Which photo package should I choose?
Katie Livingston
(crossposted to alt.wedding and soc.couples.wedding)
My fiance' and I have found a photographer we like, but now we
need to decide which "package" we want. The photographer is very
open to customizing something for us, but I'm having a hard time
deciding what photographic coverage I want. I'd love to hear opinions,
experiences or advice on the following:
-Prebridal or engagement portrait: will we be sorry if we don't do
this, even though we'll have photos of us taken after the ceremony?
-Parent albums: our parents have said they don't need them. Should I
get duplicates of the portrait instead?
-Newspaper glossies: I meant to ask the photographer, but forgot. Is
this a b&w copy of something taken after the ceremony?
-Prints of every shot taken: this photographer's usual practice is
to put 100 shots (some 8x10, some 5x7, some 4x5) into a leather album.
If you want copies of every shot taken (around 250), that's a separate
order (and you can always have individual reprints made later).
I tend to feel 100 is plenty, and I'll be looking through all 250 anyway
to choose the 100 for the album. Is this a mistake? Am I likely to
want all 250?
-Does size matter?: One of the photographer's packages only uses 5x7s
and 4x5s for the album. For $300 more, you get 8x10s too, plus the
prebridal or engagement portrait and a few other sundries. Obviously
the more expensive one is a "value" package, but like at McDonalds, it's
only a value if you want the stuff that's included in it.
OK, enough questions. I'd appreciate any input you might have.
Remove the "no spam" in my address above to reply via e-mail.
Cheers,
Katie
Nathan Shafer
Katie Livingston wrote:
>
> (crossposted to alt.wedding and soc.couples.wedding)
>
> My fiance' and I have found a photographer we like, but now we
> experiences or advice on the following:
>
> -Prebridal or engagement portrait: will we be sorry if we don't do
> this, even though we'll have photos of us taken after the ceremony?
That's a question only you can answer, but perhaps I can offer
some input on what is usually entailed with each:
Wedding Day: I will use this term for the pictures that you are
referring to as "after the ceremony." First of all, I would check
with your photographer to see if all of these need to be done after
the ceremony, or if some might be done before the ceremony on the
wedding day. I realize that you and your fiance may feel fairly
certain that you don't want to see each other beforehand, but there
is a fair amount of the portraiture that can be done without either
of you seeing the other.
Usually, we encourage our couples to schedule no more than about
forty-five minutes' worth of portraits to be done after the ceremony,
because that's about all most people can take. Now, that may sound
like a lot of time, but it's really not. If you have an average
sized list of family groupings, bridal party groupings, and so on,
that you want done, those 45 minutes will just about cover the stuff
that *has* to be done with the two of you together, not to mention the
stuff that can be done separately. And that leaves very little time
(maybe five or ten minutes) to do any portraits of just the two of you.
Which again is not that much time - to do our best work, we usually
like to have at least an hour with just the couple. Five minutes
would be enough for one pose only, ten would be enough for two or
three poses, in only one location.
So hopefully you can see where doing ALL of the wedding day pictures
after the ceremony would be extremely impractical, not to mention
inconvenient.
Prebridal: This is usually a session done before the wedding day, in the
studio, of just you in your dress. There are two advantages here: the
control the studio situation gives the photographer, and the time that
is allowed. On the wedding day, time is short, and conditions can be
unfavorable for getting a really perfect picture of you in your dress.
If a really carefully done, classic bridal portrait is important to
you, then I would not leave that simply to the wedding day, I would
use the Bridal session.
Engagement session: These pictures will not be at all the same as the
pictures of the two of you done after the ceremony. Then, you will be
too preoccupied with what has just happened to really be in the mood
to do many pictures - what you get will usually look a little stiff,
and may not have the attention to detail that can make the difference
between a good picture and a great one. What you can get from an
engagement session will of course look completely different because of
the different clothes. The style, however, will also be very different
(in all likelihood) -- more relaxed, more comfortable, more fun. If
it is important to you to get pictures like that, then yeah, go with
an Engagement session.
> -Parent albums: our parents have said they don't need them. Should I
> get duplicates of the portrait instead?
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by duplicates of THE por-
trait. Do you mean, duplicate copies of your wall print? That's
certainly an option, although your photographer should also let you
exchange the parent albums for different images, not necessarily the
same one as you choose for the wall print. It seems as though you are
very much geared toward getting something for your parents, be it an
album or a wall print or what have you. I would consult with your
parents to make sure that they want something like that - maybe some
proofs would do fine instead (see below). Maybe instead of including
them in the package, you could trade in the parent albums for an upgrade
on your album. There are (or ought to be) a number of different options
open to you; don't get yourself stuck on just one possibility. Take
advantage of yourphotographer's flexibility to get what *you* really
want, not what best approaches you needs out of the given options.
> -Newspaper glossies: I meant to ask the photographer, but forgot. Is
> this a b&w copy of something taken after the ceremony?
Usually, although it can be something from your Engagement session
as well, I would imagine.
> -Prints of every shot taken: this photographer's usual practice is
> to put 100 shots (some 8x10, some 5x7, some 4x5) into a leather album.
> If you want copies of every shot taken (around 250), that's a separate
> order (and you can always have individual reprints made later).
> I tend to feel 100 is plenty, and I'll be looking through all 250
> anyway to choose the 100 for the album. Is this a mistake? Am I likely
> to want all 250?
Depends on the photographer. ;-) However, your parents may want an
album of proofs instead of some of the other options you'e mentioned,
and this is where the proofs could come in handy. Or, you might find
that, five years down the road, you would like to order a copy of a
picture you didn't order for your album, and don't remember enough about
it to let the photographer know. In this case, having all of the proofs
could be handy.
> -Does size matter?: One of the photographer's packages only uses 5x7s
> and 4x5s for the album. For $300 more, you get 8x10s too.
As with everything, it depends. In this case, it depends on the
size of some of your groups. Is your bridal party going to be ten
people or twenty? Will you be doing any large groups of twenty or more
relatives? The more people you cram into a 5x7 or 4x5 print, the
smaller each person's face gets, to the point where you can't really
make anyone out. In those cases, yes, having the option of an 8x10
or 10x10 is crucial. And then there might be some portraits of just the
two of you that you want that big, simply for impact. 8x10 is not
terribly big, you know, and 4x5s of various groups can get very tiring
to look at.
In general, it seems as if your thinking is getting stuck in just a
few options that are not necessarily the best ones.
All the Best,
Nathan Shafer
Alpenglow Photography - Photographic Artistry Nationwide
Weddings, Portraits, Nature & Wildlife Photography
We've updated our web page! http://home.earthlink.net/~shafers
Mark Goldberg
Katie Livingston wrote:
[snip]I'm having a hard time
> deciding what photographic coverage I want. I'd love to hear opinions,
>
> experiences or advice on the following:
>
> -Prebridal or engagement portrait: will we be sorry if we don't do
> this, even though we'll have photos of us taken after the ceremony?
I suggest having this one done at a nice outdoor locale in casual
clothing. This is the type of image you will want to place over the
fireplace or somewhere in your home. Pick clothes that won't date the
photograph. Ask your photographer for specific guidance on this. This
option is a favorite with my clients. It gives us a chance to get to
know each other photographically in advance of the wedding day.
> -Parent albums: our parents have said they don't need them. Should I
> get duplicates of the portrait instead?
>
Most of my clients leave it to their parents to decide. Many parents
like those extended family group shots compbined with some of the
portraits. In my experience, the parents and grandparents who don't
want to make the stretch to an album of 24 pictures often like the
folios. I have had great success with one from Art Leather that has two
10" openings and can accomodate one 10" print, two 5x7s or four 5x5s in
an opening. The combo of one 10x10 and four 5x5 is most popular.
Clients like these because their affordable and serve as a frame, too.
> -Newspaper glossies: I meant to ask the photographer, but forgot. Is
> this a b&w copy of something taken after the ceremony?
>
Newspaper policies vary. In our area, the paper prefers a vertical B/W
glossy picture with medium close shot of the B&G. They also need to
have a general info sheet. Contact your paper now about this. You may
find that they can also use color shots or even digital images. The
latter can even be made from your wedding video, but will require
framegrabbing from the source tape.
> -Prints of every shot taken: this photographer's usual practice is
> to put 100 shots (some 8x10, some 5x7, some 4x5) into a leather album.
>
> If you want copies of every shot taken (around 250), that's a separate
>
> order (and you can always have individual reprints made later).
> I tend to feel 100 is plenty, and I'll be looking through all 250
> anyway
> to choose the 100 for the album. Is this a mistake? Am I likely to
> want all 250?
It depends how the images will be presented. If the photographer is
using traiditional paper previews, then you can simple buy them.
Chances are, he is haveing the 250shots printed anyway. If he is using
video, slide, digital, or internet previewing, then it's another story.
If you do want the 250 in such a case, the only practical time to order
them is before the film goes to the lab, since getting prints made
latter is much more costly. In my personal experience, most prefer the
plan that uses slide previewing since they get an indexed music video of
all shots, but not all photographers offer that. Bottom line is that I
think you'd be happier with choosing 100 than getting all 250.
>
>
> -Does size matter?: One of the photographer's packages only uses 5x7s
> and 4x5s for the album. For $300 more, you get 8x10s too, plus the
> prebridal or engagement portrait and a few other sundries.
There is something to be said for both approaches. Some of my clients
who want lots of bang for the buck choose a plan where everything is
printed 5x5 and they get an album with two prints per facing (four
visible at a time). This is fine if they are not having large group
shots or having other situations requiring the visible detail offered by
larger prints. I personally advocate albums of mixed sizes for most
brides - the big ones for the portraits of the bride and groom and any
groups with more than 5 people. There is a shot I do with most weddings
where all the guests assemble as a group. Assuming that 150 attend the
wedding, you need at least an 8x10 to identify the folks. Another
advantage of the mixed size album vs. all-5x5 approach is that each
image will be individually printed and cropped. Previews (as used in
the all 5x5 approach) remain as composed in camera. But many benefit
from additional cropping, which is easy to have done when the
photographer uses medium format equipment (another discussion I don't
want to cover here).
I have gone over a lot of this in my wedding photography FAQ, by link
from my homepage.
--
*****************Mark Goldberg************************
Spectrum Productions http://www.markgoldberg.com
Documentary Style Video and Photography
ma...@markgoldberg.com 410-224-8337
------------------------------------------------------
Virtual Networks Inc. http://www.vni.net
Website Development and Hosting for Business
gold...@vni.net 888-www-vni-net
------------------------------------------------------
Allen G
Katie Livingston wrote:
>
> (crossposted to alt.wedding and soc.couples.wedding)
>
> My fiance' and I have found a photographer we like, but now we
> deciding what photographic coverage I want. I'd love to hear opinions,
> experiences or advice on the following:
>
> -Prebridal or engagement portrait: will we be sorry if we don't do
> this, even though we'll have photos of us taken after the ceremony?
Engagement portraits are a time where you and the photographer get together to
pose for some portraits, usually around a theme like a picnic or some activity
meaningful to you. I would recommend it cause it is a good way to get
comfortable working with someone who will be spending more time with you on
your wedding day. I like to do this as it establishes a good working
relationship in advance and then you know that if you give the time and
attention on your wedding day, you can have some nice thoughtful images rather
than the typical grins at the camera. The photos become something you look
forward to, not just another chore you must do.
If you do it in your wedding clothes you will be able to get some truly lovely
images that would be impossible to create on your wedding day.
sometimes these images can be worth the entire photo budget. IMHO
>
> -Parent albums: our parents have said they don't need them. Should I
> get duplicates of the portrait instead?
Sometimes photographers double the entire basic package on parents orders. but
then, they order them and usually pay for their own.
>
> -Newspaper glossies: I meant to ask the photographer, but forgot. Is
> this a b&w copy of something taken after the ceremony?
sometimes it is a prewedding portrait in your gown, black and white prints are
made for the newspapers. Not as popular as it was.
>
> -Prints of every shot taken: this photographer's usual practice is
> to put 100 shots (some 8x10, some 5x7, some 4x5) into a leather album.
> If you want copies of every shot taken (around 250), that's a separate
> order (and you can always have individual reprints made later).
> I tend to feel 100 is plenty, and I'll be looking through all 250 anyway
> to choose the 100 for the album. Is this a mistake? Am I likely to
> want all 250?
If your photographer is any good, you will probably want them all. do you have
to decide in advance? Most likely a big chunk of the 150 extras will be
duplicates of portrait and group poses, I usually shoot two of anything posed
and three of large groups. the other big bulk of extras will be candids of the
guests dancing. As an ala carte photographer, where my clients choose the ones
they want from the electronic images, these candids are the first to go, no
matter how often they told me that they wanted lots and lots of the damn
things.
>
> -Does size matter?: One of the photographer's packages only uses 5x7s
> and 4x5s for the album. For $300 more, you get 8x10s too, plus the
> prebridal or engagement portrait and a few other sundries. Obviously
> the more expensive one is a "value" package, but like at McDonalds, it's
> only a value if you want the stuff that's included in it.
sounds like marketing to me. the price difference between 5x and 8x is usually
fifty cents. You are getting the portrait session for that extra money. It is
your money, I as a photographer believe in it so much that I push it on my
clients free, as the relationship benefits make the day go so much smoother,
and I sell the clients the images and wall prints quite often.
nb...@lehigh.edu
In article <673o25$8...@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>, kati...@spammit.edu (Katie L
ivingston) writes:
>(crossposted to alt.wedding and soc.couples.wedding)
It sounds like all your problems would be solved if you were to work with
the photographer and buy the negatives. Some of them will adamently (sp?)
refuse, but keep after them. I did this with my photographer and she
agreed to let me buy them with my proofs for $150. extra. Granted my
package cost is $1290., but I have also modified this package to include
EVERYTHING that I want. 11x14 upgraded to 16x20, proofs included,
pre-bridal included and then the negatives for $150. I didn't do an
engagement session - instead, we took a deal from a local well known
studio that gave us an 8x10, 2 5x7's and 12 wallets for $20.00. We took
the pictures to a color copier and made reprints to mail out in our
engagement announcements.
Another option is (if possible) to wait out the time frame that your
photographer holds your negatives and then buy them off of him/her for the
asking price - typically $50 to $100! Some photographers will grasp the
opportunity to make more money off of you if they are certain that you
will not bring any more business to them later on. We almost guaranteed
her that no re-prints beyond our package would be purchased (which is very
true!) and that's when she agreed to offer the negatives. She saw that no
more money would be made and she took that gamble that we were telling her
the truth. So we both won. There is no way that my parents would pay for
re-prints! and his parents are out of the country!
Good luck - email if you have any more specific questions.
-Natalie and Jack
1/23/96 civil and 1/24/98 church
>
>My fiance' and I have found a photographer we like, but now we
>need to decide which "package" we want. The photographer is very
>open to customizing something for us, but I'm having a hard time
>deciding what photographic coverage I want. I'd love to hear opinions,
>experiences or advice on the following:
>
>-Prebridal or engagement portrait: will we be sorry if we don't do
>this, even though we'll have photos of us taken after the ceremony?
>
>-Parent albums: our parents have said they don't need them. Should I
>get duplicates of the portrait instead?
>
>-Newspaper glossies: I meant to ask the photographer, but forgot. Is
>this a b&w copy of something taken after the ceremony?
>
>-Prints of every shot taken: this photographer's usual practice is
>to put 100 shots (some 8x10, some 5x7, some 4x5) into a leather album.
>If you want copies of every shot taken (around 250), that's a separate
>order (and you can always have individual reprints made later).
>I tend to feel 100 is plenty, and I'll be looking through all 250 anyway
>to choose the 100 for the album. Is this a mistake? Am I likely to
>want all 250?
>
>-Does size matter?: One of the photographer's packages only uses 5x7s
>and 4x5s for the album. For $300 more, you get 8x10s too, plus the
>prebridal or engagement portrait and a few other sundries. Obviously
>the more expensive one is a "value" package, but like at McDonalds, it's
>only a value if you want the stuff that's included in it.
>
>OK, enough questions. I'd appreciate any input you might have.
>
>Remove the "no spam" in my address above to reply via e-mail.
>
>Cheers,
>Katie
>
***********************************************************************
Natalie Faroun (Fenstermaker)
nb...@lehigh.edu http://www.lehigh.edu/~nbf2/nbf2.html
Elizabeth
Dear Katie,
Keeping in mind that this is a photographers viewpoint here are my
thoughts.
The main advantage of the engagement session is that you and the
photographer get to know each other which can lead to better photographs.
Since you feel confident about this photographer I would say if $ is an
issue better to spend it on the wedding photographs.
I no longer include Parent Albums as many of my clients did not want
them. I have them available and about 20% of my clients will order one. Talk
to your parents and see what they would prefer. Also consider folio's which
are still elegant but cost less and work great if they dont want wall
portraits or an album but would appreciate a nice gift.
The B&W print for the newspaper can be made from your favorite shot even
if it was taken in color. This should not cost much and should be easy.
Cant help you much on the proof question as I always give my clients all
the proofs since it does not cost me anything and they really appreciate it.
I strongly prefer the Albums which can take 8x10's as well as small
photographs.
This would be a place where I would splurge if possible. It makes for a much
more interesting album and allows you to include candids without sacrificing
the group formal shots which suffer when printed small.
Hope some of this helps
Jane Evenson
Jane Elizabeth Evenson Photography
http://home.pacbell.net/evenson/
.
Katie Livingston wrote in message <673o25$8...@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>...
>(crossposted to alt.wedding and soc.couples.wedding)
>
Karen Simmons
> instead, we took a deal from a local well known studio that
> gave us an 8x10, 2 5x7's and 12 wallets for $20.00. We took
> the pictures to a color copier and made reprints to mail
> out in our engagement announcements.
AHHHHHH!!!! Natalie doing what you did is illegal -- it is a violation
of Federal copyright laws to copy professional photographs unless you
have a written copyright release from the photographer or studio who
took the pictures.
I'm sure you were unaware of this and didn't do it intentionally, but
what you've done is stolen from the photographer. Photographers make
their livings selling photographs. Our goal (at least mine) is to
create images that are so good that you can't live without them (or
thoughts to that effect). My prices are based on this principle. As
with the studio you went to, I am able to charge a very low upfront
price for bridal and engagement portraits because I know my work is good
enough to bring people back for more prints. When someone takes the
images that I have spent my time, skill, and talent creating and copies
them, they have taken away my ability to earn money. In effect, they
have stolen my income.
