THSCC Forums

I know a lot of you guys dabble into photography. I was recently married and now I'm trying to deal with the photographer. I am starting to think that I'm getting ripped off, I was wondering if anyone could offer some insight.

Here is my problem...
We paid the photographer a large some of money, which included 1 5x5 copy of all his film, and 1 4x6 copy of all his digital work. With this he also gave us an order sheet for reprints. Obviously, we want some larger photos, but he wants a rediculous amount for reprints... (220$ for example for 1 (yes 1) 16x20 ) So he offers a cd (more money obviously) for all the digitals, and said he might be willing to sell the negatives.

So here are my question...
1. What kind of quality should I expect, and is it worth it to just have someone scan the 4x6's and 5x5 I already have and make larger prints from those.
2. How much would you think was reasonable for 1 film negative.

_________________
2001 Honda S2000 - SOLD
2012 Boss 302
2003 BMW 330i

Most of the photographers I dealt with offered a package where they would take the photos, provide proofs, provide a CD (usually after some amount of time), and provide a pre-determined number of prints in several sizes. Only one offered to do it the way you describe with everything sort of carte blanche. I did have a very poor experience with two supposed professionals who backed out/lied about their schedule/double booked the day and ended up going with my original plan -- a friend who is a very talented semi-pro. He's on this board and will likely pipe up. My wife and I can't be happier with the way he caught the real emotion of the day.

I'd try for a package deal for the negatives (good luck) and full resolution digital files. Then go find someone professional (as in ethical) to handle any photoshop needed and interact with the lab for your prints. I doubt you'll be able to negotiate a fair price for prints from your current person.

(Now really high quality prints are _not_ cheap. It's not like the auto printer at Eckerd's can do the work. I do think $220 for a 16x20 is highway robbery though.)

Good luck,
--Kevin H.

Oh, on your actual questions: I have no clue what a negative is worth. Don't even try to scan the proofs. You'll be completely unhappy.

_________________
2003 WRX (again!)

answer to question 1 - that's illegal as Hell. DO NOT even think about it. Sorry if I sound harsh, but that's like stealing from the photographer. I got turned off to doing "real" professional photography because of the general lack of consideration "normal" people have for how much work goes into making a good printed image. Having stuff that you put a lot of time & energy into scanned from a tiny print & reprinted big (with plenty of flaws) at WalMart is REALLY disappointing - especially when they tell other people that it's your work.

As for the prices of enlargements...

What is he doing to the negative/ digital file? Is he simply getting a print made from it, or is he photoshopping/ working in the darkroom for a substantial amount of time to make it look right? You should stop by a book store & check out the "pricing" section of a book on the business of wedding photography. There's a lot more involved in getting quality wedding prints than going down to the local WalMart with the negative in hand (well, for most professional photographers, anyway). I don't know what kind of photographer you hired to do the work or what kind of quality he's produced, so I can't comment on the pricing. Really high quality stuff costs a lot of money. As a general rule, the markup on what the print actually costs the photographer is usually at least around 400% - to cover all the associated costs & to actually make a little bit of profit from the sale.

About the negatives & digital files - just think about this... he can either get his $ by making prints for you (& incurring a lot of time/ travel/ material costs) or he can sell you the negs & files & skip all that - but he still needs to pay his bills. Also think about this - what if you make a couple hundred reprints & enlargements for yourself, your friends, your family, neighbors, etc.? How much $ could he have made off of that? Just be prepared to pay a lot for those originals...

Ok I know Kevin is a photographer, and I have bought pics from him. But I couldn't disagree more with this statement. You paid for the pic and as long as you are not reproducing it to sell you are free to do whatever you want with it. Much like any other copyrighted item.

_________________
91 Jetta GLI STS/DSP 111
85 Porsche 944 ASP 11
http://www.blackforestindustries.com

I think I may've just had an aneurism.

You can be successfully sued for making unauthorized copies of copyrighted material, including photographs.

What you pay for is ONE copy of a copyrighted image. Absolutely nothing more. The right to make copies lies SOLELY with the individual or company or whatever owns the copyright on that image.

Are you saying that if I sell one-time-use rights to McDonald's to use one of my photos in an advertisement, they can make all the copies they want & use them in whatever advertisement they want to?

First off, I want to thank everyone for their input. I appreciate the insight



I've already paid the guy 1400 just to show up and take pictures. As I contracted his work I already consider whatever he did during that period mine.



normal people (such as myself) aren't millionaires.
220 his 16x20 VS under 20 at snapfish, for which we would both probably just send off his digital file.
(220 = a new set of azenis for the integra, and a 12 pack of beer )



I understand your point though. Honestly, I don't know what he has done to the images as I haven't asked, but I include that in the original fee. All I really wanted though is the originals so I can do with them as I please.

