Meet Charlie. He is only twelve months old but he takes his playing, and photographs, very seriously...
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Copyrights. 'Cause I said I would.
I once read that the first Ford Pinto (that's a car from the 70's for you young people) cost over $1 million to make. It was a one-of-a-kind prototype. From that car the tools were made to make LOTS of Ford Pintos and the rest is history. Oh right... for the young people: The Pinto was popular during the 70s' gas shortage because it was cheap to buy and got good gas mileage. It also blew up if you ran in to the back of it. That's how come ya' don't seem 'em drivin' around anymore. I don't know how many they MADE but they RECALLED 1.4 million of 'em.
Aaaaanyway. The point is that the ORIGINAL cost the designers and manufacturers a lot of time, money and expertise to make. From that effort they were able to make sell duplicates of the original and, presumbably, make enough money to cover the cost of the original AND make a profit.
If you would have offered the Ford Motor Company $1 million in 1971 for their one-example Pinto I don't think they would have sold it to you. Probably not for $2 million either. Ten million dollars? Perhaps. For it was from that original that they were able to sell you and a few million others the COPY for a much more attractive $2,100.
Since most are clever enough to see where this is going I'll just get to my point:
Photo copyrights are full ownership of the original photo or digital image file. When a photographer takes a photograph he IS the owner of the original photo....the prototype.... and he has copy "rights" to that photo or digital file. The photographer can adjust, alter, print, copy and sell (with some stipulation) that photo any way he chooses.
I am sometimes asked to sell... or provide... my digital files to a craigspix.com client. Under the right circumstances (i.e. the right amount of money) I do it. I haven't sold a craigspix copyright yet but have been asked to on a few occasions. No one has yet agreed to the $5,000-per-file price.
Monday, May 12, 2008
High Resolution Digital Files
I am often, and with increasing frequency, asked whether or not I offer digital files as part of my wedding/portrait/event photo sessions. Generally speaking the answer is "no". Key to my success thusfar has been my desire to give clients what they want/need. Some want/need digital files. For them the answer is "it depends". Before answering the question here I am going to do something I do not get a chance to do when answering the question in person; explain the complexity of the question and answer from the viewpoint of a professional photographer. No ranting; just insight. This is arguably the hottest topic in professional photography today. Do I provide or sell my high-resolution digital files?
As a professional photographer I earn a living by creating original photographic images of people and/or things. That is basically a three-part process. I have to artistically capture good images to work with, I have to process those images in a way that is creative, artistic and unique and I have to print that work to a desired medium (paper, canvas, silk, crystal, etc.)
The "capturing" part is called a photo session (Sophomoric, I know. Stay with me.) Clients come to my studio or I go to them. For in-studio shoots the studio must be prepared based on the shoot. Children, families, babies, teens, tweens, models, headshots, pets...Each session requires different lighting, props and backdrop considerations. Location shoots have similar and more complex considerations. None the least of which is: What location?! I spend a fair amount of time traveling and making notes of photo-worthy locations. A photo session can take 20 minutes for a basic, executive headshot to 14+ hours for an all-day commercial shoot or wedding. Though it's hard to tell because of the smiles on our faces, most photographers enjoy getting paid for this time. And as you might expect; more time = more pay.
The "processing" part is called a nightmare (juuuust kidding). It's the very fun part but often time-consuming. Many photographers leave the processing to digital artists. The photographer shoots. The artist processes. The lab prints. I still personally hand-process all of my final images. Why? Because I hardly have any work. Aaaaahhhhh haaaa haaaa! OK. Seriously? It's because capturing an image of someone is a personal experience. Just the way you treat someone walking down the street differently if you know them or not; you treat images of people differently if you know the subject or not. How would a photo-processor know whether an image really "captured the person" without knowing the person?! That's why. It's fun, fun, fun and, like the photo session part, photographers love (um...expect) to get paid for this.
The "printing" part is loads of fun. Kidding again. That really IS a nightmare. I'll skip lots of explanation here. Go ahead and try it. Bring up a beautiful picture on your computer screen. Now print that picture on your printer so that it looks just like the image on your screen. Go on. I'll wait. How'd the print come out? Not quite like your screen image? Perhaps it's your color space. Is your image in Adobe RGB (1998) color space or sRGB? You could convert it to the CMYK color space but that is tricky unless you know what you are doing. What paper are you using? Canon or Epson? Ilford? HP? Hahnemuhle? Is the paper glossy or semi-gloss? Matte? Color or black and white? Are you using the correct ICC profile for your printer? What about ink? Is yours dye or pigment based? Inkjet or laser printer? Maybe you have a dye-sublimation printer. I doubt you'd be reading this if you did. Should a photographer get paid for producing a beautiful print? Of course. Would you mind if the file was professionally printed by a digital photo lab? Probably not. Either way, it costs time/money to print a photo. Creating a beautifully printed image from a digital photograph is the stuff of professional photographers!