Please, please, brides, be aware of this issue. It is a real issue,
whether you think it's fair or not. Federal law says that copyright
belongs to the phototographer unless transferred in writing. People
have successfully been taken to court over this issue: the definitive
case is Olan Mills & Professional Photographers of America vs. Linn
Photo in which Linn Photo was found to have committed a violation of
copyright by making copies of professional portraits for a client. The
client was named as a co-defendant. The damages awarded came to the
equivalent of $20,000.00 per image in fines, legal fees, and punative
damages.
Copying your professional photographs is a violation of Federal law.
Regards,
Karen
------------------------------
Karen Simmons Photography
Atlanta, Georgia
http://www.ks-photography.com
------------------------------
Nathan Shafer
nb...@Lehigh.EDU wrote:
>
> Katie Livingston writes:
>
> >My fiance' and I have found a photographer we like, but now we
> >need to decide which "package" we want. The photographer is very
> >open to customizing something for us, but I'm having a hard time
> >deciding what photographic coverage I want.
>
> with the photographer and buy the negatives.
Bear in mind, of course, that by buying the negatives, you also accept
the responsibility for caring for them. They will need to be stored
properly, natch. A shoebox in the back of the closet will not do.
Furthermore, since your photographer will probably be using at least
some medium format film (if not all), you will need to have access to
a professional lab that can handle medium format film - Cosco or
Walmart will not work. And you don't simply turn in medium format
negatives and order a print size. You need to deal with different
print lines, different finishes, whether or not you want custom print-
ing, and so on. And medium format negs have to be taped to crop cards
before the lab will print from them (unless you choose a custom print
line, which can sometimes cost as much as you would have paid the
photographer). Carding negs takes up a nice little chunk of time.
In other words, owning the negs is not an all-purpose solution, as
Natalie seems to suggest. You need to be willing to accept all of the
responsibility. Now, that said, most people who want to buy the negs
would still want to. However, if you are on the fence, and are thinking
of negative ownership as a cure-all, be aware that you're trading one
set of problems and decisions for another.
Nathan Shafer
Alpenglow Photography - Photographic Artistry Worldwide
Weddings, Portraits, Nature & Wildlife Photography
nb...@lehigh.edu
In article <3498E9...@earthlink.net>, Nathan Shafer <sha...@earthlink.net>
writes:
So, then why do all photographers guard the negatives with their
lives?? If they are such a pain to deal with, why aren't the
negatives more accessible to the couples? Why do we have to beg to
have a chance to get them?
I understand that you make your money on the package and a nice extra
bonus with reprints. Taking that bonus away is a hardship on you but
imagine the expenses that the B&G have just paid - not only for you
but for everything else! We can't afford anything extra - let alone
reprints!!
I agree with you, in some areas, they might not have a pro. photo lab.
However, I live in a not so big city and we have three different lab
companies. A lot of the photographers here use this lab AND they are
a heck of a lot cheaper than any professional's reprint. Like $1.00
for a 4x5 compared to $8.00!!
This newsgroup is for honesty and realism. Don't snowball other
brides into thinking that only a pro can do reprints well. Be honest
with them, you won't be getting their business, so you don't have to
put on the sales pitch.
Everyone is entitled to their own suggestions and advice. If my
posting helped save one bride some money - then it was worth it!
Just my .02 ...
Natalie and Jack
1/23/96 civil and 1/24/98 church
>Nathan Shafer
>Alpenglow Photography - Photographic Artistry Worldwide
>Weddings, Portraits, Nature & Wildlife Photography
>http://home.earthlink.net/~shafers
>
Mark Goldberg
nb...@Lehigh.EDU wrote:
> So, then why do all photographers guard the negatives with
> their lives?? If they are such a pain to deal with, why aren't the
> negatives more accessible to the couples? Why do we have to
> beg to
> have a chance to get them?
Some photographers do give them away intially; that was my policy when I
got started. I think I follow the policy of most in that I make them
available to the couples a few years after the event.
I stopped giving the negs with the proofs because I found that most
clients were interested in a nice finished product and had no clue about
making professional-quality prints with retouching and protective
spraying. They also wanted better albums than were available at the
local department store. In my experience, more time goes into making
the finished prints and album than is involved in shooting the wedding.
Also, the copyright basis for control of the images is well established
in law.
> I understand that you make your money on the package and a
> nice extra
> bonus with reprints. Taking that bonus away is a hardship on
> you but
> imagine the expenses that the B&G have just paid - not only
> for you
> but for everything else! We can't afford anything extra - let
> alone
> reprints!!
>
If you look at the many expenses involved in a wedding, you will find
that food, liquor, and possibly flowers get more of the budget.
Photography [and video] are the only parts of the wedding expense that
are primarily for the benefit of the couple and immediate families, thus
many put high priority on getting them done properly. However, I
recognize that some folks have other priorities. That's fine, but them
make no complaint about poor results.
> I agree with you, in some areas, they might not have a pro.
> photo lab.
> However, I live in a not so big city and we have three
> different lab
> companies. A lot of the photographers here use this lab AND
> they are
> a heck of a lot cheaper than any professional's reprint. Like
> $1.00
> for a 4x5 compared to $8.00!!
>
Most professionals I know have their work done in some other locale and
UPS or FEDEX the materials back and forth. Personally, I use a local
professional lab near Baltimore for routine printing and another lab in
Crown Point, Indiana for digital retouching and making of projection
previews.
There is a big difference between "drug store" quality prints and
professional portraits. Pro labs use image analyzers for a precise
color and density match, as as careful print fixing and washing to
maximaze print life. Many portrait and wedding jobs now routinely use
traditional and digital retouching as well. However, if you are on the
economy end and the locally made "$1" prints look just as well to you,
then employ a photog who gives you the negs and do it your way. AT the
same time, respect those who prefer other than a shoestring approach.
> This newsgroup is for honesty and realism. Don't snowball
> other
> brides into thinking that only a pro can do reprints well. Be
> honest
> with them, you won't be getting their business, so you don't
> have to
> put on the sales pitch.
Honest and realism work both ways.
---------------------------------------
Mark Goldberg Spectrum Productions
Documentary Style Video and Photography
Nathan Shafer
nb...@Lehigh.EDU wrote:
>
> Nathan Shafer writes:
> >
> >In other words, owning the negs is not an all-purpose solution, as
> >Natalie seems to suggest. You need to be willing to accept all of
> >the responsibility. Now, that said, most people who want to buy the
> >trading one set of problems and decisions for another.
>
> lives?? If they are such a pain to deal with, why aren't the
> negatives more accessible to the couples? Why do we have to beg to
> have a chance to get them?
1. Not all photogaphers do, especially wedding photographers. A
sizable number of wedding photographers make their negatives
available (us included), some even include them in their packages
up front.
2. Generally speaking, holding on to the negs represents increased
sales. I realize that for you, that was not the case, but I would
say that you are the exception.
3. You misunderstood me. I wasn't saying that negative ownership is
a bad thing. Let me make an example: suppose someone said, "Sick
of paying rent? BUY a house - you can end up with the same monthly
payment, and own the place!" Sounds pretty great, and a no brainer,
except that it wasn't mentioned that with the house comes upkeep,
lawn care, routine maintenance (and not so routine - we had to have
30% of our pipes replaced this year), and so on. Now, I'm not
saying that owning a home is bad, but there are responsibilities.
That's all I am saying about negative ownership.
> This newsgroup is for honesty and realism. Don't snowball other
> brides into thinking that only a pro can do reprints well. Be honest
> with them, you won't be getting their business, so you don't have to
> put on the sales pitch.
What sales pitch?
Natalie, I *was* being honest, but I can see where, in the prevailing
climate, a little cynicism on your part is warranted. Let me repeat,
however: I am *not* against the couple owning their negatives. We own
our negatives from our wedding, we make our clients' negs available
to them. In fact, for clients who buy their negs, we have a pre-printed
sheet that we give with the negs, giving the names, adresses, phone
numbers and contacts for some of the local professional labs, and the
print lines we recommend for various situations. The sheet also gives
tips and negative storage and care. But most brides are not aware of
these things, and *we* certainly didn't receive such information from
our photographer when we got our negs. They were just sent in a box.
And, since we were not photographers then, we did dumb things like
storing them in a warm, humid basement. Fortunately, nothing bad
happened, at least not to those negs (some others from a vacation at
Disney were ruined, unfortunately).
So, I feel that I am in a place to say that owning the negatives is
really not a cure-all. A good thing, absolutely, provided one takes
responsibility, which a lot of people don't have the time or inclination
to do.
One final point: Ms. Livingston's post was originally about which
package she should choose from a perspective of suitability, NOT finance
(i.e. "All these reprints are costing so much, what should I do?!?!?").
While your suggestion to try to buy the negatives was not a bad one,
it was not very a propos...
Nathan Shafer
Alpenglow Photography - Photographic Artistry Nationwide
Weddings, Portraits, NAture & Wildlife Photography
http://home.earthlink.net/~shafers
Catherine
In article <34995D...@earthlink.net>,
Nathan Shafer <sha...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>our negatives from our wedding, we make our clients' negs available
>to them. In fact, for clients who buy their negs, we have a pre-printed
>sheet that we give with the negs, giving the names, adresses, phone
>numbers and contacts for some of the local professional labs, and the
>print lines we recommend for various situations. The sheet also gives
>tips and negative storage and care. But most brides are not aware of
>these things, and *we* certainly didn't receive such information from
>our photographer when we got our negs. They were just sent in a box.
>And, since we were not photographers then, we did dumb things like
>storing them in a warm, humid basement. Fortunately, nothing bad
>happened, at least not to those negs (some others from a vacation at
>Disney were ruined, unfortunately).
>
Just as an aside, Nathan, what is the best way to store the negatives? I
haven't gotten mine from our photographer yet (he holds them for a few
years, then makes them available), but for those people that have gotten
them, and maybe their photographers didn't give them that information...
(that, I and was going through some old 35mm and 110 negatives of my own
for a gift I'm making for my grandmother, and noticed that some of them
were not holding up so well, but they are just in the photo envelopes
that they came from the developers in, stuffed in a box. Thank goodness
for those new digital print copiers!)
And as another aside, for those wanting to make small copies of a wedding
picture to send out for Xmas or with thank yous, take a chance and ask
your photographer if he will give you a release for a couple of prints. My
mother decided after the deadline for getting pictures back from the
photographer in time for Xmas that she had to send out pictures with the
Christmas cards. I called our photographer, only to find out it was too late,
and asked half-heartedly "You wouldn't happen to be willing to sign a
release for two of them, would you?". To my surprise, he readily agreed,
and sent the letters (along with the negatives) right out to my mother and MIL,
just with a note to please return the negatives after they were done.
Of course, he's already made a ton of money off us, since his pictures were
so good, but.... :)
Catherine
--
Generic Lame-O Signature Follows:
MOSELEY,CATHERINE ANNE
Internet: gt7...@prism.gatech.edu
Yes, I love being a graduate student! Really! I mean it!
Allen G
nb...@Lehigh.EDU wrote:
> instead, we took a deal from a local well known
> studio that gave us an 8x10, 2 5x7's and 12 wallets for $20.00. We took
> the pictures to a color copier and made reprints to mail out in our
> engagement announcements.
Let's see, some poor schmuck took some portraits and made a small basic package for
you for a mere $20, (the cost to me would be $18, film 4 develope 3 -no proofs,
video previews, 3 unit package 11.) and you were so cheap that instead of paying
him his paltry small fee for reprints, you took them to a color copy place! What a
royal princess you are.
I hope that some day you get to see your work plagerized. Your email address
suggests you are a student, (a professor would have more class than to admit to
such unethical, if not merely ill mannered behavior.) Perhaps one day you could
find something you wrote lifted directly into some else's paper, or your professor
uses your efforts for their own research.
When you copy some friend's CD to your own cassettes, well, that's just one less
gallon of gas for some rock star's Lear Jet. But when you steal from your local
merchants, well that's the guy who can't buy a pizza in the place you probably work
in.
nb...@lehigh.edu
In article <349DEC...@ix.netcom.com>, Allen G <agre...@ix.netcom.com> write
s:
Aren't we so lucky to be honored with vendors like this??!
He is quite funny if you think about it. He is saying its ok to steal
from a rich person but not from HIM!
I guess someone should tell K-mart the laws about reprints since they are
the ones who did it for me.
Posts like this are hard to honor with a rebuttal ...
It makes a person not wan't to respond or even post to this NG!
Natalie (who by the way - shopped vigorously for three months to find the
perfect photographer!)
Karen Simmons
Natalie,
I have no doubt that K-Mart is aware of the laws regarding copying
professional work. It is a sad fact that many places like this choose
to plead ignorance (or ignore completely) the copyright laws. They
figure that most people don't know the difference and the chances of the
original studio finding out are slim to none. Which is, unfortunately,
true.
As I said in my original post on the subject, it doesn't change the fact
that photographers make their living selling photographs. When you take
away their ability to sell those photographs, you take away their
ability to earn a living. Just as many stores prices are increased to
cover losses caused by shoplifting, so do many photographers price their
work to cover their losses should the client decide to make illegal
copies. It is a shame that many ethical people should suffer increased
rates because of the actions of a few, but that's the way it goes.
I'm sure the studio you used took a loss on the initial package because
they figured you'd want more reprints and would order them. WHen you
chose to have copies made elsewhere without obtaining a written
copyright release, you stole that product from the studio. I don't mean
to be harsh or ugly -- that's just the fact of it.
Karen Simmons
<<I don't see the problem getting any better with so many home computer
scanners so I'm raising prices again in 98, nearly double once more, in
one year. No $1,000 or even $1,500 weddings ever again, they just aren't
worth it. Reorders have dropped so much while work is ever better,
complimented bigtime and purchased far less. We know what's going on,
can't stop it the vast majority of the time, so get it all up front and
then don't worry at all is my answer>>
While we're on the subject (not to start any flame wars, just to show a
different side of the issue), the following message was posted to one of
the professional wedding photographer boards I frequent.
Anymore, the only way a photographer can count on making a reasonable
profit from weddings is to charge upfront. Hoping for enough reprint
orders from friends and family to create profit is no longer a viable
option for professionals. I see this becoming increasingly the trend as
more and more households get scanners, digial access, photo quality
printers, etc.
If you folks think wedding photography is expensive now...!
Karen
--
Nathan Shafer
Chet Kresiak wrote:
>
> Kodak is coming out with a paper that cannot be scanned. Many textured
> papers already do not lend themselves to sharp scanning. Eventually you
> will need the negative itself to do a good scan, so this will all be a
> non-issue soon.
Well, that Kodak paper only defeats scanning by Kodak copystations
that are currently found in photo stores. It depends on a piece of
software in the scanner that recognizes the presence of certain
materials in the paper and intentionally botches up the scan. A big
issue right now is that Kodak is trying to get Fuji to include the
paper-recognition software in its copystations. I doubt home scanners
will ever incorporate that technology (although one never knows).
Personally, I 've found a much more effective deterrent to having
our proofs copied: before they go out to the client, we write the
proof number in big, black magic marker right on the face of the proof,
smack in the middle of things so that it can't be cropped out. Sure,
they can go ahead and have copies made, but every copy of proof number
32 is going to gave a big fat "32" in the middle.
I know of at least one lab that seals proofs into a clear envelope
that bears the copyright information prominently on the front. No
damage is done to the proof, but if they come back from the client out
of the envelope, the photographer knows they have been tampered with
and can choose to enforce copyright by, for example, charging the client
for every proof that came back that way - $10.00 per proof, say. I'm
thinking seriously about using that lab...
+++++
Nathan Shafer, Alpenglow Photography
Photographic Artistry Nationwide: Weddings, Portraits, Nature & Wildlife
http://home.earthlink.net/~shafers
Flowerrr
Just a question don't you all have Kmarts where you live?My fiance and I
and our son just got out pictures taken for $16 and we got 1 10x13 2 8x10's
4 5x7's and about 20 Wallets. If you all are just talking about a basic
engagment and/or announcement picture try it. The pictures come out great
and they are cheap. And yes I am biased because I've tried EVERY store in
this little town we live in and all of them are expensive. The professional
photagraphers charge way to much and MAYBE the pictures are on better
paper , but honestly a place that is cheap is better to me than an
expensive place that wants to charge an arm and a leg. plus at kmart you
get to choose your pictures before you decide which ones you want. . I just
scanned a picture we just got back. We took this same shot 5 different
times till finally we got a good picture. The pic is on my homepage at
www.mrscsi.com/flower go to the pictures section....Hope this helps!
Susan
Kate the Short
Susan, my fiance Joel and I did the same thing at the Sears portrait
studio for our engagement pic. :) We got tons of prints for a good
price, one out of three poses for all of the pics (though we could have
paid more $$$ to get a better choice of poses and more pics).
If you have reserved your photog he or she may offer a "free sitting"
for engagement photos. You'd still have to pay for the pics if you have
any printed, but the posing and actual photo-taking are free or really
cheap. It's a good way for you to get to know your photog and for that
person to get to know your personalities before the wedding day.
kate.
Carol Smith
I would chosse the most exhaustive, luxurious, expensive
package. After all, you only get married once, don't you ?
Carol
nb...@lehigh.edu
In article <01bd0f57$14360d60$89d70ad0@bitemyass>, "Flowerrr" <cpritch@hsonline.
net> writes:
>
>
>Just a question don't you all have Kmarts where you live?My fiance and I
>and our son just got out pictures taken for $16 and we got 1 10x13 2 8x10's
> 4 5x7's and about 20 Wallets. If you all are just talking about a basic
>engagment and/or announcement picture try it. The pictures come out great
>and they are cheap. And yes I am biased because I've tried EVERY store in
>this little town we live in and all of them are expensive. The professional
>photagraphers charge way to much and MAYBE the pictures are on better
>paper , but honestly a place that is cheap is better to me than an
>expensive place that wants to charge an arm and a leg. plus at kmart you
>get to choose your pictures before you decide which ones you want. . I just
>scanned a picture we just got back. We took this same shot 5 different
>times till finally we got a good picture. The pic is on my homepage at
>www.mrscsi.com/flower go to the pictures section....Hope this helps!
>Susan
>
Thank you Susan! Finally a bride responding to this post!!!
nb...@lehigh.edu
In article <349f3e2f...@news.dimensional.com>, thim...@dimensional.com (H
>>scanned a picture we just got back. We took this same shot 5 different
>>times till finally we got a good picture. The pic is on my homepage at
>>www.mrscsi.com/flower go to the pictures section....Hope this helps!
>
>
>If so, you paid for a professional service, whose work is protected by
>the copyright laws.
