Shoot & Burn : Wedding Clients wants to keep SD cards after the event

memoriesoftomorrow wrote in post #17021725
So what they really wanted was privacy and they thought/think the only way of getting this was by having the raws files. Privacy is more than a reasonable expectation and could easily be accommodated. You can't be that desperate for portfolio images you wouldn't accommodate that are you?

Personally upon finding out what their ACTUAL requirements were I'd have made amendments to my contract to ensure they had the privacy they were seeking and guided them down the route of a normal processed image package with that in mind.

You've potentially lost a client on two fronts here 1) Not understanding (or establishing in advance) their requirements 2) Not being willing to respect their rights to privacy.

Not everyone wants to do things exactly the same way Peter does or would do things. OP made his proposal and they declined. You don't have to basically deride the guy.

Oh and yeah some people really do need the portfolio because they aren't booked solid until doomsday. OP was willing to take the job if they agreed on terms. They didn't agree on terms. Not the end of the world.

cdifoto wrote in post #17021932
OP made his proposal and they declined.

A proposal which was based what was essentially the wrong criteria.

cdifoto wrote in post #17021932
Oh and yeah some people really do need the portfolio because they aren't booked solid until doomsday.

If you are struggling for getting work as a business so that you don't have enough other shoots for a portfolio you are most likely also struggling on the money front. Taking a job that doesn't give you anything for a portfolio but PAYS you is never a bad thing. There is no point hanging out for portfolio jobs if you don't have a business to use them for.

cdifoto wrote in post #17021932
Not the end of the world.

Agreed. Not the end of the world. But that doesn't change the fact the OP didn't understand the requirements nor the fact they aren't prepared for wedding clients to have their images remain private if they want them to.

Okay fine. Peter you're always right and your situation applies to everyone else too. We all live in cities with millions of people around us to tap into. All hail Peter.

cdifoto wrote in post #17022131
Okay fine. Peter you're always right and your situation applies to everyone else too. We all live in cities with millions of people around us to tap into. All hail Peter.

Consider your sarcasm for a moment... you are implying that many businesses don't have a large market. Losing a wedding client because you didn't understand their expectations nor were willing to accommodate their wishes for privacy when you don't have a big market to operate in is a good thing for that business how exactly?

This is a business forum right? Highlighting mistakes that were made by the OP can only serve to help others avoid making the same ones.

Hogloff wrote in post #17021757
It's amazing what a little communication can do to clear up all your assumptions. I agree...the OP lost a client by not adequately communicating upfront and making assumptions which were wrong. As a side, the majority of the people responding to this thread also made those same wrong assumptions.

Yeah:
But it's tricky when posters give up little in the way of detail, which is likely the issue with the customer too. One grown up phone call would have sorted it in 2 minutes.

That said:
My other assumption is that the couple have made an assumption that by asking for untouched files they'd save a chunk of money - the only clue being they've decided to just post a CL listing.

http://losangeles.crai​gslist.org/lac/crg/454​0028881.html

DBNissan wrote in post #17022352
http://losangeles.crai​gslist.org/lac/crg/454​0028881.html

I notice that was posted two weeks ago - about the same time the OP created this thread. I'm guessing their contact with the OP was nothing more than a fishing expedition as opposed to a real offer for hire.

memoriesoftomorrow wrote in post #17022158
Losing a wedding client...

...isn't a big deal for many of us.

The comments you've made recently make you sound desperate. Just because you're willing to make accommodations to gain a client doesn't mean everybody else does, nor does it mean they should.

mclaren777 wrote in post #17023407
...isn't a big deal for many of us.

The comments you've made recently make you sound desperate. Just because you're willing to make accommodations to gain a client doesn't mean everybody else does, nor does it mean they should.

I guess you missed he context of that reply... i.e. failed to read past the first few words or to read what was being replied to.

If they will pay the right price and make it worth your time, hey why not. Its way less work and you get some jingle in your jeans. If your worried about the quality and exposure you may get from a missed shot, then just specify in your contract you DONT want any association with their edited versions.

It looks like that he did try to accommodate them. Several people in this thread suggested he do what they ask and price accordingly. He didn't tell us what he proposed, so I am going to assume it was a reasonable offer based on his usual rate.

If it were me making a business decision I would say that control over my images is worth something to me (editing), the time it takes is worth something, having portfolio images is worth something. Therefore, I would price a shoot and burn a more than my usual (don't have to edit, but get no portfolio and have no control), and then a "private" shoot with editing more than that (have to edit, but don't get to show anyone).