What's the point? The point is that, to a photographic artist, digital image files are part of the artistic process. Not the result. The print is the result and it is often that which is exchanged with the client for money. When you ask a photographer for digital files you are asking the painter for his brushes and paints. You are asking the mechanic for his tools. Would the mechanic sell you his tools? Possibly. But not for the price of a tuneup. Would the painter sell you his brushes and paint? Maybe. Not for the price of a painting. Would a car company sell you rolls of steel? Sure...for the cost of all the cars they could make out of it! Would a professional photographer sell you his/her raw digital files? Yes. But not for the price of a few prints.
Do I sell my digital files? Yes. They aren't cheap. Do I include digital files with some of my wedding packages? Yes. The (slightly discounted) price is included in the package. Will I do a photo shoot and ONLY produce digital files? Yes. If that is what a client wants/needs. Do I sell copyrights to my images? THAT is the next topic of the next blog entry. Thank you for reading!
As a professional photographer I earn a living by creating original photographic images of people and/or things. That is basically a three-part process. I have to artistically capture good images to work with, I have to process those images in a way that is creative, artistic and unique and I have to print that work to a desired medium (paper, canvas, silk, crystal, etc.)
The "capturing" part is called a photo session (Sophomoric, I know. Stay with me.) Clients come to my studio or I go to them. For in-studio shoots the studio must be prepared based on the shoot. Children, families, babies, teens, tweens, models, headshots, pets...Each session requires different lighting, props and backdrop considerations. Location shoots have similar and more complex considerations. None the least of which is: What location?! I spend a fair amount of time traveling and making notes of photo-worthy locations. A photo session can take 20 minutes for a basic, executive headshot to 14+ hours for an all-day commercial shoot or wedding. Though it's hard to tell because of the smiles on our faces, most photographers enjoy getting paid for this time. And as you might expect; more time = more pay.
The "processing" part is called a nightmare (juuuust kidding). It's the very fun part but often time-consuming. Many photographers leave the processing to digital artists. The photographer shoots. The artist processes. The lab prints. I still personally hand-process all of my final images. Why? Because I hardly have any work. Aaaaahhhhh haaaa haaaa! OK. Seriously? It's because capturing an image of someone is a personal experience. Just the way you treat someone walking down the street differently if you know them or not; you treat images of people differently if you know the subject or not. How would a photo-processor know whether an image really "captured the person" without knowing the person?! That's why. It's fun, fun, fun and, like the photo session part, photographers love (um...expect) to get paid for this.
The "printing" part is loads of fun. Kidding again. That really IS a nightmare. I'll skip lots of explanation here. Go ahead and try it. Bring up a beautiful picture on your computer screen. Now print that picture on your printer so that it looks just like the image on your screen. Go on. I'll wait. How'd the print come out? Not quite like your screen image? Perhaps it's your color space. Is your image in Adobe RGB (1998) color space or sRGB? You could convert it to the CMYK color space but that is tricky unless you know what you are doing. What paper are you using? Canon or Epson? Ilford? HP? Hahnemuhle? Is the paper glossy or semi-gloss? Matte? Color or black and white? Are you using the correct ICC profile for your printer? What about ink? Is yours dye or pigment based? Inkjet or laser printer? Maybe you have a dye-sublimation printer. I doubt you'd be reading this if you did. Should a photographer get paid for producing a beautiful print? Of course. Would you mind if the file was professionally printed by a digital photo lab? Probably not. Either way, it costs time/money to print a photo. Creating a beautifully printed image from a digital photograph is the stuff of professional photographers!
What's the point? The point is that, to a photographic artist, digital image files are part of the artistic process. Not the result. The print is the result and it is often that which is exchanged with the client for money. When you ask a photographer for digital files you are asking the painter for his brushes and paints. You are asking the mechanic for his tools. Would the mechanic sell you his tools? Possibly. But not for the price of a tuneup. Would the painter sell you his brushes and paint? Maybe. Not for the price of a painting. Would a car company sell you rolls of steel? Sure...for the cost of all the cars they could make out of it! Would a professional photographer sell you his/her raw digital files? Yes. But not for the price of a few prints.
Do I sell my digital files? Yes. They aren't cheap. Do I include digital files with some of my wedding packages? Yes. The (slightly discounted) price is included in the package. Will I do a photo shoot and ONLY produce digital files? Yes. If that is what a client wants/needs. Do I sell copyrights to my images? THAT is the next topic of the next blog entry. Thank you for reading!
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Indian Pre-Wedding Ceremony
Number One
They say you have to start "somewhere" so here we are...somewhere. Photos, events, travel, ideas and updates to follow. Thank you for visiting the craigspix.com blog site. Please check out www.craigspix.com!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
