Losing customers because everyone wants the images

[juanita_ramirez]

<p>Lee Richards has always rubbed me the wrong way, but I can't help but get extremely frustrated when wedding photographers who obstinately insist they are fantastic artists all day long. I can accept that we are craftsmen, or even skilled professionals. We each have a slightly unique style, and often clients will book us for our style, but I don't see this as a high art. The fine art photos I take are on a different plane than wedding photos. That isn't to say they are better or worse, but they are art created by me for no one but me. That is art. </p>

<p>What I do for clients in wedding photography isn't a pure "product" (thanks Nadine for pointing that out) it is IMHO a lower form of pure art than some of my other photographic pursuits. I love the trade. It lets me do something I enjoy and experience beautiful days with my clients, but I view it as more of a trade than an art. While we bring our vision to the process we are generally hired to create a product that is quite similar to what I created last wedding. Indeed, if I were to deviate from my artistic "formula" (let's not lie we all have them) my clients would be upset that I didn't deliver a product in line with their expectations.</p>

<p>In the end, I shouldn't be upset if wedding photographers want to call themselves creators of high-art and use that as their "angle" to sell to customers. If people think that hours in Photoshop creating a fake-looking scene helps them to sell packages, then more power to them. I tend to level with my clients a little more about what they get, and what others deliver and they seem to really appreciate my honesty.</p>

[philip_tam]

<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>When the Vatican hired Michaelangelo to do paint murals on the Sistine Chapel, Michaelangelo brought his vision, his ideas, his composition, etc. to the table. Michaelangelo does not own the murals on the sistine chapel.</p>

<p>When I hire a consultant for engineering services, he brings to the table his vision about an engineering solution, his knowledge about structural mechanics, his experience with design for durability and manufacturability. *We* own the final product of his labor, including the design drawings that would be analogous to film negatives.</p>

<p>This is however, negotiated and placed in the contract. I'm not saying that in each and every case, a photographer must forfeit their copyright over the images, I'm complaining about the way Photographers used to refuse to give that up, and use it as a means to keep themselves as the middleman for print orders. You can do that, and you're perfectly entitled to use that as a business model. But don't be surprised if your customers find the tactic somewhat shrewd, and take their business elsewhere.</p>

<p>I'm glad that the digital age has emphasized that there is little logical reason not to handover the source medium, and thus have prompted photographers to provide the DVD's. I had a lot of fun retouching many of my wedding photos myself.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<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>

</blockquote>

<p>Yeah, I realize that, which is why I generally just ride with the motions. Whichever way the photographer structures the pricing, the ultimately hope to rake in X dollars which gets them fed and sends their kids to college.</p>

[bob_sunley]

<p>Lee, I used to do wedding, portrait and commercial work decades ago when I worked for a studio and after. I went into the IT field because it was new and more profitable. Yes there is artistry in photography, and a similar "vision" in designing and creating software. There are software designers, and there are coders. There are gifted artistic photographers, highly skilled technical/commercial photographers and there are the "despised Uncle Bob gear heads" plus everything in between.</p>

<p> There are wedding pros who shouldn't be allowed to use a camera now, the same as there were back in the 1960s. There are programmer/coders to whom you have to spell out the work in detail, exactly like burning and dodging notes on a proof print. There are software specialists who can take a back of a napkin design spec for a peripheral handler and produce a functional system with no further guidance.</p>

<p>When I am asked to create a custom billing system for an advertising agency, law firm, etc, I have to create a vision of the final product, spend hours studying the customers processes, put it all on paper in great detail that has to be understood by the customer, estimate the number of hours it will take to write it and then give the customer a firm price on the product. After all the design work, then I can spec the detail work to be written. </p>

<p>There are more similarities than you believe, but then I have worked in both fields, and I do understand some of the problems photographers currently face.</p>

<p> </p>

[bob_sunley]

<p>Josh, no I haven't read any current USA based wedding photography contracts, but then I live in a different country. Besides, software development proposals and contracts are worse. Reread that paragraph you quoted. In Canada, the copyright belongs to the person who placed and paid for the order, " <strong>in the absence of any agreement to the contrary</strong>". Yes the legalese is a pain to read.</p>

<p> </p>

[bob_sunley]

<p>Lisa, interesting that you would turn down that portrait package request, that was the base wedding package at the studio I worked at. Three studio poses, 4x5 black and white negatives and three framed 8x10 prints of one of the poses.</p>

<p> </p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

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

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

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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, that was me and I stand by that statement. I don't want to play down the role of wedding photographer (my father was one for forty years) but what is wanted at a wedding is a very competent craftsman who can provide what the customer wants.</p>

<p>The images are being created for the benefit of the paying customer, not for the photographer.</p>

[joshroot]

I give up bob. You are obviously an expert on wedding photography and copyright law. A shame your reading comprehension seems to suffer a bit however.

