Are my prices too high?

[superdewa]

I agree with Mr. Guy:

Originally Posted by Mr Guy

Not paying $500 dollars for your time doesn't make them cheapskates, it makes them unable to afford your services.

Many people think they want something, but until they've done a little research, they don't realize the cost. Occasionally you are going to have people who discover, after they've already approached you, that they can't afford your services. This is okay.

I don't have the money for professional photographs of my children. I know enough about photography to know this. As a potential client, however, I would hope the fact that I couldn't afford the photographer would be respected and just left at that, rather than my being made to feel uncomfortable because of it.

When someone who has something to sell views people who can't afford their services as cheapskates, they come across as pushy.

[valleygirl]

Originally Posted by superdewa

I agree with Mr. Guy:

When someone who has something to sell views people who can't afford their services as cheapskates, they come across as pushy.

Gosh, I never said I thought they were cheapskates. I just think they don't understand how much work goes into editing each photo. I honestly believe that people assume the photos come right out of the camera that way and they don't realize there is time and labor involved in getting those 50+ images ready for print.

I totally respect if someone cannot afford my services. It's rough times we're living in and no one wants to spend more than they have.

[lissykeeper]

Originally Posted by superdewa

I agree with Mr. Guy:



Many people think they want something, but until they've done a little research, they don't realize the cost. Occasionally you are going to have people who discover, after they've already approached you, that they can't afford your services. This is okay.

I don't have the money for professional photographs of my children. I know enough about photography to know this. As a potential client, however, I would hope the fact that I couldn't afford the photographer would be respected and just left at that, rather than my being made to feel uncomfortable because of it.

When someone who has something to sell views people who can't afford their services as cheapskates, they come across as pushy.

I think you guys are missing part of the point here. It's not that they could not afford her services, because they had already booked a session. (I am making an assumption that they were not spending above their means with the session fee) The problem came when the husband insisted she "throw in" a CD of full resolution images as part of the deal, when her price list clearly shows that an image CD cost $500. I have no issue with people who can't afford professional photographers. Until I got into photography, I took my child to the bargain studio when they ran the 9.99 deal for a package of one image (of course, I always wound up spending way more than that when I saw the images of my perfect angel. LOL)

However, I do have an issue with people expecting you to give them something for nothing. And I really have an issue with people who try to bully someone into giving them what they want. Which is what this couple did when they said they would only keep the session appointment if she gave them the image CD. People who can't afford professional services and wisely know that are not cheap. People who can afford it, but want you to give them a special deal, are!

And I would say that the majority of people, even those with their own nice camera set ups, would not have the slightest idea how long it takes to process that many images. Most people print them out without even making adjustments unless they choose auto color correction on their local kiosk.

Now, I will concede a point. Cheapskate probably was not the best choice of words to apply to this person. I personally think bully would be more appropriate.

[FilipeFreitas]

I haven't read this thread thoroughly but I find it outrageous that you guys sell a CD for 500$.
For example, if I would book a photographer for my wedding, besides the usual service and album, I would require that he handed me the original photos he took, just for archival purposes. If I would want a print, I would buy it from the photographer anyway, so the CD wouldn't matter.
The service and the camera is property from the photographer, but the photos are mine, so it's just fair that the photographer hands them over to me without any ridiculous charge.
Or did I misunderstand the notion of CD being discussed?

[OsmosisStudios]

FelipeFeitras: I dont think you understand exactly whats going on. Please read the thread before posting.

What the OP was saying was that the client was asking for a CD of print-ready pictures, so that they could make their own prints. Thus the price. If the client is making their own prints, the photographer isnt making money from selling prints.

You also dont seem to understand the difference between print-ready and archival. For your wedding, the archival pictures probably came with an explicit NO PRINT policy. If not, the photographer didn't do his job properly.

For most weddings, if the photographer includes a CD of print-ready pictures in a package, chances are that package is considerably more expensive than the same package without the CD.

As for ownership of the pictures, you have to understand that most photographers (and almost all wedding photographers) sell themselves as a SERVICE, not a product. As such, you're not necessarilly paying the photographer for pictures, but for his/her time. You say that you should be given a copy of the originals because you bought them: that's false. You paid the photographer for his service, not for the pictures.

Please remember to read the posts, in the future.

[jdepould]

Originally Posted by FilipeFreitas

The service and the camera is property from the photographer, but the photos are mine, so it's just fair that the photographer hands them over to me without any ridiculous charge.
Or did I misunderstand the notion of CD being discussed?

