Effing wedding photographer

[Balki.Bartokomous]

Don't you have an electronic copy of the pictures with a copyright release? Or is this essentially the copyright release?

[kwynn]

I'm a wedding photographer, and I think the above poster talking about $1000 for a disc of files is about the going rate. $400 is a pretty good deal if you didn't originally buy the files upfront to have reprint rights, etc.

Walt Disney World does the same thing, the files are one higher price at the wedding, then drop a bit a few years after, but it's still over $400.

That said, of course it doesn't excuse the attitude and the haughtiness. He should have just stated the price and then did the deletion. Did you ask back during contract signing what the files run?

I encourage all my clients to purchase their files upfront if they'd like them as prices only go up over the years due to the cost of doing business increasing.

He could have been nicer about it---I realize one person's concept of "nominal" and another's are different, so I try to state "for a cost" rather than a value judgment (low cost/nominal/affordable/minimal are so loose and subjective).

Check your contract and see if there was any price stipulated in there?

[CloudBee]

You should have inquired about the nominal fee years ago. $400 isn't much for full rights, IMO. He has no obligation to hand over the negatives. He has no way of knowing if you would purchase more prints, and handing over the negatives/rights guarantees you won't. If everyone knew negs would be gifted at 5 yrs vs being trashed everyone would hold off on purchasing prints until they got the rights to print themselves.

[hbomdiggity]

Jan 14, 2013 23:58:22 GMT -5 CloudBee said:

You should have inquired about the nominal fee years ago. $400 isn't much for full rights, IMO. He has no obligation to hand over the negatives. He has no way of knowing if you would purchase more prints, and handing over the negatives/rights guarantees you won't. If everyone knew negs would be gifted at 5 yrs vs being trashed everyone would hold off on purchasing prints until they got the rights to print themselves.

i don't know to many people willing to wait *five years* to make prints just to save some money. come on.

OP just wants to make sure the negatives are preserved, which is reasonable, for a nominal fee. $400 is not nominal.

[Deleted]

Please don't send that email.

Are you prepared to pay $400 if he won't budge or are you only willing to pay $200 or lose out?

If $200 is your top price, then send something like this:

Dear so-and-so,
We very much appreciate your work in taking our beautiful photos and the effort in tracking us down to offer us the negatives. After discussing it and looking at our budget, we are only able to offer you $200 for them at this time. We hope that you'll consider that. If you are unable to send them for that price, then we will have to pass. In any case, we appreciate what you've done for us.
Thanks,
Domer

[jerseyjaybird]

Jan 15, 2013 0:07:34 GMT -5 hbomdiggity said:

Jan 14, 2013 23:58:22 GMT -5 CloudBee said:

You should have inquired about the nominal fee years ago. $400 isn't much for full rights, IMO. He has no obligation to hand over the negatives. He has no way of knowing if you would purchase more prints, and handing over the negatives/rights guarantees you won't. If everyone knew negs would be gifted at 5 yrs vs being trashed everyone would hold off on purchasing prints until they got the rights to print themselves.

i don't know to many people willing to wait *five years* to make prints just to save some money. come on.

OP just wants to make sure the negatives are preserved, which is reasonable, for a nominal fee. $400 is not nominal.

But the photographer isn't asking for a nominal fee to ensure that the negatives are preserved . . . in that case, he'd be charging for file storage and would retain copyright (and could continue to charge for prints). This fee is really for the release of copyright.

Domer, I'm sorry that this is stressful. Also you might remember me from 2006. I was teafor2!

[hbomdiggity]

Yes, I understand that she would be getting a copyright release. I maintain my position that copyright release less than 1 year after the wedding is not the same as after 5 years.

[soveryexcited]

I don't quite understand... what was written in the contract? Was the ''nominal fee'' stipulated in any way? If it was never stated, than it was a bad decision on your part and asshattery of him on his part. You should have clarified how much the pictures would have cost, and he should have stipulated that in his contract; it sounds like he changes the nominal fee price according to the couple which is completely shady and icky of him. What did you get in your actual wedding package? Do you need the negatives?

