Losing customers because everyone wants the images

[tobycline]

<p>I may take heat for this, but oh well. Let's face it, this is 2010. The whole line wedding photogs give about "I want to sell you prints that I have made because of the quality . . . " is seen as saying, "I want to make lots of money off large markups." Honestly, for the people who are budgeting $250-$1250 for wedding photos will not care that the print from the photographer is so much more stunning than the ones they can print themselves at reputable places like Shutterfly. Actually, the difference between high gloss prints that are matted and framed from Shutterfly vs. what is given and paid for from a wedding photographer today probably doesn't justify the marked difference in price -- at least for the budget conscious. Just because you can marke up the price of prints to make money doesn't mean that budget conscience brides need to pay those types of charges in 2010 . . .</p>

[bill_clark___minnetonka_mi]

<p>Yes I agree Toby.</p>

<p>Plus there are many ways to view photographs besides looking at them on paper. Like the new i pad, i phone to mention two. There are many others.</p>

[bebu_lamar]

<p>You forget that when you do business "The customer is always right".</p>

[rafael_s]

<p>Welcome to the new digital revolution where everyone, including your grandma, is a professional photographer, web designer, and copywriter. I work in the design industry and we are seeing the same thing happen. I miss the days when work actually meant spending time to deliver a quality product. Today people want things now, or yesterday, which is why photographer's are just delivering a disc or outsourcing their albums. I know retouching and such do take time on the computer, but honestly when I was shooting weddings before the advent of photoshop, retouching was a skill that took a lot more than just clicking a mouse, sometimes days would be spent on just one image. Anyone else remember that? I think that prices came down and photographer's are still charging for what film and darkroom chemicals would cost ... which by far was a lot more expensive than purchasing the latest Mac Pro and software. Anyone else remember those days? Ever had a processor go out and you pay for servicing it to get fixed? That alone would cost you more than a camera. I think there needs to be a balance. Fair is fair and when you educate your client as to why you are charging your fees they will be more likely to spend on your services. I see a lot of people trying to justify $3000 weddings and yet they are only one-man shops running the business from their home.</p>

[wedding-photography-denver]

<p>Lisa,</p>

<p>while I do understand your POV, it is a changing world. One in which you have to adapt a business or bear the consequences.</p>

<p>I give a high res DVD with all packages. I charge a base rate for an event, then an hourly rate in addition to cover what each hour of shooting will take to make a "normal" profit. I don't give my images away, rather I build it into the price of shooting. For me its the only way to survive and to thrive in this market. </p>

<p>You may consider that by sharing the high res images with your clients, you diminish the risk of completely loosing wedding pictures at your end of things.</p>

<p>Best of luck.</p>

[joshroot]

Folks,

 

Please keep your comments on the business end of things. The OP did not request a portfolio critique.

 

-president of photonetkistan

[danielleetaylor]

<p><em>So then I go into my speech about the quality of the lab work of who does my photos and that its better than walmart.</em></p>

<p>I doubt that. Walmarts typically use Fuji Frontiers. If you provide them a digital file, and tell them no adjustments, the output will be excellent for color. Admittedly I prefer other sources for B&W, but even B&W output from a Frontier is decent. Many "pro" labs use the exact same equipment. As I recall Costco uses Noritsu (SP?), and there are even profiles available online for many of their stores.</p>

<p>I think Epson printers do a better job, but most of the images from a wedding don't require Epson output. Maybe for the big prints.</p>

<p>If you're shooting film and having optical prints made, then the lab matters. Otherwise, not so much.</p>

<p>If I were to jump into wedding photography full time today, I would offer packages with the images included, along with instructions on how to get optimal prints from Walmart, Costco, or online services like Adorama's, etc. I would offer the option of prints with minimal markup. But on that side of things I would focus primarily on well designed wedding books (your typical couple will not include a graphic designer, and high quality books cannot be printed at Walmart) and specialty items (i.e. aluminum prints).</p>

<p>This is what couples demand and if I were getting married it is what I would demand. It's not the film days where the print is half the work and justifies high prices. Today the work is in the camera and in post processing, and after that perfect prints can be made at low cost from just about any where. Refuse to provide printable files and you risk losing the job, or perhaps worse, having the couple scan proofs and print those. (Do you really want fuzzy enlargements from cheap flatbeds to be associated with your work?)</p>

<p>I should note that while I would provide printable image files, the contract would only license them to the couple to print for personal use. I would retain all copyrights and legal ownership to the images. What's the difference if they can print at will? It acknowledges that I was the creator and artist behind the images, and insures that I could use them in portfolios, etc. It also means if the couple ever pursues commercial use that I must be compensated. (Advertising gets into model releases. I would probably offer discounts to some couples in exchange for such a release.)</p>

