Losing customers because everyone wants the images

[philip_tam]

<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>

</blockquote>

<p>This is partially my point. I want to pay you for your vision, your work, your composition, etc. I don't want to pay you for the monkey work of ordering prints. But, when you hold on the negatives/original files, you position yourself as the middleman between me and the lab, and you mark up the true cost several fold. That cost is not paying for your vision, your creativity, your style. It's paying for your clerical time.</p>

<p>I will happily take your suggestions for a lab. I will entertain your advice on whether or not you want to do some of the retouching work or leave it up to me. I will let you sift out and selectively delete pictures that you don't want to show me, provided that you give me sufficient volume for your time. I will happily sign a contract which: (1) dictates that I can freely use the pictures for non-commercial purposes and show/transfer them to friends, and (2) provides you with the right to use my captured likeness at my event for limited promotional purposes so long as no additional profits are involved.</p>

<p>In other words, I would rather pay $8.75 for me to order the print, than to pay you $20 to do it. That is greater than a 2 fold markup. In my line of work, my customers would *laugh* at me for anything greater than a 15% markup, and our work is completely transparent since customers demand price breakdowns. A twofold markup likely means you are not the most efficient vehicle to get that part of the work done.</p>

<p>I understand that it may be the case that some photographers with better skills are more protective of their originals. Sure... I fully understand that you would want to control the output before you stamp your name on it. But please, just out of ethics, do not control the format in which you hand over your product to position yourself as the middleman. The format has no bearing on your skills.</p>

<p>I'm really trying not to be overly cynical here, since I really do appreciate a good photographer and I at least have a little grasp of the grind of the graphic arts business. But simultaneously, I've filt the sting of being jipped as a customer too. Pay for the proofs? Not just some token fee mind you, a thick bill. Come on... You're going to trash them when this is done.</p>

[hugh_j.]

<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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's putting it mildly; the X-ray example is completely irrelevant. We're talking about images that, in the United States, are owned by the creator of those images. That's U.S. copyright law. Said creator can choose to license or release those rights in a contract, but by default the photographer owns those rights unless specified otherwise. That much hasn't changed.</p>

<p>You may "own" a painting that you buy or commission, but the second you start making copies of it, for sale or otherwise, and the artist hasn't released those rights to you in writing, you may be in for a nasty surprise.</p>

[bob_sunley]

<p>Unless you are in a work for hire situation, which is what wedding photography amounts to.</p>

<p>Esp when your contact specifies supplying a photographer and/or an assistant for x hours to document a wedding service and reception.</p>

[joshroot]

<blockquote>

<p>Unless you are in a work for hire situation, which is what wedding photography amounts to.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Unless you have some sort of legal precedence to back that up, you are just making things up and giving out bad information.</p>

<p>Wedding photographers work in whatever way that their contract specifies. I know of zero professional photographers who give up copyright of their images as one does in a 'work for hire' situation.</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>

[bob_sunley]

<p>Look at Canadian copyright law. The paying customer owns the work by default.</p>

<p> </p>

[matt_k4]

<p>Sorry, didn't type a correction fast enough...<br>

A bit off the current thread, but one of the main reasons we went with a photographer that did give us the images is that, to be blunt, I don't know how long the photographer (any photographer) will be in business. Like most of my friends, we got married in the city that we lived in at the time, but we've lived in a few cities since and if something happened to the photographer we wouldn't know, and I have no idea how they could get a hold of us if they wanted to (haven't updated our address with them, I guess). What would happen to the images? We didn't want to take that chance.</p>

[les]

<p >“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 > </p>

<p >Am I reading what I am reading ?!</p>

<p > </p>

<p >If what you wrote is true – then what exactly am I entitled to, and what exactly am I paying for ? For you to be able to do you work and/or fulfill your vision ? Or am I paying for your presence at MY wedding? Why should I pay for that ? Why should I care about your work and what you do in your time ? Why, for that matter, should I even allow you to enter the premises ?</p>