[flatlan]

I paid $600 for copyright release on our wedding pictures in 2010.

[shortcake2675]

We paid $150 for ours 5 years after the wedding (2011). She wanted more than that, but based on the non delivery of an 11x14 and an 8x10 that were paid for, we negotiated to $150. Ours were 4x5 medium format negatives rather than digital files. I've started scanning them in a few at a time, but we bought a very nice Epson scanner to be able to do that. My husband also shoots film on occasion still, so the scanner is useful in our hobbies as well.

[Balki.Bartokomous]

$400 for a copyright release is a good deal. I think you're overreacting, and I really don't think he's a "fucking asshole" for charging that. Compared to what a lot of other people charge, that's much lower, so I can see how he thinks it's nominal. You are essentially paying him delayed compensation and not for him to just put a stamp on an envelope.

If you do decide to purchase the negatives, make sure you get a signed document from him stating that you own the copyright. A lot of places won't develop professional pictures without it.

[wise_rita]

Jan 15, 2013 0:07:36 GMT -5 @sfgal530 said:

Jan 14, 2013 23:54:09 GMT -5 @domerjen said:

no, he's a loose cannon and I was trying not to aggravate him. i'm drafting an email now, but DH and I are in disagreement. i think we need passive/aggressive groveling. DH thinks we should just say that we hope he reconsiders.

Mine:
Dear *asshole*,

I'm sorry we are not able to come to an agreement on this. We do value the pictures, as our wedding day was obviously a huge part of our lives together. However, I don't think that it's fair to assume that we are ready to pay what amounts to 25% of the cost of our original investment in the photography. I remember quite clearly that you said you make an effort to find and send the files to couples for a nominal fee as you cannot store everyone's images indefinitely. Maybe $400 seems nominal to you, but it is not for us.

Again, I do wish to compensate you appropriately for your time and effort, and to preserve your work. You stated in your original email to suggest a "win-win" scenario, and I believe that I have. It would be a shame for you to go uncompensated for the archiving of the files, and even more unfortunate to lose those images of our family and friends forever, especially those who have since passed on. I hope you will reconsider our offer.

Thank you for your time and consideration,
Jen

Holy crap. You got a heck of a deal on your photos. $1,600 total? The base package for my photographer was $3,600 and included absolutely nothing except for a very, very small album. If I wanted the negatives/digital files, it was another $1,000.

Honestly, if you want the pictures just buy them. Ask for them at $200 and, if he says no, then pay $400. That's still a great deal for your wedding photo package AND the negatives, and $200 more, in the grand scheme of things to have your wedding day photos, is really not that big of a deal.

Or else just don't buy them. You've lived 5 years without them, so you may never need them.

sfgal you live in another fucking universe as 99.9% of the planet.

Let the experts (kwynn et al) make the call about how reasonable the OP/the photographer are being (or aren't being) about this. Your experience is quite irrelevant here.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using proboards

[barefootcontessa]

What does the contract say about images? I know ours included the digital copies of the images with the price we paid. We paid $2500 (maybe more) nine years ago in a MCOL.

I guess it comes down to whether you want the images or not. I would ask him about the other price, though.

[Deleted]

I would be really angry as well about receiving the email with the other price in it. I know you said he's a loose cannon but I would want to ask about that in some way. I am not sure how to without knowing what will set him off though--you know him better than me.

Anyway, while I don't think $400 is nominal, I think the fault rests with both parties for not communicating more clearly about this 5 years ago. Since that can't be undone, really the only thing you can do now is decide whether the images are only worth $200 to you or if they could be worth up to $400. If they are only worth $200 I'd send a "final offer" email and be prepared to walk away without them. If they are worth $400, as much as it may pain you, I would just suck it up and pay it rather than continue to waste my time and mental energy arguing with a prima donna.

