photos on CD

Elaine

I would like to hear more about providing wedding photos on CD. Specifically, do you provide ALL photos, or do you weed out duplicates and bad shots first? I have my own opinion on this matter, just wondering what others do.

Also, I'm of the mind to supply basically unedited photos on CD (except for WB or exposure adjustment in raw) and edited photos in a gallery. Thoughts?

Scott_Quier

Elaine wrote:

I would like to hear more about providing wedding photos on CD. Specifically, do you provide ALL photos, or do you weed out duplicates and bad shots first? I have my own opinion on this matter, just wondering what others do.

Also, I'm of the mind to supply basically unedited photos on CD (except for WB or exposure adjustment in raw) and edited photos in a gallery. Thoughts?

Elaine, here's what I do...

• Take WAY more photos at the wedding/reception than the clients will ever see
• I completely post process all the photos the client will ever see. This way no un-processed photos make it into the "public domain." This way, none of the "tossers" are ever seen - gotta do what one can to keep the reputation.
• The photos I provide/process are sufficient (and then some) to tell the story of the day, including all the fun stuff, the stupid stuff, and those moments the client may (or may not) remember the day after.
• I provide all these photos on CD/DVD in full resolution - knowing that I will probably not see much in the way of print sales.
• I get all the $$ I need as the price of providing the photographic service.
• I have no price for the CD/DVD. If the client calls me saying they have lost/damaged their CD/DVD, I burn another copy for them and mail it to them at no charge.
• On the off chance that a client or family member will want to order prints, I also post the wedding/reception photos in a series of galleries.

Elaine

Scott_Quier wrote:

Elaine, here's what I do...

• Take WAY more photos at the wedding/reception than the clients will ever see
• I completely post process all the photos the client will ever see. This way no un-processed photos make it into the "public domain." This way, none of the "tossers" are ever seen - gotta do what one can to keep the reputation.
• The photos I provide/process are sufficient (and then some) to tell the story of the day, including all the fun stuff, the stupid stuff, and those moments the client may (or may not) remember the day after.
• I provide all these photos on CD/DVD in full resolution - knowing that I will probably not see much in the way of print sales.
• I get all the $$ I need as the price of providing the photographic service.
• I have no price for the CD/DVD. If the client calls me saying they have lost/damaged their CD/DVD, I burn another copy for them and mail it to them at no charge.
• On the off chance that a client or family member will want to order prints, I also post the wedding/reception photos in a series of galleries.

Thanks, this makes sense to me. The couple I may be working with next summer is more interested in raw shots...he's a wedding videographer and interested in photography, and so he said that he'd like the raw shots so that he can tinker with them. But they made it clear they want me to do my own work on them, too. I've told them that I believe it's in both our best interests to not have a CD cluttered up with too many images, so the duplicates and missed shots will not be included. I really don't enjoy looking at collections that have 14 versions of nearly the same shot...the story gets lost and it can become overwhelming. I've read that some photogs do not provide edited photos on CD in order to encourage print sales of the edited shots (I think). Since this couple is more interested in the digital negatives than any prints, that seems to be the direction I may be going.

Scott_Quier

Elaine wrote:

Thanks, this makes sense to me. The couple I may be working with next summer is more interested in raw shots...he's a wedding videographer and interested in photography, and so he said that he'd like the raw shots so that he can tinker with them. But they made it clear they want me to do my own work on them, too. I've told them that I believe it's in both our best interests to not have a CD cluttered up with too many images, so the duplicates and missed shots will not be included. I really don't enjoy looking at collections that have 14 versions of nearly the same shot...the story gets lost and it can become overwhelming. I've read that some photogs do not provide edited photos on CD in order to encourage print sales of the edited shots (I think). Since this couple is more interested in the digital negatives than any prints, that seems to be the direction I may be going.

Releasing the RAW files is something I would think on long and hard before I agreed to it. And, if I did it, I think I would NOT do it for free. What photographer worth his/her salt is going to give/sell the negatives?

zoomer

If you think of every photo you release with your name on it as a marketing tool that will help answer your question for you.

Elaine

zoomer wrote:

If you think of every photo you release with your name on it as a marketing tool that will help answer your question for you.