<p>One gray area is post processing by the client. I wouldn't want their nephew's Photoshop creation to be associated with my work. Not sure how to prevent that, but it's most likely not a big deal.</p>

<p>BTW, if I were to ever get married, this is how I would want to be treated as a client. (Being a photographer I might also negotiate for RAW files, but I would accept a higher cost for that.) I own professional Epson ink jets, and can get consistent, high quality results even from a Walmart Frontier. Why should I pay $20 or $30 for an 8x10? If you're trying to pull that on me you're telling me that scamming me is perfectly OK with you. I know what prints cost. Make your profit on the service (shooting and post processing) and don't try to screw people on printing.</p>

[akgraham]

<p>I don't retain professional people to give me what their business model and feelings of self-worth dictate. I hire people to do a job. Welcome to the new reality. Accept the fact that for a lot of people, their wedding is more important than your photography and either cut them from your business model or adapt and welcome them.</p>

[john_h.1]

<p>Customers are a great source of information on what customers will pay for.</p>

[philip_tam]

<p>My dental insurance pays for 1 x-ray per year. I took an x-ray with one dentist, and then, for one reason or another, decided to go to another dentist to have services done. The new dentist requested a diagnostic x-ray, which my insurance wasn't going to pay for. So I called my old dentist, and told them to please transfer my x-rays to the new dentist. He said he would charge me $100 for it. It would cost me $250 just to have new x-rays done.</p>

<p>I'm sorry, but they are my x-rays. The dentist was paid $250 to have my x-rays done. He already profited. Now he wants to profit another $100 for the simple act of mailing them.</p>

<p>I pay a photographer for their ability to compose pictures. I pay a painter for their ability to paint, and I expect to own the painting after.</p>

[mark_t5]

<p>so did u get ur xray when u asked the dentist?</p>

[picturesque]

<p>I don't think the x-ray example is pertinent. In the past, wedding photographers owned the negatives and the copyright to their images, and did not turn the negatives over to the client. The client went along with this, for the most part. The product being sold and paid for was the act of photographing and resulting prints and albums. This model stood for a long time, and is still being used by some photographers.</p>

[Sunset-Lounge]

<p>they are not customers until they have purchased something. until that happens they are potential customers. Lisa is not losing customers. She is apparently confused and upset that the potential customers are not buying what she wants to sell. Maybe at one time she had more success with what she wanted to sell. But time moves on. Things change. Styles. Economics. Technology. All progressing all the time.<br>

Unless you are very unique and can survive on only your reputation, us work-a-day mere mortals would benefit from learning to go with the flow. The alternative is to be left upstream.</p>

[scott_murphy_photography]

<p>Welcome to the world of professional photography. Our society has become accustomed to wanting professional quality prices for K-Mart prices. The two are mutually exclusive. </p>

<p>There will always be lousy, half-assed GWC photographers who will try to fill this market. The problem is their work is K-Mart quality as well. People nowadays have come to accept mediocrity and there will always be someone to live down to their expectations. </p>

[ejder]

<p>A craigslist photographer's perspective - I began after digital had already become a mainstay, and I found extremely quickly that 95% of local clients in my price range (lower end) were interested in a disc of the photos. A few were interested in albums or prints, but for most this was not the main selling point.</p>

<p>The photos are still distinguished by the quality of the photographer's eye and darkroom skills, but the darkroom has changed to Lightroom (or Aperture, and/or Photoshop, etc.). There are many people who just don't know how to use the new digital editing system and their photos look much worse than those who do. I was fortunate enough to be a computer-holic with graphic and photographic interest since my early teens, and the level of retouching/processing that I performed on photos set me apart from others in my price range. My use of light has gradually become a distinguishing factor (I like and often use many angles of light besides front lighting), but I am still struggling to learn good posing and composition and what makes a shot "work."</p>

<p>No question, photos on disc is going to be a very persistent medium for wedding photography since digital has made it convenient for all parties. It's good to hear that you plan to adapt, because adaptation works much better than being set in old business approaches when they are no longer effective in the current market.</p>

[les]

<p >Lisa – I am not a wedding photographer, but just couldn’t resist putting in my $0.02. Reading your post made me cringe.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >First of all – you are providing a service. In other words – you do what the market wants. Or…do you ?</p>

<p > </p>

<p >“…who wanted to do a portrait session right after her wedding because it was cheaper. I turned it down.” - and you still complain ?! </p>

<p > </p>

<p >So, all of a sudden people have no right to buy what they want and they have to buy what you want to sell, when you want it and according to your business model ? I think that you need a serious reality check if you want to stay in business. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Now – regarding the ownership of “your digital pictures” (I know that I may get flamed for this…).</p>

