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.
ditto this. He said it was $400 even if he made a mistake in the documentation about it being $200. Plus, you never know, he may have priced it $200 to another couple where he only spent 3 hours at their wedding and toook 500 shots whereas he spent 6 hours at your wedding and took 1000 shots. I spent over 5K for wedding photography so $1600+$400 for the files is not that much. I don't think he's charging you more because you had a Notre Dame wedding..lol. You're overreacting. If it is not worth it to you, then just don't pay.
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.
As someone in the creative industry I completely agree with you, ijack. I didn't say in my post because I don't think it's relevant to the discussion, but in my opinion $400 is quite reasonable. What matters though is whether or not those photos are worth $400 to Domer. If they are, their value is $400. If not, the photographer can choose to receive $200 or $0. The value of any item is only what a person would be willing to pay to have the item.
I read from Domer's post that she thinks he is an asshole based on his behavior and his charging different fees for a Notre Dame wedding vs. a South Bend wedding. I can see her point there. It is the prerogative of a creative professional to set the cost for his or her work based on a number of factors, and the location and overall cost of the wedding itself may be one of them. However, as a professional if I mistakenly sent an email out like this to a client I would honor the lower price as a mea culpa. Or, if there is a legit reason for the lower price (for example the $200 client has half as many photos or chose a different package than Domer) I would let the client know why the difference exists.
Post by mrshabious on Jan 15, 2013 11:20:33 GMT -5
Are you willing to draw the line in the sand at $200? If you are, send the e-mail. If you want to files, then be willing to pay $400. We paid $3600 for our photographer, but that included the digital files. So, I don't feel like you are getting ripped off.
I agree with ijack. I also don't see why the price from the other couple's package is relevant. He could have charged them less for a lot of reasons. Our family uses the same photographer for everything and he gives us a discount on discs. I do not think from a business standpoint that the negatives decrease in value over time. Also, didn't you say you asked him about the price and he quoted you $400?
I agree with PP that your options seem to be either not purchasing the pictures or paying $400.
I don't get why the rights to the photos or digital images weren't part of the original package?
Five years ago, this wasn't as standard as it is today to have the disc rolled in...five years ago, yes, there were image discs, but many people were still doing albums.
Now, it is more common to buy the digital reprint release upfront, however, some people do still decline it and want to purchase it later as a way to save $. They just get the online gallery and some prints or an album, and plan to purchase it later.
Some photographers also do not sell it until after the album is completed so that your more complicated album edits can be included on the disc.
It's not necessarily the best strategy for the clients to save money because of situations like this--for me, the cost of anything is the cost of purchase at the time of purchase, not a price locked in from years ago. Generally, things keep going up in price, so you can save money by going with it upfront than much later on.
I save all my wedding files forever in two separate locations (on site and off) and storage is really cheap these days, so I don't sell off my discs like that.
If he made a mistake in the email, that's one thing with the $200 versus $400 and I'd honor a mistake, personally. But if you just don't want to pay $400 because it isn't cheap enough to you, then don't.
I offer albums as a purchase and if a client came to me five years later to order one-I'd be sad to think there might be a thread out there about me saying: (kwynn) did okay on our photos but this ridiculous photographer wants $350 for the smallest album. I offered her $200 because it isn't worth that much! She said "albums are affordable" but I do NOT call $350+ affordable." She's pompous and I'm going to write her this email telling her what I will pay." Affordable or nominal to one per isn't to another person.
It's a business like any other. You are welcome to try to negotiate but we are welcome to say no and neither party should take it personally--it's just business.
That said, I'm generally not a big fan of negotiating with providers that have prices listed generally.
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?
Bc when I was caught up in the whole wedding hoopla it seemed important. Now, not so much. I honestly had no idea that I was in the minority. I truly believed until this thread that no one would pay anything for wedding photos five years later.
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.
He will need to give you a print release, not the copyright.