<p > </p>

<p >If it really is “your” work and “your” vision – then you should attend the wedding for free – heck, you should ask for permission and pay ME for the privilege of taking photos at MY wedding. In that case – yes, whatever you shoot with YOUR gear and YOUR vision – is your undisputable property to do with as you wish. You may even sell it to ME at any mutually agreed price.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >But – if you charge me $200+ an hour BEFORE you even produce anything – then you work for me. I am paying for the PRODUCT, not for your PRESENCE. And if I am not entitled to the images – then what is your product and what exactly is this that you are selling ?</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I think that Nadine (and the guy who took pics at my daughter’s wedding ) got it right, and I suspect that they are both successful because they sell SOMETHING.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I am not trying to convince you (after all, you are giving away the discs) or anyone else – the customers will vote with their wallets, which I suppose is good enough to convince anyone – and pretty damn quick at that. And – those who remain unconvinced, will be out of business.</p>

[lee_richards2]

<p>So much acrimony. It seems to me that it my job to convince the BG that what I am doing is worth the money. That is first. I have not seen the OPs portfolio but I know in mine I have a considerable number of photos and effects that make it easy to show the customer exxactly what value I add to the process. I show them inexpensive prints from unretouched pictures and I show them the same picture after I have worked it up beautifully, professionally printed it and even put it into a frame. That establishes value.</p>

<p>Somebody said:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>You are being hired to document the day, not creating art for yourself.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I disagree completely with the sentiment behind this comment. My expertise is all I have to sell. Uncle Charlie can "document the day" but he can't take photos like I can. I find this comment not only naive but outright rude. Having said that....We are in a retail business. If we don't sell what the customer wants we may loose that customer. So I sell prints AND I offer the disk. Very frequently they buy both. I offer a package of 10 - 8 X 10's along with the disk. I show the B&G some great examples and say "Now you will want some really special photos prepared for the most important people of the day.....Let's see, you will ned one for your mom and dad....and one for the best man........" You get the point. Once I have my list of people who are getting 'special photos' (remember this is in advance) I always finish with...."well there are a ton of people who will want a shot or two but you can get them done at Walmart and save a ton of money." Often my "close" is to get them to allow me to work with them on the 'list' of special photos for them. Once they start naming people who get special prints the deal in done.</p>

<p>Of course there is another way to look at this. Before the 'craigslist' photographer was around people with less money to spend simply did not hire professional photographers. They coundn't afford it. So they got a friend or relative to do it. Many a wedding has been shot with an Argus C3 and pocket full of flash bulbs. </p>

<p>My point is that things have really not changed that much at all. If you want to be a 'high end' wedding professional who can demand top dollar and retain the rights to all of your photos then it is your responsibility to go out and market to the group of people who are customers for that sort of experience. And that is some tough marketing. It ALWAYS has been. Can't we all be honest here? How many of us, who charge a minimum of $2500.00 for a wedding are loosing that business to craigslist? Not many I suspect. Going out and looking for customers is called prospecting. If you are banging off of the craigslist guys and gals you are prospecting where you should not be. Town and Country customers are still wanting their files but they are buying a boatload of product along with it. </p>

<p>For the record; I am happy to give the B&G the files. I give them only the ones I stand behind, that have been propperly prepared and that I want to be my portfolio in the future. Why? Because giving out 'raw' photos is like putting them in your portfolio. The B&G will share them with your potential customers. Check it out. A bunch of my business comes from referrals. I am not going to get as many referrals if the B&G are showing their friends what should hit the cutting room floor. </p>

<p>I am going to take a final shot at the guy who said we are being hired to document a day. I am not. Though my background is photojournalism that is not my approach to doing a wedding. So if the B&G want someone to "document the day" I tell them frankly that I would be a waste of money. And I offer to refer them to a less expensive photographer. I have often said to a client who I knew could afford my rates but is telling me the competition is cheaper: "Look Bill, I don't argue with what my competitors charge...for they must know what their work is worth". </p>

[kevin_b.2]

<p>I think you should show your potential customer the difference between one of your out of the camera images and a post processing image. Perhaps then they would understand the cost of post processing.</p>

[charles_wood]

<p>Every market has a pricing sweet spot whether it's wedding photography or fine art landscapes/nature. One local photographer in my market, with an ego as big as the outdoors, tries to sell lithograph 'limited edition' posters for a $1000 and he wonders why no one is buying. It sounds as if Lisa has a similar problem and is simply trying to extract too much out of her market. As others have said, with digital, it's an entirely new ball game. At least Lisa recognizes she has a problem to solve.</p>

[joshroot]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=3902476">Bob Sunley</a> , Apr 07, 2010; 10:07 p.m.<br>

