Do you guys sell the negative or jpg file to customer?

Thanks to all that responded to my questions :-).

Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":

http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm

Remove "nospam" to reply

***DUE TO SPAM, I NOW BLOCK ALL E-MAIL NOT ON MY LIST, TO BE ADDED TO MY LIST,
PING ME ON THE NEWSGROUP. SORRY FOR THE INCONVENIENCE. :-) ***

SD,

I disagree.. If I was hired to shoot a wedding, the client would be paying
for my time and the quality prints that he wants. The negatives are never
part of the deal. If you visited a high street portrait photographer for
example, to have some shots done of you and the family you would never get
the negs... The photographer always has the copyright to the images and can
impose clauses that can stop you scanning in and re-printing your own
copies. If someone wanted to have the negs as well then they would have to
pay a price depending on if I could use the images again. If they were good
for my portfolio or for stock then I would charge for them based on what I
felt I could earn for them.

If this is not what you want then I would always suggest buying a $399
camera from your local dealer and getting a member of the family to shoot
them for you. This way you get it all... except the quality and experience.

MM

"SD" wrote in message
...
Historically, the photographs (the negatives or raw digital images in
today's world) have always been the property of the photographer, not
the
client. We are artists, not technicians, and our work belongs to us.
The
client simply purchases the right to view, publish, or own reproductions
of
our work.

That is just wrong. Let me compare your idea to my work. As a
photographer for, let's say my wedding, you are basically on a contract
with me for that time. Whatever you do in that time is owned by me and
you are paid for the work you do.

I got married in India and my parents not only have the negs but also
the master tapes of all the Videos.

However, back when I was doing wedding photography, I did allow my
clients
to purchase the negatives from me. In fact, I prefered that they do. I
charged a hefty fee for the negs, but then I didn't have to put out any
more
time and effort hand holding weapy brides and dealing with grooms trying
to
prove their manhood by "negotiating" with the photographer.

Hehe.. what do photographers do with the negatives anyway?

I never sold the negs on my other work. Nor would I. Clients with
"SD"'s
attitude were referred elsewhere. Life's too short.

Yeah what you do with your other work is upto you. But as long as you
are being paid by me to do the work, I own the work. Like in the
software world, the company owns the work I do in the time they pay for
it. What I do with software I write in my own time/business is upto me.
I can sell the software (like prints) but I wouldn't sell the source
code (like negatives).


Walt

"SD" wrote in message
...

If I had a photographer take a picture for me, I'd want the negative and
all rights associated with the picture. For example I'd never hire
someone to click my wedding pics/family pics if I didnt have the
negatives. I want those for life, not for the life of the photographers
business who as you say makes good money from reprints. IMHO the
photographer has made his share of the money in the fee for clicking the
picture. Also I would not want my pictures to be displayed anywhere in
the photographers shop or used as stock photos or anything else without
my explcit permission (which I would never give).

As for film this is easy to enforce but digitals is another issue, the
photographer can just make file copies for himself, but I can tell you
I'd be mighty ****ed to see a photo appear somewhere that I was unaware
of and would never recommend that photographer.

MissionMan writes:

I disagree.. If I was hired to shoot a wedding, the client would be paying
for my time and the quality prints that he wants. The negatives are never
part of the deal. If you visited a high street portrait photographer for
example, to have some shots done of you and the family you would never get
the negs... The photographer always has the copyright to the images and can
impose clauses that can stop you scanning in and re-printing your own
copies.

Actually, I've recently agreed to shoot a wedding and turn all the
negatives over to the client. I keep the copyright, but I give them
unlimited reproduction rights and other rights, so they can do whatever
they want. They just pay me for my time and expenses. It seems simpler
and more honest than trying to soak them for prints and other
reproductions. It's unlikely that I'd ever be able to use the photos in
any other way, so there isn't much to lose by letting them have the
negatives.

If this is not what you want then I would always suggest buying a $399
camera from your local dealer and getting a member of the family to shoot
them for you. This way you get it all... except the quality and experience.

As it happens, many people are satisfied with photos obtained that way.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

"SD" wrote in message
...
Randall Ainsworth wrote:

or just give it to them along with photos?


I didn't when I was in business and wouldn't if I were doing it today.
You can make good money on reprints. Plus, quality control is in your
hands.

If I had a photographer take a picture for me, I'd want the negative and
all rights associated with the picture. For example I'd never hire
someone to click my wedding pics/family pics if I didnt have the
negatives. I want those for life, not for the life of the photographers
business who as you say makes good money from reprints. IMHO the
photographer has made his share of the money in the fee for clicking the
picture. Also I would not want my pictures to be displayed anywhere in
the photographers shop or used as stock photos or anything else without
my explcit permission (which I would never give).


None of hte clients I have encountered have placed this limitation on me.




As for film this is easy to enforce but digitals is another issue, the
photographer can just make file copies for himself, but I can tell you
I'd be mighty ****ed to see a photo appear somewhere that I was unaware
of and would never recommend that photographer.



I'm a pro wedding shooter, and the vast majority of my clients want the
negatives (and/or CDROM), and giving the negatives is the current trend.
If a photographer doesn't give out the negatives in my neck of the woods,
he can only do so if his reputation is such that he can do whatever he
wants, since he is "that good", has years of experience, and rich people
will pay for his or her services.

For the rest of us, we give out the negatives/CDROMs to be competitive and
keep clients happy. That being said, my contract gives my client
permission to make reprints to his or her heart's content, as long as it is
not for commercial use, but I still remain the copyright holder, and if an
image were subject to or being solicited for some commercial use,
permission must be obtained from me (and I'm not talkin' about some local
PTA newsletter, etc). My contract also conveys to me by the client the
right to use the client's image in my portfolio for the purpose of showing
future clients examples of my work. No one has objected to this, so far.
If they did, en masse, object, then, of course, I would do what I would
have to do to remain competive, but so far, I'm okay.