As a wedding photographer I can tell you that $400 for digital files is cheap. The going rate right now is at least $800 but can definitely be more. If they are included in a package the price reflects that. I think it's crappy you want to basically tell him his work isn't worth the money. The details should have been hammered out in the initial contract but that is beside the point.
The price is not outrageous. And unfortunately, you don't really have much leverage as to him they are just random negatives or files, to you they mean a lot more. So I'd tread carefully. First question: Do you really want them? If your wedding was 5 years ago, I assume you have what you wanted and you probably don't need these. What would you do with them if you got them? Based on that, you can decide how much they are worth to you. Would you be heartbroken if they were destroyed? If so, you need to pay for them. You can try to negotiate down to $200, but if he doesn't go for it, be prepared to pay the $400 or lose them forever.
People seem to always forget that the photographer owns the pictures. You don't have a right to them just because they are pics of you. If he doesn't wnat to go down on price, he's not a jerk, he runs a business and he sets the price. There is nothing you can do if you don't agree with his price.
What I think is odd about this is that yes, the photographer should be compensated for his work. But I assume whatever you paid at the time of the wedding would be a fair amount of compensation. If it isn't, he should have charged more at the time.
Now, 5 years later, he's not doing extra work beyond what was done 5 years ago and what he was paid for 5 years ago. He's just putting your stuff on a disc and sending it to you. That shouldn't take long or require expensive materials to do. The actual photography and editing that he did is a ship that sailed long ago.
And, if you say you won't pay it, he doesn't get anything at all. So that's dumb too - if I'm missing something and he has actually done an additional $400 worth of work that he hasn't yet been paid for, he should have gotten commitment from you PRIOR TO doing that work.
It seems to me that this is kind of an afterthought on both the part of the photographer and the customer and I think $400 does seem high especially in proportion to the original cost of the photography. It is too bad for both parties that this fee wasn't specified in the contract. Live and learn I guess.
I actually think it's sort of tacky to try and negotiate. He shouldn't have said nominal, but $400 is reasonable for what you're getting.
I'd either just pay it or decline.
Why is it tacky to negotiate?
I negotiate everything I can. People who don't lose out. It never hurts to try. Its not like she knew it was going to be $400 five years ago and now is trying to weasel him down.
What I think is odd about this is that yes, the photographer should be compensated for his work. But I assume whatever you paid at the time of the wedding would be a fair amount of compensation. If it isn't, he should have charged more at the time.
Now, 5 years later, he's not doing extra work beyond what was done 5 years ago and what he was paid for 5 years ago. He's just putting your stuff on a disc and sending it to you. That shouldn't take long or require expensive materials to do. The actual photography and editing that he did is a ship that sailed long ago.
And, if you say you won't pay it, he doesn't get anything at all. So that's dumb too - if I'm missing something and he has actually done an additional $400 worth of work that he hasn't yet been paid for, he should have gotten commitment from you PRIOR TO doing that work.
It seems to me that this is kind of an afterthought on both the part of the photographer and the customer and I think $400 does seem high especially in proportion to the original cost of the photography. It is too bad for both parties that this fee wasn't specified in the contract. Live and learn I guess.
He may not be doing (much) additional work, but he's giving her the print release, which is a big deal and signals the end of her wedding as an income stream.
Photographers are sensitive about this stuff! And maybe you shouldn't give out discounts.
I feel very little passion about this LOL.
I'm not a photographer
And sometimes you have to give discounts. Its just the way it is. I'd rather have a paying client at 80% my normal rate than $0.
I agree it doesn't hurt to negotiate in this scenario. It's the photographer's choice to take the offer or stand firm. I would maybe agree with you more, Jenny, if it weren't for the error Domer posted about--the photographer apparently offering another couple their rights for $200. Obviously there may be other factors at play there, but it would probably bug me a bit if I were Domer.
I definitely wouldn't send that email, though. I find that making things my fault in these situations often pays off; in this case, that would be making the claim that my budget is tight, and asking if there's any chance of negotiating a lower price.
