Traditionally, wedding photography has worked on a speculative basis.
The old Weegee type photographers attended a society wedding on behalf of the press, and then went back and tried to sell the couple prints to make some extra bucks.
Most wedding photographers work that way today -- the packages offered are almost never the total number of pictures you'll want, usually don't have quite enough time alloted to complete the wedding photography (extra time - extra expense), and prices on reprints are 5 to 7 times what the labs charge the photographer. That's where the real profit lies for the speculative photographer, and why they've traditionally been reluctant to give up the negs or digital files.
Advertising photographers work differently -- they charge on a time, materials and usage basis. A wedding photographer working on this basis would charge you, say, $2000 to appear and shoot the wedding plus expenses (film, processing, printing) plus a percentage (handling, etc. ). Your total expenses will usually run out to an additional $1500-1800 to cover the cost of film and get the film/files professionally processed and printed.
There are a few wedding photographers who work this way, and it seems to make a big difference.
We do, for example.
We insist that we proof everything, however. This is to show the customer that the neg (or digital file) is properly exposed, sharp, and capable of making a good print. We give our couple a copy of everything we shoot. We also give them all the negs and a full-sized copy of every digital file on a CD. At that point, they have a choice. They can either go their merry way and have another lab make prints, or they can have us do them (our prices are about twice whatever the lab charges us, but we're dealing with the lab, specifying the quality, watching for problems and being picky on the other end). We'll also design and build albums on a custom basis, both digitally and traditionally. Charges are about twice whatever the album companies charge us.
There IS an issue with copyright, and most people don't understand it at all. We will present the couple with a grant of limited rights. In other words, we'll provide them with a letter that allows them to make all the copies they want for their personal use. Even though they have physical possession of negatives or files, they don't own any copyrights beyond that. In other words, if that couple decided to write a book and include photographs of their wedding, or if they decided to write a book about wedding photography, or if they wanted to use the photographs in advertising or as props in a movie, etc. they'd have to get permission (and probably pay a fee) to me as the copyright holder. In short, a photographer can issue certain limited rights while retaining all other rights, whether physically possessing the original film or digital files or not.
I don't have an issue with someone damaging my reputation by having their own prints made from my files or negs. It's far more likely that they're going to have a GOOD print done than if they scan a print and have copies of that made up. We make it clear to all our couples that they should take their originals to a PRO lab for pro results, and not to a consumer lab. Most couples notice the difference and would rather have us make their prints and pay the (relatively minor) extra cost to insure the quality. When the prices of reprints are extensively inflated because of the marketing model most speculative photographers use, there's more incentive for customers to seek out a cheaper alternative, and *that's* where crappy prints result.
In short, that couple could have had their cake and eaten it too. They simply need to find a photographer that does what we do; charges a fee and expenses to photograph the wedding, provides them with a set of proofs and a set of digital files (in this case) at full resolution, and offers a release of *specific* rights to print copies of the photos for their own use. No biggie. There ARE other photographers that work that way, but the majority are still using a marketing model that goes back to the thirties.
Slashdot Mirror
Traditionally, wedding photography has worked on a speculative basis. The old Weegee type photographers attended a society wedding on behalf of the press, and then went back and tried to sell the couple prints to make some extra bucks. Most wedding photographers work that way today -- the packages offered are almost never the total number of pictures you'll want, usually don't have quite enough time alloted to complete the wedding photography (extra time - extra expense), and prices on reprints are 5 to 7 times what the labs charge the photographer. That's where the real profit lies for the speculative photographer, and why they've traditionally been reluctant to give up the negs or digital files. Advertising photographers work differently -- they charge on a time, materials and usage basis. A wedding photographer working on this basis would charge you, say, $2000 to appear and shoot the wedding plus expenses (film, processing, printing) plus a percentage (handling, etc. ). Your total expenses will usually run out to an additional $1500-1800 to cover the cost of film and get the film/files professionally processed and printed. There are a few wedding photographers who work this way, and it seems to make a big difference. We do, for example. We insist that we proof everything, however. This is to show the customer that the neg (or digital file) is properly exposed, sharp, and capable of making a good print. We give our couple a copy of everything we shoot. We also give them all the negs and a full-sized copy of every digital file on a CD. At that point, they have a choice. They can either go their merry way and have another lab make prints, or they can have us do them (our prices are about twice whatever the lab charges us, but we're dealing with the lab, specifying the quality, watching for problems and being picky on the other end). We'll also design and build albums on a custom basis, both digitally and traditionally. Charges are about twice whatever the album companies charge us. There IS an issue with copyright, and most people don't understand it at all. We will present the couple with a grant of limited rights. In other words, we'll provide them with a letter that allows them to make all the copies they want for their personal use. Even though they have physical possession of negatives or files, they don't own any copyrights beyond that. In other words, if that couple decided to write a book and include photographs of their wedding, or if they decided to write a book about wedding photography, or if they wanted to use the photographs in advertising or as props in a movie, etc. they'd have to get permission (and probably pay a fee) to me as the copyright holder. In short, a photographer can issue certain limited rights while retaining all other rights, whether physically possessing the original film or digital files or not. I don't have an issue with someone damaging my reputation by having their own prints made from my files or negs. It's far more likely that they're going to have a GOOD print done than if they scan a print and have copies of that made up. We make it clear to all our couples that they should take their originals to a PRO lab for pro results, and not to a consumer lab. Most couples notice the difference and would rather have us make their prints and pay the (relatively minor) extra cost to insure the quality. When the prices of reprints are extensively inflated because of the marketing model most speculative photographers use, there's more incentive for customers to seek out a cheaper alternative, and *that's* where crappy prints result. In short, that couple could have had their cake and eaten it too. They simply need to find a photographer that does what we do; charges a fee and expenses to photograph the wedding, provides them with a set of proofs and a set of digital files (in this case) at full resolution, and offers a release of *specific* rights to print copies of the photos for their own use. No biggie. There ARE other photographers that work that way, but the majority are still using a marketing model that goes back to the thirties.