Yes, I totally get that. This couple is extremely supportive of me and only wants to help my business, so I feel quite confident that the unedited images would be for their own use/play only. But I am concerned about all this. I don't want shots or edits that I don't approve of floating around with my name on them. Damage control is not my idea of fun.

Scott_Quier

Elaine wrote:

Yes, I totally get that. This couple is extremely supportive of me and only wants to help my business, so I feel quite confident that the unedited images would be for their own use/play only. But I am concerned about all this. I don't want shots or edits that I don't approve of floating around with my name on them. Damage control is not my idea of fun.

There's your answer then. Friendship is friendship. Busines is business. Seldom should the two meet. Explain that to your friends and why you don't want edits of your RAWs done by someone else to be floating around. If they are friends, they will understand. If they don't, well that does say something then, doesn't it?

Shima

I agree with what Scott has said. You take a boat load of pictures, only edit the ones you want the clients to see (good bye junk photos now, delete them before you change your mind and do something silly at this stage in the game) and then for me I still give them a very nice amount of photos of all throughout the day. I only give JPG's. I figure if this were still the film days you would never give over your negatives...so why give over your RAW's when those are your digital negatives? Like Scott I don't expect to make money off of the prints, so if I do, sweet a bonus! But as a response I charge appropriately for the service so I get all my payment for my time and services up front. I received a DVD of the jpg's from my wedding and that was a personal criteria for me when I chose a wedding photographer... so I imagine there are plenty other brides out there looking for this as well in an ever increasing world of "always on" computer / web access.

Blurmore

I, like Scott make my money up front, and sell to family/friends from my smugmug.

I edit (WB, exposure, cloning, sharpening, crop) the story typically 250-300 shots and post those. I deliver these on DVD in one folder, in a separate folder I include everything else that is in focus within +2/-2 of decent exposure and is remotely interesting. I also state in my contract that the couple is welcome to link (proofed) photos from my website, and even post photos to FB/Myspace (with credit) but the photos in the "extra" folder are not to be hosted or posted online. I've never had an issue.

Elaine

Blurmore wrote:

I, like Scott make my money up front, and sell to family/friends from my smugmug.

I edit (WB, exposure, cloning, sharpening, crop) the story typically 250-300 shots and post those. I deliver these on DVD in one folder, in a separate folder I include everything else that is in focus within +2/-2 of decent exposure and is remotely interesting. I also state in my contract that the couple is welcome to link (proofed) photos from my website, and even post photos to FB/Myspace (with credit) but the photos in the "extra" folder are not to be hosted or posted online. I've never had an issue.

What do you think people do with those photos? Does it just make them feel secure having them?

urbanaries

Elaine wrote:

What do you think people do with those photos? Does it just make them feel secure having them?

This is not necessarily what I do, but I found this recently and think it's very useful for the clients...food for thought.

Stacy has a real knack for writing about policies in a way that is understandable and non-threatening.

http://www.stacyreeves.com/editing-digital-negatives-2/

Her last paragraph is a great educational vignette on the value of what we do, I think.

It would be curious to see what the galleries/proofs look like when shown to the client....if they are unedited and you only see the edited version if you order (quite a stretch for someone to visualize, methinks).

Blurmore

Elaine wrote:

What do you think people do with those photos? Does it just make them feel secure having them?

Sometimes people don't like how they or their family members look. My editing hierarchy on portraits is Bride > Groom > Kids > Bride's Mother > Groom's Mother > everyone else. So MAYBE there is a shot where the B&G both look ok, but the Groom's mom looks less goofy in one of the alternates. The B&G can print that one for her. Did I forget to mention I include a limited license to reproduce with all of my weddings? oops. My editing of the reception is purely on story telling value and it is concievable that certain people may not make the cut, but they will be in the extras.

Scott_Quier

urbanaries wrote:

Her last paragraph is a great educational vignette on the value of what we do, I think.

It would be curious to see what the galleries/proofs look like when shown to the client....if they are unedited and you only see the edited version if you order (quite a stretch for someone to visualize, methinks).