[housegeek]

I received a DVD of all the images upfront instead of getting prints. Am I correct in thinking he did not do that, that you got prints of your favorites? And now he wants to sell you the DVD for $200-400?
The only reason I would stay my ground on $200 is because of the email you saw with that. And I would call, I would skip the email back and forth, tone gets lost and its easier to discuss rationally over the phone.

[SusanBAnthony]

I think there is a huge difference between the cost of digital files right after the wedding (when you probably plan to print a while bunch out as gifts instead of ordering prints from the photographer), and five years later, when you will probably just enjoy looking at the digital files and not print any out.

I wouldn't even pay 200$ honestly. I would email him a shorter version of your email saying something like "we love your work very much and think it is very valuable. However due to our budget constraints and the xxx$ order we already placed for many of the prints, we are only able to pay 200$ at this time. We feel this is a reasonable offer considering that you offered other clients a price of 200$ per initial email to me."

[funnygirlglee]

Since you didn't negotiate the fee when you contracted with the photographer, you are unfortunately at his mercy.

[LoveTrains]

My wedding package included digital raw files of all of the images. That sucks that yours didn't.

That being said I would try to offer $200 again.

[CloudBee]

Jan 15, 2013 0:07:34 GMT -5 hbomdiggity said:

Jan 14, 2013 23:58:22 GMT -5 CloudBee said:

You should have inquired about the nominal fee years ago. $400 isn't much for full rights, IMO. He has no obligation to hand over the negatives. He has no way of knowing if you would purchase more prints, and handing over the negatives/rights guarantees you won't. If everyone knew negs would be gifted at 5 yrs vs being trashed everyone would hold off on purchasing prints until they got the rights to print themselves.

i don't know to many people willing to wait *five years* to make prints just to save some money. come on.

OP just wants to make sure the negatives are preserved, which is reasonable, for a nominal fee. $400 is not nominal.

I know many people who have yet to order their photos after 4-5 yrs. It's not uncommon at all.

[mrssavy42112]

I agree that $400 isn't nominal, but if the fee isn't listed in the contract, then he is free to charge whatever he wants, even if it isn't reasonable.

[ijack]

Okay, I'm going to get on my high horse about photography now. You might want to stop reading.
One of the problems with photography today is that people think that since you can hire a momtographer for a couple hundred dollars, that is all photos are worth. How many hours did he spend at your wedding, how many images are there? Just because you don't think they're worth $400, doesn't mean that there isn't $400 of value there. And to the PP who thinks that the value of photos goes down after 5 years, you're smoking crack. H's boss just sold his archive for millions and millions of dollars. Granted it's not wedding photos, but it's history and it's worth something.
What does it matter if you're going to keep them as digital files or print them out, how does that change the value at all?
I'm really annoyed that you think the photographer is an asshole because he's charging you for his work. GGGGGGGGGRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR.

[jigsy]

I don't understand half of these responses...I paid XX and got those, My package included those, My photog threw them in for free!...I think everyone realizes (or should at least) that costs will vary dramatically based on the experience of the photographer, the area, the demand, etc. so talking about what you paid isn't really relevant.

Jen, your situation blows, hard numbers for this type of thing really should be laid out in a contract. But since it is past that, figure out your absolute top price, and lay it out for him. Tugging at the sympathy re: passed loved ones is just meh because I am sure he doesn't really care...for him, it is just money, and while I would think he would take something over nothing, not everyone is that reasonable.

[karinothing]

Jan 15, 2013 2:35:42 GMT -5 wise_rita said:

Jan 15, 2013 0:07:36 GMT -5 @sfgal530 said:

Holy crap. You got a heck of a deal on your photos. $1,600 total? The base package for my photographer was $3,600 and included absolutely nothing except for a very, very small album. If I wanted the negatives/digital files, it was another $1,000.

Honestly, if you want the pictures just buy them. Ask for them at $200 and, if he says no, then pay $400. That's still a great deal for your wedding photo package AND the negatives, and $200 more, in the grand scheme of things to have your wedding day photos, is really not that big of a deal.