The whole story is he was hired by my wife's mother who said he was great, and he is also a member of their church. She set the whole thing up, and my only question to him was "will I have the option to purchase the originals", which he said yes. He hasn't been completely unreasonable, but I feel he has already made his profit on the original fee and doesn't need to make a killing off the reprints to "break even". I'm willing to pay for the originals, I just think his fee's are a little rediculous.

It's funny how my wife and mother in-law don't laugh anymore at my idea of buying a really nice 1000$ camera, hire a friend to take a ton of pictures, and then sell the camera on ebay for 500.

_________________
2001 Honda S2000 - SOLD
2012 Boss 302
2003 BMW 330i

No read what I said again.

It is 100% legal to make copies of any copyrighted material for personal use. As long as you paid for the original.

_________________
91 Jetta GLI STS/DSP 111
85 Porsche 944 ASP 11
http://www.blackforestindustries.com

And this is why being a wedding photographer sucks - and why I only do it for friends & family & only charge what it costs me in materials & travel expenses.

I mean, why pay somebody to...

meet with the people getting married/ mothers/ whoever

scout out the location so he knows what to expect

get all the equipment together

hire an assistant if needed

buy film

travel to the wedding

spend a few hours constantly stressing over whether he's just screwed up the ONLY record of that last funny/ touching/ very important moment that will ever possibly exist, checking camera settings before & after every shot

go home, sort out the crap from the good/ great images

take these to the photo lab & get QUALITY proofs made

deliver the proofs to the couple & await reprint/ enlargement orders while he pays the bills, the health insurance payments, the rent on the studio, etc.


When you can get a big print from a magically-produced negative at WalMart for $5?

Define "original"

Or did you pay for a "copy" of the "original" image?

http://media.medsch.wisc.edu/home/copyright_laws.html

see 106.a.4.e.2

_________________
Has no responsibility whatsoever.

Thanks, Wes.

Also see 107.4 "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." If you make illegal copies of a proof, you've just affected the potential market value of the copyrighted work.

I think that there is a case in court right now involving an employee that did work on a company computer that was related to his job but not specifically assigned to him to do and tried to claim that the work was his property when he left. He was paid to do work at the company and if he did on company time, shouldn't the work become the property of the company that paid him? I think this is a similar situation. What he produces is yours for the specific time period he is under contract. If that is not the case, can there ever be contract work? I believe that you should hold the copyright on that material and the photographer is the one who is liable for infrignment if he makes extra copies without your consent.

Sorry Kevin. Nothing personal, I just don't see how you can defend that position on a larger scale. I understand the law, I just don't see why visual art is any different.

_________________
Rich
http://www.v8mongrel.com/

This is very interesting. So the issue is that copyright law is different for photographs and art than it is dor printed material and software.

Kevin, I don't think most people know this. I think if you simply point that out, it becomes a lot clearer.

I did think that, if I had a photo in the bedroom that I paid for and I wanted a copy of it in the kitchen, it would be legal to copy it. Now I see it's not.

I had always figured that proofs were small enough and unaltered/unimproved such that the image quality would never be good enough from a digital scan-and-print.

_________________
Mike Whitney
whit32@gmail.com, 919-454-5445
V10, V8, V8t, I6, I6, V6, F4t, I4, I4, I4, I4, I2, 1, 1

Generally if you're a pro photographer, there is a contract that all parties sign stating who owns the rights to the images. If I state in the contract that I'm transferring the rights to YOU, then YOU own the images. If I state that I retain rights to the images, then I own the images.

If I take some pictures for the company I work for as a salaried employee - for example, to use in a brochure that they're putting out, and I'm on company time when I do this...

THEY OWN THE IMAGES.

But if I do the work outside of normal work hours as a hired "photographer"...

I OWN THE IMAGES, AND THEY WILL BE USING THEM WITH MY PERMISSION - AND ONLY FOR THE USES STATED IN THE CONTRACT.

Next!

Also something to think about, I was hired by a company to be an engineer. As an engineer it is possible to file for a patent if I do something worthy. The patent is not mine however, but is owned by the person or entity who pays me. Same principle here. It isn't like were talking about taking pictures at an autocross, I hired him to take pictures FOR ME. As his profession (which he must be willing to deal with if he does it for a living) it is his responsibility to correctly charge me for doing all the things kevin already talked about (setup etc...). To which I have already paid for.

Copyright or not, I am his potential market and I'm tempted not to buy anything at all.

I'm willing to pay for the originals though. However, he's already made money for all the things involved with setup, etc... He doesn't need to make 400% now on the things left over.

Take me to court as well.... "Jury of my peers" ring a bell.... Anyone who has recently been married will find me innocent.

Thanx again for the replies... I didn't mean to start such a hot topic. My questions have been sufficiently answered.

_________________
2001 Honda S2000 - SOLD
2012 Boss 302
2003 BMW 330i