What I think is odd about this is that yes, the photographer should be compensated for his work. But I assume whatever you paid at the time of the wedding would be a fair amount of compensation. If it isn't, he should have charged more at the time.
Now, 5 years later, he's not doing extra work beyond what was done 5 years ago and what he was paid for 5 years ago. He's just putting your stuff on a disc and sending it to you. That shouldn't take long or require expensive materials to do. The actual photography and editing that he did is a ship that sailed long ago.
I don't understand your point. The price she paid initially did not include the photo CD. He was compensated for the cost of his services that day, but that had nothing to do with the negatives to his pictures. Yes, technically he doesn't have to do much to burn the images to a disc, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't charge his regular price.
What I think is odd about this is that yes, the photographer should be compensated for his work. But I assume whatever you paid at the time of the wedding would be a fair amount of compensation. If it isn't, he should have charged more at the time.
Now, 5 years later, he's not doing extra work beyond what was done 5 years ago and what he was paid for 5 years ago. He's just putting your stuff on a disc and sending it to you. That shouldn't take long or require expensive materials to do. The actual photography and editing that he did is a ship that sailed long ago.
And, if you say you won't pay it, he doesn't get anything at all. So that's dumb too - if I'm missing something and he has actually done an additional $400 worth of work that he hasn't yet been paid for, he should have gotten commitment from you PRIOR TO doing that work.
It seems to me that this is kind of an afterthought on both the part of the photographer and the customer and I think $400 does seem high especially in proportion to the original cost of the photography. It is too bad for both parties that this fee wasn't specified in the contract. Live and learn I guess.
I'm sorry, but you just don't understand the photography industry. This is not the way it works. She's not just paying for him to burn her a disk. She's paying for the print release and the right to use his work.
Again: just because the photos are OF you doesn't mean you OWN them. Look it up.
He'd be well within his rights to just destroy them if OP doesn't pay for them. And there is no incentive for him to give them to OP at a reduced rate, they are still valuable whether you choose to recognize that value or not. If you aren't willing to pay for it, you can't get mad if he chooses to trash them. They are his property unless you choose to buy them.
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.
This makes sense EXCEPT that if anything at all happened to your actual printed photos, the album...or whatever, you would never be able to reprint them again.
My wedding negatives and the copyright release were given to us after 5 years. That was stated in the original contract. We actually DID end up having to reprint one of our photographs because the original print was ruined.
And I did have a friend who lost all her wedding photos AND the negatives in a fire (which is why we scanned ours and the digital files are archived somewhere else)
With all that said, I would pay $400. Simply because I think that wedding photos are worth it.
What I think is odd about this is that yes, the photographer should be compensated for his work. But I assume whatever you paid at the time of the wedding would be a fair amount of compensation. If it isn't, he should have charged more at the time.
Now, 5 years later, he's not doing extra work beyond what was done 5 years ago and what he was paid for 5 years ago. He's just putting your stuff on a disc and sending it to you. That shouldn't take long or require expensive materials to do. The actual photography and editing that he did is a ship that sailed long ago.
And, if you say you won't pay it, he doesn't get anything at all. So that's dumb too - if I'm missing something and he has actually done an additional $400 worth of work that he hasn't yet been paid for, he should have gotten commitment from you PRIOR TO doing that work.
It seems to me that this is kind of an afterthought on both the part of the photographer and the customer and I think $400 does seem high especially in proportion to the original cost of the photography. It is too bad for both parties that this fee wasn't specified in the contract. Live and learn I guess.
I'm sorry, but you just don't understand the photography industry. This is not the way it works. She's not just paying for him to burn her a disk. She's paying for the print release and the right to use his work.
Again: just because the photos are OF you doesn't mean you OWN them. Look it up.