>
>You then admit here and now that you violated those same copyright
>laws by scanning the image and using it on your web page. We assume
>you do not have written permission from K-Mart to use the image for
>this purpose or in this manner.
>
>If you read your service agreement with your ISP, we bet it says
>something about terminating service in the event you do something
>illegal.
>
>Copyright violation, the making of unauthorized copies (except as
>provided by law) with out the permission of the copyright holder is
>strictly prohibited (illegal).
>
>Over the years, many people here, have complained about the cost of
>professional photographic services. This is the second of two very
>recent incidents where people take part in an activity that indirectly
>effects the cost of professional photographic services.
>
>As Karen S. has said, it's theft...no more...no less...yet people
>gladly stand up and shout that they did it, to save a few dollars.
>
>Hal & Terees Landry
>T&H Images
>www.thimages.com
>
So sue the computer computers who manufactures the scanners. Maybe
you can make up all this lost money that YOU keep bitching about.
nb...@lehigh.edu
In article <34a2e0fc....@news.dimensional.com>, thim...@dimensional.com (
Hal and Terees Landry) writes:
><klsi...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>I'm sure the studio you used took a loss on the initial package because
>>they figured you'd want more reprints and would order them. WHen you
>>chose to have copies made elsewhere without obtaining a written
>>copyright release, you stole that product from the studio. I don't mean
>>to be harsh or ugly -- that's just the fact of it.
>
>
>Based on her responses. we'd say she just doesn't care.
>
>If she did, she go make good to the studio on the theft.
If everyone is finished now, I would like to remnd you that this is a
BRIDAL newsgroup - NOT the professioal photographers bitching session!
I did not steal anything, I'm not a princess, I am simply a very tight
budgeted college graduate that pays a lot of monthly student loan
payments for a degree that has gotten me no where! I DO NOT
appreciate a lot of the CRAP that has been posted since my original
post. The bride was simply asking what package to pick or how to get
what she wants on a budget - I gave her my opinion. I WAS NOT TALKING
TO ANY OF YOU!!! WHEN I POST, I AM TALKING TO OTHER BRIDES!! NOT
VENDOR VULTURES!!!!!!!!!!!
STOP MAKING THIS NEWS GROUP MORE OF A PAIN IN THE ASS THAN THE HELPFUL
THING THAT IT COULD BE.
If the photo studio that offered that special package was loosing too
much money with their offer, then that is their fault! Many years
prior to this package, I have paid for a yearly package that includes
four sittings of which I would only use one of. So, don't cry the
vendor blues to me! They have made plenty of money off of me. K-mart
also made plenty of money from me in their photo lab that made the
copies.
SO BASICALLY, KNOCK IT THE HELL OFF!!!!!!! AND GET OVER IT!!!!!
Sincerely,
Natalie Faroun
Janet Rolsma
On 23 Dec 1997 nb...@Lehigh.EDU wrote:
>
> If everyone is finished now, I would like to remnd you that this is a
> BRIDAL newsgroup - NOT the professioal photographers bitching session!
No, this is a wedding discussion newsgroup, not a Bridal bitching session.
>
> I did not steal anything, I'm not a princess, I am simply a very tight
> budgeted college graduate that pays a lot of monthly student loan
> payments for a degree that has gotten me no where!
And this is the wedding vendor's fault? You are the one who decided what
degree to get, don't blame someone else for charging what they are worth.
> I DO NOT
> appreciate a lot of the CRAP that has been posted since my original
> post.
Well, as far as I can see, the photographers who have posted in response
to your advocating an illegal method for duplicating photographs have
been pretty polite. In fact, since it seems to be a major problem for
them, I would say they've done exceptionally well by not flaming you to
Timbuktu and back for your reaction to them.
> The bride was simply asking what package to pick or how to get
> what she wants on a budget - I gave her my opinion. I WAS NOT TALKING
> TO ANY OF YOU!!! WHEN I POST, I AM TALKING TO OTHER BRIDES!! NOT
> VENDOR VULTURES!!!!!!!!!!!
Then you may want to rethink where you post. This group has many vendors
who are here to offer their help and experience in planning weddings.
They are helpful, sincere contributers who give brides a peek into the
other side of the wedding planning jungle. If you really don't want
honest answers to your posts, whether they agree or disagree, then maybe
you should look for private mailing lists and emails. Of course, you'll
probably see a lot of disagreement there as well.
>
> STOP MAKING THIS NEWS GROUP MORE OF A PAIN IN THE ASS THAN THE HELPFUL
> THING THAT IT COULD BE.
I don't see them making the news group a pain in the ass. They aren't
the ones who are shouting and throwing temper tantrums because someone
pointed out that they were wrong.
>
> If the photo studio that offered that special package was loosing too
> much money with their offer, then that is their fault!
Not in the case which was under discussion. The reason they were losing
money was because someone had stolen what was rightfully their property
due to copyright laws.
> Many years
> prior to this package, I have paid for a yearly package that includes
> four sittings of which I would only use one of.
What does that have to do with anything? You bought a product and paid
for it. This is like buying a box of cereal at the store one week and
the next taking it without paying because you bought a box last week.
You pay the money, you get the product.
> So, don't cry the
> vendor blues to me! They have made plenty of money off of me. K-mart
> also made plenty of money from me in their photo lab that made the
> copies.
So what? Prices are based on expenses plus revenue. You can't expect to
make your entire lifetime's revenue off of one transaction, so you spread
it out over all of your transactions. If you lose a certain percentage
of revenue to theft (like when people violate the copyright laws) you
spread the loss over all of your business by increasing prices for the
initial package. That's why vendors are so upset when someone steals
from them and then comes back and complains about how high their prices
are. Take an economics class, you might get a better idea of how free
enterprise works.
>
> SO BASICALLY, KNOCK IT THE HELL OFF!!!!!!! AND GET OVER IT!!!!!
I might say the same to you.
Janet
No, I'm not a vendor.
--
Why?
Karen Simmons
> TO ANY OF YOU!!! WHEN I POST, I AM TALKING TO OTHER BRIDES!!
> NOT VENDOR VULTURES!!!!!!!!!!!
> HELPFUL THING THAT IT COULD BE.
> SO BASICALLY, KNOCK IT THE HELL OFF!!!!!!! AND GET OVER
> IT!!!!!
Natalie,
A couple of points: my first post to you was not nasty or accusatory.
In fact, I gave you the benefit of the doubt by saying you probably
weren't aware. So why the nasty response here? However at this point
from your comments above, I have no choice but to agree with Hal &
Terees that you don't care and would steal the product again, given the
chance.
Second point: when you post to this group, you post to anyone who reads
it. If you're going to admit on a public forum that you stole a
product, then you'd better expect to hear back from people who don't
approve of your theft. And I'm a bride to be as well as a vendor, so by
your logic, I have a "right" to respond to you.
Third point: vendor vultures?? Don't you think that's just a little
much? Good grief!
Fourth point: Ever heard of a phrase called a "loss leader"? This is
where a company takes the chance that you will like their product so
much that they will recoup the initial loss taken to get you in the
shop. Photographers are by no means the only professionals who do this.
And apparently you liked their work well enough to want more of it. You
just didn't want to pay for it, so you stole it. And now you're angry
because someone pointed out (in a very non-threatening way by my first
post) that you did, in fact, commit a crime. Are we just a teensy bit
defensive now?
Fifth point: The fact that you are on a budget is no excuse for
stealing from someone. I'm on a budget and I really want some pearl
earrings to go with the necklace my fiance bought me. Wow -- Natalie
said that if you're on a tight budget it's alright to steal something.
Cool. I guess I get my pearl earrings. Oh, and you know what: I've
spent so much money at Macy's this year (almost $800 in new house stuff
for our move) that they just owe me those earrings anyway, so I guess
I'll steal them from Macy's. But it's not theft because I'm on a budget
and they owe me anyway.
I like Natalies logic. Maybe I should try it with my film supplier
next.
Karen Simmons
> Well, as far as I can see, the photographers who have posted in
> response
> to your advocating an illegal method for duplicating photographs have
> been pretty polite. In fact, since it seems to be a major problem for
> them, I would say they've done exceptionally well by not flaming you
> to
> Timbuktu and back for your reaction to them.
Whoops! I think I just negated this sentence with my previous post.
That's what I get for posting before I read the whole thread! <g>
Seriously, Janet, thanks for the support. It helps to know that a non
vendor sees the pros side sometimes.
ptd-013498
On Tue, 23 Dec 1997, Hal and Terees Landry wrote:
> You then admit here and now that you violated those same copyright
> laws by scanning the image and using it on your web page.
Serious question here: would this extend to engagement/wedding
announcements published in a newspaper which generally (at least in
NorthEast PA) include a photograph? If I'm following the above logic
properly, the reproduction of the photograph for printing in the newspaper
would constitute a copyright violation.
Also (this is mainly to the photographers here) do you charge clients for
the permission to do things like scanning of photos, etc, if you grant it
at all?
later....peace....Jud
...donning asbestos suit, and preparing the redirect to /dev/null now.
Judson L. White Library Systems Specialist
Weinberg Memorial Library University of Scranton
Whitej2 _at_ uofs edu jlwhite _at_ ptdprolog net
This statement does not, in any way, constitute a statement by the
University of Scranton, official or otherwise.
NO CARRIER
USA Administration
The most expensive $$$ photo package does not guarantee quality.
It just guarantees you will be spending a lot of money ;o)
I can think two photographers locally who both charge over 2K.
I have seen several of their finished work and they are both worth
about 1K but people hire them because of their personality, their
presentation, their elegant studio, and because they are expensive
so they must be good.
T.R.
Kate the Short
On 23 Dec 1997 11:31:48 -0500, nb...@Lehigh.EDU wrote:
>In article <34a2e0fc....@news.dimensional.com>, thim...@dimensional.com (
>Hal and Terees Landry) writes:
>>On Mon, 22 Dec 1997 13:01:02 -0500, Karen Simmons
>><klsi...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I'm sure the studio you used took a loss on the initial package because
>>>they figured you'd want more reprints and would order them. WHen you
>>>chose to have copies made elsewhere without obtaining a written
>>>copyright release, you stole that product from the studio. I don't mean
>>>to be harsh or ugly -- that's just the fact of it.
>>
>>
>>If she did, she go make good to the studio on the theft.
>>
>>Hal & Terees Landry
>>T&H Images
>>
>>www.thimages.com
>
> BRIDAL newsgroup - NOT the professioal photographers bitching session!
Okay, kate is about to rant. If you don't want to hear a well-reasoned
rant, please go on to the next post.
Please also note that "you" means the generic "one" or "y'all" and is
not solely directed to the author of the article I'm responding to.
That said...
*Anyone* who makes a living should be concerned about the theft of
product or intellectual property-- there's a misc.int-property newsgroup
devoted to looking at copyright laws and whatnot if anyone else is
really interested in the details, but the truth of the matter is that
the photographers *do* have a right to bitch.
If you take a Dave Barry column out of your newspaper and type it in to
the internet word for word, thus allowing people to access it for free,
then you've distributed *his* work without *his* permission. Yes, you
bought the paper that the article came in, but that doesn't give you the
reproduction rights or the ownership.
It's the same with images-- while they may be of you, and you may have
copies that you've purchased, you don't own the actual product, nor have
you paid for the reproduction rights, unless you've specifically
arranged that with your photographer.
> I did not steal anything, I'm not a princess, I am simply a very tight
> budgeted college graduate that pays a lot of monthly student loan
> payments for a degree that has gotten me no where! I DO NOT
> appreciate a lot of the CRAP that has been posted since my original
> post. The bride was simply asking what package to pick or how to get
> what she wants on a budget - I gave her my opinion. I WAS NOT TALKING
> TO ANY OF YOU!!! WHEN I POST, I AM TALKING TO OTHER BRIDES!! NOT
> VENDOR VULTURES!!!!!!!!!!!
These aren't vultures-- they're people trying to earn a living. Same as
you. How do you know that they aren't also tight-budgeted?
This is a public forum. If you can't take the responses, then don't
post publicly. This is soc.couples.weddings, not
soc.couples.brides-only. (not to mention talking to the grooms!)
You mentioned your degree. Say you decided to turn your thesis paper
into a book and you were going to get $1 profit from every copy sold.
Say there are 1000 people who want it-- that would earn you $1000. Not
bad, right? It's a fair price for your work and it's in demand.
Now, say that some people, ten of them, bought your book, but instead of
telling their friends where to get the book and how much it costs, xerox
the book on their home copiers? And pass it out to their friends?
Instead of getting $1000 from 1000 people who want to read your work,
you're only getting $10.
How much is your degree or your job or your energy or your time worth to
you? That's the point that these vendors are trying to make.
> STOP MAKING THIS NEWS GROUP MORE OF A PAIN IN THE ASS THAN THE HELPFUL
> THING THAT IT COULD BE.
There's no need to shout, please.
I think it's helpful for vendors to point this out to brides. If a
vendor decided to *sue* a bride because she scanned in and printed out a
dozen photos and sent them to twenty friends and family, that would be
bad. Letting brides know about this so that they can *ask* their
vendors for reproduction rights or negatives to make their own prints or
whatever *is* a helpful service.
> If the photo studio that offered that special package was loosing too
> much money with their offer, then that is their fault!
If someone shoplifted a pair of earrings from a store, who is "guilty"
-- the store, which charges a fair price for each pair of earrings, or
the person who took the earrings from the store?
Which would be fair-- paying $10 for a pair of earrings, or paying $30
for the same pair of earrings because 1/3 of the pairs were stolen and
the store hopes people won't steal another 1/3 of the pairs?
> Many years
> prior to this package, I have paid for a yearly package that includes
> four sittings of which I would only use one of. So, don't cry the
> vendor blues to me! They have made plenty of money off of me. K-mart
> also made plenty of money from me in their photo lab that made the
> copies.
So, it's someone elses fault that you didn't choose or could not find a
package that suited you?
Huh?
*K-mart* may have made money through the lab, but did the *photographer*
who took the photos get the money?
If you got professional portraits done, then you have agreed to pay $X
for Y portraits. If you agreed that a fair price for an 8x10 is $8, and
buy one, and keep it on your wall, then the photographer has fairly been
paid for that portrait.
If a person agreed that a fair price for an 8x10 is $8, and buys one,
and then makes 10 8x10 color copies of it and sends it off to friends,
then she has gotten 10 more copies than she paid for, and while she
agreed that the photographer should be paid $8 x 11 images = $88 for 11
8x10 photos (per the contract), she has paid the photographer only $8,
and still has 11 photos.
Essentially, that person got 11 photos for $8 when she agreed that 11
photos were worth $88. Essentially, she owes the photographer $80 for
the photos. Whether or not she paid the copier place $3 per copy and
netted the copier place $30 in sales, that's still money that should
have gone to the photographer for his work on the images.
Now, should the photographer then be forced to charge ALL families and
brides and whomever $88 per 8x10 photograph? That's ridiculous. But
that is the amount of money that the person above would have paid if she
was paying for the photographs or images she ended up with.
> SO BASICALLY, KNOCK IT THE HELL OFF!!!!!!! AND GET OVER IT!!!!!
I think you're taking this a bit personally.
If you copy a cd onto tape and give it to a friend, that's $15 that the
artist should have earned for her work that has been denied to her, and
it *is* a crime. There's a reason that videotapes have warnings about
copying them and about home viewing purposes versus a college showing
the video and charging money for it. There's a reason that high school,
college, and professional theatre companies have to pay script and score
royalties when they put on a production of a play, depending on how many
performances are put on at what level and for what ticket price.
There's a reason that FOX is asking people to close down "King of the
Hill" web sites which include unauthorized photos and audio clips and
which don't have the proper disclaimers and copyright statements on
them.
To use other people's creative work without their permission and without
their fair compensation is not right. To knowingly and willingly pass
off reproductions is to prevent an artist or a worker from getting fair
monetary compensation for their efforts. To do so also means that while
you and your friends pay less overall and less to the photographer,
others will need to pay an unfairly high price to the photographer in
the future because the photographer is not being paid a fair price in
the first place.
This newsgroup is supposed to be a discussion forum. That's for brides
and vendors so that brides can get the information they need about
contracts and prices and reproduction allowances for photos, and owning
one's own negatives and the like. I've learned a hell of a lot about
copyright from the internet, and when I remake my web pages you'll be
darned sure that I'll have the correct copyright and trademark
statements on them.
kate.
Nathan Shafer
nb...@Lehigh.EDU wrote:
>
> I did not steal anything, I'm not a princess, I am simply a very
> tight budgeted college graduate that pays a lot of monthly student
> loan payments for a degree that has gotten me no where! I DO NOT
> appreciate a lot of the CRAP that has been posted since my original
> post.
Too bad, because you *are* a thief, you *did* steal, and while you may
not be a princess, you do seem to be a spoiled little girl who wants
what she wants, doesn't want to pay for it, and doesn't have the
character or the courage to stand up and admit she was wrong.
What you did is stealing for two main reasons: 1) The law says that
the right to copy those images belongs solely to the one who created
them, and that to copy them without permission IS a form of theft,
and 2) because the person who created them worked hard to develop
ths skills to create a portrait that you would WANT to have copies
of, worked hard to create that image, and charged a pittance for it
in the expectation that they would profit with reprint sales. Others
have explained this point well so I won't go into it any further.
> If the photo studio that offered that special package was losing too
> much money with their offer, then that is their fault!
Boy is your logic screwed up: you chose a graduate degree that has
done nothing for you financially, but that isn't *your* fault, you
shouldn't be expected to do without those reprints? Take some respon-
sibility, for God's sake!
> K-mart also made plenty of money from me in their photo lab that made
> the copies.
That's beside the point. Those pictures were not Kmart's to copy,
it was not their money to make. You wanted copies, you should have paid
the photographer for them or done without. Period, end of discussion.
To do otherwise was to commit a crime, to steal from that photographer,
and to continue to deny wrongdoing only reinforces the point that you
are spoiled, self-centered, irresponsible, and morally vacuous.
Karen Simmons
> Serious question here: would this extend to engagement/wedding
> announcements published in a newspaper which generally (at least in
> NorthEast PA) include a photograph? If I'm following the above logic
> properly, the reproduction of the photograph for printing in the
> newspaper
> would constitute a copyright violation.
>
> Also (this is mainly to the photographers here) do you charge clients
> for
> the permission to do things like scanning of photos, etc, if you grant
> it
> at all?
Jud,
Technically, yes, using the photo in a newspaper announcement is a
violation of copyright -- the letter of the law, you understand.
Personally, I would venture to say that fully 99% of the time
professional photographers won't mind if you use the image for that
purpose. Many of them ask that you ask the newspaper to give them a
byline, but other than that, no harm/no foul.