I also find interesting that she is providing what she calls digital negatives to her clients. I would call them unprocessed JPG files - something that ACR would dump from the RAW files in an automated batch process. Well that's the engineer in me - I can deal with it if you can

Scott_Quier

Blurmore wrote:

Sometimes people don't like how they or their family members look. My editing hierarchy on portraits is Bride > Groom > Kids > Bride's Mother > Groom's Mother > everyone else. So MAYBE there is a shot where the B&G both look ok, but the Groom's mom looks less goofy in one of the alternates. The B&G can print that one for her. Did I forget to mention I include a limited license to reproduce with all of my weddings? oops. My editing of the reception is purely on story telling value and it is concievable that certain people may not make the cut, but they will be in the extras.

I do the story telling thing as well, but right now the client doesn't see those that don't make the cut. Interesting idea - I think I'll be rethinking my list of deliverables, especially as that could provide the client with a clue as to the amount of work that goes into creating an edited photograph.

jeffreaux2

A little different approach.
I approach this a little bit differently...and am admittedly still trying to find what is acceptably comfortable for me in this regard.

Like Scott, my up front pricing is enough for me to make out on even considering zero prints sales. My shooting and editing time is covered in pay to my satisfaction. From there, I provide them a CD of low resolution files. The perfect thing for myspace or emailing and good enough if they want to put a slideshow together for TV viewing. For prints, I offer up the galleries at my cost. I am doing a photobook soon for the first time, and will be charging for my time to put that together...as well as enough to cover the cost of the book and any late changes.

I do not plan to ever upload unedited photos to a gallery, or let them be seen in any other fashion. I would let the full resolution files go, but it would be costly...and whats the point if I am already giving them "at cost" printing options through a vendor that I trust with the prints?

Thats my take on it.:D

What really sucks is to feel as though you have been taken advantage of and have no recourse. That, to me, is why it is important to be sure you are comfortable with the amount you charge for your time.....and be confident that it is a fair price for your work even if you sell not a single print.

Elaine

urbanaries wrote:

This is not necessarily what I do, but I found this recently and think it's very useful for the clients...food for thought.

Stacy has a real knack for writing about policies in a way that is understandable and non-threatening.

http://www.stacyreeves.com/editing-digital-negatives-2/

Her last paragraph is a great educational vignette on the value of what we do, I think.

It would be curious to see what the galleries/proofs look like when shown to the client....if they are unedited and you only see the edited version if you order (quite a stretch for someone to visualize, methinks).

This was a good read. This does seem to be an example, however, of someone who is fine with her unedited photos being shown on Facebook, etc... or being shared with family members. I don't really "get" that. I know some (here) include all the edited photos so that those can be shared instead. I understand wanting only your own, best work being shared, but then there is the idea of handing over all those hours of editing work on a CD...I know about getting paid up front, but it just seems like it would actually be impossible to get paid up front for all of that, especially the way this article portrays the editing process.

I'm still a bit confused.

Scott_Quier

Elaine wrote:

This was a good read. This does seem to be an example, however, of someone who is fine with her unedited photos being shown on Facebook, etc... or being shared with family members. I don't really "get" that. I know some (here) include all the edited photos so that those can be shared instead. I understand wanting only your own, best work being shared, but then there is the idea of handing over all those hours of editing work on a CD...I know about getting paid up front, but it just seems like it would actually be impossible to get paid up front for all of that, especially the way this article portrays the editing process.

I'm still a bit confused.

My editing process is not even close to that intense. I can get the bulk of a wedding done in two 3-hour PS sessions. There are some few images that I work on, just for me, that will take a bit longer. I think the longest I have ever worked on a wedding photo since I went pro is maybe 20 minutes. With the advent of Lightroom 2 (which should be on my doorstep by the time I get home this afternoon), I hope to get that time reduced significantly.

Elaine

Scott_Quier wrote:

I also find interesting that she is providing what she calls digital negatives to her clients. I would call them unprocessed JPG files - something that ACR would dump from the RAW files in an automated batch process. Well that's the engineer in me - I can deal with it if you can

I'm figuring they are unprocessed JPGs as well, simply because she says that prints can be made from them.

This is an example of what I mentioned earlier, where the unedited photos are given as an incentive to pay for the edited ones. But, it seems the unknowing, non-photog type person may be satisfied with the unedited JPGs and be just fine making prints and sharing them...yuck! Perhaps it comes down to clientele...that photogs who operate this way are banking on the fact that their clientele are high-end enough not to do that?