What to charge for a CD

<p>Ok, here's the deal: I want to shoot some weddings and put the high resolution images on a CD for the happy couple. They would then have full use of those images to make prints, photobooks, whatever.<br>

I am doing this because I don't work at photography full time, I have a job, and I don't have the time or energy to get prints, photobooks, etc. made. So, their images are their images, not mine, though I reserve the right to use some of them for publicity purposes.<br>

So, what would be reasonable to charge per image in a situation like that?<br>

If I charge per image, then the happy couple can tell me how many images they would like, or can afford.<br>

Anybody else out there already doing this? If so, what is a reasonable charge per image?</p>

<p>Perhaps it would be better to think of the wedding as an event and charge for that. Then if they only want 20 pics you still make your mark.</p>

<p>I am a little concerned about the "publicity purposes" though. Are you going to try to shoot weddings commercially? If so you will need to plan a ton of time for post work. That is where the great images coalesce. I hope you are going to "work up" all of the images you give them. If you don't then you will inevitably have some pretty poor work mixed in with the good.</p>

<p>My opinion is that a commercial photographer should never show a client anything but a finished product. It is in his/her own best interest. </p>

<p>We photographers can look at a unfinished capture and see the potential in it. Clients sometimes not so much. We look into a picture they look at it. When we hire a professional we are looking for that photographers eye, experience and training. Please don't be offended. I know you would never turn over unfinished files to them. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Of course the images that would be on the CD would be processed. That goes without saying. I would never just dump them straight from the camera onto a CD. and say "here's your pictures, give my money."<br>

I reserve the right to use some of the images to show to prospective clients, not as some big 'commercial' enterprise, just a small group of people.<br>

I've been doing serious photography since the '70s, so I am no beginner. But my wedding photography up until now has been confined to family and friends without charge.</p>

<p>From what you described, it is different than wedding photogs work as ownership will typically stay with the photog, and not the B&G. </p>

<p>I would approach it differently - how much is your time worth? Or maybe give it to the B&G as your wedding gift?</p>

<p>With ownership, I recommend that you retain ownership but give them full rights as well. </p>

<p>The OP is in Canada, I'm not sure if that affects copyright in this case, it may not be the same as the US.</p>

<p>I forgot to mention that what I was thinking of was charging a flat hourly rate that covers the cost of labour involved in shooting the event, processing the images and burning the CD(s). Then charge a fee for each image the couple wants on the CD.They purchase the images, the images would then be theirs to do with as the please.<br>

This way the couple can control the cost of photographing their wedding by deciding both how many hours they want to hire me for and how many images they want to buy on their CD.<br>

This approach is geared toward couples who are getting married on a tight budget mainly.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"I was thinking of was charging a flat hourly rate that covers the cost of labour involved in shooting the event, processing the images and burning the CD(s). Then charge a fee for each image the couple wants on the CD."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>If the couple is already paying an hourly rate for the shoot, processing and burning to CD, why should they pay an additional fee for each image? It comes across as double-dipping akin to paying a caterer for food, preparation, delivery and setup, then having to pay again for each plate served or get nothing. </p>

<p>No, not at all.<br>

Charging a fee per image is no different than charging them for prints. They pay a small fee for the image and they are then free to make as many prints as they like. What I am doing is cutting out the middle man between the print lab and client. <br>

Most photographers fee structure includes an hourly rate and a fee for prints, photo books or whatever. All I am considering is replacing the fee for prints with a small fee per image. The clients then own the rights to the images and so are free to make as many prints as they like. They save money by not having to pay me to be the middle man between them and a photo lab.<br>

They also control their wedding costs by deciding how many hours and how many images they want to pay for instead of buying "packages" like most photographers I have come across offer. It's easy to hide fees in packages. I'm more upfront, my pricing plan leaves no room to hide fees.</p>

<p>I think you are making this hard for them and needlessly hard for you. You did not specify what a "small fee" for prints is. If it is a dollar for the rights to a capture it is not worth doing. If it is $10.00 it is too much considering they do not get any prints for it. I know you didn't like my earlier comments not Michaels. I think that most photographers today do one of three things. Either the shoot by the hour, sell a package or provide finished product in addition to their shooting fee. I know of nobody who does what you propose to do nor do I think it is a good marketing strategy. Here is why.</p>