[fotografz]

<p><strong>Leszek,</strong> read my first line . "I've always provided the files, and the negs before that." So, my clients pay me for the magic, skill and knowledge, not a kidnap ransom.</p>

<p><strong>Nadine,</strong> I said nothing about art as an extreme. <em>Art in the service of commerce</em> is always for a stated purpose. My advertising clients have a very clear communication purpose, but they hire me for creative ideas in expressing it ... it's why the visual people in advertising agencies are called "Art Directors" ... even the business types that hire us call us "art types" or "creatives". </p>

<p><strong>Juanita,</strong> no one used the term "High Art" which is an extreme suggesting abandonment of the stated commercial purpose. Like I said above, wedding photography is <em>art in the service of commerce</em>, which is obvious and need not be spelled out... or so I thought.</p>

<p>While the wedding structure itself can be a "formula", each of us has the right to approach it as we see fit. Mine is to bring artistic creativity to the party which is based on each client's unique personality ... much as one would do with a portrait. Because of that, many of my complete weddings do not look like one another. I sell on that basis and many of my clients DO call it art and me an "artist" ... so why wouldn't I? It's why my clients hire me, and say so when doing it. People interested in rote coverage don't hire me ... and when they try to, I don't "hire" them.</p>

<p>If that creative integrity puts me out of business, so be it. So far it hasn't even in a bad economy.</p>

<p>As partial proof of the creative intent, I have NEVER let clients pick which images I give them, which images I put in an album if they ask me to do one, or which prints I may print IF I include prints in a package. All of which is stated in my contract, and my paying clients gladly accept. When doing so, I do not abandon the purpose of wedding photography, I work to creatively tell a story of unique personalities and their wedding day. </p>

<p>Without being able to exercise my artistic or creative drive, I would have stopped shooting weddings a long time ago. Creativity is what gets me out of bed each day. Life is to short for living it as a provider of a commodity like soy beans. Art, and our own unique personal chemistry are what separates us from the techno-wonder machines we now use.</p>

<p>Anyway, a lively and insightful thread no matter which POV each of us has!</p>

<p> </p>

[stevenseelig]

<p>Adapt. Just raise your prices to include the digital files as part of the shooting fee and then pull out a scrap book and show them 'local drug store print' vs your print and tell them you would love to print for them at a very reasonable price. Include all your profit, income in the shooting fee. Give them the digital files (spend a little bit of time adjusting them) and then make 30% margin on prints and 70% margins on albums.<br>

My contract also says they can not sell the pictures, but they can print as much as they want and give the prints to whomever. Why, because I made all my money by showing up.</p>

<p>Just a suggestion.</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>My contract also says they can not sell the pictures, but they can print as much as they want and give the prints to whomever.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Do people actually want to sell pictures of their wedding?</p>

[david_washicosky]

<p>As someone who just did a lot of shopping around for a wedding photographer, I wouldn't even consider hiring someone unless they gave me the rights to my own pictures. All of the photographers that we looked at were doing shared rights, meaning the pictures are theirs but we can do whatever we want with them as well.<br>

These were all talented people with reasonable prices for my area (say $2000 and up for a nice package).<br>

Photographers that charged extra for those printing rights were considered, but eventually lost out. I'm not even remotely interested in paying an extra $750 or more to get something most others are offering for free.<br>

I know it sucks, but that's just the way it is now. I want the initial pictures from you, but I don't want to have to go through you for everything else that I need further down the road. What if you're no longer in business when I need a new 8X10?</p>

[dean_schreuder]