Or else just don't buy them. You've lived 5 years without them, so you may never need them.

sfgal you live in another fucking universe as 99.9% of the planet.

Let the experts (kwynn et al) make the call about how reasonable the OP/the photographer are being (or aren't being) about this. Your experience is quite irrelevant here.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using proboards

This is an odd response. She basically said the same think Kwynn said (1K is the going rate).

Anyway, I think $400 is nominal when it comes to photography rights.

[vanillacourage]

I would reply back to the email where he proposed $200, and say "per your email, $200 sounds great! When and where can we meet to pick up the disc and get you a check?" Use his mistake against him.

[takeonyou]

I think it sucks that it wasn't laid out beforehand. But right now you are at his mercy. If you want them, try to negotiate and pay the agreed price (even if it is $400). If not, walk away. But I don't think it makes him an asshole.

[Deleted]

I also would not send that email. yikes.

I don't know what the going rate for this type of stuff is (We got the copyrights and original files on DVD when I got married-- and I also paid $3500 for everything), but reading the responses here make me think $400 isn't outrageous. I'd pay it. I'd try again to negotiate it for $200, but just pay the $400 if its a no-go. I wouldn't want to lose those images forever.

[SusanBAnthony]

iMacs, I understand your h is a photographer, and you obviously have strong feelings about the value of his work. I don't disagree with the overall sentiment.

But old wedding photos are not valuable to everyone. We have none on the walls (we did order some but just aren't into displaying them now) and a photo album sitting on a shelf somewhere. Sure the photogrpaher's time was worth our money at the time, but a disc of files that we would do nothing with is not worth our money at this point. No, not all photos have value five years later. Some do, and sure the photographer should set a value and stick to it if he wants to, but he shouldn't be surprised that many pele would have no interest in them for that price, or any price, regardless of what the going rate is for current wedding photos, old wedding photos, or any other kind of photos.

Wedding photos just seem like a category of photography that would date and lose value particularly fast. Maybe I am the only one who feels that way, though.

[Deleted]

Jan 15, 2013 10:53:13 GMT -5 SusanBAnthony said:

iMacs, I understand your h is a photographer, and you obviously have strong feelings about the value of his work. I don't disagree with the overall sentiment.

But old wedding photos are not valuable to everyone. We have none on the walls (we did order some but just aren't into displaying them now) and a photo album sitting on a shelf somewhere. Sure the photogrpaher's time was worth our money at the time, but a disc of files that we would do nothing with is not worth our money at this point. No, not all photos have value five years later. Some do, and sure the photographer should set a value and stick to it if he wants to, but he shouldn't be surprised that many pele would have no interest in them for that price, or any price, regardless of what the going rate is for current wedding photos, old wedding photos, or any other kind of photos.

Wedding photos just seem like a category of photography that would date and lose value particularly fast. Maybe I am the only one who feels that way, though.

Yeah, I think you are in the minority. They have sentimental value to most people.

Why bother getting photos at all if you feel this way?

[ijack]

Just because you don't value them doesn't mean they don't have value. It has nothing to do with what you think they're worth, it's paying for a service someone did. The disk is the work, it's the tangible evidence of the work. It doesn't matter if it's the day after the wedding or 5 years later, the same time and amount of work was put into it.
And obviously the OP wants the photos and values them, or we wouldn't be having this conversation at all.

[Deleted]

Why didn't you negotiate - or at least ASK about the price up front. I admittedly am having a hard time understanding this b/c I only considered photographers who included all of the digital photos as the time. I didn't want an album - I just wanted the files. He's telling you his rate is $400 here. I think the only choice you have to make is whether they're worth $400 to you or not. If so, pay it. If not, walk away.

I also don't think 25% of your total price is outrageous. When looking at family photographers, the sitting fee is usually a few hundred and the print costs (or digital files) are many times that.