Look at Canadian copyright law. The paying customer owns the work by default.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Incorrect Bob. That only applies if there is no contract. Read Section 13(2) of the Canadian Copyright act:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Where, in the case of an engraving, photograph or portrait, the plate or other original was ordered by some other person and was made for valuable consideration, and the consideration was paid, in pursuance of that order, <strong>in the absence of any agreement to the contrary</strong>, the person by whom the plate or other original was ordered shall be the first owner of the copyright.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-42/</p>

[les]

<p>"I am going to take a final shot at the guy who said we are being hired to document a day. I am not. Though my background is photojournalism that is not my approach to doing a wedding."</p>

<p>Well - I suspect that the boundary is more than just a little bit blurred here. The bottom line is - the customer pays and has a right to get something for his money - so maybe "your approach" is not that terribly important.</p>

<p>Having said that - I fully agree that you may follow your line of reasoning, select your customers based on their "compliance" and ability to pay, and be very successful. No one forces anyone to do anything - and if the customer agrees, you may do whatever you want. As far as I am concerned - a DVD with images is the minimum I would expect to get from the photographer.</p>

<p>If the customer signs a contract where the rules are spelled out (and doesn't like it afterwards) - they only have themselves to blame.</p>

<p>Strangely enough - when a photographer complains that they lose (OK, potential) customers because they are unwilling to part with a product of their PAID work - well, they only have themselves to blame too.</p>

[fotografz]

<p>I've always provided all the files ... and before that the negs. I got into shooting weddings as a photographer, not as a book binder or photo lab. Now there are literally hundreds of e-places to get an album done. I simply recommend one. I'll offer, print and make a traditional album for those who really want one ... not many do these days, which is fine with me.</p>

<p>I correct any file that the client gets to print level quality. Some files are obviously better than others and they get special attention. If we are slow at processing it's not the client's fault, it's ours.</p>

<p>I do completely disagree with the "commodity" mentality that this is just a service. There is still a magic about photography ... which I will continue to call "art". As clients get more and more savvy about the technical aspects, the art becomes more and more important. If you relegate your photography to just giving the client what they want, then what they get can be no greater than their expectations.</p>

<p>So, I do present the art of wedding photography, and sync it with the clients dreams of their wedding day. They come for a business meeting and leave excited to have me document their wedding with style, grace, humor, and pathos. It is what a wedding is about ... and if you don't get that ... then you really don't know your target audience ...wether they have a pot of money or not.</p>

<p>As a final note to the commodity thinkers ... I do all this and I am old, so the stereo type doesn't fit. To those younger folk I'll say this ... if all there is is filling orders and service craft there is little to renew you like there is with art, which is ever living in you, and the chance of burn out increases exponentially ... unless you are a photo robot.</p>

<p>-Marc</p>

<p> </p>

[john_deerfield]

<blockquote>

<p>My expertise is all I have to sell. Uncle Charlie can "document the day" but he can't take photos like I can.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Exactly. The minute you start trying to sell a "product" you are doomed. Of course there is going to be a balancing act between goods and services but the bottom line is you are selling what you bring to the table. Otherwise anybody with a camera will do.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>then what exactly am I entitled to, and what exactly am I paying for ? </p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Whatever is in the contract! But at one end of the fulcrum you have Dennis Reggie, Jeff Ascough, Joe Buissink and so on and at the other end you have your Craiglist shooters. Do you think Dennis Reggie is going to show up at your wedding and shoot it for free just for his portfolio? Of course not. You are hiring him for <em>his</em> work. By contrast, a CL shooter will won't be able to capture what a truly talented professional can. It behooves the professional photographer to create images that clients want to buy so that clients hire them! But as a <em>professional</em>, I am selling me. Here is another way to look at it: Photographer A charges "X" and Photographer B charges "2X". Each creates the same exact image (same lens, same post-processing, same everything). However, Photographer B is just a joy to work with. You day runs smoothly, the photographer keeps everyone entertained (posing some of those family shots can try the patience of some!), the photographer actually contributes to the "success" of your wedding day. Whereas photographer A was difficult to work with, unprofessional, and just generally didn't "contribute" to the day... I mean they were only there to create a product that was sold to you. Now some people would rather save "X" dollars and there is nothing wrong with that. But others are willing to pay more for something better. </p>

[bob_sunley]