I personally don't charge for permission to scan or whatever FOR CERTAIN
PURPOSES. When I issue a copyright release to a client, I make sure it
is specific to the purpose for which they have requested it. For
example, I don't make t-shirts, so I would issue a limited release for
one image for t-shirts only. However, I do make Christmas cards, so I
would charge a percentage of the $$ I would lose to allow someone to
make cards somewhere else.
Hope this answers your questions. Feel free to ask any others you might
have.
Karen Simmons
Natalie Faroun wrote:
> So, if your friend jumped off a bridge then you would
> too? They jumped to conclusions and so are you. You
> do not know me or what the entire story is.
<snip>
> You and every other vendor jumped to the "stealing"
> conclusion and haven't been able todrop it since!
What conclusion is there to jump to, Natalie? You said in your post
that you got a basic sitting for $20 and photocopied one of the pictures
to put in your invitations. When it was pointed out to you (nicely)
that what you did was illegal, you didn't say "I reimbursed the photog
for the difference" or "I got permission" or anything like that. You
basically said "So what. I don't have a lot of money so I have the
right to make these copies and not pay for them." You admitted on a
public forum - not once, but twice - that you copied the photos without
paying for them. So exactly where did we jump to conclusions?
If there is further information, why didn't you post it instead of
throwing a virtual temper-tantrum, calling people names and whining
about how you can't afford to pay for what you wanted.
> I am also a vendor, but I don't shove it down anyone's throught.
> I don't even have my signature line with my vendor info. so no one can
> think that I am biased.
Bully for you. I AM a vendor and I DO use a .sig line because I'm proud
of what I do. I'm also proud that the regular readers of this newsgroup
find my posts and information useful and helpful. I am not ashamed to
admit that I've learned a lot from them, too, that has affected the way
I do business. I hope it makes me a better vendor. Are you accusing me
of shoving my status as a photographer down someone's throat? You might
ought to rethink that, Natalie. This is the 'net and no one is holding
a gun to your head forcing you to read my posts. If you don't like it,
don't read it.
> No, not on the defensive..but rather on the I'M PISSED OFF NOW -
> I'M TIREd OF PEOPLE JUMPING ON MY ASS WHO DOESN'T KNOW ME FROM ADAM!
You're pissed off??? You posted to a public forum that you stole a
product and you're pissed off because a group of people called you on
it???? Get real, Natalie.
> Now you are just getting a little too bitchy to even respond
> to. Very, very unprofessional of you. A little maturity please.
Bitchy? But Natalie, I'm just using your logic.
Professionalism: A vendor who calls other vendors vultures and admits
to stealing from other vendors? No comment.
A little maturity? I'm not the one who threw a hum-dinger of a virtual
temper tantrum for everyone to read.
Take responsibility for your actions Natalie.
USA Administration
vacuous.
>
>Vacuous...wow...we had to go look that one up!
>
>
Isn't that something like those vein things in your legs
as you get older.....
Or maybe it was Tiberious Claudiaus's older brother..
around 10 b.c.....
darn, another Jeopordy answser, thats 2 in just one week.
cool.
USA Administration
Always a pet peeve., the family/friends photographers who
try to shot over your shoulder during Formals.
1. They distract subjects - subject will look at Aunt Sally instead of
the photographer
2. They slow the whole formal-session down and all we hear is,
"why is this taking so long"..
3. Depending if 2nd slave lighting is used, their flashes can trip
the slave light.
4. In photographer vs. priest/church sensitive situations, multiple
flashes/picture takers makes it look like Hollywood.
5. Also possibility of smaller photo order for photographer because
that underlite, slightly fuzzy group pix with Uncle Harry's eyes
closed is "good enough".
Easy resolve,
tell the friends, relatives to take all the pictures they want,
from 10 pews back as to not take away from the beauty
of the bride/groom and people being photographs. (insert
your own expression/words)
Rick Martin
USA Administration wrote:
> 3. Depending if 2nd slave lighting is used, their flashes can trip
> the slave light.
We took care of this with a radio slave. 2nd flash can only be tripped
by transmitter on camera. Works fine!
--
Rick Martin,Photographer
Lt Governor, Northern District
Virginia Professional Photographers Assoc
http://www.rickmartin.com
Manassas,Va
Amy Breslin
In article <34a50e40...@corp.supernews.com>,
postm...@usaweddings.com wrote:
> Always a pet peeve., the family/friends photographers who
> try to shot over your shoulder during Formals.
> 1. They distract subjects - subject will look at Aunt Sally instead of
> the photographer
I had to laugh at this. Next time I see my aunts, I'm half tempted to ask
them, "whom do you look at when getting your photo taken - your husband
with the $150 instamatic-automatic or the woman standing next to him who's
being paid to take your picture with the $8,000 Hasselbad?" (apologies if
I spelled that wrong) My mom wanted a shot of herself with her two sisters
at my wedding and in both shots (just to be sure!), one aunt was looking
one way at someone else snapping the photo and the other was looking
another at someone else taking the picture, but neither were looking at
the photographer who was asked to set up and get the shot. I wish my
photographer would have been a little more forceful with these people. I
went to a friend's wedding which she shot and she finally did ask one
woman to stop following her around. The woman apparently snapped EVERY
shot after the photographer did and the photog. overheard her telling
someone that she was going to get some great poses for her
portfolio...like she was planning on telling people that SHE was the
photographer for the wedding.
> 2. They slow the whole formal-session down and all we hear is,
> "why is this taking so long"..
This is so true. My BIL was snapping shots during our photo session and it
really dragged on, turned out he had no film. URGH.
Just my .02 to reinforce what you're saying I guess. Don't mind me. I'll
stand 10 rows back. ; )
Amy
--
han...@mse.eng.ohio-state.edu
The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom.
- William Blake
kr...@vilnya.demon.co.uk
In article <67op8r$m...@ns4-1.CC.Lehigh.EDU>, nb...@Lehigh.EDU wrote:
>In article <349f3e2f...@news.dimensional.com>, thim...@dimensional.com (H
>al and Terees Landry) writes:
>>you do not have written permission from K-Mart to use the image for
>>this purpose or in this manner.
>>
>
> you can make up all this lost money that YOU keep bitching about.
>
>
How responsible are the manufacturers of products for the
way in which people choose to use them? Can you sue a gun
manufacturer for making the gun that someone bought and
used to shoot your kid? should you be able to sue the
people who made the chainsaw, because you thought it would
be neat to see what happened if you touched the blade while
it was switched on?
I mean, come on people, take responsibility for your
own actions. The photographers here have said that it's
standard practise for the studio or photographer to
retain copyright on any images, so it's probably safe
to assume that unless you've specifically discussed
the issue with them, that's going to be the case. I
don't think there's anything wrong with brides trying
to save money where they can, but is it really right
to do it at someone else's expense?
-Kris
Denise L. Voskuil
On 23 Dec 1997 11:35:39 -0500, nb...@Lehigh.EDU wrote:
>In article <349f3e2f...@news.dimensional.com>, thim...@dimensional.com (H
>al and Terees Landry) writes:
>>You then admit here and now that you violated those same copyright
>>laws by scanning the image and using it on your web page. We assume
>>you do not have written permission from K-Mart to use the image for
>>this purpose or in this manner.
> So sue the computer computers who manufactures the scanners. Maybe
> you can make up all this lost money that YOU keep bitching about.
Oh, so maybe film companies should sue the makers of VCRs because
people use them to illegally copy their films? Give me a break. I
have some wedding pictures of mine on my webpage, but that's because
our photographer gave us permission to do so (and also gave us the
negatives and told us places we could get them printed for ourselves).
- Denise
(& Gene; 10/11/97)
--
Denise Voskuil-Marré - dvos...@mcs.com
http://www.mcs.net/~dvoskuil/
Wedding page: http://www.geocities.com/Paris/LeftBank/6093/
ptd-013498
On 24 Dec 1997 kr...@vilnya.demon.co.uk wrote:
> How responsible are the manufacturers of products for the
> way in which people choose to use them? Can you sue a gun
> manufacturer for making the gun that someone bought and
> used to shoot your kid? should you be able to sue the
> people who made the chainsaw, because you thought it would
> be neat to see what happened if you touched the blade while
> it was switched on?
Here in the good ole' US of A it happens a lot. One more than one
occasion a manufacturer was successfully sued because of something someone
did (i.e. a modification made to a metal casting machine by the owner
caused an employe to get hurt, who then sued the maker of the machine, not
the owner, for not building it in such a way as to prevent modification.)
I hope this is not the case on Kris' side of the pond.
Also, on the chainsaw bit, there is a story (I don't know if it's true or
not) that a Swedish chainsaw maker had a larger manual for the saws they
sold in the USA than the manual for sales in other countries. When asked
why, a company spokesperson said they had to include things like "do not
attempt to stop the blade from moving with your hands" in the US version
and did not have to do so elsewhere. This was made funnier as sometime
after this exchange the company was unsuccessfuly sued for damages because
someone did exactly that and the clause supported the company, the court
found.
It still doesn't justify, nor even excuse the actions that were done,
however. I really don't care if people agree with it or not, it *is* the
LAW. It would be rather like saying that I have the right to use Netscape
for free simply because I can't afford it.
later....peace....Jud
...who will admit he uses Netscape for free at work, but it's permitted
use under Netscape's Educational Use clause of the license agreement.
Karen Simmons
kr...@vilnya.demon.co.uk wrote:
>
> One thing I did want to make sure is clear on this thread
> is that there isn't anything wrong with wanting to use
> colour photocopies rather than getting prints if you're
> going to include the photo in an inviation or something
> and need to save some money.
<snip>
> To be honest, I'd be wary of using a photographer
> who wasn't willing to accomodate something like
> that on a limited basis (say, one photo for
> including with announcements or something) because
> it's not something that's really likely to be
> taking away from reprints on a large scale.
Kris,
Some very good ideas above. One thing I would comment on is the quality
issue. I know a lot of people believe that photographers keep control
of reproduction rights solely for profit reasons. While I won't deny
that profit is a large motivator, quality control is of equal importance
in my book and for many other photographers.
A lot of photographers won't allow their work to be reproduced in color
copies or on t-shirts or mouse pads or whatever because of the extreme
degradation of quality inherent to those mediums. A lot of
photographers believe that for those kinds of applications, you're
better off using a good snapshot from the family album than a pro image.
I tend to agree with that point of view, although I have released images
for t-shirts as I said earlier.
Most photographers will work with you in getting images to include in
invitations, for example, that won't sacrifice the quality of the
images. I know that color copies can cost up to $3 each at some places
and in sufficient quantity, I can match that price for a real wallet
print. Additionally, with a larger package I usually throw in wallets
for that purpose for free. Ask your photographer about either of these
options, too. A properly done wallet with the photographer's name and
logo on the back is a fabulous advertising tool and most photogs are
more than happy to trade value for value like this.
For other occassions, a sample release should be printed on studio
letterhead and might go:
Karen Simmons Photography hereby grants permission for John and Jane Doe
to use Image #143 (Bride, Groom, and Wedding Party) to be reproduced on
up to 25 t-shirts.
This release is for one-time use and does not constitute a tranfer of
copyright of the Image above. Nor does it permit the use of any other
Images created by this studio.
This release is good through March 31, 1998.
kr...@vilnya.demon.co.uk
In article <Pine.GSO.3.95.97122...@home.ptd.net>,
ptd-013498 wrote:
>On 24 Dec 1997 kr...@vilnya.demon.co.uk wrote:
>> How responsible are the manufacturers of products for the
>> way in which people choose to use them? Can you sue a gun
>> manufacturer for making the gun that someone bought and
>> used to shoot your kid? should you be able to sue the
>> people who made the chainsaw, because you thought it would
>> be neat to see what happened if you touched the blade while
>> it was switched on?
>
Actually, the US is my side of the pond, so that's where
I was coming from. However, the fact that people *do* do
it doesn't mean that they should, or that people should
be encouraging them to do so.
>Also, on the chainsaw bit, there is a story (I don't know if it's true or
>not) that a Swedish chainsaw maker had a larger manual for the saws they
>sold in the USA than the manual for sales in other countries. When asked
Yeah, I'd heard that too. That's why I choose a chainsaw
as an example.
-Kris
(Who thinks that the lack of personal responsibility
is the cause of a *lot* of problems in current western
society, particularly in the US.)
kr...@vilnya.demon.co.uk
One thing I did want to make sure is clear on this thread
is that there isn't anything wrong with wanting to use
colour photocopies rather than getting prints if you're
going to include the photo in an inviation or something
would be a very attractive option. However, if you
decided to go that route, or think you might want to,
discuss it with your photographer prior to agreeing
to use them as your photographer. From the sounds of
it, a lot of photographers are willing to deal with
situations like this, but some might not be, and
you don't want to book a photographer and have your
wedding shot and only *then* find out that your
photographer isn't willing to do it at all, or wants
to charge an arm and a leg for it. (I'd make this
one of the last issues, after finding out what the
standard pricing is, just to make sure that they're
not raising the prices overall by vast amounts to
cover the loss of prints. The cost might go up *some*,
but you'll want an idea of how much it's going up.)
Second, even if you've discussed it before, unless
you have a clause about getting all of the rights
or whatever in your contract, I'd ask again for
specific permission prior to making the copies.
(Perhaps one of the photographers here who has done
this in the past could post an example release form,
if that hasn't already been done?)
To be honest, I'd be wary of using a photographer
who wasn't willing to accomodate something like
that on a limited basis (say, one photo for
including with announcements or something) because
it's not something that's really likely to be
taking away from reprints on a large scale. Most
people are still going to want proper reprints for
display purposes, which at the very least means
some prints for the bride and groom, and parents
on both sides. If you're doing something on a
smaller scale than that, I would imagine you'll
probably end up with a more customized package anyway.
(You should be willing to allow a by-line or the
like with any copies you issue, though, just as
a courtesy.)
-Kris
(Who is just going by what she would expect
as reasonable business practise. Don't take my word
as gospel. :)
Denise L. Voskuil
On 23 Dec 1997 11:31:48 -0500, nb...@Lehigh.EDU wrote:
> If everyone is finished now, I would like to remnd you that this is a
> BRIDAL newsgroup - NOT the professioal photographers bitching session!
I'm a bride, and not a photographer.
> I did not steal anything,
Yes, you basically did. You illegally copied copyrighted work, same
as if you'd copied computer software and given it out.
>I'm not a princess, I am simply a very tight
> budgeted college graduate that pays a lot of monthly student loan
> payments for a degree that has gotten me no where!
Same here. But I found a photographer that gave us the negatives and
permission to put them on my webpage, reprint them ourselves, etc.
>I DO NOT
> appreciate a lot of the CRAP that has been posted since my original
> post. The bride was simply asking what package to pick or how to get
> what she wants on a budget - I gave her my opinion. I WAS NOT TALKING
> TO ANY OF YOU!!! WHEN I POST, I AM TALKING TO OTHER BRIDES!! NOT
> VENDOR VULTURES!!!!!!!!!!!
So you'd like to counsel other brides (and grooms) to break the law
too? Saying that "Kmart shouldn't have copied them" is no excuse -
they broke the law _too_.
> If the photo studio that offered that special package was loosing too
> much money with their offer, then that is their fault! Many years
> prior to this package, I have paid for a yearly package that includes
> four sittings of which I would only use one of. So, don't cry the
> vendor blues to me! They have made plenty of money off of me. K-mart
> also made plenty of money from me in their photo lab that made the
> copies.
The photographer didn't make everything they were entitled to, though.
If the package was too expensive, you should have found another
photographer, rather than going with them and then illegally copying
their work. Kmart shouldn't have made a dime - they weren't entitled
to that money.
I do webpages for some comic book creators, and after working with
them, people violating copyrights really ticks me off - it deprives
them of money that they have the right to because they _created_ and
_own_ that work. You bought a copy; that's all you had the right to
have.
USA Administration
I don't know the posters, but I *can* tell you one thing, who ever you
are. You can NOT have photographs taken by a professional, then go
behind their back and may illegal copies elsewhere. I am telling
you, that without any doubt what-so-ever (excuses are
NOT acceptable) that copyright infringment IS very much
a crime and fines currently allowed are upto $10,000 per offense.
Make NO mistake, this is NOT hot air talking, this is an
absolute, positive FACT that people (the individual) and/or the
business (where this was done) are being persued, caught,
and fined. The courts do NOT accept "ah duh, I didn't know
anything about copyright.. blah blah blah".
Locally, there is a committee that purposely takes clearly
marked/copyright photos to different locations (about once a month)
and solicates the stores/businesses/copy centers to "could you just
make a few copies for me..."
About 7 years ago, a mall store was fined, and closed.
There has only been one other Known location to print copyrighted
material since then, and they were paid a visit to let them know about
the laws.
This post is for your benefit, and, I don't exactly know if the
original poster even implied to break the law. I hope they did not and
someone misunstood them.
T.R.
USA Administration
If I were a Professional Wedding Photographer,
I would be *wary* of you as a client and would
choose not to accept you.
There are many more brides getting married
then quality photographers available.
Karen Simmons
Linnea,
I hope you don't mind that I'm copying this to the newsgroups. I think
you've asked some very pertinent questions and I hope that my answers
can benefit everyone on the groups.
<snip info about getting copies of a 35 year old professional photo of
Linnea's parents and wondering about the copyright issue>
> What if the couple wants pictures more than a year after the wedding?
> How far back do you keep negatives and such?
> Do you offer to sell the negatives to people, 10 or 15 years after the
> wedding? That way reducing your overhead for storing all of those
> negatives properly?
Most photogs keep the negs for several years, but that can vary from
photographer to photographer and that's something a bride should ask
about when she meets with them. Some will give them immediately to the
client, some will keep them forever, some for 5 years, etc.
Speaking personally, I keep the negs for a year or two and then I offer
to sell them to the client. I will sell them to the client immediately
after the wedding, but at a much higher price than I would in a year.
It's a matter of my profit. After 4 or 5 years I will practically give
them to the couple. When I relocated to Atlanta I called all of my
Houston brides and gave them the option of purchasing them for $25.00 or
having me keep them. Some chose to purchase them and some didn't. I
haven't owned my own studio long enough to be in a position where I ran
out of storage room, but I suspect after 8 to 10 years, I will give the
negs to the clients or destroy them if they don't want them. But I will
give them every opportunity to get them first.