In other words, their criteria was to have pictures taken where the photographer no longer had copies to show anyone (advertising or portfolio). The shoot and burn would have been the cheapest version of this scenario for me, so I doubt they would have accepted the price for any alternative.

memoriesoftomorrow wrote in post #17021725
So what they really wanted was privacy and they thought/think the only way of getting this was by having the raws files. Privacy is more than a reasonable expectation and could easily be accommodated. You can't be that desperate for portfolio images you wouldn't accommodate that are you?

Personally upon finding out what their ACTUAL requirements were I'd have made amendments to my contract to ensure they had the privacy they were seeking and guided them down the route of a normal processed image package with that in mind.

You've potentially lost a client on two fronts here 1) Not understanding (or establishing in advance) their requirements 2) Not being willing to respect their rights to privacy.

Based on what I read from the OP, the client originally told him what they wanted, and that had nothing to do with privacy. He gave them a quote based on what they asked for, which was the raw files for them to do what they wished. It sounds to me like they mentioned privacy AFTER he gave them his price for the work and then said forget about it. He said "They haven't given much info as far as they really want the SD cards afte the event."

Had they expressly described a privacy concern, I imagine that he would have been far more accomodating and would have found a solution that would have worked for them. perhaps when he found out about the privacy concern, he tried to explain that he could wirk within that context. In the end, they went on Craigslist, which to me shows they are just looking for someone cheap who is willing to give them photos.

There are numerous posts in here and in the wedding area pointing out how the photographers did not use images in thier galleries or anywhere on line because of a privacy concern because of a job like law enforcement.

JimmyM wrote in post #16992278
Seriously? I think you are mad considering it. Never hand over Raw files!

Who says RAW files are being recorded? Many a wedding photographer shoots jpg only for simplicity.

HappySnapper90 wrote in post #17044605
Who says RAW files are being recorded? Many a wedding photographer shoots jpg only for simplicity.

What??? You are Kidding? NOOOOOOO

That's against every internet forum mentality and high road attitude people preach on photography boards. It's simply unthinkable!

How the hell are you going to spend 5 min to 30 photofiddling every single frame you take ( all 2-4000 of them!) massagining it into your perfect masterpiece that only you know how to do if it isn't in RAW?
Where is the artistry? where is the perfection? Where is the unviable amount of time spent on each job? Where is the ego trip for the shooter and OMG... what would happen to the photographers reputation if word ever got out they only shot Jpg???
Brides would be like " He only shoots Jpeg? Seriously?? I can't hire him then, no way!!! BTW, what the hell is a Jpeg anyhow"

I don't know where you came from happy snapper but you have a lot to learn about forums my friend. You just can't go round saying things like that! It will send the moral high high grounders into cardiac arrest! Gezz, next thing you'll be saying that it's OK to use zoom lenses and spare us all..... non L series lenses! Then you'll be saying Radical things like you don't need an F1.0 lens because the churches you shoot in aren't all situated in caves lit by a single candle and you just turn the ISO up a bit and are fine.
Blaspheemer!

People like you just have no respect for the art and probably don't care about giving your customers a level of quality they neither care about nor can appreciate.

It's people like you that are more interested in the result and the fact the client is 110% happy rather than technical over complication and spending far too much time on a job that people have issue with. You can't go proposing factual, efficent, realistic and perfectaly satisfactory things that don't follow the approved forum mentality, people get too upset when you do that. It's all about the photographer and their ego as well as the art. Just because this is the business section, don't think for a minute that profitability has anything to do with it. No sir! It's all about being seen to be doing everything in the correct and approved manner so as to not attract any disparaging comment from the collective sheeple and to conform with the approved way of thinking.

Look at the insults and venom others here have had spat at them when they dared make the mistake of not following the approved collective thinking! The last thing you want to do on a forum is thin for yourself and do what works for you and your clients. That will undermine the whole basis of forums and the very basis of what they are built on.

The result is not at issue, it's how you go about getting it and the most expensive, long winded, inefficent but moraly superiour method is the only way to go about things.
I hope this helps your confusion and prevents you from making such outlandish statements in the furture.

Oh, BTW, did I mention I have only shot Raw for 2 weddings in my life and it was a total pain in the arse to edit and the results looked no better in the album than my Jpeg's do?

Amazingly, Clients don't give a rats, I still get work, most of it WOM these days and my reputation and family name hasn't been soiled or deemed unspeakable in public for generations to come.
It's a miracle I haven't been caught out and publicly executed for crimes against humanity!!
Now I have made this shocking admission I better go draw the curtains, turn out the lights and go hide in the corner and wait for the forum police to come and take me away for " Professional thought correction".

If a client wants the cards at the end of the shoot, that's fine. I will happily do that, as I charge an additional $2,500.00 for that.