Clients unimpressed with my new prices!

[filemanager]

Originally Posted by archersdad

I know some people disagree, but the cost doesn't seem like that big of a deal to me. If a client buys one print the profit more than pays for the storage space for the digital files.

I must agree with you, because I keep everything. I shoot RAW+JPEG and even though sometimes I think "Why do I do that?" I remember that when I just want a snapshot of something to send to a family member, I don't have to process the RAW I can just send out the JPEG... (which is about 50% of the time I would say). Logically I probably shouldn't use storage space on duplicate files, but, I do anyway

[mlee]

I include a hi-res DVD of images to my clients sessions and they still order enlargement prints from me. Best sellers are the Canvases and large metallic prints. I include sample 8x10 prints in my welcome kit and they can tell the difference.

[funcrunch]

One possible benefit of keeping the JPEG sidecar files is that, unlike camera-specific RAW files, they can be read by any software and should be supported indefinitely.

[BK553]

Originally Posted by funcrunch

One possible benefit of keeping the JPEG sidecar files is that, unlike camera-specific RAW files, they can be read by any software and should be supported indefinitely.

Use DNG, problem solved. But I don't see Canon or Nikon going anywhere in the next 50 years, and even if that did somehow happen, the sheer number of cameras out there ensures 3rd party development will be financially worth it for someone.

[funcrunch]

Originally Posted by BK553

Use DNG, problem solved. But I don't see Canon or Nikon going anywhere in the next 50 years, and even if that did somehow happen, the sheer number of cameras out there ensures 3rd party development will be financially worth it for someone.

I'm more worried about Pentaxians and such than Canonites and Nikonistas