DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Business of Photography >> How can I explain ..
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 19 of 19, (reverse)
AuthorThread
07/24/2006 12:12:16 PM · #1
How can I explain to my new SIL that a photographer would never ever just "give" the person they are photographing all the negatives and original photo files?
I have tried saying exactly that, but its not working.
Its been well over a month since the wedding and I am not sure how long this usually takes for the b&g to order their photos, but my SIL is insisting that she cannot make any decisions unless she has the original full-sized files in her hands.
Its not going to happen; and I've tried telling her that. The proofs I gave them are 600px wide at 72 dpi. Is that not an adequate proof size? If I gave it any larger they could scam some 4x6's out of it.
I'd like some advice here on how to explain "how the photography business works". Its rather ruining any potential non-negative relationship between SIL and me.
07/24/2006 12:24:57 PM · #2
Ask her to review the proofs and kick out any that she is certain she will not want. Then invite her to your place to review the larger versions of the remaining pics. That way, she gets to review the larger files without your having to give them to her.
Alternatively, give her full-size images as proofs, but with a prominent watermark across the image.
07/24/2006 12:26:45 PM · #3
I assume that SIL = sister-in-law? That's the only thing that makes sense in this context.
07/24/2006 12:28:25 PM · #4
honestly it sounds more like an interpersonal issue rather than a business one...your relationship with your SIL is more important than being strict.

I used to do lots of shooting/sorting/correcting for a wedding photographer, i'd say her average b&g took 6 months to get their book and prints sorted out.

and as pointed out, using the lower res proofs to kick out the bad ones is a great idea. Part of that 6 months process was the bride [usually] cooming back in and viewing the sorted pics, usually projected as a digital slide show sort of thing. If you explain that what you need back right now is just to move on to the next stage, that could help.

Message edited by author 2006-07-24 12:31:41.
07/24/2006 12:32:06 PM · #5
What does your contract say?

Your contract should have spelled out exactly what you will be providing (printed proofs, proofs on CD, etc), and when, to the bride and groom. If your contract didn't specifiy this, you might want to add that in for the next time. If you didn't have a contract at all, then that's problem #1.

At this point, you might want to tell her that the full resolution files are not available yet, because you are waiting on her proof decision to do the final retouching, and that once she tells you which ones she wants, you'll finish them up.
07/24/2006 12:36:24 PM · #6
Well, I'm no pro but I do have some thoughts on interpersonal relationships.

I'd say that what you're experiencing might better have been dealt with before the shoot. If it were me, I would ask her to come over to discuss this. I would show her the photos and explain how things are "usually" done. Then I'd tell her that you regret not making this clear berforehand; but that family takes precedence over principal.

Then I'd give her what she wants and consider it a lesson learned. I mean, is it really worth the ugliness that could result as a matter of being a stickler?

Message edited by author 2006-07-24 12:37:17.
07/24/2006 12:45:57 PM · #7
i guess it's different when dealing with family. i wouldn't have a problem giving her the fullsize stuff. it's not like it's a total stranger walking in off of the street.

there are a few wedding photographers who DO give the b&g all of the originals. the photographer is paid for his or her time, and the clients own all of the shots. i actually see a lot more work going this way, so it's not fair to totally blame this on her not knowing "how the photography business works".
07/24/2006 12:56:17 PM · #8
For family - I give away my time but charge for prints. So... I'll do all the work of shooting the wedding for free, but then charge a modest amount on prints. Modest? How about 75 cents for 4x6's so that they can order a ton of them. Larger images ... $4 for a 5x7 or $8 for an 8x10. Not too bad. Gotta keep "family" happy - besides, they make for great word-of-mouth. :-)
07/24/2006 01:26:00 PM · #9
This is your family you're speaking of! She could have hired any photographer to treat her like an average in off the street customer. She chose you because you are family. Treat her like she's family and you'll have less chance of ruining your relationship with her. Would you not have been there taking photos anyway if she had not hired you?

My daughter's wedding photographer is a professional and he still gave us all the proofs and negatives because he is our friend, not even a relative which should account for more. We still paid him but it was no where near what strangers would have charged us.
He wasn't the stickler about "how the photography business works" like you are being BECAUSE we were friends.
07/24/2006 01:46:07 PM · #10
To all those who opined "she's family!":
Yes, and if she's family she will be respectful of a family member's profession and business. In that case, if she really needs to see larger files for proofing, then a watermark will not bother her in the least.
The *only* reason she'd need large proof files with no watermark would be if she wanted to play fast & loose with copyright. I'm *not* saying this is what she intends, but I would stand on principle and provide only watermarked original-size files.
07/24/2006 02:00:01 PM · #11
600 pixels is more than you get on TV (NTSC). How about putting the images as a slideshow and writing it to DVD (with the protection bit set on the disk)?
07/24/2006 02:02:21 PM · #12
Originally posted by hankk:

600 pixels is more than you get on TV (NTSC). How about putting the images as a slideshow and writing it to DVD (with the protection bit set on the disk)?

