retouched for their prints. As long as I provide at least that many photos as proofs I'm fulfilling the contract. Of course it would suck for them if there isn't any choosing to do because only, say, 8 were good and 8 will be retouched, but it still fulfills the contract legally. If I only come up with the bare minimum there's something wrong with me though and I'd probably just reshoot anyway to give them more options.

[Dan Marchant]

Originally Posted by Tanya De Leeuw

One of the reasons I have a contract is that everything is covered, and that I don't forget to discuss any aspect of the shoot with the client up front ... if it's just done verbally, the client quite possibly/conveniently won't remember that you told him/her ... and you'd have no proof to the contrary

My point is that you have used negative language. Including such a clause is OK if done using a positive language. Decent photographers do know more/think more deeply about what makes a good picture than muggles do. I just don't think it is a good idea to have a clause that basically says "I know better than you". I would look to reword it in a more positive way.

Something along the lines of "due to technical and environmental issues a small percentage of images may not be of an acceptable quality. The photographer reserves the right etc etc." - This will still allow you to delete images you don't like but makes it sound like a purely objective issue rather than setting yourself up as the arbiter of what the customer will or wont like/get.

[ImCBParker]

I like Tanya's language and I have similar language in mine and I am even more upfront with it in my FAQs as well. I flat out state that they cannot see images I did not share because I did not like them, either because they were duplicates, technically flawed, or simply unflattering. This is a no brainier for me. Before my FAQs I use to get this question at least every other shoot. Have not got it once since I posted a FAQs on my site and promotional literature. It has not kept my schedule from being booked solid. If someone is so sensitive to that, I likely do not want to work with them in the first place.

I, like Tanya, cover all aspects of any potential questions in my contract to ensure I have all my bases covered. Mine reads along the same lines (paraphrased and cut down to eliminate copyright legalese etc.); "Photographer will present only completed images from <date> session with <client> for client proofing. Images deemed to be duplicates or technically flawed will be deleted and are not available for client review."

I also have language in my FAQs and contracts on other controversial topics like; RAW access (never) and social media usage (absolutely). I find the more I am forthcoming with my practice, the better experiencefor all involved.

[cdifoto]

Must be thicker than a phone book if you cover "all aspects of any potential questions."

I'm surprised anyone signs it.

[ImCBParker]

My longest is all,of three pages and no one has declined, but thanks for the concern.

[cdifoto]

It doesn't cover "all aspects of any potential questions" then.

[ImCBParker]

Or it only says what it has to and my attorney did her job right.

[cdifoto]

Those were your words, not mine.

[ImCBParker]

Absolutely, I typed it. That is what attorneys are for, especially a good one with copyright/intellectual property expertise. One does not need countless pages to be thorough and dictate services or have an entire page about usage and copyrights.

[PLGG]

Originally Posted by Tanya De Leeuw

"Client understands and accepts that he/she does not have the right to view every photograph taken at the event. Only photographs that Photographer deems of satisfactory quality will be presented to Client."

I am prolly going to use something along this line. Thank you everyone for the input.

[Palladium]

it's called

Batch Re-Name

take the images you want to give to the client and them rename them starting at #1 and ending at the last one.

[gonzogolf]

Originally Posted by Palladium

it's called

Batch Re-Name

take the images you want to give to the client and them rename them starting at #1 and ending at the last one.

While I think this is a great idea, it still doesnt explain away the duplicates, blinks, and stuff that doesnt work. The client was there, they have some idea of the shots you took and will certainly be aware that they arent getting the whole thing, remumbering files isnt going to fool them.