Keep in mind that if you (or anyone) wants reprints more than a year
after the wedding, the photogs prices may have gone up since the
original contract was signed. My price lists, for example go up each
year by anywhere from 3% to 15% because of prices changes in film, lab
costs, chemical costs, etc. Also, if you're asking for a reprint from a
4 or 5 year old wedding, you may be asked to pay a "retrieval fee" for
finding and getting the neg from storage.
> What is the studio's obligation? (If there had been an imprint on the
> photo, should they have insisted on a release?
If someone takes a professional image to be copied, the place they take
it to has a legal obilgation to make sure they have a copyright release,
even if the photograph is not stamped or marked in any way to indicate
it is a professional image. For example, I took some portraits of my
family for Christmas and wanted to send some copies home with my FBIL
and his wife who live in Australia. I had the film developed here and
then took the prints to a local camera shop that had a copy station.
Now the prints weren't marked with my copyright the way my usual lab
does, nor were they printed on professional paper. But the guy behind
the counter at the copy station noticed that the print wasn't a snapshot
and that there was some professional looking posing and lighting. He
informed me that he couldn't copy a pro image. I showed him my biz card
and my drivers license to prove that I took the image. He then had me
sign a release stating that I was the photographer and had legal right
to copy the image, which lessens their liability. In short, the place
making the copies is just as liable than the person who asks the copies
to be made. I believe that they are more liable, in fact, because the
general public isn't really aware of how copyright applies to pro
photographs and the copy places are; they are the ones who are
ultimately profitting off of the pros work, so many times they choose to
turn a blind eye instead of educating the customer.
Ok, back to your original question. As far as the 35 year old image:
geneally if you can prove that you made an attempt to find out who the
original photographer was or to contact him/her and couldn't, then
you're not liable.
I hope this answers some questions and helps some folks out there.
Karen
kr...@vilnya.demon.co.uk
In article <34a53cc3...@corp.supernews.com>, USA Administration wrote:
>
>If I were a Professional Wedding Photographer,
>I would be *wary* of you as a client and would
>choose not to accept you.
>There are many more brides getting married
>then quality photographers available.
Ok, this post completely confuses me. Are you trying to
imply that if someone is trying to cut costs they're not
worth your time as a quality photographer or something?
Or what?
I mean, I can understand couples wanting to send out
photos (particularly if it was going to be included
in announcements or something, so that people who weren't
able to attend at least got a chance to see *something*)
and if the couple is upfront about saying that they
intend to do that but are worried about the cost and
so are thinking about using colour photocopies, then
where's the problem? As long as the photographer is
willing to work with the couple's restrictions and
be honest about things, I don't see where there
would be anything wrong. (I appreciate Karen's point
about quality issues. I think a lot of people are
going to know that you're not going to get the same
quality with a photocopy or a tshirt as you would
with the original print, but if that is one of the
photographer's concerns, I feel they should say
that, then work with the couple to find a better
alternative. Wallet sized photos as part of the package,
perhaps. A photographer that just said "no" without
any reason or explination I wouldn't want to work
with because I think flexibility is *necessary* in
dealing with an event like a wedding.)
The only other explination i can think of for your
comment is that perhaps you feel that quality vendors
don't have to compromise? That doesn't make any
sense to me, either.
-Kris
(Awaiting explination.)
kr...@vilnya.demon.co.uk
In article <34A33575...@mindspring.com>, Karen Simmons wrote:
>kr...@vilnya.demon.co.uk wrote:
>>
>> One thing I did want to make sure is clear on this thread
>> is that there isn't anything wrong with wanting to use
>> colour photocopies rather than getting prints if you're
>> going to include the photo in an inviation or something
>> and need to save some money.
>> To be honest, I'd be wary of using a photographer
>> who wasn't willing to accomodate something like
>> that on a limited basis (say, one photo for
>> including with announcements or something) because
>> it's not something that's really likely to be
>> taking away from reprints on a large scale.
>
>
>copies or on t-shirts or mouse pads or whatever because of the extreme
>degradation of quality inherent to those mediums. A lot of
>photographers believe that for those kinds of applications, you're
>better off using a good snapshot from the family album than a pro image.
>I tend to agree with that point of view, although I have released images
>for t-shirts as I said earlier.
I said "wary" rather than "wouldn't consider" or something
along those lines because I would consider that to be
an indication that there *might* be an issue. If the
photographer in question says "I won't authorize photocopies
because of the degradation of quality, but I could do
wallet prints for you for about the same price..." or
the like, then they're coming from an understandable pov,
and are willing to work with the couple to resolve the
problem. So I shall reword slightly: "I would be wary of
a photographer that wasn't willing to work with you on
this issue. It seems like there are a number of alternatives
which are certainly worth considering."
In a case where photocopies were the most cost
effective option from the couple's pov, but the photographer
was worried about quality, would some sort of disclaimer
about the quality degradation due to photocopying be
enough? I know a lot of people are going to realize that
photocopying or putting on tshirts does nasty things to
photo quality, anyway. From the photographers pov, is
the concern mainly that someone will see the image and think
that the actual photograph looked like that? Or is it
something else?
-Kris
(Who has no personal interest in the entire thing,
and is just trying to figure out what the situation actually
is.)
USA Administration
Kris,
You are an artist, a painter of beautiful pictures. You have
gone to school many years, much training, and now have
many years of experience painting wonderful images on canvass.
You have thousands of dollars invested and painting is how
you make a living, how you pay the rent and put food on the table.
You have painted a beautiful clean, crisp, clear picture of "Lady Di".
You sell a print of "Lady Di" to a client for $50. But, your client
then takes "Lady Di" to a store and make 100 photo-copies (not as
clear, and with your name in the corner) and sells them at the market
for $30 each.
...So, how do you feel about that...
T.R.
USA Administration
kr...@vilnya.demon.co.uk
In article <34a757a9...@corp.supernews.com>, USA Administration wrote:
>
>Kris,
>You are an artist, a painter of beautiful pictures. You have
<snip> (Yes, yes, I understand that entire concept)
>...So, how do you feel about that...
I think, perhaps, that people should go back and reread
what I said. I understand the legal issue of copyright,
and why photographers feel so strongly about this. (I
even amended my post in a follow up to one of Karen's
follow-ups to my post, to clarify what I meant.)
I posted what I did because I suspect that there may be
a lot of brides reading this thread who are feeling as
if they're being attacked, or feeling defensive, because
they were considering the photocopying option, and I
figured it might be more to the point of this newsgroup
to stop arguing with the person(s) who posted about
photocopying initally, at least one of whom doesn't
seem to be getting the point anyway, and deal with what
can be done if someone is considering photocopying to
*be* an issue.
Wanting to photocopy a photograph is *not* wrong, legally.
Wanting to do so without the express permission of the
copyright holder *for* that image generally *is*. (I'd
guess there are exceptions depending on intended use,
but I don't think any of those exceptions deal with what
we're talking about here.) I think it very important
that everyone make the distinction between those two
acts.
The key to getting something like this worked out is
open communication between the bridal couple and the
photographers they're looking at. Unfortunately, there
are always going to be vendors out there not interested
in that open communication, and open communication *here*
can help weed them out. That's why I feel it is very
important for this thread to continue, just in a more,
er, constructive fashion.
-Kris
(Who quite likes the idea of sending something
like a photo of the couple out after the wedding, to people
who couldn't come or who couldn't be invited due to space/
budget considerations. It seems like it would make the
recipent feel a little more included.)
USA Administration
> Wanting to photocopy a photograph is *not* wrong, legally.
....wanting to break the law is *not* wrong, legally,
yeah, sure, okay.
> -Kris
> (Who quite likes the idea of sending something
> like a photo of the couple out after the wedding, to people
> who couldn't come or who couldn't be invited due to space/
> budget considerations. It seems like it would make the
> recipent feel a little more included.)
>
....fine, then order the photos from the photographer like everyone
else. It is quite common for the newly-wed couple to include a
2x3 " photo in the thankyou notes that are sent to guests, and/or
friends/relatives that could not attend. If you don't want to use
the real, professional photographer pictures, and pay for them,
then have a friend/relative give you the pix/negative of a photo They
took and make all the cheap prints you want.
kr...@vilnya.demon.co.uk
In article <34ac1e43...@news.dimensional.com>,
Hal and Terees Landry wrote:
>On 26 Dec 97 18:30:19 GMT, kr...@vilnya.demon.co.uk () wrote:
>
>> The only other explination i can think of for your
>> comment is that perhaps you feel that quality vendors
>> don't have to compromise? That doesn't make any
>> sense to me, either.
>
>prices for our services. We charge everyone 'x' for 'y' service so
>there is no compromise needed. If a potential client does not like
>our prices then he/she is free to go elsewhere.
>
Yes, but within your personal "limits" (what you feel
comfortable doing/what you are able to do/etc.) there
should be *some* room for compromise in terms of
what individuals get, imo. Particularly where you're
dealing with something like a wedding, which is likely
to be quite personal and require unique coverage. That
may mean negotiating prices for services, or adjusting
what's included in a package, or whatever. Heck,
even if you aren't actually willing to do much
negotiating, implying that if the couple wants a
quality photographer they should just shut up and take
what they can get is a bit... iffy. At least, *I* would
not feel comfortable working with someone who presented
me with that attitude. There may very well be brides
who feel comfortable with that sort of treatment.
It does strike me, however, that that attitude is a bit
confusing in a newsgroup of this nature, simply because
it seems to me to imply that the couple doesn't need
to know anything about photography, etc. because they
hire the photographer to provide a service, choose a
package, and that's that, whereas I see this newsgroup
more as a place to discuss issues and understand the pov
of both the couples and the vendors (for whatever
service) so that everyone can work and deal with
eachother more effectively.
-Kris
(Who clarified the issue of choosing a photographer
that this post is a result of in another post.)
Karen Simmons
> perhaps. A photographer that just said "no" without
> any reason or explination I wouldn't want to work
> with because I think flexibility is *necessary* in
> dealing with an event like a wedding.)
>
> comment is that perhaps you feel that quality vendors
> don't have to compromise? That doesn't make any
> sense to me, either.
Kris
To be perfectly honest -- I think a lot of the reason that photographers
are not willing to compromise is that when we do, we are unfairly taken
advantage of. Not to say that the readers of this group would do such a
thing: I think the readers of this newsgroup (in most cases) are not
"usual" brides. They are more educated and a little more
non-traditional in their choices - IMHO. But...
I have been a wedding photographer since 1991. I've both worked for
other studios and owned my own. In that length of time, I've noticed
that *in general* the people who try to bargain you down on price or
whatever are the ones that will cause you the most trouble in the end.
I've never, ever had a problem with someone who has paid full price for
my packages. They like the work, they like their album, and they wind
up referring people to me. Whenever I lower my price for someone,
however, I've had problems up and down the spectrum. Mostly it's been a
case of them thinking that if they could get me to lower the price once,
they can do it again -- some even going so far as to think that if they
complain loudly enough they can get the photographs and get their money
back as well.
On top of that, many couples have very little respect for the skill and
training of professional photogs (see Natalies comment about the
education level of photographers). A lot of people think that all it
takes to be a good photog is an expensive camera and the right film.
They totally negate the years of training, practice, education, etc.,
that go into becoming a GOOD photographers. I know that a lot of my
collegues spend considerable time devising a price schedule that is fair
and reasonable and still earns them enough profit to live and compensate
them for that training, etc. When a bride tries to barter that price
down, she is in effect telling the photographer that she doesn't
consider his work worth the asking price. This immediately sets up a
warning beacon in the photographers head that she doesn't value what
she's buying and will more than likely be unhappy in some way with the
work.
I don't know that I'm explaining this as well as I could be -- it's late
and we've had a long weekend. But basically that's my take on the
subject. I hope my ramblings have made some sense.
Karen Simmons
USA Administration wrote:
>
> > Wanting to photocopy a photograph is *not* wrong, legally.
> ....wanting to break the law is *not* wrong, legally,
> yeah, sure, okay.
Actually, Kris never said it was "right" to break the law. In fact, she
specifically said that copying a photograph without the express
permission... yada, yada... is wrong. If you quote the whole sentence,
what she actually says is:
"Wanting to photocopy a photograph is *not* wrong, legally.
Wanting to do so without the express permission of the
copyright holder *for* that image generally *is*."
Why the hostility and beligerence here? Kris is supporting the
professional point of view and you are attacking her. Go back and
reread her post. After that I think (as one professional to another)
you owe her an apology for such a nasty response.
jlwhite
Captain's Log StarDate Sat, 27 Dec 1997 04:55:20 GMT. Received a
subspace message from in...@usaweddings.com (USA Administration). It
contained the following:
>
>> Wanting to photocopy a photograph is *not* wrong, legally.
>....wanting to break the law is *not* wrong, legally,
>yeah, sure, okay.
As long as you don't do it (i.e. "wanting to" not "am doing") there is
nothing legally wrong. So long as no offense has been committed,
there is nothing illegal.
Before you attack someone kindly think it through carefully. Have you
ever thought of doing something that wasn't legal (even if you didn't
know it wasn't legal at the time) then though wiser of it and never
did it? (Be honest now and think back to when you were young...you
never though about speeding and though wiser, etc...) What was just
said maintains that this should be just as punishable as actually
doing the act. [Note: we are not talking about any planning/plotting
having been done as that is quite another story, just having thought
about doing it for a moment.] If memory serves, that's what George
Orwell's _1984_ was about..."Thought Police" indeed.
Unfortunatly this thread is beginning to degenerate into a flame war.
Further, the issue that was raised of copyright has become muddied by
much of the ensuing discussion.
later...peace....Jud
...who makes no claim to answer "no" to my own question above.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Judson L. White Library Systems Specialist
Weinberg Memorial Library University of Scranton
jlw...@nouse.ptdprolog.net whi...@nouse.uofs.edu
Remove "nouse" from reply-to address to reply.
-
This statement does not constitute a statement by the University of
Scranton nor any of it's affiliates, official or otherwise.
NO CARRIER
USA Administration
....just a matter of semantics, wording, and her specific
technical choice of words..
kr...@vilnya.demon.co.uk
In article <34a48814...@corp.supernews.com>, USA Administration wrote:
>
>> Wanting to photocopy a photograph is *not* wrong, legally.
>....wanting to break the law is *not* wrong, legally,
>yeah, sure, okay.
You missed the *entire* point of the post. Again. Pay
attention: I have never photocopied a photo which wasn't
taken by myself or someone in my family (holiday snaps,
that sort of thing), and i have no intention of doing
so without obtaining the photographer's permission. Nor
am I encouraging other people to do so.
What I am saying is simply that there is nothing inherently
wrong in making or wanting to make a photocopy of an
image. It only becomes wrong when you do so or intend
to do so without obtaining
permission from whomever owns the copyright on the image.
There is a *major* difference between the two.
>> (Who quite likes the idea of sending something
>> like a photo of the couple out after the wedding, to people
>> who couldn't come or who couldn't be invited due to space/
>> budget considerations. It seems like it would make the
>> recipent feel a little more included.)
>>
>....fine, then order the photos from the photographer like everyone
>else. It is quite common for the newly-wed couple to include a
For your information, I think that making a photocopy,
even a colour photocopy, of a photograph just looks
bad. As Karen said, you lose a lot of image quality, and
that quality is one of the reasons *why* I would be
hiring a professional photographer rather than relying
on a friend or family member. When I get married, if the
budget allows, I fully intend to order copies from my
photographer to distribute to friends and family memebers.
If I can't afford proper prints, I wouldn't use photocopies
because, as I said, I think it's pointless to hire a
photographer and then leech all of the colour and
sparkle out of the photo with a copy machine.
However, there are people who don't feel the same
way about the image quality, and with some photos, like
a full-party photo, a wallet-sized print might be a
bit small. In such a situation, colour photocopying
might be the solution that suits the budget the
bridal couple have to work with, and my posts have
all been in interests of educating people about how
to go about doing the entire thing properly so
that they *aren't* doing anything illegal.
-Kris
(Who is getting rather fed up with people
acting as if she's saying that it's perfectly okay
to photocopy things willy-nilly, since she has *never*
said that in any post.)
kr...@vilnya.demon.co.uk
In article <34a4dd3b...@news.dimensional.com>,
Hal and Terees Landry wrote:
>
>> Yes, but within your personal "limits" (what you feel
>> comfortable doing/what you are able to do/etc.) there
>> should be *some* room for compromise in terms of
>> what individuals get, imo. Particularly where you're
>> dealing with something like a wedding, which is likely
>> to be quite personal and require unique coverage. That
>
>separate from pricing.
Makes perfect sense.
>
>> may mean negotiating prices for services, or adjusting
>> what's included in a package, or whatever. Heck,
>> even if you aren't actually willing to do much
>
>We are certainly willing to negotiate services...but the fees for
>those services are *not* negotiable.
Again, that makes sense, and I never meant to imply
that prices should be negotiable.
-Kris
(One last time: I didn't mean for *any* of my
comments to be taken as an attack on professional
photographers. I posted because the thread looked like
it was becoming almost an attack on brides, which isn't
any more helpful than a thread purely attacking
photographers. I meant to encourage people to talk about
what the real issues are, but unfortunately this thread
seems determined to turn into a flamefest.)
kr...@vilnya.demon.co.uk
In article <34A4A06A...@mindspring.com>, Karen Simmons wrote:
>> perhaps. A photographer that just said "no" without
>> any reason or explination I wouldn't want to work
>> with because I think flexibility is *necessary* in
>> dealing with an event like a wedding.)
>>
>> The only other explination i can think of for your
>> comment is that perhaps you feel that quality vendors
>> don't have to compromise? That doesn't make any
>> sense to me, either.
>
>
>Kris
>
>To be perfectly honest -- I think a lot of the reason that photographers
>are not willing to compromise is that when we do, we are unfairly taken
>advantage of. Not to say that the readers of this group would do such a
>thing: I think the readers of this newsgroup (in most cases) are not
>"usual" brides. They are more educated and a little more
>non-traditional in their choices - IMHO. But...
It's another case of what is probably a reasonably small
percentage of people doing things which end up punishing
the whole group. (Like shoplifters and people who pirate
CDs/software/etc.)
It's a pity that things like that happen so often. I think
part of the problem is that in our society, people as a
whole don't seem to appreciate quality as much anymore,
and thus don't see any reason to pay for it. (Another
example of this is the number of independant fabric
and book stores that have been being forced to close
down because of the spread of superstore type places which,
because of their size, are able to offer discounted
prices on some things which the independant stores can't
afford to match.)
-Kris
(Who used to frequent her independant fabric store
back in Pittsburgh whenever she could afford to do so.)
TWEETY3258
Give this poor girl a break...her wedding cost a fortune as it was. This is
getting ridicules.