NTSC video frame is 640 x 480 -- that's why so many images are that size, and why the sensor has that (stupid) 4:3 aspect ratio.
07/24/2006 02:10:54 PM · #13
Thanks everyone for your opinions.
To answer some questions: No, I most likely wouldn't have taken photos at the wedding if she hadn't "hired" me.
I am doing all this for free. The only charges the b&g are going to have is at the print lab end. I'm not recouping any of the costs.
I'd have to agree with kirbic; if I didn't think my sil was going to "play fast and loose" as he puts it I'd go ahead and give her the full resolution files.
The slideshow is a great idea.
And thanks for letting me know what kind of timeline I may be looking at. I'm setting a lot of the stress on the back burner for another five months. Now if I could just get all the Aunties to start asking the b&g for photos instead of me ... ;)
07/24/2006 02:43:26 PM · #14
The numbers of people who "hire" themselves out to family and friends is I guees normal but sorta scary too.

Family and friends are a total crapshoot. And yoou have to take what you get. I don't shoot weddings as the main shooter...That ain't my bag in life right now...but I shoot other events. Many are charity events, some rock concerts for magazines, and I shoot professional cat photography for breeders at their homes.

Whenever I shoot for friends or close business partners, I have a contract as a guide but I come fully expecting them to take advantage of our relationship. That is just the way life is. But, I know this coming in and only do the gig if I know I will be getting what I want (Love of family and friends, a sense of giving, contacts, some cash, portfolio pics, etc).

When I shot a series of photos for Buddy Guy for a business associate I knew I was giving a lot for the money ( 3 hour gig for $500 ) but I had a couple shots published and I got a chance to eat lunch with Buddy Guy. My contract said stuff about copyrights etc... but, frankly, they used what they wanted where they wanted.

If I would have laid the law down, I would not have gotten a gig to shoot Velvet Revolver for the same associate. They have a new album coming in the fall and I hope to get something more than the one concert gig. I am not bending over too far but I had better be limber!

I shot as the second shooter for my cousin and when her prime (supposed pro) photographer...totally screwed up...I just handed over my files to them.

My suggestion is do not shoot for family or friends if taking it up ..well..you know...is not something you can do with a smile :-D
07/25/2006 10:12:42 PM · #15
What is it that you think your sil will do that is fast and loose? Sounds like you have a shady sil.
07/25/2006 10:23:12 PM · #16
Just give her the files. Otherwise, you are going to hear about it at every family holiday for the rest of your life. You don't say if this is your brother or your husband's brother, but either way they are family. Family comes first, no?

If you aren't making any money off the prints, what do you care what she does with the files?
07/25/2006 11:05:57 PM · #17
Are you a working pro or just did this 'for fun/portfolio/experience?'

If you are a working pro then most of your questions would have been answered up front. For friends or family I work cheap - 50% off. They understand or hire someone else. So far they understand.

I figure to sell an album and a few big formal poses as prints and those costs are in my contract/package - so even if i give them a CD (and most of my packages have that) I don't lose anything 99% of the time. The CD has the web proofs (for email, etc) and full res of the proofs. the only retouched images on the disk are what they ordered, and their album pages. Yeah, I own the copyright, but realistically, are they likely to come back in 18 months for another print? I don't think so, so I'm losing no money and making the couple think they're saving some.

So in this case, give her a CD, put a copyright in the corner of EVERY image, nothing retouched (just WB) and let her try and get walmart to print them LOL. Online printing? Unless she wants to resize them all 3Mb files are not nice to upload.

if she's not paying you why do anything more?
07/25/2006 11:50:40 PM · #18
just for the record, ntsc video frames are 720x480.

drake
07/26/2006 12:17:04 AM · #19
Originally posted by fstopopen:

just for the record, ntsc video frames are 720x480.

drake

From this page:

A typical frame of DV video is 720 pixels wide and 480 tall giving it an aspect ratio of 3:2. This width to height "ratio" refers to that of a standard frame of film or video. The aspect ratios of DV (3:2), standard NTSC (4:3), are "less wide" than that of a widescreen ratio.

So the "new" DV NTSC Standard is 720x480. I was thinking of the "old" NTSC standard which was used with VHS and all existing 4:3 ratio TV sets, which is 640x480.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/29/2024 07:20:11 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/29/2024 07:20:11 AM EDT.