9x6 original photo - What can it be blown upto?

Gimpymoo · 29 Oct 2006 at 23:44

cyKey said:
Well having been ripped of by you customers, its perfectly fair. The protection is there to protect OUR work.

I think that sums up the attitude of our photographer perfectly

SDK^ · 29 Oct 2006 at 23:48

I'll echo what cykey said.
As a Semi-Pro photographer it annoys me when clients think they are getting ripped off when it comes to print charges.

There is an extensive amount of time involved with preparing, capturing, editing and archiving digital images and unless you do it yourself then you aren't in a position to comment. As with most jobs, there is a LOT more to it then first appears on the surface.

Splitting the cost into two parts; photo session and developing means you only pay for what you get. It’s impossible for the photographer and yourself to know how many prints, size options etc you may want before you see the proof photos.

At the end of the day you probably knew the costs and copyright situation before you commissioned the photographer so if you weren’t happy with any of it then why did you go ahead with the shoot ?!?!

cyKey · 29 Oct 2006 at 23:48

Gimpymoo said:
I think that sums up the attitude of our photographer perfectly

*bangs head on desk* Ahhh you've just got this really wrong idea of how everything works. You're expecting one thing and get upset when reality kicks in and then you think its not fair. Well its perfectly fair. They're his photos. Its as simple as that. They're not yours, or your childs, they're his because he took them. I don't get how this has become so complex. You take a picture, you own it.

Mohain · 29 Oct 2006 at 23:49

Gimpymoo said:
I naively thought it would be a case of pressing "Print"? - ROFL

Hahahahaha!

There are no laws about archiving images. The company who took the photo will have an archiving policy however. Ask them about it.

Also, it's not really a "minefield for the consumer". You had an agreement (probably signed a contract?) for someone to take some pics and produce a certain qty & size of prints. That is what they have done.

Although £20 may 'seem' expensive for a 6x4 print you're not just paying for the print, your paying for someones time. Someone will probably have to recall a job from archive, get it printed, quality check it, send it to you, raise an invoice, etc. etc. When you think about it £20 is probably pretty cheap.

P.S. If you really want to negotiate buying the copyrite he almost will certainly sell it, for the right price.

EDIT: SDK has pretty much said what I've said!

Gimpymoo · 30 Oct 2006 at 00:00

Mohain said:
P.S. If you really want to negotiate buying the copyrite he almost will certainly sell it, for the right price.

I think that is going to be the best route to take. Thanks.

Altough, Im assuming this will be costly.*

*I do not mean that as a "dig", im just interested.

Im aware the photographer needs to be rewarded for his work.

SDK^ · 30 Oct 2006 at 00:04

Gimpymoo said:
Altough, Im assuming this will be costly right?

That depends; do you want processed images ready to send straight to the printer or the files straight from the camera ?
I would sell files that were straight from the camera for 1/3 the price of processed images.

Gimpymoo · 30 Oct 2006 at 00:06

SDK^ said:
That depends; do you want processed images ready to send straight to the printer or the files straight from the camera ?

Straight from the camera would be fine.

ALTHOUGH, if the edited ones are significantly better, then I would have no problem paying him more as I can understand the skill and time that would require.

Out of interest, how much would any of you charge for a client to obtain ownership of a single photo of the subject matter allready discussed?

SDK^ · 30 Oct 2006 at 00:09

Well you need to contact your photographer and explain what you want then.
Remembering of course that any meetings, presentations etc will be worked into the final cost, you won't just be paying for a 'file' or 'print'

ranarama · 30 Oct 2006 at 00:34

cyKey said:
You take a picture, you own it.

You are right but it's down to the pricing structure where a lot of photographers are their own worst enemy. Particularly wedding, studio etc. rather than sports, commercial stuff

Say a customer pays £1000 for a set of 100 wedding photos. In my eyes (at £10 a photo) that's a fair price, if not a great price, for the photographer's time and effort preparing those prints and printing cost.

Now, to reprint the already shot and edited photo is not going to cost £10 for each picture. So why apply the same pricing structure as the profit margin will be wildly in excess of the original print. Anyone with an ounce of business nouse can see that so I think it's hardly surprising that photogrphers get ripped off when it came to reprints.

In this example say they charged £3 for a 6x4 reprint (10p each from photobox!) and add the p&p on top it more than covers the time involved in getting the photo reprinted. At that price I think most people would be prepared to pay it as they know they'll get a better quality print and with less messing about than scanning a print.

People pay a lot of money in the first place for the photogrpahers skill, and rightly so. The photographer shouldn't then try to rip off their customers with the minimal work involved in getting a reprint. They've made their money already so should charge a fair price. £20 for a 10p print is not IMO a fair price.

cyKey · 30 Oct 2006 at 01:21

ranarama said:
They've made their money already so should charge a fair price. £20 for a 10p print is not IMO a fair price.