No. No they aren't. Just like buying an audio CD doesn't make the music yours, paying someone to take some photos doesn't make the photos yours.

That's the whole point of a free market, if you don't like the price, you can find someone else.

Originally Posted by FilipeFreitas

I haven't read this thread thoroughly but I find it outrageous that you guys sell a CD for 500$.

Please read through the thread, it will make a lot more sense.

For example, if I would book a photographer for my wedding, besides the usual service and album, I would require that he handed me the original photos he took, just for archival purposes. If I would want a print, I would buy it from the photographer anyway, so the CD wouldn't matter.

That may be your intention, but there are plenty of people who would just print them off at Kinko's or Wal-Mart just as easily.

The service and the camera is property from the photographer, but the photos are mine, so it's just fair that the photographer hands them over to me without any ridiculous charge.

No, the photos aren't yours. So, it's not fair that the photographer 'hand' them over. Secondly, the 'camera' is the photographers property, not yours, i have no clue where you got that idea.

Handing over a CD for a fee is NOT a ridiculous charge. If i did that i would basically never sell another photo from that event EVER AGAIN. Meaning, it's a net loss for the photographer.

I'm sorry Filipe, but you are way off base.

[Mr Guy]

No. No they aren't. Just like buying an audio CD doesn't make the music yours, paying someone to take some photos doesn't make the photos yours.

That's the whole point of a free market, if you don't like the price, you can find someone else.

Actually, it can. That was actually my whole point earlier about having different options based on your customers desires, with obligations clearly spelled out in your contract. Sure, buying a CD doesn't make you the copyright owner, but hiring a musician to record a piece for you can. Many photographers prefer to view their photos as their product and wouldn't dream of releasing the raw images. It's not, however, the ONLY way to look at it.

Like I said before, I'd personally prefer to hire a photographer based on their actual lighting/studio/whatever experience, not their post processing effort or ability to select photographic papers or crop for prints. I, again, just bring it up to point out that consumers like me do exist and are getting more common. I'd prefer to pay exclusively for the service of taking the photographs and will be willing to pay accordingly.

I'd absolutely never go to a free sitting and pay for 10 or 15 shots. I'd be perfectly willing to pay for the sitting and expect to receive 100 to 200 unprocessed shots, and I'd find a photographer that offered that and make sure the contract was agreeable to both of us.

[valleygirl]

I actually did offer to give them a CD for archival purposes. I said the photos would not be suitable for print, but they would be edited and web-ready. They didn't want that. They wanted 50-70 fully edited photos suitable for print thrown in for the price of the session (which translates into 12 or more hours of post-processing time.) And no, the photos do not belong to them. Sorry. If I write a book and you buy the book, the actual book belongs to you but I retain the copyright to the work. Same with photography. You can buy the print but the copyright is my property. I don't know how you came up with that idea.

Okay, so clearly this family shopped around and realized they weren't going to get a deal, because the lady writes me again today:

"Lauren, here is the situation. My husband is the family historian. We have photos dating back to the late 1800's therefore, keeping the photographs is very important to him. I have looked and there are photographers who will give us a CD of the session for less, however, I have not been as impressed with their work as I am with yours. I am wondering if you would consider selling us some of the photos on CD rather than the entire session."

Okay, but I did offer her an archival CD and he didn't want that. So now I am not sure what to do.

Originally Posted by laurenfitz

Okay, so clearly this family shopped around and realized they weren't going to get a deal, because the lady writes me again today:

"Lauren, here is the situation. My husband is the family historian. We have photos dating back to the late 1800's therefore, keeping the photographs is very important to him. I have looked and there are photographers who will give us a CD of the session for less, however, I have not been as impressed with their work as I am with yours. I am wondering if you would consider selling us some of the photos on CD rather than the entire session."

Okay, but I did offer her an archival CD and he didn't want that. So now I am not sure what to do.

See, standing your ground is good sometimes

Saying 'no' to people actually gets you more respect in the long run than saying 'yes' all the time.

What does she mean "selling us some of the photos on CD rather than the entire session"?? Just a couple pictures on a CD?

Tell her the best you can do is %10 for being in a good mood discount or something. Otherwise, like i do, tell her that if the 'history' of the family is that important to her, then your price is your price. Don't compromise.

Sometimes it pays to have a bit of arrogance and air of authority.

~Eric