What are your thoughts

[Danielle10]

I read on facebook over and over again about "photographers" aka mum has a a dslr now and is a professional family/baby photographer... Sorry lol
Having a special on at the moment.
Eg: $90 for up to 50 digitally enhanced images on a disc to print at your leisure.

I personally hate the idea of burning a disc and giving it to a client mainly because if they have photos printed at Harvey Norman or big w etc the print quality is absolutely terrible. I would not like my name associated with poor prints.

I would prefer to give prints that i have printed at a pro lab than a disc burnt at home- its just tacky

What do u think
Ps sorry if I have rubbed anyone up the wrong way, just my pet hate

[Adrian Fischer]

I have used both pro labs and BigW and HN for prints. The latter generally for small print runs that dont warrant the cost of courier to get them delivered to me. Depending on what your printing, I have had no complaints about the quality of prints. I should also point out that a parents expectations are not what yours might be, print wise. I do a lot of T&I shots and what I consider to be a bad photo will still get purchased, because it is someones little princess. The same would go for printing. The parent who is willing to buy a cd of images and print them at Big W is ok with the quality of the printing they get. They may in fact not know any better as this has probably been their printing of choice for their happy snaps. The bigger issue I think is the burning to CD. Once burned and delivered you have lost any potential follow up prints. Its a sign of the times though. I compete with parents with cameras quite often but they cant achieve what I achieve because at the end of the day, my gear is better and more capable in more conditions (and I know which buttons to press ). Ive seen the shots from some of these "Mums" and a lot of what is produced is happy snappish. You also have to wonder how long it takes her to get to the point of putting 50 images to cd. To get 50 I would think you would be shooting 200 plus images. If on location there is travel time to and from. So maybe a couple of hours shooting (yeah I know you could snap off 200 in 15 minutes or less but Im being kind) and an hour (?) travel. So we are down to $30 an hour. Then factor in adding to LR or software of choice and then selecting your keepers. Lets say another hour so we are down to $22.50 per hour. Now to edit those 50 keepers. Adjust WB, contrast, clarity, etc etc...(again, yes I know you can run a preset or synchronize settings but thats only the starting point). So again an hour at least and then burn and deliver. So we are up to at least 5 hours so $18 per hour. No if this was a side income and not your main source then maybe thats ok but if your doing that for a living (and this is the business of photography forum) then your future isnt that bright. But if it is just a hobby with some earning capacity then it might earn them enough to get a better lens than the kit one that came with the camera Thats jut my 2c worth anyway.

[arthurking83]

While the cheaper print labs such as HN/OfficeWorks/BigW/etc are never going to match it with the best professional lab prints, they're still quite ok.. as Adrian says ... for general [public consumption.

If mum is happy to have a few well captured images of her bub printed at the lowest common denominator, then that is for them to decide.

Sometimes as photographers, we seem to place too much emphasis on the quality of or reproductions, and while there is nothing wrong with that in itself.. there should be a better understanding on the part of the photographer as to what the client wants.

I've printed some of my images in all manner of variations in quality, having large sets of OfficeWorks prints done for my mum, and at the same time an A4 print of one of my favourite images and was happy with the quality for the intended purpose .. but then on the flip side, I did a larger 30" print for a friend as her birthday pressie, and would only accept a higher quality print from a pro lab.

I see nothing wrong with supplying images on easily transferred media if that's what the customer asks for.

If there is any issue by the client as to the quality of the final prints that they do themselves, it's up to the photographer to be able to prove that they can do better and to highlight the fact with evidence to support themselves.

[William W]

. . .Having a special on at the moment.
E.g.: $90 for up to 50 digitally enhanced images on a disc to print at your leisure.

I personally hate the idea of burning a disc and giving it to a client mainly because if they have photos printed at Harvey Norman or big w etc the print quality is absolutely terrible. I would not like my name associated with poor prints.

I would prefer to give prints that i have printed at a pro lab than a disc burnt at home- its just tacky

What do u think

I mainly supply prints to non commercial customers – e.g. portrait sittings and such.
I mainly use one of two professional labs depending upon the print medium.
Very occasionally I will supply digital files, but only if requested and the job is suitable: no I don’t find this approach limiting.
I am not sure that you (the Photographer) should necessarily be worried that your (their) name would be associated with poor prints if the files are sold to the client. I think the question necessitates an understanding that although both primarily Photography, ostensibly these are two different products which are being purchased.

***

I see nothing wrong with supplying images on easily transferred media if that's what the customer asks for.

I agree . . .

but . . .

If there is any issue by the client as to the quality of the final prints that they do themselves, it's up to the photographer to be able to prove that they can do better and to highlight the fact with evidence to support themselves.

WHY Arthur?

Maybe I should not be reading the words literally:

But why is it incumbent upon the Photographer to prove that the file which was purchased (and assumed previewed by the Client) can be better printed?

And why should the Photographer have to pay with time and money to have that or supported by the evidence with print or prints from those files?

Sure, I can understand the Photographer having a portfolio of Prints – and establishing with the Client (prior to sale of files) that: “this is the Print quality I get from my lab.”

But to have the blanket rule that there is a burden of making same prints just to establish the Client’s choice of Photofinisher is poor or in error: this is neither necessary nor warranted.

