All digital wedding packages?

Does anyone do this? I had a client ask for no prints at all, she just wanted a disk of the images. This seems like a disturbing trend to me and I have no idea what to charge. I feel like once you get the photos from the realm of the physical people are going to expect cheaper prices. Not that many people know the real cost of prints but they do know the cost of a blank CD and I'm sure they'll think any price I quote them for is too much.

What do you all do about this?

I have seen most photographers only sell a disk within a package of prints.

I'm not a [professional] photographer, so just speaking to my experience.

I got married in 2008, and our photo package included I believe one photo book, two parent books, one re-touched photo and a disk of every image that was taken. We were specifically looking for an option to get all pictures digitally.

So we weren't 100% digital, but not far from it...

Hmm so the consensus so far is don't do it without selling prints as well?

Do this. Offer them the digital files in small size (for the web). But if they want larger sizes they need to pay extra for it.

That's what I do with events. Works out for me.

My experience in the Midwest has been this... Since the transition to digital, brides seem to want more for less.

I believe they know what the cost is for consumer grade equipment and prints. Therefore, many do not see that what they are paying for is not the paper or the camera equipment, but the image and the skill it takes to create it.

We have had most of our bridal consultations come in with the intention of purchasing a CD with printing rights only. What we have to do at that point is convince them that they don't want ONLY a CD. Realistically, what will they do with it after that? Some will print a bunch of 4x6 proofs from a local drugstore lab and put them into an inexpensive album and maybe one or two enlargements for the wall or gifts. Then it just gets filed away and nothing more is ever done. We have to tell them that they want an album.

By providing the client with a CD including printing rights, we give up a lot as photographers. First, you have no control of how the final product is shown to others and what your perceived quality of product is. Consider this, the client goes to the local drug store and prints 100-4x6s that on thinner paper, maybe glossy, not color corrected or custom cropped. Now they put them into a slip in album with the shiny acetate pages. This is what they take to work and to family functions to show off their wedding and your work. Wouldn't you rather have them show off your work in a beautifully designed album with color corrected, retouched images? Don't you think it will make your work and your professionalism look greater?

Photographers will also lose the potential income of reprints from their session. If you hand off a CD with the printing rights, you will rarely have orders for prints. (From the client's perspective: why should I pay $10 for a print that I can get for $1 at the local drug store?) So, if you are willing to give up those controls, you have to compensate yourself somehow for that. Hence, you should charge what you think that session would have earned you had you been able to provide an album or prints.

Don't cut yourself short. The hard part is the creativity and technical creation of an image. The easy part is the printing.

Good luck!

Wow very informative! Those are my feelings exactly. I really don't want to give my clients any excuse to undercut me, and really an album IS better for them. Cds break or get lost or as you said, sit in storage and do nothing. If you are paying for a pro photographer you might as well go the extra mile and get a beautiful finished product.

Thanks!

We Design Albums.com wrote: Therefore, many do not see that what they are paying for is not the paper or the camera equipment, but the image and the skill it takes to create it.

Sorry... but isnt that what they are paying hundreds, if not thousands of dollars for when they hire you to come photograph the wedding??

to me thats like an electrician saying sure... ill wire the new house you are building... but i wont install any sockets/telephone jacks. If you want those you'll need to pay me more. And you shouldnt do it yourself, or have someone else do it, because i cant guarantee the quality and safety of the work...

If you are expecting to make money off of the actual images... why not just include that in the price of your wedding packages instead of trying to charge separately for it. Have each package come with an album of x many pictures. or x number of high quality files.

cause quite frankly... figuring out ways to force people to buy images that theyve paid you to take seems like double dipping to me at best, and downright illegal at worst...

Geoff, I think you're way off the mark here. Did you read the whole thread? Illegal? What's illegal about wanting to hold the rights to your own works so they aren't reprinted and misrepresented?

The thread was about people who DON'T WANT prints because they want to be cheap about it and get a CD of images and hold rights to reprint whatever they want. The point was that once the physical elements of photographs are taken out of the equation, the clients could begin to lose sight of the what they are paying you for.

You aren't paying for the CD, a CD itself costs less than a dollar. You don't got a record store and say "hey I know this CD and case only cost $2, give it to me for that!" You are paying for the work and time and equipment the musicians had to use to make that recording. In other words, you are paying for the artist to be able to make your CD.

Same with a photographer. In the digital age where everyone has a camera and thinks they are a photographer, people lose sight of skill. Having a camera doesn't make you a photographer any more than having a guitar makes you a musician.

MagsWPhoto wrote: Geoff, I think you're way off the mark here. Did you read the whole thread? Illegal? What's illegal about wanting to hold the rights to your own works so they aren't reprinted and misrepresented?

The thread was about people who DON'T WANT prints because they want to be cheap about it and get a CD of images and hold rights to reprint whatever they want. The point was that once the physical elements of photographs are taken out of the equation, the clients could begin to lose sight of the what they are paying you for.

Yes I read the whole thread... and you never said anything about giving away the rights to your work. Giving someone a digital copy of an image is in no way giving away your rights. You automatically own the rights to an image indefinitely unless you otherwise sign it away.