<p>Lee Richards wrote:<br /> Somebody said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"You are being hired to document the day, not creating art for yourself."</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>That was Steve Smith, way back at 2:14pm. Steve is right, no wedding photographer is being hired to create art for him/herself, they are being hired to document the day and hopefully creating art for the paying customer.<br /> When I hire a programmer to create a program to accomplish a specific task, I am paying for a product, and I expect to own it free and clear of all encumbrances. I am not inclined to pay ongoing license fees to use something when I have already paid for it's creation. I do expect to have to pay for any modifications to modify the functionality in the future, and to be able to chose whomever I want to make the required changes.</p>

<p>Is wedding photography really any different, no it's not. I pick a programmer based on his past performance and references, just as a client picks a photographer. I'll have to pay a lot more for a senior software engineer than I will for a recent university or college graduate, but I'll also expect a much more polished and better documented product from the much higher priced person.</p>

<p>Josh, there can be a contract, but it would have to specifically name the photographer, or any other person as the holder of the copyright for work done under the contract for the copyright not to reside with the person who paid for the work.</p>

<p> </p>

[philip_tam]

<p>I just went to a website to a photographer (who shall remain unnamed) that I once used. Here's the pricing for a single portrait:</p>

<p>Sitting Fee: $70, includes production of 70 proofs (but no transfer of proofs)<br>

Package A: (two poses)<br />1-11x14<br />4 Portrait Units<br />48 Wallets<br />Package Only: $320<br />

<p>So, what is this telling me? This person's photography (their style/creativity/skill/etc.) is worth $70. The retouching is worth a part of that $320 for two out of those 70 pictures. The printing/clerical duties is worth the rest. These people are unwilling to sell negatives/digitals. I go back for another Package A, and I am again charged $320. I do not know what part of the photographer's style/creativity/skill is involved in a reprint order.<br>

<br>

Incidentally, this photographer charges $2,200 for wedding coverage, and does provide a DVD with digital files for weddings, but not portraits.<br>

<br>

I simply don't understand why a photographer would refuse to give up negatives/digital prints. What reason would you have to keep them, other than to charge me for reprints? Are you seriously going to claim that you want to hold onto them to look at?</p>

</p>

[picturesque]

<p>The people that say wedding photography is art and the people who say it is a product/commodity are each pulling their statement to the extremes. In reality, IMHO, wedding photography is somewhere in the middle of the two extremes. Sure, if it were purely a product, anyone with a camera will do. By the same token, if it were purely an artform, producing something usable to the person paying (and valuable to the person paying), would be hit or miss. I think most clients would be upset if the "artist", because he or she is following his own vision, omits documenting the wedding ceremony because she got side tracked photographing from the flower girl's perspective, for instance.</p>

<p>Getting back to reality, if you, the wedding photographer, want to use a business model that does not include the files, then don't. By trying it, you will soon find out if it is feasible for you, with your style and place in your community. If you find it is difficult and getting more difficult, try a different package, offer 'some' files--whatever--to see if you can still continue. Otherwise, give in. It's pretty simple. The market (customers) will tell you.</p>

[les]

<p>Marc:<br>

"I do completely disagree with the "commodity" mentality that this is just a service. There is still a magic about photography ... which I will continue to call "art". "<br>

No argument here - and this should be reflected in the price of your service. But you do not expect me to pay for the "magic" (no sarcasm here) - if I do not get the files ?</p>

<p>John:<br>

"...but the bottom line is you are selling what you bring to the table. Otherwise anybody with a camera will do."<br>

and<br>

"You are hiring him for <em>his</em> work. "</p>

<p>No, not just anybody with a camera will do. Yes, you are selling your skills, expertise, time - but not DIRECTLY. In other words - I am not paying for your PRESENCE, your skills, expertise and time - I couldn't care less how much time you spend at the wedding - for all I care you could sit on the Moon with a BIG lens (like 25,000km focal length :) - and you may not know the camera from a hammer. This is YOUR business to know all about wedding photography and be able to do it.</p>

<p>I am paying for the PRODUCT of your skill, expertise, knowledge, artistic vision etc. (add whatever you want here). And I expect to get this product.</p>

<p>Similarly - I am not paying a plumber to come and sit at my building site, and pay him just because he is very good at what he does. I will gladly pay, however, for the product of his work (be it hot water system or the sewage). And - sure as hell I will refuse to pay ongoing royalties for the use of the abovementioned amenities - a have already paid for them.</p>

<p>I hope that you see my point.</p>

[picturesque]