He'd be well within his rights to just destroy them if OP doesn't pay for them. And there is no incentive for him to give them to OP at a reduced rate, they are still valuable whether you choose to recognize that value or not. If you aren't willing to pay for it, you can't get mad if he chooses to trash them. They are his property unless you choose to buy them.
But if he's just going to destroy them, he's not going to make any more money off of them either. It's not as though he's going to be continuing to collect money on her prints if he destroys the files. Either way he's not getting any more money from his work.
If he wants the option to continue making money off of his work, his policy shouldn't be to destroy the pictures after 5 years. It should be to keep them indefinitely OR offer the option to buy them.
This thread is making me really glad I got all my wedding photos right after my wedding and could print them myself. Wedding photography is ridiculously expensive.
I'm sorry, but you just don't understand the photography industry. This is not the way it works. She's not just paying for him to burn her a disk. She's paying for the print release and the right to use his work.
Again: just because the photos are OF you doesn't mean you OWN them. Look it up.
He'd be well within his rights to just destroy them if OP doesn't pay for them. And there is no incentive for him to give them to OP at a reduced rate, they are still valuable whether you choose to recognize that value or not. If you aren't willing to pay for it, you can't get mad if he chooses to trash them. They are his property unless you choose to buy them.
But if he's just going to destroy them, he's not going to make any more money off of them either. It's not as though he's going to be continuing to collect money on her prints if he destroys the files. Either way he's not getting any more money from his work.
If he wants the option to continue making money off of his work, his policy shouldn't be to destroy the pictures after 5 years. It should be to keep them indefinitely OR offer the option to buy them.
This thread is making me really glad I got all my wedding photos right after my wedding and could print them myself. Wedding photography is ridiculously expensive.
He's not, but chances are, if the disc had been negotiated up front, the price would have been higher than $400 at the start, making the package higher than $1600. The price of the disc was never in the original contract...so it was never paid for.
Post by Ashley&Scott on Jan 15, 2013 17:29:44 GMT -5
Did you purchase any photos after the wedding? If not I would pay the $400 & not argue. I agree it's not nominal & I would be mad he was offering other couples a cheaper rate but in the end I would want my wedding pics.
If you've already purchased your favorites & this is just about getting copies of all of the photos I would be more inclined to keep negotiating.
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.
THIS is exactly what I would do myself. If someone sends me an email that I don't agree with, I'll ignore it like I never got it.
OP, I think you should try this and if it doesn't work then just pay. I paid $550 for my release and my photographer sucked (he was a friend of H's family who all claimed he was good..obviously they don't know good photography.) He offered to do the job for free then turned around and asked us for $550 when it was over. We just paid it and that was that. We've got the digital copy if we ever want to reprint anything.
But if he's just going to destroy them, he's not going to make any more money off of them either. It's not as though he's going to be continuing to collect money on her prints if he destroys the files. Either way he's not getting any more money from his work.
If he wants the option to continue making money off of his work, his policy shouldn't be to destroy the pictures after 5 years. It should be to keep them indefinitely OR offer the option to buy them.
This thread is making me really glad I got all my wedding photos right after my wedding and could print them myself. Wedding photography is ridiculously expensive.
Why should he continue to store them for clients free of charge? Storage space is not unlimited and 5 years worth of weddings is a LOT of stuff to store (either disk space or boxes of negatives). That's why he's giving her the option, buy them or he's tossing them. Again, he's not just going to give them away for free if she doesn't pay, that would set a bad precedent and besides, that's just not how the business works.
Post by curbsideprophet on Jan 15, 2013 19:37:51 GMT -5
I agree with gypsy and noodleoo. If you want the rights/images, I would just pay for them. $400 seems reasonable to me. The price should have been negotiated as part of the original contract, but it is obviously too late for that.
As for why I think he should accept the $200? Besides the fact that he obviously charges other people $200 for them, and that he said when we hired him that he basically gives them away for the cost of a "finders fee" of tracking people down, it makes no business sense. There is ONE buyer. The CD was made at the time he made everything else. He will not see any more money from this wedding either way because his stated other option is to trash them. So why not take the $200? It's spiteful and stupid.