John or Jenn
In article <19971228055...@ladder02.news.aol.com> AuroraeB,
auro...@aol.com writes:
>I won't work with a so-called professional who cannot afford, or otherwise come
>up with their own advertising materials. Pay for a model like all other
>"professionals".
So then, when you come to interview a prospective photographer, youąre
shown a Śportfolioą of Śwedding photosą that are actually staged, and
feature a bunch of paid models working on assignment...would you really
feel you were getting any real insight into whether or not this
photographer
was able to perform under the very stressful and non-controllable
conditions of a real wedding?
not available
>So then, when you come to interview a prospective photographer, youąre
>shown a Śportfolioą of Śwedding photosą that are actually staged, and
>feature a bunch of paid models working on assignment...would you really
>feel you were getting any real insight into whether or not this
>photographer
>was able to perform under the very stressful and non-controllable
>conditions of a real wedding?
.....ditto !
Karen Simmons
AuroraeB wrote:
>
> Hey lady,
>
> If you are such a "skilled" "talented" "Professional" photographer,
> then why
> do you troll an internet newsgroup for bussiness?
Tracy, Tracy, Tracy!!!
I don't troll the newsgroups, dear. Have you ever seen me place an ad?
I post here because I enjoy the 'net (I'm a closet computer geek) and I
enjoy helping people. I orignally found these groups as a bride to be
looking for other brides-to-be to talk to. I found, after a month of
lurking, that there was a need for a photographer to answer some
questions without having a financial stake in the outcome. I generally
try to post answers to questions people have about photography because
I'm qualified to provide some of those answers, being a professional
photog. Do you honestly think I look for business from these groups?
Or maybe you just can't comprehend the idea that someone wants to be
helpful for the sake of being helpful.
I have even been able to post on other, non-photography related topics
as they come up because I have an opinion or perspective.
Are we feeling a little defensive and threatened??
Regards,
Karen
(marrying Kevin 10/3/98 (and no more date changes!) in Baton Rouge, LA)
not.ava...@ppp.com
John or Jenn <las...@worldnet.att.net.removethis> wrote:
>In article <19971228055...@ladder02.news.aol.com> AuroraeB,
>auro...@aol.com writes:
>>I won't work with a so-called professional who cannot afford, or otherwise come
>>up with their own advertising materials. Pay for a model like all other
>>"professionals".
OK - Don't get mad or dissapointed when your photos don't look near as nice as those
photos taken in a studio environment where the photographer can control all the light
the posing redo things that don't work, can fix the makeup, not mention the highpriced modles
that do "professional posing" for a living.
-------------------------------------------
This message has been posted from News2Web
Your free, web based, news reading service
Visit us at http://www.news2web.com
(c) 1997 SoftCom Technology Consulting Inc.
-------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
This message has been posted from News2Web
Your free, web based, news reading service
Visit us at http://www.news2web.com
(c) 1997 SoftCom Technology Consulting Inc.
-------------------------------------------
Karen Simmons
cherise wrote:
>
> I just ordered -just received the finished product -
> a "personalized calendar" made up of pictures I sent in.
> 3 of the 20 or so pictures I used were studio made - from
> the mall type places. So, my question is 1) is this then
> illegal?
Yes. It is illegal. The truth of the matter is that the chances of
someone enforcing it is slim to none. But it is reproduction of a
copyrighted work without permission.
> 2) if so, for whom - I make no money from it, but I'm sure the
> company does.
For both of you. It's not a money issue: it's an intellectual property
issue. The images (not the paper or film they are on) are the
intellectual property of the creator. By copying them without his/her
permission, you have stolen this property. The way the courts have
chosen to enforce it (when it's enforced) is by putting $$ figures on
the value of the property, but $$ is not the key issue.
> it's technically illegal, wouldn't the company who copied them be
> responsible?
Yes. They should have returned the prints to you and told you that they
were pro images and could not be copied without a release. Again, many
places won't because they don't want to lose the $$ and they figure no
one will ever know. But that doesn't make it any less your responsiblity
either -- it's that old "ignorance of the law is no defense" saw.
> Only one copy was made, and in a practical sense, there
> was no way to go back to each studio and get originals made for this
> calendar, and if I did, they'd still have to be copied to make the
> actual calendar
Understandable. This is where a limited release of copyright comes in.
Of course another 8x10 isn't going to do you any good when the images
need to be scanned for the calendar. The studio should be willing to
fax or mail or give you a document that allows you to use the images for
production of your calendar (called a limited release or a one-time
release -- I posted an example of one earlier in this thread). This
means they know you aren't making dozens of copies to give away.
> How long does a the copyright hold for?
I believe that copyright holds for a period of 50 years after the death
of the creator unless copyright is transferrred to his/her heirs or
estate. I'm not completely sure on the times, but you can check out the
letter of the law at http://fairuse.stanford.edu/ or
http://www.aimnet.com/~carroll/copyright/faq-home.html
> I ask this is because a few years ago my mom had copies made of a
> pciture taken of my brothers in 1959. She had a few other pictures
> copied from that era. Is that illegal then or does is there some
> statute for copyrights.
This happens a lot and as far as I know, if you've made a reasonable
effort to locate the original photographer and can't, then there's
really no way for you to be "caught". Also, until recently, copyright
as regards professional photography wasn't as big of an issue as it is
becoming today with the advent of scanners, color copiers, photo quality
printers, etc., so a lot of the photogs from the 50s, 40s, 30s, etc.,
didn't care about enforcing copyright because there was no way for their
clients to make copies without coming back to them. As a result, when
they died or went out of business or sold their businesses, they made no
recourse for former clients to find or purchase their negs and
copyright.
I suspect that in the not to distant future, photographers are going to
take more and different steps to ensure they don't lose income from
copyright violations. I know several photogs now who charge $3000 or
more upfront for wedding coverage and then give the negs and a copyright
release to the client. This way they don't lose any income and they
don't have to worry about policing their clients.
As one photographer I know said recently: "The days of $1500 wedding
coverage are coming to an end".
Regards,
Karen
John or Jenn
In article <34A92684...@mindspring.com> Karen Simmons,
klsi...@mindspring.com writes:
>Yes. They should have returned the prints to you and told you that they
>were pro images and could not be copied without a release. Again, many
Kinkoąs used to do this with their calendars...
>Understandable. This is where a limited release of copyright comes
You can buy (for about $.10) this form at Kinkoąs, then ask your
photographer to grant you the right. Most of them will be so tickled
that youąre doing it properly that theyąd be happy to sign it
(for the purposes of a calendar, etc. yeah, I know Iąm speaking for
more than just us, but we always are happy to do this for our good
clients, and Iąm assuming others would be as well...)
John
John or Jenn
One more thing...the better paper used in pro portraits tends to
have more texture, and as a result can actually look worse when
copied/scanned...I箆e had the best luck doing calendars when using
glossy paper. We箆e done a calendar featuring our kid(s) every
year since � and the poorest scan came from the nicest print.
YMMV
John
in...@usaweddings.com
Happy to say that about 3 years ago, I took one of my own pictures to
Kinkos' (an obvious Pro shot) and the kid at the counter very politely
said they could not re-produce the image. After a convincing
conversation proving I really was the maker of the photo, I was
somewhat assisted, but still with some reservation.
Thanks to Kinko's for their concern.
T.R. (the individual)
Tracyarts
Karen,
I have never seen you post a blatant ad, but I have seen you answer a question
and include all the pertinent information plugging your personal business. is
this what people here are referring to as a "hidden" ad?
<Karen Simmons Photography
Atlanta, Georgia
http://www.ks-photography.com
------------------------------
>
This line appears in many of your posts. If you were not posting here for
commercial purposes, then why include the name of your business, the location
of your business, and the website of your business?. You may be making what
you thing are legitimate posts, but then, why include an ad at the bottom of
the page? If you are just like any other bride online, sign with your name and
wedding date....... Or if you are really not interested in financial gain, as
you said in this post, then no need to sign your name at all, be an anonymous
helper so to speak.
What are you here for Karen? To be a bride, and to answer helpful questions?
Or to plug your photography business? If you are here to be a bride, then drop
the ad at the bottom of your posts, if you are here for business, follow the
FAQ guidelines.
Sign me as:
Disgusted with vendorspam in disguise
John or Jenn
In article <19971230202...@ladder01.news.aol.com> Tracyarts,
trac...@aol.com writes:
>This line appears in many of your posts. If you were not posting here for
>commercial purposes, then why include the name of your business, the location
>of your business, and the website of your business?. You may be making what
>you thing are legitimate posts, but then, why include an ad at the bottom of
>the page? If you are just like any other bride online, sign with your name and
Dear Disgusted with vendorspam in disguise,
This is called a signature, or a .sig, in newsgroup land...
As to why Ms. Simmons might put this after her posts...
Suppose she were to post an answer to a photo-related post in an
authoritative and informative fashion...then we get a bunch of noise
posts along the lines of łwhat makes you think you know so much about
wedding photography?˛ and other such nonsense. By providing this
.sig, we are able to ascertain that Ms. Simmons is a professional
photographer, and, if we wish to dispute her
knowledge/abilities/credibility
then we can first go to her website and check her work out before making
a complete ass out of ourselves by saying she doesnšt know what shešs
talking
about, blah blah blah...
So, what triggered all the vendor-hate? Geez, go away for a coupla
months and come back to a flame fest...
John
Lasting Impressions Photography
No website, but feel free to e-mail to find out more about my
łvendorspam in disguise˛ special offer to brides! ;-)
Karen Simmons
Tracyarts wrote:
> I have never seen you post a blatant ad, but I have seen you
> answer a question and include all the pertinent information
> plugging your personal business. is this what people here are
> referring to as a "hidden" ad?
<snip my .sig file>
> This line appears in many of your posts. If you were not
> posting here for commercial purposes, then why include the
> name of your business, the location of your business, and
> the website of your business?.
Get a clue, Tracy. This is called a .sig file. Many, many, many people
post all over the net and include .sig files. Mine conforms to the
accepted etiquette of the net by being 4 lines x 80 columns. Content is
irrelevant.
What people are referring to as a "hidden ad" is where a vendor posts an
anonymous post saying "When I got married I decided not to have video
and now I really regret it. I saw a demonstration by XYZ video and I
realized what I missed out on by not hiring a pro." This is a "hidden
ad" in that the vendor is pretending to be a bride or groom to lure
folks to their web site.
As the owner of my own business anything I ever say reflects on me
professionally as well as personally, which is why I try very hard not
to be involved in flame wars. Hence the .sig. It is included on all of
my posts automatically -- personal and professional. It even goes out
on my e-mail.
> If you are just like any other bride online, sign with your
> name and wedding date.......
There are plenty of brides here who don't sign their name and date.
Several of them are associated with Universities and have info on their
schools in their .sig files. And I'm not "just like any other bride
online" (with all due modesty) I'm a bride who's also a vendor which
happens to give me a different perspective that I can use to help people
with.
> Or if you are really not interested in financial gain,
Ah, but I never said I wasn't interested in financial gain -- just not
in soliciting business from this group. I'd venture a guess that
probably 97% of this group lives more than 150 miles from where I'm
located. If I really wanted to spend time and money advertising my
wares, don't you think I'd choose a method that would attract more
people who stand a chance in Hades of actually being able to meet me and
hire me?
> What are you here for Karen? To be a bride, and to answer helpful
> questions? \ Or to plug your photography business? If you are
> here to be a bride, then drop the ad at the bottom of your posts,
> if you are here for business, follow the FAQ guidelines.
Again, Tracy, what's at the bottom of my posts isn't an ad, it's a .sig
file and perfectly acceptable within the FAQ guidelines. And what do
you care why I'm here as long as I do follow the FAQ guidelines and
don't post blatant ads?
I have to ask: why are you singling me out? There are several vendors
that post on this board and include a simple .sig file with more info
about their businesses. Do you have a personal vendetta against me?
Have I ever met you? Have I ever done anything to harm you? You just
all of a sudden decided to take a dislike to me as near as I can tell.
What's up here?
And while I'm on the subject, why did you post this message under
TracyArts and not your usual Auro...@aol.com address? Are you trying
to give this group the impression that there are 2 people who object to
my posting?
Really, Tracy, this is getting silly. Why the personal attacks? What
have I done to merit your wrath? And why are you cluttering up the
newsgroup trying (unsuccessfully, I might add) to discredit me? What's
your motive here?
Karen
marrying Kevin on 10/3/98 (are you happy, Tracy???)
------------------------------
Kate the Short
On 30 Dec 1997 20:23:56 GMT, trac...@aol.com (Tracyarts) wrote:
>Karen,
>
>I have never seen you post a blatant ad, but I have seen you answer a question
>and include all the pertinent information plugging your personal business. is
>this what people here are referring to as a "hidden" ad?
>
><Karen Simmons Photography
>Atlanta, Georgia
>http://www.ks-photography.com
>------------------------------
>>
>
>This line appears in many of your posts. If you were not posting here for
>commercial purposes, then why include the name of your business, the location
>of your business, and the website of your business?. You may be making what
>you thing are legitimate posts, but then, why include an ad at the bottom of
>the page? If you are just like any other bride online, sign with your name and
>wedding date....... Or if you are really not interested in financial gain, as
>you said in this post, then no need to sign your name at all, be an anonymous
>helper so to speak.
It's called a .sig file, you idiot. How long have you been on USENET?
ANYONE can post whatever they want in their .sig, as long as it's four
lines. I post the fact that I'm an English teacher. Get over it.
>What are you here for Karen? To be a bride, and to answer helpful questions?
>Or to plug your photography business? If you are here to be a bride, then drop
>the ad at the bottom of your posts, if you are here for business, follow the
>FAQ guidelines.
The FAQ guidelines of alt.wedding (at least) allow anyone to post
whatever they want in their 4-line .sigfile. Can't remember what the
SCW rules are. But I've gone to many photog's pages and seen their
advice on how to choose a photographer, or on the differences between
formats, and it's very educational.
kate.
who doesn't usually post her groom's name or their wedding date. Deal.
| Kate the Short - ka...@enteract.com - http://www.enteract.com/~katew/ |
| X-Men Comics, FAQs and files - http://www.enteract.com/~katew/faq.htm |
| Usenet Volunteer Votetaker - http://www.enteract.com/~vote/index.html |
| Patron Saint of .xbooks - Really Short Person - Be an English Teacher |
Janet Rolsma
On 30 Dec 1997, Tracyarts wrote:
> Karen,
>
> I have never seen you post a blatant ad, but I have seen you answer a question
> and include all the pertinent information plugging your personal business. is
> this what people here are referring to as a "hidden" ad?
>
> <Karen Simmons Photography
> Atlanta, Georgia
> http://www.ks-photography.com
> ------------------------------
You're sounding a little bitter today. For your information, the "hidden
ads" people are talking about are posts that are written as if a bride
was suggesting a product she had used which are actually written by the
vendor using a fake header. Sometimes, the headers are easy to spot,
other times they aren't.
>
> Sign me as:
> Disgusted with vendorspam in disguise
>
Sign me as Janet. Disgusted with people who take any excuse to jump on a
vendor.
--
Why?
jlwhite
Captain's Log StarDate Tue, 30 Dec 1997 11:51:16 -0500. Received a
subspace message from Karen Simmons <klsi...@mindspring.com>. It
contained the following:
>I suspect that in the not to distant future, photographers are going to
>take more and different steps to ensure they don't lose income from
>copyright violations. I know several photogs now who charge $3000 or
>more upfront for wedding coverage and then give the negs and a copyright
>release to the client. This way they don't lose any income and they
>don't have to worry about policing their clients.
>
>As one photographer I know said recently: "The days of $1500 wedding
>coverage are coming to an end".
Yee-ouch! Geez, I'm begining to wonder if I'll be able to get my
wedding photographed even (I've already decided I dont' want video,
and anyhow won't be able to aford it.) If luck is with me, I'll be
able to scrap together $5k or so for the entire wedding.
I'm just curious...what does that $1500 (I'm assuming that's an
average figure) include generally? I got my senior HS photos done
only 4 years ago for less than $80, and it included 2 8x10's, 4 5x7's,
and around 20 wallets each of two different poses/settings. I don't
remember the exact number of wallets, so it could have been *slightly*
different, but it was a small amount. If the average package being
quoted includes a lot (I know, subjective term), I can see it, but if
that's the fee just to do the job and all prints are extra...seems
steep to me. Qualifing statement: I live in an "economically
depressed" area where average wage is $18k/year and unemployment is
high (it was big news when it hit 7.3%, lowest for years), so this may
be a matter of relativity.
Somehow, if it weren't for more than just a few factors, eloping would
sound *reall* good 'bout now.
later...peace...Jud
...Money isn't an importiant thing to me, but...basically it would be
"get the wedding photographed, or have auto insurance..." at that kind
of price.
Karen Simmons
jlwhite wrote:
> >As one photographer I know said recently: "The days of $1500 wedding
> >coverage are coming to an end".
>
> Yee-ouch! Geez, I'm begining to wonder if I'll be able to get my
> wedding photographed even (I've already decided I dont' want video,
> and anyhow won't be able to aford it.) If luck is with me, I'll be
> able to scrap together $5k or so for the entire wedding.
Jud,
You really can't compare senior portraits to weddings -- it's like
comparing apples to oranges. Seniors are generally in the studio or in
one location; here is only one subject to deal with; the photographer is
generally in control of the variables; and, most importantly, if there
is a film, equipment, or other problem, the session can be reshot with
little or no pain. With weddings there may be shoots in multiple
locations; many subjects, not all of whom want their photo taken;
little to no photographer control of variables (can't very well
reschedule the wedding because there's no good sunlight for pics!); and
if there's a problem -- THERE'S NO RESHOOT!
There are a lot of factors that go into wedding pricing, part of the
country being one of them. Location of course: where the cost of
living is lower, the photographer has to charge less to stay in
business. By the same token, his clients can only afford to pay less,
so pricing himself out of their range would be foolish. Style is a
factor: a photojournalistic shooter will shoot more film, hence a
higher cost. A traditionalist will probably shoot much less film
because he can set up the shot and know it's right -- hence a lower
cost. Name is a factor: of course a name photographer that books 52
weeks a year on his/her reputation for quality can probably afford to
charge more and probably will. The list goes on and on.
To answer your original question: in my part of the country (Atlanta,
GA), for an experienced photojournalistic style shooter, $1500 will get
you 4 hours coverage and a basic album (20 pages or less).
