How to not hand over original pictures?

gooble wrote in post #5171283
It depends on what you're selling.

I think that most photographers would charge a very high rate if the client wants the original digital file. Like $1000 or more per image depending on the work and the client. But I'm new to this so those with more experience can probably answer better.

$1000per image? Do you have some blackmail material of a governor or something?

If you asked the bride/groom for $1000 for the digital file you may get punched but you certainly would not get recommendations from them. My price for a digital file is about $30-50 for MOST photos.
They also get a lower res shot though and most of the time I put my copyright info on it.
I sold a picture recently that is going to be used in a low budget movie.
I got $50 for it. You may think I got robbed but it was a picture of a parachute harness that is going to be digitally entered into the movie.

It was to help with a special effect. $50 was fine. It took me 37 seconds to get the shot.

Now, if I was shooting the poster for the next big blockbuster I would expect more.

JTVal wrote in post #5178778
$1000per image? Do you have some blackmail material of a governor or something?

If you asked the bride/groom for $1000 for the digital file you may get punched but you certainly would not get recommendations from them. My price for a digital file is about $30-50 for MOST photos.
They also get a lower res shot though and most of the time I put my copyright info on it.
I sold a picture recently that is going to be used in a low budget movie.
I got $50 for it. You may think I got robbed but it was a picture of a parachute harness that is going to be digitally entered into the movie.

It was to help with a special effect. $50 was fine. It took me 37 seconds to get the shot.

Now, if I was shooting the poster for the next big blockbuster I would expect more.

Well I may have gone over the mark with $1000, but I was thinking along the lines of for an ad campaign or something like that. Not every image of a wedding. However, wouldn't a fairly high price be in order for someone to buy several portrait shots, say if they were a model/actor/profession​al of some sort?

I just sold use of a picture of mine in a niche consumer product and got $150 and I'd have considered selling the image outright for $500-600 so $1000 does not seem that far out there.

Commercial, portrait, and wedding pricing are all quite different from one another.

derky82 wrote in post #5178457
That makes sense. That was pretty much the point that the article made, is that your copyright info should remain intact. (they just happened to lump it into the EXIF data.)

-Derek

copyright, photographers details, caption, title, rights usage terms, etc. are all in IPTC data, not EXIF.

EXIF data is the camera make, exposure details, lens used, camera serial number, camera owner's name (If you have set in in the camera), etc.

jbimages wrote in post #5184652
copyright, photographers details, caption, title, rights usage terms, etc. are all in IPTC data, not EXIF.

EXIF data is the camera make, exposure details, lens used, camera serial number, camera owner's name (If you have set in in the camera), etc.

Ohhh! Thank you for the explaination. I guess I had always been under the impression that all the metadata was referred to as the "EXIF." I'm still new to this, so I appreciate you taking the time to explain the difference.

-Derek

derky82 wrote in post #5184735
Ohhh! Thank you for the explaination. I guess I had always been under the impression that all the metadata was referred to as the "EXIF." I'm still new to this, so I appreciate you taking the time to explain the difference.

-Derek

IPTC goes back to around the 1970's, long before digital cameras and got its name from the International Press Telecommunications Council, one of the groups responsible for the standards.
There is a bit of history at http://www.controlledv​ocabulary.com/imagedat​abases/iptc_naa.html along with a link that describes the fields that photoshop uses.

gooble wrote in post #5178842
Well I may have gone over the mark with $1000, but I was thinking along the lines of for an ad campaign or something like that. Not every image of a wedding. However, wouldn't a fairly high price be in order for someone to buy several portrait shots, say if they were a model/actor/profession​al of some sort?

I just sold use of a picture of mine in a niche consumer product and got $150 and I'd have considered selling the image outright for $500-600 so $1000 does not seem that far out there.

For a major advertising campaign then yes, the number would be in the thousands, I guess.
I've still not sold anything on that level but maybe someday...
The picture is only worth what YOU want for it. If you find someone to buy it at the price (or higher) than you're good. I found that many people are fickle when it comes to price. But if you look at my photo link you'll see that I've got more than just my caerma equipment and ability involved.

I think the idea behind $1000 an image for a RAW file isn't so much that one would be selling RAW files for $1000, the point is really that one wouldn't be selling the RAW files.

JTVal wrote in post #5178778
$1000per image? Do you have some blackmail material of a governor or something?

If you asked the bride/groom for $1000 for the digital file you may get punched but you certainly would not get recommendations from them. My price for a digital file is about $30-50 for MOST photos.

This pricing is ridiculously low.

I think 1000 for an image file is insane. I am currently selling mine for $15 with no copyright and they have all access to the file. Is that to cheap?

Blender7 wrote in post #5194364
I think 1000 for an image file is insane. I am currently selling mine for $15 with no copyright and they have all access to the file. Is that to cheap?

Yes.

It depends what kind of settings you are referring to.

If I was looking at a pic and was thinking "How did they do that"
It would more than likely be a question of the look, skin tone, etc.

It would not be a question of what shutter speed, AP, ISO, DOF, WB they used, (was flash used), focal length since I have a pretty decent understanding of how these things work. These are the settings that are typically embedded in the EXIF file.

So if someone had a Jpg and I wanted to get the look (again not looking for AP, ISO, DOF, etc.)

I'd load that in ACR (you do have ACR setup to open JPGs, right?).

Then I would load up one of my own similar RAW files and start playing until I get close to the look. I flip back and forth between the 2 pics to check my progress. I know that you can't do everything in ACR and there is a point where I just stop save the settings as a new ACR preset. I then move on on to PS with both files opened and continue to adjust mine until I get the look similar to the other file.


It is just like the Dave Hill "look" has been captured in an ACR preset (granted that Dave does a lot of work with the light itself so the ACR preset will get you close but you have to do some light work as well"

http://www.scottkelby.​com/blog/2008/archives​/1094

bacchanal wrote in post #5193953
I think the idea behind $1000 an image for a RAW file isn't so much that one would be selling RAW files for $1000, the point is really that one wouldn't be selling the RAW files.

Why wouldn't you sell a RAW file. If I wanted to buy the copyright on an image I'd sure as heck want the RAW file if there was one.

transcend wrote in post #5194042
This pricing is ridiculously low.

Agree.

Blender7 wrote in post #5194364
I think 1000 for an image file is insane. I am currently selling mine for $15 with no copyright and they have all access to the file. Is that to cheap?

Yes.

bacchanal wrote in post #5193953
I think the idea behind $1000 an image for a RAW file isn't so much that one would be selling RAW files for $1000, the point is really that one wouldn't be selling the RAW files.

Why? Our wedding photographer sold us all ( > 500 ) the negatives from our wedding, even the ones that never made it into the proof book, for ~ $200.

Thats about $0.40 per original, not bad for MF IMHO.

mbellot wrote in post #5196929
Why? Our wedding photographer sold us all ( > 500 ) the negatives from our wedding, even the ones that never made it into the proof book, for ~ $200.

Thats about $0.40 per original, not bad for MF IMHO.

Was that in addition to the prints they made and sold you as well as the cost of the shoot?