<p>It's called "give the customer what they want!"</p>

<p>Personally I never liked the "pay for prints" business model. It just seemed too shady to me. It reminds me of walking into an electronics store to buy a piece of electronics and the sales guy hounds me relentlessly to buy every add-on and warranty he can come up with. I just can in to buy one thing so stop trying to milk me for everything I got! Just like if I pay a photographer to take pictures of my wedding, I just want you to take picture and give me the pictures of MY WEDDING and I don't want to be milked dry (and held hostage) to buy prints after the fact!</p>

[craig_big]

Just one more point to add to everything else being discussed: When pros used to shoot on film, there was exactly 1 negative in existence for each shot from the wedding. Prints had to be made from that negative, meaning that only 1 party could possess the ability to create prints. Now, with digital technology, the digital negative is easily replicable. This means there is no particular reason why only one party should retain the rights to print, especially when the most interested party is the client, not the photographer. Both parties can easier possess their own copy of the negative, and this is now abundantly clear, given that every single person in the world has their own digital camera, and is very familiar with the concept of file sharing.

 

The antiquated idea of, "There's only 1 copy of the negative, and I'm the photographer, so I'll keep the negative. I'll always keep it in a fire-proof and water-proof safe, so you can always come to me for professional prints in the future." is far behind us. In the new world, that argument doesn't fly. The new view is, "All it takes is 3 minutes for an unattended computer to create a permament archival copy of everything related to the job. At the very least, as the client, I expect a copy of that disc."

 

Pro photographers who are trying to withhold digital copies had better come up with really sound reasons why the client shouldn't be able to replicate their photographs years down the road, after the contract is long expired.

[picturesque]

<p>Marc--I didn't claim you were saying anything about the art end of things in the extreme. What I said was that people on both sides of the art/product debate were 'pulling' their arguments toward the extreme ends of the debate. In other words, the middle was being ignored, and IMHO, wedding photography is in the middle somewhere. As you said, art in the service of commerce. I don't see that phrase in your first post though. What you said in that first post seemed to go along with the 'wedding photography as art' camp, without a nod to the commerce part. I don't think it goes without saying, based on some of the comments we've gotten so far. Plus, you aren't the only one emphasizing the art part, so some of the counter statements have been about some of the other, perhaps more extreme statements about the art content in wedding photography.</p>

<p>As far as I'm concerned, one has to pay attention to what the customer wants, but one has to make what the customer wants, sing--one puts one's stamp on it The exact proportion of one to the other is something that may vary from photographer to photographer, as it should, so clients have choices when choosing a photographer.</p>

[Member69643]

<p>You know, this all goes back to original sin. The only reason a photographer kept wedding negatives was because he wanted to make more money. If photographers gave the negatives to the bride, and that was the established standard practice, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. Same for any type of photography, really. I sure wish I had the negatives from my wedding. Everybody always wanted the negatives. Because they belonged to them. Their wedding, their pictures, their negatives.</p>

<p>The only reason wedding photographers kept them was greed. The only reason to keep digital files is the same. Nobody wanted to let the photographer keep the negatives. Nobody wants the photographer to keep the digital files either. Raise your prices to cover your "lost" reprint sales - which by the way, you got fewer of because of the lingering resentment over keeping their files/negatives -and move on.</p>

[markjordan]

<p>Listen to Raymond Thompson, above. He is correct. You can't be in fear of giving photos away on a CD/DVD. You will just have to make a package that includes that. Think of it as an easy way to make money but still be a good photographer. You have no hassle of printing but when the bride and groom see the quality of photos on the CD they will refer you like crazy!</p>

[fotografz]

<p>Well, I did say I give them the files up front in my first post ... and correct all files to print level quality ... which is the "commerce" part Nadine.</p>

<p>Plus, I clearly noted that the art of wedding photography is sync'ed to the client's dreams of <em>their</em> wedding day, which is meshing art with client desires ... my way of listening to them. </p>

<p>I'll say it again, if you only do what they say they want, you erode the ability to provide them more ... they set the expectations rather than you setting them ... which is poor salesmanship IMO.</p>

<p>Coverage can go beyond all the usual surface wedding things that are expected when a client first walks through the door ... what Ken Luallen calls the invisible moments. It's human insight, and seeking the deeper meaning of what is happening in front of you. That aspect is closer to what I call "art" then what I'd call "commerce." Not for everyone, nor can everyone necessarily pull it off. All approaches are valid if they work for you, and this isn't the only one that works. But it works for me and keeps me fresh, and it works for my clients.</p>