<p >The pictures you took have been paid for and there is no reason NOT to give A COPY of digital files to the customer – if this is what they want. If they are decent shots straight out of the camera – where is the problem ? If the customer wants you to spend time on editing/retouching etc. – of course, they should be charged for this. But it is no surprise to me that people turn you down after you tell them that you want to be paid for taking pictures a THEIR wedding in order to produce images that are YOURS, and then they have to pay you MORE in order to get something which has already been paid for.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I had my daughter’s wedding couple of years ago – and a number of wedding photographers had been turned down – precisely because of their views on who owns what and what I am allowed/permitted to do. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Fortunately – one of the better wedding photographers in Sydney has a business model which fits what I (and I suspect most customers) expect – and he is not cheap by any means. Basically – the customer tells him what is needed, and he comes up with a price (not cheap, but reasonable). In my case – he spent 12 hours shooting about 1,000 images, did portrait session, took the newlyweds to some nice locations around, provided DVDs with his unedited shots (very printable, may I add), also printed an album with wedding pictures (on request - and why not, the quality of the prints was really outstanding). Everyone was happy. His business is thriving, and you need to book him at least couple of months in advance. I will repeat this again – he is not cheap, but he sells what people want – and he does not think that the images he shot are “his” to the extent that the customer is refused a DVD.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >The market drives the business model – not the other way around. </p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p><em>Welcome to the world of professional photography. Our society has become accustomed to wanting professional quality prices for K-Mart prices. The two are mutually exclusive. </em></p>

<p>What you fail to appreciate is that Walmart, Kmart, etc. can provide high quality prints at low prices thanks to modern, digital, laser photo printers. Producing a good print, in terms of the mechanics of exposing and developing paper, is not a skill any more. It's a calibrated, automated, digital process.</p>

<p>The skill is in the photography and post processing. If you're one of the best when it comes to crafting beautiful wedding photos, then charge accordingly. But charge for the service. Don't try to screw clients on the mechanics of putting an image on paper. They know the score, they know new processes have made this high quality and cheap.</p>

[ed_te_pas]

I wonder if the big names will "give" their files away. I doubt it.

[picturesque]

<p>Trying to "screw clients on the mechanics of putting an image on paper" was never one of the goals for a business model that was based on consideration for the talent that went into making the image on that piece of paper. No one using that model was trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes. The client knew full well that they could take that same negative or file to the local drug store lab and get a print for cheap. Most also knew full well that the photographer was making their profit off print sales, and using the model to draw in clients for what seemed like a smaller or more manageable amount, in hopes of selling way beyond that initial amount.</p>

[philip_tam]

<blockquote>

<p>I don't think the x-ray example is pertinent. In the past, wedding photographers owned the negatives and the copyright to their images, and did not turn the negatives over to the client. The client went along with this, for the most part. The product being sold and paid for was the act of photographing and resulting prints and albums. This model stood for a long time, and is still being used by some photographers.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, let's put it this way. The model stood because photographers could get away with it. What they 'sold' was the prints, not the service. Maybe the charged a session fee, but most of the time we knew we were being hammed on the prints, it's just that we simply had no choice if we want to have a skilled photographer taking photos for us.</p>

<p>I'm glad that digital photography is giving this business model some competition/food for thought. I don't want to sound callous, but customers generally know what's happening. You're not holding onto the negatives to enjoy them yourself. You're holding onto them to make us come to you so you can charge us more money. I've had photographers charge me for the proofs. In other words, they already incurred the cost of printing them, to show us and talk about prints. Then they milk us out of money in order to simply hand them over, when in all likelihood they're just going to toss it in some dusty drawer or throw them away.</p>

<p>Thus, I perfectly like this statement:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>The skill is in the photography and post processing. If you're one of the best when it comes to crafting beautiful wedding photos, then charge accordingly. But charge for the service. Don't try to screw clients on the mechanics of putting an image on paper. They know the score, they know new processes have made this high quality and cheap.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>All things being equal, if a photographer offers a dvd with digital prints to me, and another held onto negatives and only sold the prints, I'm taking my business to the person who offers dvd's. I want you to earn a living, profit, and I will pay you accordingly for your time, your skill, and for the partial cost of being in your profession. I don't appreciate people using angles to gouge my wallet. It was refreshingly simple and honest. Our wedding coordinator signed us on with a wardrobe package, including a veil, and then charged us $500 extra to upgrade to a slightly nicer veil.</p>

<p>Thankfully, we found a wedding photographer who was flexible and willing to work with us. He provided us a DVD with the unretouched images at a reasonable cost. We had him retouch some pictures because we were impressed with some of the samples we gave him. I also retouched some myself.</p>

[picturesque]

<p>Philip, exactly. I didn't say the model should still be used. But the x-ray example was not similar enough to make your the point. And yes, as I said, customers know the score. It isn't as if photographers were trying to dupe them. I never kept negatives, even starting out almost 30 years ago. I always charged for my time and talent and left it at that. Still do.</p>

[john_deerfield]

