Is this common practice?

[andrea_morrow]

Hello, Last weekend I was a photographer for a Bar Mitzvah. Since we are still

fairly new doing this professional, I gave them alot of leadway.

Both myself and my partner went, gave them a family session a week earlier, due

to the son possibly cutting his haif for a swim match, thru in travel time. The

family session as well as the church and reception were all over an hour

apart. We of course did custom color and croping if needed , but thru in free

digital enhancements, collages, borders, text ext. Already knocked 250 off our

fee and gave her online viewing and ordering option for family and friends.

And was up the whole next day sorting, editing and posting so she can view them

1 day later. We gave her 300 of the best pictures. And they came out great,

and captured everything. We took probably close to 1000. She just emailed

stating she would like us to post every picture that was taken. Good, bad,

indifferent. Is this common? Ive never heard of such a thing.

 

I have to email her back this moring, I appreciate any opinions, from the photo

world.

[karina_a]

Hi Andrea,

 

I am a newbie, however I will answer in case no-one more qualified gets to this in time. NEVER give out all your photos, and NEVER tell people how many you took. Quality control is the way you maintain your reputation. And it is unnecessary - as you say - your 300 shots captured everything - the other shots are bound to be repeats / blinks etc. Unless you have already told them otherwise, I would say that they have all the shots and that any other shots were exact copies of what they have as you always take multiple exposures to ensure you capture the shot. If they insist, then say that that is the policy of all professional photographers - simply for quality control, and that they are not missing out on anything. I am sure the pro's could give you much better wording for what they usually say, however from reading this site a lot, I believe that is the general gist. Of course - all done in a positive tone where she is left feeling she has everything etc etc....

 

And for future reference, hopefully you will be able to put something in your contract regarding what you offer (again - pro's will help more with the usual wording). The best thing is also to find a way to never get into the discussion and never have them realising that there are photos they don't have. (There will be wording someone else can help you with to avoid it). It is a service, not a disservice to them - otherwise the gold gets lost in the chaff (or some other mixed metahpor).

 

Hope this is of some help, and keep in mind it is just a newbie's interpretation of what I have read on this forum many times. Anyone else out there more articulate / experienced on this matter??? Maybe also try a search - not sure what you would type in though... Best of luck with it all. Love to see some pics : )

[justin_hall]

I often get this too, I say that I only post up the "keepers" that have been edited and fight tooth 'n' nail to not give them the "discards".

 

if they have to have them I stick them on a DVD and get them to buy it. the trouble is you don't want to dilute your keepers with your discards...

[sunnypix]

I did a wedding and then edited the pics and gave them their proof disk. The bride noticed there were "numbers missing" and DEMANDED I show her the other photos...

 

I tried to explain that there were lighting test shots (we were walking through downtown at night, I had to test before every groupign) and that there were also shots where people rudely walked through our group. She said "I don't care, I want them"

 

Unfortunately for her, I deleted them... why would I keep them?

 

I would tell your client that you only keep what you share and that the other shots are gone.

[johnmottershaw]

With weddings, I've always explained that the missing ones are blinkers or test shots or

whatever, but that nothing important is missing.

 

I've so far never had a problem, but have recently started to renumber my wedding pictures

after the edit to avoid this. It's easy in Bridge and it can still store the original file name/

number in the exif info.

[russ_butner___portland__or]

Andrea

 

Do not give her the rejects. There is no need or reason for them to see them. If they become insistent, kindly tell them that they weren't up to the quality of your preferred shots, and that you've already deleted them, and that there is no way of recovering them.

 

Russ

[msquarephoto]

In photo package descriptions I refer to "all final images". When someone asked about the other images taken, I said referred to the language of her contract that stated she would only get "final images". When asked about seeing them, I said just as a bride does not want to be seen until she is perfect and at her best, nether do my non-final images. She laughed and that was the end.

[g.e._masana]

I think when people demand to see "even the bad ones", that is to say, that they are informed that the shots were blinks and bad facial expressions and otherwise rejects and still insist on having them, that those customers are looking to get every bit of bang for their money spent, whether it be good, bad or indifferent. It's a mind set, an attitude. It's not about the photography for them, it's about their expenditure and not feeling that they've been deprived of a single thing.

 

Other customers, when curious and questioning those missing photos, when informed that those are rejects, understand that like a live TV show, or movie, or published novel, or magazine spread, that there has been editing done because it's needed to be done and favorably, anxiously, anticipate the outcome.

 

I see the clues in your post that you were dealing with a money-centric customer: you throwing in digital enhancements, travel time and to boot, knocking the cost down. Was this all haggled by the customer? You're probably not out of the woods yet, I'd guess there may be some more to come from this type of customer.

[justin_hall]

John Mottershaw makes a valid point - I use Lightroom (or Bridge whatever) to rename and renumber the final shots too - this has helped reduce those difficult questions relating to "what happened to Img_362 to Img_419?"

