Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/09/15

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Re: Slashdot meets the wedding photographer
From: "Eric" <ericm@pobox.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 16:05:20 -0500
References: <a01060003-1020-40041322C83111D699DF003065C7DF66@[10.0.1.2]>

Adam:

>I've often felt that the slash-dot mantra is "what's mine is mine and what's
>yours is mine too if I want it" and this isn't much different.

I don't see it that way.  I can understand the viewpoint of hiring somebody
for his creative abilities.  Paying for his knowledge of setting up shots.
Paying for his knowledge of capturing the moment.  Once captured, then, buy
the moment.

Giving up the rights to a picture that is of interest to many major
publications for a small payment would be insane.  But nobody else cares
about Joe Schmoe's wedding picture other than Joe and Jane Schmoe and some
relatives.  I really don't understand why a photographer wants to be in the
print selling business rather than in the photography business.

It seems pretty easy.  Charge for your time up front.  If the average profit
on a job is $2k, charge $1000 for just showing up.  If the bride and groom
are happy with the results, charge another $1k + print expenses +
appropriate markup to account for your time in getting those prints and
allow them to make as many copies as they want.  You still have your $2k
profit.  Heck, if you really want to make residual profits, offer to store
the negatives in a safe place.  Most people don't have a really good place
for storing precious negatives.  Charge $x/yr for filing.


Eric
- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

In reply to: Message from Adam Bridge <abridge@mac.com> ([Leica] Slashdot meets the wedding photographer)