How do you handle clients that want digital copies of their portraits?

<p>Roxanne were you around in the film days? I'm not a professional but I know if you wanted to hire a photographer and keep the negatives they charged a lot more. You should set up something like that. Just slip into your contract that you still retain the copy right and what the client is paying for is unrestricted personal use. This situation has been around for decades and there is a solution. If they just want low res images for emailing, FB and so forth then give them really low res images for a nominal fee. Something like 1,000 pixels in the long dimension is plenty.</p>

<p>John H. is dead on. The client thinks they are clever and wants to pay you $20 and then go to Walmart and print off a bunch of dirt cheap 8x10s. I've found in my line of work being honest is the best policy. You can explain to them that in order for your business to be viable each client has to on average pay a certain amount. Some pay more some pay less depending on their needs. You didn't charge them a big fee for a large group setup. As someone else noted they couldn't get a large setup like that at the Walmart photo studio. You charged them a low set up fee because your model is to make money on the prints. If they just want a one time fee for the "negatives" and no prints then they will have to pay a hefty sum and deal with getting their prints on their own.</p>

<p>The only problem with the negatives analogy is if you spent a considerable amount of time in post processing images. I heard back in the day sometimes the photographer handed over the negatives at the end of the shoot. Once the shutter was fired that was the last involvement the photographer had with that frame. So you will need to factor your time in post into the cost if it is substantial.</p>

<p>Yes Jeff, I was around in the film days. I do spend considerable time post-production, and I have always depended on selling prints to be compensated for that time. You have made some very valid points, and I definitely need to restructure my business model.<br>

Up to this point I have always proofed all of the photos that turned out well thinking that it would help me to sell more prints, but it is very time-consuming editing that many RAW files. I think I need to set a low limit on how many photos I will offer as proofs to cut the time I spend in post-production.</p>

<p>My post production time is minimal, but it has taken me a few years to get to this point.<br>

Do a quick edit on the whole shoot, take all the selects, do a global batch process and add a few tweaks to make them pop. Output lo-res watermarked images and upload a client gallery. This takes less than an hour and I always have at least 100 images in these galleries. Client then makes their selections, and I do final processing only on these images.<br>

Then send final images via Yousendit. Job is done and paid for. Both sides happy. <a href="http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.435133696548624.104586.171846589544004&type=1">Some samples</a> from the past few weeks here.</p>

<p>I have a similar process to Ian although I don't often show 100 photos for this type of shoot. It's not that hard to get a streamlined process once you get the tools down. The thing about pricing is that it is going to be competitive, and not just with other photographers, but with what people can do themselves. Telling them that you aren't making money from prints isn't going to help. The world is changing with the technology, and prints are low value at this point for most consumers. If you don't change, you will get left behind. As Ian said, clients want digital files. Even if only a few of yours do now, that will be different next year.</p>

<p>My father and his father before him were professional photographers with the latter commencing business at the end of WW1. I spent my very younger years in their studio and watching the magic of dodging and burning.<br>

My father carried on the business until about 1980. he was still using my grandfathers studio 8x10. One had to book weeks ahead for a "sitting". If you Google Image search on "Sidney Riley", you can see lots of the old images scattered amongst the current ones. His wedding and politician sittings were so priceless that the negatives are held in the National Archives.<br>

What I am getting to is that we live in an age now where the photographer's value is diminished as digital photography. And it is so much faster to produce a good image. I do remember my father telling me that one portrait of quality would cost 200 pounds in 1960s money. The work to produce a quality image might be 3 days in the darkroom and framing etc.<br>

With this history in mind, one of the ways to get out from under the price-per-image or CD dump is for the Walmart pricing to be replaced with a time charge, as the output is so good these days. So what would you price your time at to make say $75k per year? At 3 billable days a week the hourly rate comes to guess what?....about $75 per hour. Its a useful co-incidence. Is that acceptable in today's market? I think it is where I hear of high end digital photographers charging $3000. </p>

<p>Explaining to this one particular customer why digital files are not availble and presenting in an customer freindly way is helpful because the deal is already done. Ultimately, to sell prints going forward, customers will need to see value. Whether quality, archival, asthetic control, low shoot fee in favor of custom print slection ect, will sway customers, you are in the best position to know or find out.</p>

<p>Picture People is the name of the game where I live along with Sears, Walmart,JC Penney,<br /> this is a model for what they charge...<br /> <a href="http://www.picturepeople.com/portrait-products/portrait_cds">http://www.picturepeople.com/portrait-products/portrait_cds</a><br /> your better than them! charge a little more and charge according to how many files you take on the shoot, they normally don't take all that many.</p>

<p>You are in competition with the Wal-marts, K-marts, Sears, et al., photo studios. If they elect to 'add one digital image on a CD' as part of the package sold, the customer is happy, happy, happy.</p>

<p>Next, you are asked the same option ... giving up a digital (more or less) print.</p>

<p>You have to decide if you want to go down that road or not.</p>

<p>Once the digital image is released, you have no control of where it goes next...</p>

<p>Good luck!</p>

 

<p>This is the Facebook age. People want electronic copies of their photos, ALL of their photos, they want to upload them, and they are going to upload them then minute that they receive them. This is the new normal. If you refuse to give the client what they want, i.e. the ability to upload their photos, be prepared for some negative word of mouth.</p>

<p>You guys should study from Sarah Petty. She has many videos out there you can watch/listen to for free. She also has courses you can enroll in. She does not sell a single digital file EVER! I believe she watermarks low res images that she can give clients for Facebook and blogs, but that's it. She focuses on selling wall portraits. I mean, hey, you wouldn't commission a painter for a beautiful oil painting on canvas, then ask for the digital file would you? Photography is art. And until photographers start saying ,"No." people will continue to ask.<br>

Also Sarah focuses her market on the high end. If someone wants a cheap photographer that will give them the digitals, she WANTs them to go elsewhere. Aim high!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>This is the Facebook age. People want electronic copies of their photos, ALL of their photos, they want to upload them, and they are going to upload them then minute that they receive them.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not to be hypercritical but taking this approach will put you out of business... and fast. If you plan on running your business as a business and not as a part-time hobby the follow this advice. If you run it as a business, and it sounds like you try to, do not cave in to "the new normal". This is simply advice from people with no business experience that saturate the market with bad advice and no real experience.<br /> <br /> Many of you have offered sound advice and a few even have experience with film so their advice is priceless. Even if you shoot digital, I happen to use both, treat your digital files as digital negatives. This is what they are referred to as if you are doing any work digital RAW files are adjustable RGB files that allow one to manipulate the digital data before processing in photoshop. Time is money and while one can automate the process everything needs to be considered in pricing from time, to cost of equipment, to even all overhead.<br /> <br /> An excellent video to watch can be found here... <a href="

/> <br /> I work in commercial advertising, magazines, fine art and commercial work and I am always aware of my bottom line whenever I do work. Like you, I work in a market where if one throws a stone you hit ten photographers. Be smart and do what others suggest - elevate yourself above the fray and never give anything away for free. I don't know about you but I want to eventually retire from the business.</p>

<p>I think the video that Brian referenced is a very good one, but it does not really address the issue of electronic copies of their photos. I offer electronic copies, BUT I charge for them so my time and costs are full compensated. One nice thing about electronic products is they have relative low costs of production once you have the capability to reliably process digital files. The cost of a DVD and its production is tiny compared to print generation.<br>

Having said all that, the video is an essential part of understanding whether you can make photography a business.</p>