You also failed to mention anything about the client asking for the rights to reprint whatever they want. You said they wanted a CD. As far as I know you are now assuming any ulterior motive.

But yes... I do believe that charging someone 2000$ to take some pictures and then charging them again to actually get copies of a picture to be morally wrong at the very least.

And thats a horrible example of a musician. If you just paid a musician thousands of dollars to record a cd... then yes, I would expect to get a cd for free. But the business model is entirely different. They are paid by someone else to produce that cd, and then that company sells it to make a profit. Except that their input/payment to the musicians can be thousands, if not millions of dollars...

Would a painter charge you say 500$ to have a family portrait painted... but then charge them again for the actual painting?? Would a cabinet maker charge you 1000$ for him to make you a cabinet, but then bill you for the cabinet??

Hell even if they do buy one set of prints... there is absolutely nothing stopping them from scanning them and duplicating them any ways. How do you feel about low quality scans ending up with your logo on them on facebook? wouldnt that be misrepresentation as you put it?

Personally, I have no need for prints. I have moved on average at least once every 2 years of my life... Hell after my mother died i scanned her wedding pictures and tossed them in the garbage. Same goes with the photo albums of my grandfather dating as far back as WWII. Digital Images will last forever if you keep them backed up. Albums and prints do not. They lose color and deteriorate over time. They also burn in house fires, waste away in floods, torn up in tornadoes.

But get with the times or fade away. People are going to want digital files and they will go to where they get them. Either raise your package price to include the loss in print sales (and include x number of digital images), or at least offer the digital images for a (reasonable) price.

But ill say it one more time... charging for a service, and then forcing them to buy the product... is simply wrong. and i dont get how people get away with it. Just googled some portrait photographers... I dont see any (although im sure some must exist) that charge a sitting fee that do not include a print/portrait. or they offer portraits but dont charge a sitting fee...

MagsWPhoto wrote: The thread was about people who DON'T WANT prints because they want to be cheap about it and get a CD of images and hold rights to reprint whatever they want. The point was that once the physical elements of photographs are taken out of the equation, the clients could begin to lose sight of the what they are paying you for.

No offense, but in our case we took advantage of what the photography company offered. They had an option that included all images digitally, with a full release. It wasn't something they didn't offer that we demanded. Although when we were shopping around, that was an option we were looking for - and there were certainly a number of companies out there that had various digital options (some requiring a certain dollar amount in purchased prints, etc). Our package included an incredibly nice album plus a couple 11x14 prints. Other than a few prints for my wife to scrapbook I don't believe we've reprinted anything on our own, even though we have full rights to do so.

I realize that we may be in the minority, but it had nothing to do with being "cheap". We went went with this company and even paid a bit more than we could have elsewhere as a result of their digital option. In our case, we had no intent of filling our walls with wedding pictures. We had been together for 10 years when we got married, and wanted a couple nice pictures to hang on the wall. Other than that, we wanted quality images to remember our day. We got that with the digital images, in addition to the photo book and DVD slide-show that were part of our package. I have little doubt that many that get digital options probably do walk into Target or Walgreens and promptly order a bunch of large prints to hang on their walls. That just doesn't include us...

Same with a photographer. In the digital age where everyone has a camera and thinks they are a photographer, people lose sight of skill. Having a camera doesn't make you a photographer any more than having a guitar makes you a musician.

And this is why we paid a photographer, as opposed to having a couple wedding guests take our pictures. We fully recognize the skill of a wedding photographer. We paid that money to ensure we had quality images to reflect that day. It simply wasn't important to us to have large numbers of those photos hanging on the wall. We certainly could have spent those thousands elsewhere if we were confident that anyone in attendance could take adequate wedding photos for us.

I hope my response doesn't sound like I'm offended, because I'm certainly not. But while every photographer has different reasons for offering options that they do, each paying customer also has different reasons for preferring certain options.

Again - photography is just a hobby in our case, but we can certainly appreciate those for which it is a profession.

MagsWPhoto wrote: Does anyone do this? I had a client ask for no prints at all, she just wanted a disk of the images. This seems like a disturbing trend to me and I have no idea what to charge.

I do. When I shot film I charged for the shoot and the prints. Now I charge my shooting rate + average print sales up front, and let them have a disc of fully processed, ready to print, high res files. I'm making the same money per job, but spending a lot less time in album planning meetings and running to the lab for print orders.

MagsWPhoto wrote: I feel like once you get the photos from the realm of the physical people are going to expect cheaper prices. Not that many people know the real cost of prints but they do know the cost of a blank CD and I'm sure they'll think any price I quote them for is too much.

Most folks understand that the cost reflects the photographer not CDs or Kodak paper, and that having the high res files is a huge value in the long run, and worth paying more for.

But what does it matter, didn't your client sign a contract clearly explaining how you do business and what your prices are? The time to negotiate is before signing the contract, not after. If you are uncomfortable selling the files or too expensive for them, then you aren't the right photographer for them. Do business however works for you. Your only obligation is to be honest and forthright about what you deliver and what it will cost. You don't have to give people a special deal. If this is a potential client then decline their business. If this is a signed client then refer them back to the contract they agreed to.