<p>Philip--one big reason is because, like selling cars, the final price can be influenced by the way the deal is structured and by the people involved. A wedding photographer can say it will cost $2,500 to cover the wedding, which includes x products, and the files. So after shooting the wedding, he gets $2,500 (plus tax, of course) and is supposedly happy. The photographer who charges a coverage fee of $1,000 (x products included), and then sells files or prints or album upgrades, separately, can possibly end up with more than $2,500 plus tax. You may not agree with the tactics, but some people, both the seller, and the client, actually prefer this type of selling scenario--they are the same people who enjoy bargaining.</p>

[dave_redmann]

<p><em>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.</em><br /><br />That is a silly, straw-man argument. You don't do each print one at a time. You send a batch. You pay one shipping charge for all of them. You don't invoice them separately, but bundle everything into one invoice (or perhaps two invoices, initial package and post-wedding extras). Indeed, <em>you</em> don't need to do any of this part--you can get part-time clerical help to do this stuff. If you are spending your time on ordering single prints, then either you are wasting a ton of time or you have way too much time on your hands.<br /><br />I'm not a professional photographer, but I have done the 'here's your CD of pictures' routine to dozens (maybe hundreds) of people, mostly the parents of kids who are on my kids' rec-league sports teams or my kids' schoolmates. I do this for free, as a favor, because I have more photographic skill than 90+% of them and better equipment than 80% of them. The CD contains straight-from-the-camera JPEG's and a file with several alternative suggestions on how to get prints made. Some parents are thrilled and some don't care. But in several years of doing this basic routine, I've had exactly <em>one</em> parent ask more questions about manipulating files or getting prints. People can deal with a CD (or DVD) of JPEG's. They don't expect any digital darkroom work (and usually they don't need it). As a thank-you for the coaches, I will really work over a few pictures of their kids and get them some prints. Is there a quality improvement? Definitely. Would most people know or care, if not shown a side-by-side comparison? No. How many would be willing to pay anything significant for the extra quality of the digital-post picture? Few!</p>

<p>Sure, a wedding is not a little-league baseball game. But if someone already stretching a budget can get good-enough for $300 or equisite for $3000, it ain't too hard to figure out which choice the vast majority of them will make. And whatever the (obviously self-interested) photographers think, that is usually the rational choice.</p>

[lee_richards2]

<blockquote>

<p>Is wedding photography really any different, no it's not. I pick a programmer based on his past performance and references, just as a client picks a photographer.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And that past performance is as an artist. That is very different from what a programmer does. If you were a wedding photographer you would know that. The fact that you don't is proof of the special talents a good photographer brings to any project.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>When I hire a programmer to create a program to accomplish a specific task...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And you know what that task is in advance. Not so with a wedding photographer. It is my job to bring my vision to the process: My ideas about color and light, my ideas about composition, my notion of posing, mood and expression. My asthetic in In other words pretty much the opposite of what a contract programmer does. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Is wedding photography really any different, no it's not.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes it is. I am surprised you can't see what everone else posting here clearly sees.<br>

This forum is for wedding and event photographers to share ideas and solve problems. It does not help when people who do not understand or have open contempt for what we do offer opinions based upon that contempt or lack of knowledge. </p>

[joshroot]

<blockquote>

<p>Josh, there can be a contract, but it would have to specifically name the photographer, or any other person as the holder of the copyright for work done under the contract for the copyright not to reside with the person who paid for the work.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><b>NO WAY!</b></p>

 

<p>Seriously, have you ever looked at a professional wedding photography contract? What exactly do you think is in there? Bible quotes and Irish limericks?</p>

[les]

<p>"This forum is for wedding and event photographers ..."<br>

Wrong again, Lee...</p>

<p>This is a forum ABOUT Wedding and Social Event Photography, not FOR Wedding and Event photographers.<br>

Quite obviously the horse and the cart switched their places, so, to avoid possible misunderstanding - I will spell it out in short and simple words: wedding photographers exist to serve the customers, not the other way around. </p>

<p>I can see now why and how this thread originated (no ill feelings toward the OP, though).</p>

[rjacksonphoto]

<p><em>I have considered doing a contract photographer approach and charge a flat fee and the pictures are yours for $350.00 a hour. </em></p>

<p>Is this just to hand over the images on a disc, without processing? Because, if it is, I'm shocked. Are people really willing to pay someone $350 an hour just to take photos? I think it's time to close down the ol' internal medicine practice, if that's the case.<em><br /></em></p>