 

the force is strong with you young jedi, see those extra photos she must not....

[memecafe]

DO NOT GIVE THEM THE IMAGES! I think all photographer need to stand together on this one.

 

Always batch rename your "keepers" so that they have consecutive file numbering. This way the client can not immediatly notice missing photos, unless they remember a specific shot that you didn't include for what ever reason. In that case, just tell them taht the lighting was not favorable or they blinked (which will probably be the truth!)AND THAT YOU HAVE ALREADY DELETED THE UNSABLE IMAGES. Do not tell them that you took 1000 photos, people who are not familiar with what you go through as a photographer will assume they should get more than 300 out of 1000. (and out of 1000 you might try to get more usable shots next time, maybe you are duplicating the same shot too many times?)

 

I am dealing with a simlar situation myself...I did a TFP shoot recently, and the guy is bugging me for "all of the raw images." I provided him with almost 100 processed photos on high res DVD for no charge, yet he still wants the rest of the unedited images. The ones I did not give him were held back for a reason, and I will not part with work that is unnaceptable by my standards. Besides, what the heck does he want with RAW photos? He has no way of processing them, or even opening them on his computer.

 

In my experience, the less money a client pays for a gig the less respect they have for you and the more entitled they behave. If you are being treated like this, then you probably aren't charging enough. And like karina said, include something in your contract next time so there is no arguement.<div></div>

[surfidaho]

This request is very common. Mostly, it comes from the perception that people want every last bit of value for their rather substantial investment.

 

But there are also situations where a guest doesn't show up in your pictures, and rather than describe the guest, they just want to see all the pictures to determine if they can get at least one picture of that guest. Under those circumstances, I might invite them over to look for the picture, or if they are out of town, I'll post everything to a private site so they can have a look.

 

I also use a program (Breezebrowser) to rename all files by date and time. That way, nobody knows if anything is missing. I save every original file (just in case), but only post the good ones. That said, I tend to post the majority of shots. For example, in the above shot where the guy with the flash is zapping, I might do a vertical crop.

 

Later,

 

Paulsky

[john_wilson10]

I shot a wedding anniversary for a friend of mine a few months ago. I gave them prints (took 600-ish, gave them about 200), but because they were friends, I gave them some outtakes too, thinking "hey, these are okay, they're not that bad, and what am I going to do with them, honestly?"

 

For instance, I had some shots I originally did in color, did a print, and later decided that it worked better in black and white. Of course, many of the shots she selected for the final album were, you guessed it, outtakes. It was hard swallowing my pride to give her shots that I thought weren't as good as the final edits I made, but the lesson I learned was there was no difference, in her eyes, between the outtakes and the actual shots. So if you do give out some outtakes with the actual shots, you should expect some confusion over that.

 

On the other hand, she clearly preferred some of the shots I rejected, which was a humbling experience.

[picturesque]

No, it isn't common. However, this fact will probably not satisfy her. What you decide to do is up to you, but I would say that it sounds like you won't be able to keep her good will without giving some up. I would maybe think about getting a set of the "seconds" together, unedited, and put them on a disk for her. I wouldn't post them. This is as a fall back in case she is very unhappy when you tell her it isn't policy to show any unedited images.

[ibdnzgr]

After saving my "original" set, I start the editing process and delete all the obviously bad shots... mostly anything that ended up blurry and not at all "artistic" or a poor quality duplicate of a better shot. I put ALL the remainders online and move my favorites and enhanced images to the front. There have been times when I have offered a certain number of 4x6 prints for free and was surprised to find they often would pick many of my "end of the gallery" shots as part of their limited print set. I would have to think brides are looking for great artwork when choosing a photographer but looking more at content when picking their own favorites. I continue to provide all images on disk, full resolution and yes... copyright transfer. But I keep full permission to use the images as part of my portfolio and to promote my business. Why else would I need them? The galleries remain online as samples of my work and as a convenience to the bride and groom. I shoot in the area of 1,000 images for weddings but never promise a set number. Might be 800, might be 1,500.

[mary_s]

We renumber things in Lightroom so we don't have this problem.

[darrengold]

I would tell her that because the outtake images are what you would consider "rejects" that there is an extra charge for releasing them. The reason is that prospective clients who may see these images may not be inclined to hire you if they think that is the normal standard of your work. The extra $1000 for giving her those extra images is as an insurance against the possible loss of a future client.

 

Having read your post, $1 to 1c she says not to bother. If she still wants them then take the $1000!

 

Regards

[justin_hall]

Last night I received a call from a client asking for "that photo of the organist" at her christening. They remember me taking it because I was pointing my 70-200mm lens at him whilst he was playing and everyone was laughing (it was putting him off!).

 

It was all very relaxed and we all had fun but the photo didn't make it to the final cut for whatever reason.