Regards,
Karen
--
------------------------------
cjr
Karen Simmons wrote:
With weddings there may be shoots in multiple
> locations; many subjects, not all of whom want their photo taken;
> little to no photographer control of variables (can't very well
> reschedule the wedding because there's no good sunlight for pics!); and
> if there's a problem -- THERE'S NO RESHOOT!
er, um, unless you're "Blssfl bride"in Chicago...apparently some *do*
reshoot (though I'm sure she would've chosen not to).
cjr
CJK wrote:
>
> Keren Simmons has never violated any rule of the FAQ to the best of my
> knowledge.
Of course.
This attack is totally out of line and is just more evidence
> that *no* wedding professionals will ever be welcome on ths group.
>
> Chet Kresiak
>
I decided I had more to say afterall, big surprise :)
Chet, sweetie, I'll let you in on a little secret, not only do vendors
get bashed, sometimes moms do, dads do, sometimes FILs, sisters,
brothers, bridesmaids, groomsmen, and any one else involved in a
wedding. Sometimes it's justified, often it's not (including my own
family-bashing, they'd claim it wasn't justified, no matter how much I
thought it was). Very ocassionally, brides get bashed (we outnumber the
rest of you though). So, does that mean that none of these people are
welcomed here? On the contrary, far better to have them set us straight.
I'll let you in on another secret, I frequent only one other newsgroup,
rec.backcountry. There are frequent flame fests - suppliers of outdoor
equipment get bashed (although Campmor almost always gets praise), the
government with its fees and rules gets bashed, gun-lobbyists get
bashed, environmentalists get bashed.....and so on. Get the idea?
Sure, it'd be a much nicer world if no one ever complained about anyone
else. But then, it'd be even nicer if no one gave any one else cause to
complain. I personally am grateful to this newsgroup that I can let off
steam about a particular wedding -related individual - be it a bridal
shop that insisted I buy a dress 2 sizes to big and charge a fortune to
alter, or be it my sister who's driving me up the wall. I'd hope in the
more personal case people who knew that person would take it for what it
was - a vent, and in the professional case, people considering using
their service would look into it themselves.
Now, having said ALL that, please let it be known that this *particular*
vendor-bash to which you refer was by ONE individual here, and she
should know better by now that at least the majority of the ng disagrees
(with the bride), and that it was uncalled for. Now, what's really
silly, is the suggestion that one person's stupid comment reflects on an
entire group of people whose disagreement has been made known.
Don't try to tag onto Karen's coattails, Chet. Any comments made to you
are usually in direct response to your statements, (and I speak only for
myself here), not against vendors in general. Admittedly, months ago I
would have easily believed most wedding vendors were jerks, given the
comments of many here. Fortunately, many vendors with decency have since
spoken up, and I've come to realize that, like every profession, there
are good ones and bad ones. Vendors ARE welcomed here by the majority,
as evidenced by the many pros that post here regularly and don't cry
"you hate us!' every time someone lashes out. Instead, they defend their
position, argue their point, not go screaming to "mommy - they're being
mean!" As a vendor, you should always defend your trade, you have that
right and responsibility. As a vendor, you also have a responsibility
not to discredit your industry, which you do every time you cry victim.
(How many times has someone had to write "STOP! Enough Already!" in
repsonse to one of your wars?) If you want to be treated with respect
and maintain some credibility, for pete's sake mad, give us a reason to!
cherise
feel free to email me if you want to yell. I don't want to respond to
this thread any more, for the sake of every one else.
ps - here's hoping your New year is happier than the last :)
Rick Martin
> Karen Simmons wrote:
> With weddings there may be shoots in multiple
> > locations; many subjects, not all of whom want their photo taken;
> > little to no photographer control of variables (can't very well
> > reschedule the wedding because there's no good sunlight for pics!); and
> > if there's a problem -- THERE'S NO RESHOOT!
Karen, recently we reshot a bridal session due to inclement weather. She
wanted some outdoor stuff in Downtown DC. She dressed up again along
with her new husband & we had a grand time in DC. I did not get a good
flatbed scan on this image though. I had to electronically bring up the
BG a bit. Tricky lighting.
http://www.rickmartin.com/bianco/bianco1.jpg
--
Rick Martin,Photographer
Lt Governor, Northern District
Virginia Professional Photographers Assoc
http://www.rickmartin.com Manassas,Va
Karen Simmons
Rick Martin wrote:
>
> > and if there's a problem -- THERE'S NO RESHOOT!
>
> Karen, recently we reshot a bridal session due to inclement weather.
> She
> wanted some outdoor stuff in Downtown DC. She dressed up again along
> with her new husband & we had a grand time in DC. I did not get a good
> flatbed scan on this image though. I had to electronically bring up
> the BG a bit. Tricky lighting.
Ok, between you and Blsfl Bride, I stand corrected! Well, sit
corrected, anyway! <g>
I should say that in most situations in weddings there are no reshoots:
some moments just don't lend themselves to second chances!
There -- did I say it better this time? <BG>
jlwhite
Captain's Log StarDate Tue, 30 Dec 1997 15:14:16 -0700 (MST).
Received a subspace message from Janet Rolsma
<berg...@arriba.nm.org>. It contained the following:
>On 30 Dec 1997, Tracyarts wrote:
>> I have never seen you post a blatant ad, but I have seen you answer a question
>> and include all the pertinent information plugging your personal business. is
>> this what people here are referring to as a "hidden" ad?
<snip>
>You're sounding a little bitter today. For your information, the "hidden
>ads" people are talking about are posts that are written as if a bride
>was suggesting a product she had used which are actually written by the
>vendor using a fake header.
See the message subject: We said no to vidoe...but then... author:
cha...@aol.com (note: I know it's not the real author because of the
faked header, but newsreaders will list that.) Do a search in
DejaNews if your news server doesn't hold more than a month of posts
(most don't) and you'll see the *exact* same message was posted near
the end of November.
In defense of Karen, she is a well respected member of this group.
Rarely does she act unprofessional (we all have our bad days, but she
doesn't let it show.) Even though I've not agreed with what she
posted on occasion, IMHO she did not deserve such an attack. I'm very
willing to respect a difference of opinion/belief. A "different point
of view" is what this group is all about.
>--
>Why?
Because.
Couldn't resist...laters...Jud
Judson L. White
jlwhite _at_ ptdprolog.nouse.net
no nouse to reply.
jlwhite
Captain's Log StarDate Tue, 30 Dec 1997 18:49:53 -0500. Received a
subspace message from Karen Simmons <klsi...@mindspring.com>. It
contained the following:
>You really can't compare senior portraits to weddings
Quite true. I really wasn't trying to compare, but more to provide a
frame of reference as compare what the going rate was for such a job
in this area. I'm figuring the difference in rates (in terms of
percentage) probably won't vary much from one area to another. I.e.
if it's $100 for the senior photos on average and average wedding is
$2000, I'd tend to expect the 20:1 ratio to come close to apply in
other areas too. (note: not based on any actual numbers.)
Also, the jobs (senior photos) were done on individual basis. There
are few cases of schools contracting for that in this area (due to bad
experiences with a studio previously -- more below on that.)
Let me say one thing: I dont' begruge photographers (or any other
business, for that matter) profits. If you can't make a profit, why
on earth would you stay in it? (and they say the double major in
Business wasn't worth the extra credit load...:-) Equally so do I
have a disdain for people who gouge. Knowing business theories and
all, it's importiant to be able to make informed dicisions, and that
includes input from people not influenced by the local market just as
much as the local vendors. Also, I know photographers do a *lot* of
work on their jobs which I can't truely quantify (hey, I'm watching
the even, not the photographer.) Additionally, I know there is a lot
of behind the scenes work. I know the job is not easy, and I'm giving
credit for that.
>To answer your original question: in my part of the country (Atlanta,
>GA), for an experienced photojournalistic style shooter, $1500 will get
>you 4 hours coverage and a basic album (20 pages or less).
Sounds about par (I figured that would be the number you'd give since
you were the one that posted it.) The person I went to for the senior
photographs was a rather new photographer in the area, one of a rather
large number that started in the area at the same time. I can count
at least 20 that started the same year...it was a sort of back-lash
thing against a "professoinal" studio that used to have a lock on
business in the area, if you had dealt with them, you'd know why I put
professional in quotes. Let's just say, I didn't know retouching
existed except for big time things (like magazine publications, etc)
until the new photographers were here, that studio refused to offer
it, and many more niceties.
To be honest, I'm really thinking about a limited session to have a
few professional photos done, I don't know if the lady I went to for
my senior photographs is still around (I know the video rental
business her husband ran is gone), but if so she would be my first
choice.
I'm also thinking about the disposable cameras at the reception. I
know the problems taht can be faced with them (read: I read that
thread when it was around a few months back) but it's the snap shots
of "life in motion," not so much formal posed photographs, that have
proven to be of much value as time has gone on. Example: while doing
some cleaning in my grandmother's house, I found an old photo that
showed two men, one of whom was holding a small child. It was a
black-and-white (now somewhat brown and white) that was the type taken
with the old box-cameras (found 2 of them there, too.) They were
sitting on the porch of the farm house (I grew up on a dairy farm, the
house in the photo was the one I was doing cleaning in.) My father
was able to identify the people. The man holding the child was it's
father, and the other was the grandfather. It turns out that the
child in the picture was my great-grandfather. That photograph meant
a lot to me as although I never met any of those men, the family they
started, and the farm they build are very much a part of me. We
figured that photo dated back to somewhere around 1880, give or take.
The farm has stood for somewhere in the area of 150 years.
It's funny how the little things ... silly and insignificant at that
time ... can evoke some of the fondest memories and be the most
priceless. I've gotten to labeling the photos on the back so they can
be identified later. We've gotten our older relatives to identify
people we couldnt' in a lot of the pictures for us so we would know.
The only thing we couldn't identify were the 3 children in a battered
tin-plate photograph.
...if you don't quite understand the above about the importance of
family and that farm to me, watch the film "The Field." A lot of the
ties to the land that are talked about are how I feel.
later...peace...Jud
"Find a job you love and you never 'work' a day in your life."
-- unknown (can't remember offhand.)
JMH
Karen Simmons wrote:
>
> I suspect that in the not to distant future, photographers are going to
> take more and different steps to ensure they don't lose income from
> copyright violations. I know several photogs now who charge $3000 or
> more upfront for wedding coverage and then give the negs and a copyright
> release to the client. This way they don't lose any income and they
> don't have to worry about policing their clients.
Wait a minute! You mean the justification for increased fees and
upfront payment is partially due to concern for the loss of *potential*
income? Charging in advance for what *profits* a photographer *might*
have gotten is unfair pricing to the brides and grooms who have no
interest in getting reprints of any sort. I ordered no reprints from my
photographer nor did I copy what I was given yet under this assumption,
photographers can charge much higher prices upfront for the loss of
*potential* income from me. Why, as a consumer, does this bother me?
In effect, this pricing mentality says, "I was screwed by a few people
therefore I am going to make sure everyone pays me what I think I am due
in potential profits."
> As one photographer I know said recently: "The days of $1500 wedding
> coverage are coming to an end".
Well, that comment ignores the market economy where there is a niche for
everyone. If there is a void in the market, someone will fill it and in
this case, it is inevitable that some young, hungry but talented
photographers will fill that niche with a package that is competitive in
price. That is, unless there are price fixing agreements between
regional professionals.
JMH
USA Administration wrote:
>
> Kris,
> You are an artist, a painter of beautiful pictures. You have
> gone to school many years, much training, and now have
> many years of experience painting wonderful images on canvass.
> You have thousands of dollars invested and painting is how
> you make a living, how you pay the rent and put food on the table.
> You have painted a beautiful clean, crisp, clear picture of "Lady Di".
> You sell a print of "Lady Di" to a client for $50. But, your client
> then takes "Lady Di" to a store and make 100 photo-copies (not as
> clear, and with your name in the corner) and sells them at the market
> for $30 each.
>
> ...So, how do you feel about that...
Not an applicable example. If the painter were business savvy, the
painting would have been copied as high quality reprints (lithographies)
and sold by him/herself just as professional photographers sell high
quality reprints of non-commissioned work they do (Ansel Adams comes to
mind).
However, if a painting was ordered of the family, pets, whatever...the
pricing for that type of painting is quite high (I have a neighbor who
makes her entire living doing this and I know her cheapest oil is about
$300). THe expected understanding is that once that original piece of
art is done and paid for, it is the owners to do with as they please.
The concept of retaining copyright on a commissioned artwork of a
personal type is alien and frankly, where would a client know to take a
24X36 canvass for proper duplicating? Years and years ago, I used to do
oil portraits as well and I simply cannot fathom retaining copyright to
a painting I had already been well compensated for my time and talents
to create.
Wende Vyborney
JMH wrote:
> If there is a void in the market, someone will fill it and in
> this case, it is inevitable that some young, hungry but talented
> photographers will fill that niche with a package that is competitive in
> price. That is, unless there are price fixing agreements between
> regional professionals.
Price-fixing? Come on! We are not required to get our wedding services from
vendors who claim to specialize in weddings. When the benefits from the
experience of a wedding specialist are outweighed by the additional cost of
that specialist's services, people will go elsewhere. Market forces solve.
Alternatives for photography? Studio portrait (ye olde Olan Mills or whatever)
plus candids by the family. Shorter photo list done by non-wedding specialist.
Probably others. Will brides be teary-eyed and deprived because they are
denied the "tradition" of 100+ poses? No -- the "tradition" will change --
just as my parents' generation, married in the 1960s, didn't feel the lack of
today's comprehensive photo packages because that wasn't how it was done then.
Today's wedding photo traditions seem to have been invented in the 1970s.
Obviously there was a market of people who are delighted with their huge photo
packages. Same comments can be made on favors, reception types, you name it.
Short of a comprehensive critique of the capitalist consumption-based economy,
I don't see the problem here -- certainly wouldn't cast aspersions on Karen,
of all people, about it.
Wende (who isn't contributing much income to the wedding industry, but can't
bring herself to begrudge them their efforts to make a living)
Rick Martin
You know everybody has a budget to stick to. Some budgets we fit with &
some we don't. I hope this is not taken as being snub but it is a fact!
I have a certain look that I want to portray in my work. Some brides
will go elsewhere but most stay. Price Fixing? I am not aware of any in
our area (DC). I think that prices are regional,though.
Kate the Short
On Tue, 30 Dec 1997 18:49:53 -0500, Karen Simmons
<klsi...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>jlwhite wrote:
>
>> >As one photographer I know said recently: "The days of $1500 wedding
>> >coverage are coming to an end".
>>
>> Yee-ouch! Geez, I'm begining to wonder if I'll be able to get my
>> wedding photographed even (I've already decided I dont' want video,
>> and anyhow won't be able to aford it.) If luck is with me, I'll be
>> able to scrap together $5k or so for the entire wedding.
>
>You really can't compare senior portraits to weddings -- it's like
>comparing apples to oranges. Seniors are generally in the studio or in
>one location; here is only one subject to deal with; the photographer is
>generally in control of the variables; and, most importantly, if there
>is a film, equipment, or other problem, the session can be reshot with
>little or no pain. With weddings there may be shoots in multiple
>locations; many subjects, not all of whom want their photo taken;
>little to no photographer control of variables (can't very well
>reschedule the wedding because there's no good sunlight for pics!); and
>if there's a problem -- THERE'S NO RESHOOT!
No kidding!
>To answer your original question: in my part of the country (Atlanta,
>GA), for an experienced photojournalistic style shooter, $1500 will get
>you 4 hours coverage and a basic album (20 pages or less).
The place I hired (Grabari Studios, family studio, 5 photogs do 4
weddings with 1 person backup) offered the following package:
Free Engagement Sitting with 6-8 poses, free proofs.
Free 1st Anniversary sitting with 6-8 poses and a free 8x10.
House/Church/Reception coverage on wedding day, with outdoor pics if you
let them know, candid shots, table shots if you let them know, backdrop
at the reception, unlimited photography.
The packages we're looking at are a 108-print for $750-790 with 2 8x10,
6 5x7 and 100 3.5x5 in an album, or a 78-print for $715-755 with 2 8x10,
4 5x7 and 72 3.5x5 in an album.
Parents' start with 24-print with 24 3.5x5 for $125-135, or a 46-print
with 2 8x10, 4 5x7 and 40 3.5x5 for $200-220.
(We miiiiiiight splurge for the $880-920 138-print 4 8x10, 10 5x7, 124
3.5x5 in an album, but will likely go for a small parent's album
instead... or may ask my mom to pay for whichever package she wants...
she's helping with costs.)
Album choice dictates price, with $20 between levels of standard vinyl,
leather, or embossed leather, and for the embossed price we can special
order an Art Leather album.
This is in Roselle in the Chicago suburbs, and looks like a great price
for the work. We also lucked out with promotions (considered only after
we'd decided to go with them) that net us $100 off and a free 11x14!
Who knows where we'll hang that pic! :)
Prices in our area range from similar pricing for the standard studio
chains to reallly nice but reallly expensive photojournalistic photogs
where you keep all of the proofs and *they* are used to make your album,
and extra copies of shot X would be ordered for other albums if needed.
His was around $3000 for starters, beautiful med-format work, but way
beyond our means...
kate.
Wende Vyborney
Rick Martin wrote:
> You know everybody has a budget to stick to. Some budgets we fit with &
> some we don't. I hope this is not taken as being snub but it is a fact!
> I have a certain look that I want to portray in my work. Some brides
> will go elsewhere but most stay. Price Fixing? I am not aware of any in
> our area (DC). I think that prices are regional,though.
Exactly! Sensible people budget and set priorities. For some brides, getting your
"look" will be worth every cent, even if your rates double. Others will say, "Well,
I'd get lots of photos if I could do it for $1500, but for $3000, it just isn't
important enough to me." Some photographers will gain business; others will lose it.
The "traditional" or "must have" way to handle photography will shift as the market
shifts.
Prices certainly *ought* to be regional--I'd hate to pay New York rates here in
Mpls, and a NY photographer charging Mpls rates would be barbecuing rats for dinner.
I imagine vendors do check out each other's rates out of curiousity, but that
creates as much incentive to drop prices as to raise them.
Wende (who greatly appreciates a non-flaming reply on this thread!)
nospam
Kate the Short wrote:
> This is in Roselle in the Chicago suburbs, and looks like a great price
> for the work. We also lucked out with promotions (considered only after
> we'd decided to go with them) that net us $100 off and a free 11x14!
> Who knows where we'll hang that pic! :)
>
> Prices in our area range from similar pricing for the standard studio
> chains to reallly nice but reallly expensive photojournalistic photogs
> where you keep all of the proofs and *they* are used to make your album,
> and extra copies of shot X would be ordered for other albums if needed.