We Design Albums.com wrote: By providing the client with a CD including printing rights, we give up a lot as photographers. First, you have no control of how the final product is shown to others and what your perceived quality of product is. Consider this, the client goes to the local drug store and prints 100-4x6s that on thinner paper, maybe glossy, not color corrected or custom cropped. Now they put them into a slip in album with the shiny acetate pages. This is what they take to work and to family functions to show off their wedding and your work. Wouldn't you rather have them show off your work in a beautifully designed album with color corrected, retouched images? Don't you think it will make your work and your professionalism look greater?

I only hand over fully processed, retouched, and color corrected ready to print image files. I educate my clients on what to look for in a lab, and give recommendations. I advise they only use labs that print on Kodak and Fuji paper (which is the vast majority of labs). I point out that Mpix.com offers print prices that are quite competitive with drugstores and big box stores. I also include a set of 4x6 prints from Mpix.com so if the client does get lousy prints from a drugstore they can see the difference.

Most of my business is from word of mouth and previous client recommendations. I find that allowing the client to print and share inexpensively means a lot more people see the photos I took. They seem to think the prints and albums my previous clients ordered themselves look great.

The only thing I feel like I've given up is many long album planning meetings, and trips to the photo lab. I don't miss them one bit.

MagsWPhoto wrote: What's illegal about wanting to hold the rights to your own works so they aren't reprinted and misrepresented?

That can all be covered in the contract. I retain full copyright to the photos. The client only has permission to use the images for personal and private use.

MagsWPhoto wrote: The thread was about people who DON'T WANT prints because they want to be cheap about it and get a CD of images and hold rights to reprint whatever they want. The point was that once the physical elements of photographs are taken out of the equation, the clients could begin to lose sight of the what they are paying you for.

People aren't idiots. They understand what they are paying for, and they can do the math. They understand that you need to make a living, pay off the gear, taxes, insurance, etc... They understand that having the high res files and permission to print and share is very valuable in the long run. Not just because they can get $2 8"x10"s from Mpix, but also the convenience of ordering whenever they want instead of having to contact the photographer.

If people don't understand this just say no thanks. No matter what you offer and charge there are going to be some folks who think you are too expensive. There are plenty of folks who do understand the value of being able to have the high res files.


I worked in a full service photo finishing lab in the late 90's. Every single day people brought in pro photos, and tried to get them copied. We said no, and they told us we were idiots because they were going down to the grocery store, and reprinting them on the self-service kiosk. These days the cheapest printers come with a scanner. Just because they don't have the files don't kid yourself that people aren't copying your photos. Grandma ain't paying $20 for an 8"x10" when she can just photograph an existing print with her cell phone. And those copies are bound to look lousy, because professional help is not available.

When I switched to digital I decided that it was going to drive me crazy (and be impossible) to try to keep control over my images. If Hollywood and the music industry can't stop pirating with their army of lawyers what chance do I have? I decided that for me the best solution was to charge more up front, and educate the client on how to get good prints and albums on their own. It's worked out well for me.

In the end you need to run your business how ever works best for you. Not everyone is going to understand or want to pay what you charge, but those aren't your clients.

EDIT: At a recent (in the last few years) wedding industry conference 500 brides/brides-to-be were interviewed. 100% of them indicated that if a disc of high res files were not available it was a deal breaker, and they would not hire a wedding photographer where that was not an option.

I think that there is plenty of market for print sales, but you may have to be targeting a particular client base. My client base is mostly kids just out of college and older couples getting re-married. They want the disc.

geoffellis wrote: But yes... I do believe that charging someone 2000$ to take some pictures and then charging them again to actually get copies of a picture to be morally wrong at the very least.

Businesses can charge whatever they want for their product and services, and consumers can choose or decline to purchase those products and services. Unless dishonesty or a con is involved it has nothing to do with morality. Just because you don't want to pay what a business charges doesn't make them immoral.

I think it's silly to pay Leica prices for a camera that's not any better than one available for Canon, Nikon, or Pentax prices, but I wouldn't accuse Leica of being immoral. Unless you think capitalism in general is immoral, and that's a debate for another sort of forum....

Henry Peach wrote: Businesses can charge whatever they want for their product and services, and consumers can choose or decline to purchase those products and services. Unless dishonesty or a con is involved it has nothing to do with morality. Just because you don't want to pay what a business charges doesn't make them immoral.

While I wont say you are wrong... people can make all the choices they want... and i agree with your first response... I still see it as 1 service/product... not 2 services/products. As such i just cant fathom people doing business as if it was 2 separate services/products...

geoffellis wrote: I still see it as 1 service/product... not 2 services/products. As such i just cant fathom people doing business as if it was 2 separate services/products...

For almost all of the history of photography the business model for personal portraits (non-commercial) and weddings has been shooting fee + prints and albums are extra. Paying one fee, and then getting control of the originals is a very new business model. Less than a decade old.