 

Anyways, she was adamant I find it and send it to her, it turns out the poor chap died a couple of weeks ago and mine was the last photo taken.

 

Whilst it was technically average, the photo now holds a great deal of meaning for the family and widow - therefor I duly found out my archive DVD of original camera RAW's, processed the shot and ordered prints free of charge for the family.

 

My point is that while I only give them the "keepers", I NEVER delete any of the original files - no matter how poor they are. It's no big deal anyway - just stick it all on a DVD and forget about them.

 

j

[gina_marie1]

I experienced a similiar issue early on with a free session I did while building my portfolio. Believe it or not, this person didn't think they got enough free photos. I deleted the non-keepers. There is no reason to keep bad exposures, eyes blinking or heck knows what else that didn't make the cut.

 

We process and renumber all images. We do not hint at a number taken, yet do give an estimate of how many images the couple will receive and if we ever get someone asking for a missing image again, we won't be lying when we say the non-keepers have been deleted.

 

The story about the organist is interesting, in that case their suspicion of a missing photo was true, but I point my camera at various subjects all day long...it doesn't mean I push the shutter though.

[david_schilling___chicago_]

I have no issue with a photographer holding back some of the duds, blinkers, focus/exposure problems but I can not understand holding back more than 50% of all the images. I routinely post 82-88% of all the images online. When I worked for the larger established wedding studios here in Chicago, if they had to cull out more than 5% of the images for exposure/focus/blinks/etc...I could expect to get an earful about "professional standards".

[ericf1]

I had a photography teacher make a great point several years ago when a student said, "..All of your pictures are great". And he responded that, "no, I only display my great photos."

 

How many times, at least back in the film days, did someone show you all of the pictures right out of envelope from the processor? I still see non-photographer friends doing that with digital. They might not get them printed, but they delete none of their snapshots.

 

I don't doubt that there are clients that are trying to get the best value, i.e. the highest number of captures per dollar spent, but sometimes I think it is just the paradigm of non-photographers.

 

No real advice on how to handle the situation, you've already gotten plenty of good info, just my take on the potential mindset of your client.

[kgarrison]

The low-budget "photographers" in our area are pushing the numbers of delivered photos into the realm of ridiculous. Some are offering 2000 images delivered on DVD within 1 week of the shoot. Sure, between two of us shooting we may tick off 2000 images in a day at a wedding but because there is two of us and we are both shooting the same thing, we end up with a lot of duplicates or near-duplicates and when you deliver 5 DVD's of hi-res images, the people simply can't cope with the vast number of images. We may end up delivering around 500-600. While that seems like a huge number of rejects, you dont need 6 copies of a group photo, you just need 1 with no blinks. Then at the reception at the end of the night we probably end up with 400 images just of people dancing. These dance shots are from all kinds of angles, experiments with lighting, standing on ladders, whatever we can think of, this means a large number of rejects but a good number of really cool dance floor shots. Some people will ask us how many pictures we take and we make it very clear up front that while we may shoot 2000 images, we will be delivering around 500-600 and we set the expectation up front. Sure, sometimes they come back and say "well, joe budget dude will do it for half price, give us 2000 images, and deliver in 24 hours" and the only thing you can say at that point is "thank you for your time".

[kiva]

Do other artists and professionals in other professional/art areas give customers their seconds best?

 

~I've been fortunate to know several well known ceramic artists who will take incredibly Lovely pieces over to a scrap pile and unemotionally lift these huge and beautiful pieces over their heads and crash them into hundreds of pieces. I asked why when I first saw this. The answer was simple: I don't want to be an artist/craftsman known for giving my customers "second best".

 

Turn it around on her and tell her it's your Quality Control. You honor your profession and your customers by only giving them the best of your craft.

 

I now tell a couple this in the contract phase because it "feels" uncomfortable at the ending phase.

 

I ask them to look online at the images I post and if they like what they see then that's what they are buying: my style as applied to their wedding day celebration and I'll add that all my families have been thrilled with the images and the service.

 

In the contract I tell them they will get "all viable images". When they ask what that means I explain briefly and move on to more important subjects about Their Day.

 

Now if I'm approached with it again in the ending phase I just smile and say but it IS uncomfortable: "no, I don't give out anything but my very best. Did the family like their photos?"

[david_schilling___chicago_]

If you deliver less than half of your shots picture this: You take a shot of the bride and her flowers, you do a quick chimp and tell her she looks great, then she asks if that will be one of the shots that you deliver, so then you toss a coin and say "maybe". Actually if you deliver less than half, most of the time after each shot you'll need to respond with "probably not".

[wedding-photography-denver]

I give what I feel represents my work in the light I wish it to be seen.

 

No exceptions.

[kiva]

I don't think I've ever given less than 90% of the total images I've taken.

 

I'll live with that.