I do know that they aren't my images, but I still think he's an asshole. And yes, I am sad. I really wanted those images. It's a real let down.
The problem is that if he lets you have them for $200, he is devaluing his work and he will have difficulty charging a higher price in the future. Also, you have no idea how many images the other couple had or how many hours he worked with them - their CD might legitimately be less expensive than yours.
Team photographer. This is purely a business decision.
As for why I think he should accept the $200? Besides the fact that he obviously charges other people $200 for them, and that he said when we hired him that he basically gives them away for the cost of a "finders fee" of tracking people down, it makes no business sense. There is ONE buyer. The CD was made at the time he made everything else. He will not see any more money from this wedding either way because his stated other option is to trash them. So why not take the $200? It's spiteful and stupid.
I do know that they aren't my images, but I still think he's an asshole. And yes, I am sad. I really wanted those images. It's a real let down.
The problem is that if he lets you have them for $200, he is devaluing his work and he will have difficulty charging a higher price in the future. Also, you have no idea how many images the other couple had or how many hours he worked with them - their CD might legitimately be less expensive than yours.
Team photographer. This is purely a business decision.
I have to agree with Kimi. You can not compare the price he offered someone else. You have no idea how many pictures he took for them, etc.
Based on your follow up it sounds like you are not going to pay $400 just because you think he should accept your offer of $200. To me, it seems like you are being stubborn about it. Is the $200 difference really going to make or break you? Maybe it is and you really can not afford. However, if you can afford it, I would just get them. The pictures have more meaning to you than they do to him since they are of your wedding. He is not really losing anything and you are losing the opportunity to have all your wedding images.
The problem is that if he lets you have them for $200, he is devaluing his work and he will have difficulty charging a higher price in the future. Also, you have no idea how many images the other couple had or how many hours he worked with them - their CD might legitimately be less expensive than yours.
Team photographer. This is purely a business decision.
I have to agree with Kimi. You can not compare the price he offered someone else. You have no idea how many pictures he took for them, etc.
Based on your follow up it sounds like you are not going to pay $400 just because you think he should accept your offer of $200. To me, it seems like you are being stubborn about it. Is the $200 difference really going to make or break you? Maybe it is and you really can not afford. However, if you can afford it, I would just get them. The pictures have more meaning to you than they do to him since they are of your wedding. He is not really losing anything and you are losing the opportunity to have all your wedding images.
Just to play devil's advocate, as a small business owner in a creative industry (though not photography), in this situation as the business person I would have eaten the extra $200 given a) my mistake in sending Jen an email with the wrong info at first; b) my desire to end the working relationship on a happy note instead of creating a pissed off client who may badmouth me to potential new clients; and c) the fact that this would have been a lesson to me to specify terms for passing along of raw images and printing rights in my contract for the future and to collect from the client up front.
His was certainly a business decision, and Kimi is totally right that charging less could be seen as undervaluing his own work, but the odds aren't good that Jen is going to go blabbing to this guy's current clients about the deal she got so that he won't be able to charge $400 in the future. In fact, the opposite argument could be made: that she may now go out and spread the negative word on him and lose him potential future clients.
Either way the prerogative was his, I think this was handled poorly on both sides both now and 5 years ago, and I would agree that $400 is a steal for the images. As a businessperson though I try to see the client's side when reasonable and I have found that being nice and giving a "one-time special exception" to a policy here and there is good for business and does not devalue my work.
I do agree with curbside though and if I were the client in this situation I would have just ponied up the extra $200 and said good riddance.
If you're sad, it sounds like they're worth more than $200. If I were you I would buy them. I think 10 years from now you're much more likely to regret not buying them than you are to regret spending the extra $200. (If, on the other hand, you think you'd regret the extra $200 more, then I think it makes sense to forego them.)