<blockquote>

<p>All things being equal, if a photographer offers a dvd with digital prints to me, and another held onto negatives and only sold the prints, I'm taking my business to the person who offers dvd's</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And there's the rub: all things are never equal! For the most part, those that don't give away the images are the ones that ARE concerned with their art. To be clear (and many seem to think otherwise), you are hiring a photographer because of <em>their</em> vision, <em>their</em> style, <em>their</em> composition, <em>their</em> knowledge of lighting, and so on. It may be <em>your</em> wedding, but it's <em>my</em> vision, <em>my</em> work that captured it. That doesn't automatically entitle someone to the images.</p>

<p>And in an earlier post someone said $20 for an 8x10 was "screwing " the customer. I can assure you my cost on an 8x10 is more than $20. And if anyone doesn't think so, join PPA and hire their Studio Management Service. But lets set aside cost of software, hardware, lets skip post-processing, soft-proofing and so on. Lets just say I am uploading an 8x10 to my lab. Heck, I will even use MPIX. So, I find the image, I upload the image, and place the order. $2.75 for an 8x10 plus shipping ($6.00?). So now I am at $8.75. In the meantime I create an invoice. I received the print (don't need to worry about a re-print since we didn't even soft-proof the image anyway). Now I need to deliver the print. This means putting it in <em>something,</em> even if it's a cheap envelope (tacky); schedule time for the client to pick up the print (or hire a clerk), collect payment, process payment (accepting CC means transaction expense as well as a % of sale, or cash and check need to be deposited), complete the bookkeeping (mark invoice as paid, set aside sales tax etc). All of this is going to take me at LEAST 1/2 an hour. All for $11.25. Sorry, my time is FAR more valuable than that. And we haven't even covered all of the "other" costs involved. And that is one reason we give a disc with our weddings- I don't want to mess around with cheap reprints. If you want to pay me for my time, I will be happy to deliver a print that you won't get from Wal-Mart. In some cases it might not be a big difference, other times and the difference may be huge.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p><em>Trying to "screw clients on the mechanics of putting an image on paper" was never one of the goals for a business model that was based on consideration for the talent that went into making the image on that piece of paper.</em></p>

<p>Fair enough. I agree completely. But it no longer requires any talent to get the image on paper. Tremendous talent is still required in capturing and shaping the image. But it goes on paper with a click. That's my point, not that photographers in the film days didn't deserve the price for their work in the darkroom. (Or the labs they contracted.) They did.</p>

[juanita_ramirez]

<blockquote>

<p>To be clear (and many seem to think otherwise), you are hiring a photographer because of <em>their</em> vision, <em>their</em> style, <em>their</em> composition, <em>their</em> knowledge of lighting, and so on. It may be <em>your</em> wedding, but it's <em>my</em> vision, <em>my</em> work that captured it. That doesn't automatically entitle someone to the images.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>This is a fine view to hold, but to be frank, people hire me to get the job done. Lectures about art and vision don't impress my clients. Consistently in-focus, properly exposed, and well-composed images do. I sell a product. A damn good product. I don't pretend that wedding photography is some kind of high art form, though. It's a skilled trade (at least for those who are skilled.) </p>

<p>For the most part, those that don't give away their images are older, and still aren't ready to adjust to new business models. Don't try to sell this to me as art. It's a business decision, and a fine one to make--provided your clients will tolerate it. And don't call it "giving away" images. Call it selling the images up-front instead of holding the images of their special day hostage (that sounds pejorative--right?) </p>

<p>I've found that many (and not necessarily you) photographers who claim that Wal Mart can't print right simply aren't getting their exposures and colors right. They don't color correct for you, so if you send a mediocre image, you'll get back a mediocre image. If you send a good image, it will look as good as your mom-and-pop shop.</p>

<p>Lastly, instead of focusing on whether or not $20 is a rip-off, why don't you let the clients print themselves. I tell them about labs that color correct (I don't keep this a secret from clients or lie) and explain that they'll be get superior results because the colors on an unretouched image might not be great without some correction. They can get the prints on their own time. I don't have time to sell prints. That's why I charge enough that I can make all of the money I need by the end of their wedding day. It's a business model that works for me.</p>

[joshroot]

<blockquote>

<p>They can get the prints on their own time. I don't have time to sell prints. That's why I charge enough that I can make all of the money I need by the end of their wedding day. It's a business model that works for me.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Exactly, that's essentially what I said in this article series when asked about pricing structure (lots of good info from other wedding photographers in there as well):</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/learn/wedding/photography-business/</p>

<p>I structure (well, used to structure) my prices so that I was paid what I needed to be paid. I didn't screw around and waste my time hawking prints and albums. Now, to other photographers, that time is not a waste. But to me it was just more time I was stuck doing the boring parts of a photography business and less time I was spending fishing, playing with my kids, or enjoying the summer.</p>