<p>Your shooting fee should render the profit you need for doing the event. If in addition to that you want to sell them product then that is priced based on a cost plus basis. The trend in the industry is to shoot for a fee and provide a specified electronic product from which the couple can make prints as they desire. </p>

<p>So to be practical. Suppose you charge $1000.00 for shooting the wedding. Further suppose you create 200 good images from a wedding. The bride and groom sit down and would like to have all of them. If you charge $10.00 per image for rights. They just ran up another $2000.00 bill. They will look at that CD and feel ripped off. $5.00 each? Still double the shooting price. $1.00 each? Not worth messing with. Do you see my point? You are making it needlessly hard on the B & G. And how is it that you control what they use anyway. If they want to just keep the images on the CD you sent they can. Most people who sell pieces do it from a website where the customer shops for the photos they want and orders prints or rights. I suppose you could obscure the images with a watermark but that is tacky and makes the pictures look unappealing. </p>

<p>You said that you are just starting to do weddings for money. My opinion is that simpler is better. Why not just get your money up front and let them do as they please with the pictures? You see, from their standpoint this is not a savings. It is an expense to keep what is sitting in front of them already. It is also a temptation to them to keep the images anyway. <br>

Just my 2 cents worth. I think people like simple. I like simple.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Yeah, maybe I should just shoot, process, burn, deliver, collect my money and be done with it.<br>

Maybe what I've been thinking really is too complicated. I thought it was simple, but seems like others don't.</p>

$200 US dollars plan simple with signed release for use for you and them. Heck I know it's cheap but in my town I got

moms buying cameras just starting charging 250-300 with only shooting for a few months. This amateur ish buy a camera

an call your self a pro is pissing me off don't get me started on the ones that are charging under 10 bucks for a shoot plus

prints I don't know how they can do that guess welfare is know helping thes fuxxxs buy start up equipment. Sorry just

makes me mad when 5 years ago work was good I was booked 2-3 days a week know iam lucky I get one shoot every

month and had get back in the oilfields to pay the rent when some lazy ass people buy a camera using welfare and don't

do anything can make money.

<p>Michael, I know what you mean, I feel the same way. You see people buying cameras and charging folks before they even know how to use the thing. Pisses me off too.<br>

I've been doing photography since the 1970s. I started with a fully manual 35mm SLR and spent a lot of time, and a lot of film, learning the trade. Now, of course, I'm all digital. I still have my 35mm SLR and I still shoot some film too. So, yeah, it pisses me off seeing some people who put themselves out there as being professional photographers when then don't understand even the basics.<br>

Anyway, I think what I am going to do is just charge a flat hourly rate that includes the time it takes to shoot, process the images and burn the CD as well as the cost of the CD. <br>

Thanks for your response.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"...some lazy ass people buy a camera using welfare and don't do anything can make money."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Oh, please.<br>

<br>

For one thing, some of those folks may be your neighbors and prospective customers. Why not just assume the best, rather than the worst?<br>

<br>

Also, there's almost no such thing as "welfare" in the U.S., certainly not in the sense of free money that poor folks can use to buy cameras. The closest thing we have to "welfare" in the U.S. is SNAP and WIC, which legally can be used only for food, and Medicaid, which can be used only for health care. Some of my own family members have been on both during hard times and sure as hell didn't buy unnecessary items with it. And they got through the rough financial patches and are working again, including one who's serving in the military and another who's a CNA caring for elderly and disabled folks.<br>

<br>

If by "welfare" you mean unemployment or disability, that's their money to use as they see fit. If they see fit to buy their own cameras to photograph their own families and friends, rather than to hire a disgruntled wannabe pro with zero social skills who sees them as "lazy-ass people on welfare", who can blame them?<br>

<br>

And if you're working in the oil fields again, stay safe. It's a dangerous job. My brother worked on rigs in Texas and I was a safety inspector for OSHA before I couldn't work due to disability. Most of us are a single paycheck or misfortune away from being on some form of social assistance.<br>

<br>

I'm happy to do these same types of assignments completely free of charge for any family members, friends and neighbors. My own neighbors are in worse shape than I am financially. I won't accept any money from them, other than if they want to buy me a beer or cup of coffee. I just do some quickie edits, burn the CD and give it to them. And I'm not taking money out of the pockets of any genuine professional photographers because the folks I do this for were never going to be clients anyway.</p>