I shoot digital, so I have digital copies/masters of everything I shoot.

Patrick

I'm a pro wedding shooter, and the vast majority of my clients want the
negatives (and/or CDROM), and giving the negatives is the current trend.
If a photographer doesn't give out the negatives in my neck of the woods,
he can only do so if his reputation is such that he can do whatever he
wants, since he is "that good", has years of experience, and rich people
will pay for his or her services.

For the rest of us, we give out the negatives/CDROMs to be competitive and
keep clients happy. That being said, my contract gives my client
permission to make reprints to his or her heart's content, as long as it is
not for commercial use, but I still remain the copyright holder, and if an
image were subject to or being solicited for some commercial use,
permission must be obtained from me (and I'm not talkin' about some local
PTA newsletter, etc). My contract also conveys to me by the client the
right to use the client's image in my portfolio for the purpose of showing
future clients examples of my work. No one has objected to this, so far.
If they did, en masse, object, then, of course, I would do what I would
have to do to remain competive, but so far, I'm okay.

I shoot digital, so I have digital copies/masters of everything I shoot.

Nobody in the business that I know gives away their negatives with a
wedding package.

In article ,
says...
I'm a pro wedding shooter, and the vast majority of my clients want the
negatives (and/or CDROM), and giving the negatives is the current trend.
If a photographer doesn't give out the negatives in my neck of the woods,
he can only do so if his reputation is such that he can do whatever he
wants, since he is "that good", has years of experience, and rich people
will pay for his or her services.

For the rest of us, we give out the negatives/CDROMs to be competitive and
keep clients happy. That being said, my contract gives my client
permission to make reprints to his or her heart's content, as long as it is
not for commercial use, but I still remain the copyright holder, and if an
image were subject to or being solicited for some commercial use,
permission must be obtained from me (and I'm not talkin' about some local
PTA newsletter, etc). My contract also conveys to me by the client the
right to use the client's image in my portfolio for the purpose of showing
future clients examples of my work. No one has objected to this, so far.
If they did, en masse, object, then, of course, I would do what I would
have to do to remain competive, but so far, I'm okay.

I shoot digital, so I have digital copies/masters of everything I shoot.

Nobody in the business that I know gives away their negatives with a
wedding package.

That's because you're ossified. Having been married just 4 years ago, I
had a chance to review many wedding packages. I've shot a few weddings
successfully, but shooting your own really isn't an option. Only the old
brick-n-mortar places with their dreamy soft-focus portfolios (yuck)
didn't offer an option to keep the negs.

All of the younger photogs offered some package that let you keep the
negs. Sometimes they charged more for that option, but mostly they
didn't want the book keeping hassles of extorting monies for prints.

The guy I selected worked hard, did a great job, I got the negs, and he
got paid a fair price for it. For the stuff he shot in CN he even
provided the setting he used to tone the proofs.

The fact is that it is not hard at all to find photogs willing to part
with their negs these days. That you don't know that says a lot.

Marc

That's because you're ossified. Having been married just 4 years ago, I
had a chance to review many wedding packages. I've shot a few weddings
successfully, but shooting your own really isn't an option. Only the old
brick-n-mortar places with their dreamy soft-focus portfolios (yuck)
didn't offer an option to keep the negs.

All of the younger photogs offered some package that let you keep the
negs. Sometimes they charged more for that option, but mostly they
didn't want the book keeping hassles of extorting monies for prints.

The guy I selected worked hard, did a great job, I got the negs, and he
got paid a fair price for it. For the stuff he shot in CN he even
provided the setting he used to tone the proofs.

The fact is that it is not hard at all to find photogs willing to part
with their negs these days. That you don't know that says a lot.


Although I got out of the business in 1995, I still maintain contact
with people who are still in it. Giving away your negatives remains
unprofessional.

In article ,
says...
That's because you're ossified. Having been married just 4 years ago, I
had a chance to review many wedding packages. I've shot a few weddings
successfully, but shooting your own really isn't an option. Only the old
brick-n-mortar places with their dreamy soft-focus portfolios (yuck)
didn't offer an option to keep the negs.

All of the younger photogs offered some package that let you keep the
negs. Sometimes they charged more for that option, but mostly they
didn't want the book keeping hassles of extorting monies for prints.

The guy I selected worked hard, did a great job, I got the negs, and he
got paid a fair price for it. For the stuff he shot in CN he even
provided the setting he used to tone the proofs.

The fact is that it is not hard at all to find photogs willing to part
with their negs these days. That you don't know that says a lot.


Although I got out of the business in 1995, I still maintain contact
with people who are still in it. Giving away your negatives remains
unprofessional.

The fossil still speaks with the Coelacanth? The professionalism of it
is a matter of opinion, the reality of it is a simple fact.

Marc

Randall Ainsworth writes:

Nobody in the business that I know gives away their negatives with a
wedding package.

Then the first person who does will make a killing.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Randall Ainsworth writes:

Although I got out of the business in 1995, I still maintain contact
with people who are still in it. Giving away your negatives remains
unprofessional.

There's nothing unprofessional about it. It's just far less greedy than
the old-style business model for wedding photography, and it's easier to
manage.

It's hard for me to think of a reason why I'd want to keep wedding
negatives. I don't try to shaft clients into paying me exorbitant
prices for prints, so I have no reason to prevent them from making their
own prints, and in fact I facilitate this with a contract that grants
them a generous license to use the photos in just about any way they
want (although I keep the copyright and a few rights), plus digital
files and/or negatives. Wedding photos typically are worthless except
to the family that commissioned them, so why keep the originals?

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.