<p>Take a peek at Ken's video in you get a minute ... www.kenluallen.com</p>

<p> </p>

[picturesque]

<p>Wolfeye--greed is not the only reason photographers used to keep their negatives. Perhaps a reason, but not the only one. Someone above said that many clients, particularly with medium format negatives, didn't know what to do with them, and didn't want to deal with getting prints. What they wanted was to have the prints, and an album. Does it not make sense that a photographer would provide these as the final product? I think so. It doesn't mean it makes sense today, though, or even 20 years ago, when 135mm film started to be used for weddings. More consumers were familiar with 135mm film.</p>

<p>As for greed causing the 'profit from prints' model, it is a model that took the above into account, and provided a way for a photographer to make money. I don't think wedding photographers are into this purely for the joy, or else they wouldn't be charging any money. We all gotta make some money--so this model vs. just charging time and talent? More or less the same to me, when judged by the sin/greed ruler.</p>

[Jim_Dockery_Photos]

<p>I'm just going to ditto a number of posts here, and I'm afraid it isn't good news for wedding photo pros.</p>

<p>I'm a middle class teacher in Washington state, with similar friends and family. Most of the weddings I've attended (and my own) were pretty small budget affairs (my wife and I paid for our own ~$5000 20 yrs ago - my brother shot the pictures). Photography was far down the list of importance. Most people want to focus their limited budget on the day, and realize that they'll rarely look back at the pictures, so they don't have to be <em>perfect or profuse</em>. I can't think of any of my friends who has a big wedding print out on the wall.</p>

<p>I've been asked to shoot a few weddings over the years and don't feel comfortable doing so by myself since I'm not a pro with good lighting and back-up gear (I'm a sports/landscape specialist). I have been happy to second shoot though (at times with other amateur friends) and been told (and agreed myself) that my shots were better than the hired pro (the most recent wasn't cheap).</p>

<p>Digital has changed every aspect of photography for ever, especially the business end of it. I'm glad I don't make my living from it because I love the power and creativity it puts in my hands at an almost affordable price point (I still spend too much on it).</p>

[jason]

<p>That's life in the digital age. i shoot weddings and have adapted..i use digital, get paid by the hour. i set a fixed fee.Should the wedding and reception run longer, my problem. Get into the swing and enjoy. Often great pix at these times..i do a main album, two smaller albums, the CD's and if there was film used, the negatives.i also incude about 5 to 10 8x10/12ins prints. The usage of digital has made life sweeter, Photoshop, used very sparingly.i don't think though the results of digital compare to film..seeing a wedding album recently shot on Hasselblad 500 series all film, was breath-taking.The album was also a biggie!You get what you pay for sometimes..<br>

The fact is most couples, almost anywhere in the world, cannot pay huge fees. My daughter and son-in-law were wed in South Africa and she hired the top photographer. The cost was sheer envy on my part! Being part of the retinue i was not able( or rather not permitted) to shoot the event. i am sure my ex-wife and i would have done a way better job.. The photographer had changed to "Digital".My few snaps done whenever i could, on an old Leica M3, 50mm Summicron(series1) and a 35mm Summaron f2.8, tiny Vivitar strobe.The next day in went the films!i had arranged with a 1-hour Kodak lab to process my 8 or 10 rolls, scan, print 3 of everything!. A few hours later i had my prints,CD's and albums ready to fill. Pam, my ex, sat on the floor and filled the books. One small for Her, the other for the other family and the big and main album for my daughter. We handed the shoot over at the gift opening, the next afternoon,after the wedding. The "pro" only had Her album, CD's ready almost 6 weeks later...i had told the pro, what i needed to do, having, to fly back to Canada, two days later!My portraits are simply streets ahead in quality..The digital shot was so contrasty. It was an overcast day,plus mostly well lit interiors.<br>

So as a wedding photographer, one should adapt with the best. Do NOT expect extra prints, it hasn't happened to me in years. i will always deliver the albums. Get and set a fair price. If you cannot come out do something else..</p>

[john_deerfield]

<blockquote>

<p>and I'm afraid it isn't good news for wedding photo pros....</p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>Photography was far down the list of importance. Most people want to focus their limited budget...</blockquote>