Thats quite true and I've already agreed that £20 for a 6x4 is too much.

TheBigCheese · 30 Oct 2006 at 09:40

I shot my first wedding a couple of months ago for some friends.

They had a pro to shoot the formal wedding shots and I captured the evening do.

I took around 500 photos...whittled them down to an album of 350+ for everyone to choose from.

Admittedly it was the first time I had done it so my work flow wasn't efficient but it took me WEEKS (sorting, editing, resizing, processing, making DVDs, proof web wedding album of 350+ pics) to sort it all out - I couldn't believe how long, it was only then that I realised why pro photographers charge so much.

What has to be remembered is that a lot of photographers have multiple roles - a wedding photographer by weekend, a portrait photographer by weekday.

The money they lose in one area they make up for in another.

Why should you pay more so the photographer can make up their costs? Because without making up the costs the photographer can't afford to be there to take your photograph in the first place.

Regarding reprinting...

As good as Photobox is, I wouldn't use them to get the cheapest reprint possible of a professionally taken photograph, previously I would have taken them to a pro lab where everything is hand checked.

Now I print everything myself on an Epson 4800 so I can be in full control of quality and colour.

I think it's wrong to assume that photographers will just go and try and grab the biggest profit they can...there's no way I would go for the budget processors to reprint my work. I value my photographs and the final output, as do my customers. If it costs me a bit more to print it again so be it - if it produces a knockout result at the end - that's what gets you recommended and more business.

SDK^ · 30 Oct 2006 at 09:49

£20 for a 6"x4" photo is on the high side but the photographer clearly thinks his work is worth it.

In all business areas there are budget and high end sectors and it's up to you as a customer to choose the right person for the job.

Johnny|lucidcomposure · 30 Oct 2006 at 10:01

sniper007 said:
Dont listen to the morons above and I agree with what you say 100%. Even as a person who loves photography, I hate all of this excessive charging and copyright bs. I say "let it go to court" as well. Its yours now you payed for it. I would very much doubt that they are under any obligation at all to keep prints for said time. Not their responsibility. I would ask this on a photography forum and say the image is one of your own prints - that would cut the cry baby responses and save you time getting you the info you require. Try dpreview.com/forums

I dont know how you can put that!

You obviously are a hobbyist and have no intention of making a Professional LIVING on photography. When photography is your JOB and pure source of income then don't you think there should be laws to follow.

When I do a photo shoot for someone they pay me a upfront base cost and I give them a print spec list. Making it very clear before a shoot that there is addition costs for printing.

I buy, photograph, process and print my own material. Believe me, not even £20 for an A3 feels satisfactory to the cost, skill, time and experience I have endured.

I think addressing the people on here as "morons" shows evidence that you know nothing about anything in this topic and should keep your opinions to yourself.

cyKey · 30 Oct 2006 at 12:13

TheBigCheese · 30 Oct 2006 at 12:49

(but true)

grahamjenks · 30 Oct 2006 at 12:53

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6095612.stm

If a similar take was made on the copyright laws and how they affect photographers things might be different, presumably copying a print for personal use should be similar to copying a CD for personal use.

cyKey · 30 Oct 2006 at 13:04

grahamjenks said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6095612.stm

If a similar take was made on the copyright laws and how they affect photographers things might be different, presumably copying a print for personal use should be similar to copying a CD for personal use.

There is a difference though. A difference between buying a CD off a shelf and copying it onto your iPod and actually hiring a photographer to produce some prints of your children. The prints are intended for personal use so nothings changed. Should the photographer give them away for free because they're all intended for personal use? Basically, they hired him for a job and now they want more from him without paying.

grahamjenks · 30 Oct 2006 at 13:19

cyKey said:
There is a difference though. A difference between buying a CD off a shelf and copying it onto your iPod and actually hiring a photographer to produce some prints of your children. The prints are intended for personal use so nothings changed. Should the photographer give them away for free because they're all intended for personal use? Basically, they hired him for a job and now they want more from him without paying.

I was thinking more along the lines of you buy a CD you could (if these law's were changed) copy it to use on different mediums for private use. So apply similarly to photography - you 'buy' a photo (which you have had commisioned) - currently you can't make any copies - however if we went along the same lines as music - you can then copy it for private use.

cyKey · 30 Oct 2006 at 13:21

grahamjenks said:
I was thinking more along the lines of you buy a CD you could (if these law's were changed) copy it to use on different mediums for private use. So apply similarly to photography - you 'buy' a photo (which you have had commisioned) - currently you can't make any copies - however if we went along the same lines as music - you can then copy it for private use.

IMHO theres a big difference between buying a photo from Ikea for your wall and actually commissioning a photographer to produce specific shots for your self and not for anyone else.

grahamjenks · 30 Oct 2006 at 13:30

I agree there is a big difference - I just raised the point as its a similar issue - and I wonder if it will be affected in the review of IP laws.