> His was around $3000 for starters, beautiful med-format work, but way
> beyond our means...
>
> kate.
It's good to know there are *some* packages for less than $1000....all
I've heard about or looked into have been >$1000 (CA, no idea about
IN). I know quality, style, etc are all factors, but for some of us
there is no other option.
Cherise - still not planning on hiring a pro, but whose mom may insist
-and therefore pay- it's useful to know there may be options.
Rick Martin
Wende Vyborney wrote:
>
> Prices certainly *ought* to be regional--I'd hate to pay New York rates here in
> Mpls, and a NY photographer charging Mpls rates would be barbecuing rats for dinner.
> I imagine vendors do check out each other's rates out of curiousity, but that
> creates as much incentive to drop prices as to raise them.
>
> Wende (who greatly appreciates a non-flaming reply on this thread!)
Prices are even regional within the region. At least here in (DC) they
are. My brides tell me that the difference in price between here in
Manassas versus down near the beltway & into (DC) is great. I don't why
that is.
John or Jenn
In article <34AA0C...@mindspring.com> JMH, jmh...@mindspring.com
writes:
>Wait a minute! You mean the justification for increased fees and
>upfront payment is partially due to concern for the loss of *potential*
>income? Charging in advance for what *profits* a photographer *might*
>have gotten is unfair pricing to the brides and grooms who have no
>interest in getting reprints of any sort. I ordered no reprints from my
>photographer nor did I copy what I was given yet under this assumption,
>photographers can charge much higher prices upfront for the loss of
>*potential* income from me. Why, as a consumer, does this bother me?
>In effect, this pricing mentality says, "I was screwed by a few people
>therefore I am going to make sure everyone pays me what I think I am due
>in potential profits."
Ok...here are some (not all) reasons for upfront pricing:
1) Before the wedding, the money flows freely, after the wedding the
newly married couple has a reality check and says, łHoly crap! We
just spent a good down payment on our wedding...weąve got to start
saving money.˛ Guess where that leaves us if weąre counting on
making it up on reprints due to loss-leader pricing? Right, screwed.
2) All the other vendors get ALL their money up front, why should
we have to wait for weeks/months/years...would you be excited about going
to work if you got, say, 1/2 your pay up front, the rest of it in 2 months
to a year? Hard to budget for, eh? Right, screwed.
3) Sales jobs are about Śselling the sizzleą...you close the deal while
people are excited...otherwise, youąve got to spend a bunch of time
getting the people excited again...duplication of effort, more time spent
on sales, less on photography, more work for the same pay. Screwed.
4) Sometimes the marriage doesnąt last...if youąre counting on a reprint
order, and youąve done a PHENOMENAL job, but the couple splits up, guess
who gets screwed?
5) Do you haggle and bargain with all the other vendors like you try to do
with the photographer? Or do you say, łOh, $15.00 a plate for that? Ok˛
and łGee, I can barely afford it, but OK, Iąll take that $800 dress...˛
Screwed...
Get the idea?
See, wedding photography isnąt about being a nice guy/gal. Itąs not about
helping the couple out. Itąs not even really about photography, after a
point. Itąs a business...itąs about putting food on the table...
Pardon the tone, but it does get frustrating...
John
(whoąs even now pulling on his Nomex(tm) suit...)
nospam
John or Jenn wrote:
(I understand and agree with the rest of your points, so I snipped
them)
>
> 5) Do you haggle and bargain with all the other vendors like you try to do
> with the photographer?
Yes, I do. If it *can* be negotiated, it will be.
> Or do you say, 3Oh, $15.00 a plate for that?
Most definitely!
>Ok2 and 3Gee, I can barely afford it, but OK, I1ll take that $800 dress...2
Without question!
Are we the only ones who've done this? There have been *numerous* times
when we've said "$15 a plate for THAT?!" or any similar phrase for the
appropriate service. In each case, I figure out what it would cost us
in time and money to do it ourselves, how practical it is to do it
ourselves, and the figure out if *we* feel the cost is justified. Note,
this doesn't mean the you aren't justified in charging what you do,
only that our paying that amount is justifiable to us.
For example, a wedding dress. I looked around and was only seeing
dresses over $1000. No way. I went to a few fabric stores and priced
the type of fabrics I'd consider - about $250-300 when all was said and
done (outside, lining, buttons, zippers, etc) for the dress I'd like.
I'm a decent seamstress, but not that great - figured out how much time
it would take me to make a dress myself (factoring in potential
errors, fixing problems, etc), and decided that a dress < $500, if
suitable fabric and style and minimal alterations, would be justifiable
for me to purchase. (Veil, unless it's perfect and less than $10, IMO,
is never justifiable! I do think they're a rip-off) Of course, I could
skip the whole "big dress" thing, but that's the one thing I do want
(though very simple dress, and not too big:) )
Food. Same thing. How much for ingredients? How much time involved -
keeping in mind that certain foods wouldn't work if we did it
ourselves. How much for rentals of equip. and how much headache or joy
involved.....and so on. Then we figure out ok, if we can get these
menu options (not exactly what we'd cook, but something acceptable to
us) for $10 pp, and if it's *good*, then we'd consider paying that.
(This is a major issue for us, as I think most mass-catering tends
towards lousy food - at $5 pp,ok, but not at $25pp IMO - and being
very into cooking/dinner parties ourselves, we have higher standards
here)
Even the church - the one we considered, which has turned out to be a
major headache and we don't want to bother with now - was also quite
expensive (IMO). The price wasn't negotiable....nor the dates for that
matter. So we said forget it and we're still hunting.
It's the same for every aspect of the wedding. The only way to keep
costs from escalating is to step back from the "excitement" and face
the cold facts - that's partly why we're being very picky in what we
finally settle on. I'd be surprised if we really are the only ones
that do this. I don't blame you for being concerned with getting your
money up front. Do be aware though, that *some* catering facilities are
not totally paid up front - a deposit before up to 50% and the final
payment 5 days after the event (this wasn't true of many, but certainly
of quite a few that I called). Therefore, if something goes wrong, the
clients have some recourse. As for photography, I figure the market
will dictate what and how you can price. If people are willing to pay
all up front, then you can charge that. If it backfires, well, I'm sure
a good business person will know how to redress the issue.
(Just so you know my personal bias, I strongly dislike the
commercialism involved in weddings - and holidays for that matter - any
one happen to see the bashing we Americans got in the London Times
recently about the Toys 'R Us gift registry? However, I definitely do
not begrudge the wedding professionals their right to ply their trade.
And YOU are not responsible for the commercialism, we consumers are,
you're just wise to play to it. This is by no means a vendor-bash. )
Cherise
Janet Rolsma
On Tue, 30 Dec 1997, Karen Simmons wrote:
> To answer your original question: in my part of the country (Atlanta,
> GA), for an experienced photojournalistic style shooter, $1500 will get
> you 4 hours coverage and a basic album (20 pages or less).
Well, I don't know how the cost of living in Albuquerque compares to
Atlanta, but our photographer was a traditional posed style shooter. He
was great to work with, has a good reputation here in town (I know *I*
would recommend him highly and a local photographer who lurks around here
occassionally also said he has a good rep), and his packages started at
$450 (4 hours coverage, it says 85 shots, we actually got more like 120,
album with 40 4x5's, and 4 8x10s). His most expensive package, with 2
parents albums, an engagement sitting, bridal portrait and huge album was
about $1600.
Janet
Just another data point in a big ol' world.
:)
--
Why?
Karen Simmons
Janet Rolsma wrote:
> Well, I don't know how the cost of living in Albuquerque compares to
> Atlanta,
Significantly higher! <g> I have friends in Albuquerque and they
nearly choke when we talk about cost of living here.
> but our photographer was a traditional posed style shooter.
This makes a difference, too. Posed shooters don't use nearly as much
film as a PJ shooter. They can wait until the shot or pose is just
right before taking it, so you wind up with your 120 images to choose
from. To contrast, for 4 hours of coverage, my couples wind up with 300
- 500 shots to choose from. They usually wind up putting 80 - 120 of
those in their albums, depending on what size album they order.
Karen Simmons
JMH wrote:
> Wait a minute! You mean the justification for increased fees and
> upfront payment is partially due to concern for the loss of
> *potential* income?
Jeanne, most photographers rely on the income from reprints to make a
profit. If photographers truly charged what it would cost them to stay
in business and didn't count on return orders, prices would be
signficantly higher. No price fixing about it -- unless you count that
every professional has certain costs to stay in business that have to be
met; rent, insurance, upkeep on equipment, etc.
> Charging in advance for what *profits* a photographer *might*
> have gotten is unfair pricing to the brides and grooms who have no
> interest in getting reprints of any sort.
But this isn't charging for *profits* that *might* have been earned,
Jeanne. You misunderstood my point. Most photographers have always
operated with a lower base price because they could count on some
clients ordering large quantites of reprints to make their profit.
Basically, those clients were carrying the weight for the rest of the
clients who didn't order reprints -- which isn't really fair either.
The rest of the crowd has been getting a "break even deal" because
photographers used a low package price as a loss leader, knowing that
others would make up the needed difference. But since the people who
would normally order large numbers of reprints have other options now --
like going to a Kodak Copystation, or scanning images into their
computers, etc. -- that expectation is invalid. So now everyone will
have to pay higher prices upfront and even out the costs.
> In effect, this pricing mentality says, "I was screwed by a few people
> therefore I am going to make sure everyone pays me what I think I am
> due in potential profits."
Well, possibly, but that's how the real world works. You pay
significantly higher prices at any store you shop at, too, because their
merchandise is marked up to cover the cost of the shoplifting that they
know will occur.
> Well, that comment ignores the market economy where there is a niche
> for everyone. If there is a void in the market, someone will
> fill it and in this case, it is inevitable that some young,
> hungry but talented photographers will fill that niche with a
> package that is competitive in price.
Sure, but there are two things to consider in that scenerio: (1) the
young, hungry photographer will soon learn that he cannot support
himself charging below the average for weddings and will either raise
his prices or stop shooting weddings (2) competetive pricing will
increase across the board as the cost of shooting increases.
There will always be the folks who work "real jobs" and shoot weddings
on weekends. These folks can afford to charge less because their
livlihood is not dependent on their photography income. But I suspect
that those folks will increase their prices, too, as the full time
studios rates go up, just because they can. Free market economy in
action dictates that vendors will charge what the market will bear.
> That is, unless there are price fixing agreements between
> regional professionals.
Really, Jeanne, this kind of unsubstantiated accusation is beneath
contempt.
Karen Simmons
> See, wedding photography isn靖 about being a nice guy/gal.
> It零 not about helping the couple out. It零 not even really
> about photography, after a point. It零 a business...it零
This is an excellent point that John made and one I want to emphasize --
in a nice way. I love weddings. I love the excitement and thrill and
the rush of creativity I get shooting a wedding. There's something
about knowing that I only have the one chance to do it right that keeps
me on my creative toes, so to speak.
And, sure, we all want our clients to like us and we want to like them
and we want to be friends. But...
The bottom line is that we have to make enough money to pay the bills,
put food on the table and clothes on our backs. If, as I'm balancing my
books, I come to the realization that I'm having a tough time doing that
because I'm getting fewer and fewer reprint orders (because of
copystations or whatever reason) -- then it's time for me to stop being
dependent on reprint orders. It's as simple as that.
Should I revamp my pricing to frontload charges and then realize that
I'm losing customers, well, then I have to rethink my strategy again.
But if the market will bear what I'm charging and it allows me to make
the money I need to pay my bills and put some aside for retirement, then
that's what I'm gonna do.
I shoot because I love it, yes. But if I can't pay the bills, I can't
keep shooting. And 70% of new photography businesses fail every year --
not because they're not good photographers, but because they're not good
businesspeople.
Lady Jestyr
[lurk mode off]
> > In effect, this pricing mentality says, "I was screwed by a few people
> > therefore I am going to make sure everyone pays me what I think I am
> > due in potential profits."
>
> Well, possibly, but that's how the real world works. You pay
> significantly higher prices at any store you shop at, too, because their
> merchandise is marked up to cover the cost of the shoplifting that they
> know will occur.
A totally unrelated example: Years ago, Merle Oberon had a car crash and
her insurance company had to ante up a LOT of money to pay for cosmetic
surgery (never mind that many people would pay to look like Merle Oberon
*after* a car crash... but never mind). Ever since then, actresses have
had to pay much higher car insurance rates than everyone else.
No, it's not fair. But like Karen said, that's the way the world works.
[lurk mode on]
:)
And happy new year, everybody!
Lady Jestyr
http://jestyr.home.ml.org/
JMH
John or Jenn wrote:
>
>
> Ok...here are some (not all) reasons for upfront pricing:
>
> 1) Before the wedding, the money flows freely, after the wedding the
> just spent a good down payment on our wedding...we1ve got to start
> saving money.2 Guess where that leaves us if we1re counting on
> making it up on reprints due to loss-leader pricing? Right, screwed.
And why can't you factor in a respectable profit based solely on the services you immediately
provide the same as Dj's, caterers, florists, etc. do? To say that the profits are in the
reprints tells me that the reprints are overpriced.
>
> 2) All the other vendors get ALL their money up front, why should
> we have to wait for weeks/months/years...would you be excited about going
> to work if you got, say, 1/2 your pay up front, the rest of it in 2 months
> to a year? Hard to budget for, eh? Right, screwed.
I don;t know where you are but NONE of the vendors I have ever worked with required 100% money
upfront. Consumers should never tolerate this because it squarely puts the ball in the
vendor's court, it eliminates an incentive for courteous, quality work and leaves no recourse
to the client should the work not be up to par or in line with the contract. Try getting
money back from a vendor when you are not satisfied with the work they did...screwed.
>
> 3) Sales jobs are about ‘selling the sizzle1...you close the deal while
> people are excited...otherwise, you1ve got to spend a bunch of time
> getting the people excited again...duplication of effort, more time spent
> on sales, less on photography, more work for the same pay. Screwed.
God, customers are such a pain the butt, aren't they? They make us work hard for our pay and
that just sucks! (Has the little tiny violin music kicked in yet?) Idon;t think you would
like me as a wedding coordinator because if you pulled that emotional crap on my client in
order to drum up more sales, I would be counseling my client to wait until the proof of the
work is in hand rather than committing to a certain number of reprints beforehand.
> 5) Do you haggle and bargain with all the other vendors like you try to do
> with the photographer? Or do you say, 3Oh, $15.00 a plate for that? Ok2
> and 3Gee, I can barely afford it, but OK, I1ll take that $800 dress...2
> Screwed...
Haggling goes on all the time and really so in the catering area. I have haggled with every
vendor I have engaged in service. If you don't ask, you won;t get it and often when you do
ask, you often do get some sort of compromise. I fail to see why photographers feel screwed
because of this.
>
> Get the idea?
I get the idea that you view customers as adversaries, something of a threat to "screw" you.
>
> See, wedding photography isn1t about being a nice guy/gal. It1s not about
> helping the couple out. It1s not even really about photography, after a
> point. It1s a business...it1s about putting food on the table...
Yes, it is your chosen business however, and adapting yourself and your product to fit the
market is just a fact of business life.
John or Jenn
In article <34AC39...@mindspring.com> JMH, jmh...@mindspring.com
writes:
>And why can't you factor in a respectable profit based solely on the
>services you immediately provide the same as Dj's, caterers, florists,
>etc. do? To say that the profits are in the reprints tells me that the
>reprints are overpriced.
Itąd be nice if it worked that way...and it seems to be moving in that
direction...however, if I quote $X for shooting a wedding, then
everything else is at cost (or some such), and the guy down the
street says heąll do it for $X/3 (figuring to make it up in
reprints), guess who the Śsmart shopperą is going to go with?
>God, customers are such a pain the butt, aren't they? They make us work ha=
>rd for our pay and =
Not nearly as much as wedding coordinators... ;-)
How do you get your cut? Do you get a percentage off of every vendor you
book? Is it negotiable? Do you get kickbacks from the vendors?
Iąm not asking this to be adversarial, I really donąt know how wedding
coordinators get paid.
>that just sucks! (Has the little tiny violin music kicked in yet?) Idon;t =
>think you would =
>like me as a wedding coordinator because if you pulled that emotional crap =
>on my client in =
>order to drum up more sales, I would be counseling my client to wait until=
> the proof of the =
Do you not have to do sales in your business? If you do, and you donąt
łpull that emotional crap˛ youąre working too hard...go buy some semi-big
ticket item and see how the salesman works, because he knows if you walk,
youąre probably not coming back, and if you do, he/sheąs practically back
to square one...
>work is in hand rather than committing to a certain number of reprints befo=
>rehand. =
But you just told me I should figure my profit in ahead of time...would
you kindly make up your mind if you want to pay me now or after you see
the proof of the puddiną, so to speak?
>I get the idea that you view customers as adversaries, something of a threa=
>t to "screw" you.
The Śscrewedą stuff was just grabbing onto a part of the message to which
I was responding. The customer is viewed as a person from whom to extract
money in order to make the photography BUSINESS worthwhile. We try to be
nice, polite, friendly, and please the customer, but we arenąt in it for
the fun...If you arenąt doing it to maximize your profits, youąre just
playing with a hobby.
>Yes, it is your chosen business however, and adapting yourself and your pro=
>duct to fit the market is just a fact of business life.
Exactly, and as long as the customers are price concious (sp?) over
quality
concious(sp?), photographers will be pricing below what is reasonable on
the
hope of making it up on reprints (or albums, or frames, or whatever), just
like a car dealership will sell you a car for $100 over invoice, figuring
theyąll make up the profit on stereos, wheel covers, undercoat, floor
mats,
service contracts, etc. There are exceptions to this (primarily those at
the very top of their market who can basically command whatever price
they
want).
Rick Martin
JMH wrote:
:
> >
> > 1) Before the wedding, the money flows freely, after the wedding the
> > newly married couple has a reality check and says, 3Holy crap! We
> > just spent a good down payment on our wedding...we1ve got to start
> > saving money.2 Guess where that leaves us if we1re counting on
> > making it up on reprints due to loss-leader pricing? Right, screwed.
>
> provide the same as Dj's, caterers, florists, etc. do? To say that the profits are in the
> reprints tells me that the reprints are overpriced.
JMH, might I enlighten to something?
Photographers & Videographers are (I Believe) are the only vendors
(Pros) that the business continues long after the event! (Generally
Speaking) Somebody correct me if I am wrong! Yes you might hire the
caterer to do a Christmas Party,etc. There are reorders,new business
opportunities(Family & Children),etc. You just cannot through all
vendors into the same pricing pot!