<p>I am not sure this is bad news? Limited budgets and people who don't consider photography important are simply people a photographer shouldn't be trying to market too! No offense intended with that statement. We seem to have a classic two sided discussion going on here: consumers who want the working pro to lower their prices and working pros who want to increase their value. The pro is going to market to consumers who value what they offer. The consumer will gravitate to what they feel is the best value. Considering portrait studios, why doesn't everyone just use the chain portrait studio... the one with $9.99 gets you all sorts of prints and a free sitting? There are those that do and that's fine. <em>I</em> am certainly not going to run a business marketing to <em>that</em> customer. </p>

 

[timages]

<p>I still use film for weddings, which eliminates this problem. Iv only ever had one client show any interest in the equipment I used (and that was quite a while back) and iv never had any complaints. Having said that I only do wedding work P/T and dont rely on it for my living.</p>

[luke_cobrae]

<p>Alot of responses for this, it looks like there are two clear sides to the story. I happen to be on Steve Smith's side:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The images are being created for the benefit of the paying customer, not for the photographer.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I would probably be classified as the photographer who doesn't have the right gear, and advertises on Craigslist. We have to start somewhere right? I personally don't feel like I own the images I take, like they are my property, I fee like the quote above, I was hired to take the pictures and provide them to the paying customer. I DO however stipulate that I have the right to use the pictures for my business in the means of Advertising. In a day an age where law is so "Grey' and everyone is looking to cover their assets, you have to sign your life away to be on TV, because they "OWN" that image of you. I don't think a wedding Photographer should take a picture of someone, and turn it around and sell it as a Stock Photo, because the the subject of the Photo has rights. When we got married, we hired a photojournalist, it was a new unheard of trend at the time, and everyone said where is the traditional photographer? He did exactly what your issue was, he took pictures, 2,600 of them to be exact, between him and another partner, and two cameras each. We have all 2,600 pictures, in Tiff format. We own them, and are free to print them. But I did see my wife on the front page of his website for many years after-wards. I as a customer have NO problem with that, he benefited, we did too. He did offer printing services as well, but we didn't have the money to do that.</p>

<p>I gleaned alot from him, I don't think that it's fair to judge someone by the equipment they have, or lack of. Each person is an artist, and while yes, I don't have a D3, D700, or a D300 I do have an artistic eye that customers like, and while I don't make my living off of wedding photography (not by a long shot) I love to do it, and when the time comes to up my prices, and get better equipment I will.</p>

<p>If everyone looked down at the guy with the used stuff, we wouldn't have revolutionary artists. People who picked up their dad's cameras, or used an old one, vs the New top of the line equipment. Like what a lot of people said before, times change, you have a choice, change with them, or don't. But I think that any business that doesn't adapt to the market around them will not be successful at all.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>One reason why I think having a relatively low "time and talent" price and then make most of the money selling prints is a good idea is that it offers the clients to focus their money on the images that they like. If the photographer makes a lot of good images <em>from that particular wedding</em>, they sell a lot of prints and make money. If they only do a moderately good job, they end up with fewer print sales. Thus they're paid more for quality work. This is the way things should be from the customer's point of view also. You cannot completely deduce the quality of the pictures that you'll get from your wedding based on online examples of the photographer's work since the quality has a lot to do with the people being photographed and how they interact. And the photographer only has to do significant post-processing on those images which the customer has indicated that they want. Thus it reduces the amount of pointless work on the photographer's part trying to make every image look its best even if in many cases the client loves different images than the photographer. I do think there should be an option to purchase the full-resolution files on DVD, but the price should be set so that it allows the photographer to get a good compensation for the editing time spent. If the photographer just does a routine job, sure, editing will be minimal, but if they strive to create something new every time, and take the images to a higher level, especially in available light, editing time is a substantial part of the work. </p>

[aimee_pieters]

<p>Lisa,</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I do have enough weddings and portraits sessions booked and I am keeping busy.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think that if this were truly the case, you wouldn't be taking the time to post the question and respond to the replies. You're clearly looking for a solution. Use the files as a hook and sell them at a reasonable price or include them with your higher end packages. You might also consider some other business strategies. I'm in the process of reading Dan Sanders' "Fast Track Photographer". It's at least worth the read....-Aimee</p>

<p> </p>