WW

[I @ M]

Danielle, stick to your guns and have the images printed by someone you trust and don't supply the digital files.

The facebook photographers offering the "specials" are probably the ones that all of a sudden don't have any clients and in desperation to convince their "friends" that they are getting a good deal start dropping their prices.

I too have seen well taken photographs printed through less than optimal mini labs that have turned out looking very very bad.
I have also seen the exact scenario that you spoke of where the client who had the images printed at the local chemist then turned on the photographer and said that the photographer was at fault for not making sure that they printed OK at said chemist. That is despite the client admitting that the images looked OK on their own computer.

But the truly worst case is where the "client" is supplied the digital files and then proceeds to apply some "arty" effects with editing software and proceed to load them to their facebook page and tell everybody who the photographer is / was.

[Danielle10]

Maybe it's me being a bit of a perfectionist. I think that if I was to be paid for my work I want to put the best effort in possible and supply the best product I can.
I don't really want to do this type of photography, it's just a thought I had reading 'specials'.

[Danielle10]

Danielle, stick to your guns and have the images printed by someone you trust and don't supply the digital files.

The facebook photographers offering the "specials" are probably the ones that all of a sudden don't have any clients and in desperation to convince their "friends" that they are getting a good deal start dropping their prices.

I too have seen well taken photographs printed through less than optimal mini labs that have turned out looking very very bad.
I have also seen the exact scenario that you spoke of where the client who had the images printed at the local chemist then turned on the photographer and said that the photographer was at fault for not making sure that they printed OK at said chemist. That is despite the client admitting that the images looked OK on their own computer.

But the truly worst case is where the "client" is supplied the digital files and then proceeds to apply some "arty" effects with editing software and proceed to load them to their facebook page and tell everybody who the photographer is / was.

Exactly my point!!

[Danielle10]

The facebook photographers offering the "specials" are probably the ones that all of a sudden don't have any clients and in desperation to convince their "friends" that they are getting a good deal start dropping their prices.

The thing is they have 800-1000 likes on their pages, I just don't get it???

I have 84 lol

[I @ M]

The thing is they have 800-1000 likes on their pages, I just don't get it???

I have 84 lol

But how many spam messages did you send out to your 345,962 friends asking them to like your page?

[Adrian Fischer]

tells us your page name Danielle and we will boost your likes

[Scotty72]

Dan,
Did I like your page?

[Danielle10]

Dan,
Did I like your page?

No you didnt, what kind of friend are you? LOL
just kidding.

hey I still have your flash!! OMG!!! what kind of friend am i? hahaha
are you going to the penrith meet on saturday?

[Danielle10]

tells us your page name Danielle and we will boost your likes

https://www.facebook.com/danielle.sheehan.photography

[arthurking83]

FWIW, I have zero likes on my FB page ... but! .....

.... makes me want to join FB now, simply to like Danielle's page!!


William, apologies for the slight misunderstanding on my comment on the burden of proof being on the photographer.
This wasn't meant to be taken literally in that the photographer should waste resources(ie. money) on unnecessary prints of no worth to them.

But the photographer may have high quality prints they could share (possibly of other subject matter .. as an indication that there are differences in quality between KMart prints and the real thing from your chosen supplier.
The photographer would their bluff if they question your ability as a photographer based on the quality of the print, and ask the unhappy customer to get at least one of the images printed by a known high quality source.
Of course the photographer would have to be absolutely confident that the printing source could in fact print the image with a higher level of quality.

If printing images is something that the photographer is certain that they would prefer to do as part of the entire deal/package, then it should be incumbent on the photographer to have a portfolio of printed images on hand to showcase what is possible when printing requirements left up to the photographer.


We as interested parties to the vagaries of something like a print, become too attached to the importance of the quality of it .. which may be in opposition to the simple matter of the prints existence!

I know I do.
That is I, as most likely most of us do, place a strict level of importance on the quality of the print, where the average person simply places the importance on the print itself, not the quality of it .. other than it's not a pixelated mass of smeary colours.
It's because we're committed photographers and want to see a high level of quality to the nth degree all throughout the process.

My mum(taken as an example of the average person!!).... all she wants is the print. She doesn't care that there are 4 billion tones all visible to the naked eye because I had the image printed from an aRGB tiff file at 16bits!
She gets her prints(all 200 6x4's) during the course of her usual routine of cooking for 300 people ... and with greasy, garlic smeared hands, and blobs of dried filo pastry flaking off her fingers, traces of tsatziki, tarama, dolmathes, roast goat, freshly steamed mussels and the remains of a souvlaki all still clinging for dear life onto her hands, all eventually blends onto the print surface of the 200 6x4 images within about minutes of having freshly opened the package.
You wouldn't bother wasting your breath explaining the importance of not getting her fingers over the printed area, and to hold the prints by the white border!!
All you know is that at least the 200 prints only cost $15, and that you can easily get a new batch done after the acids from the food stuff begin to attack the dye's on the surface of the paper.

Contrast this to the multiple pairs of white silk gloves we probably use to tentatively handle our personal prints by the edges of the laminated foam core board so as to not touch the surface of the printed area, and then purchase expensive 100% UV resistant glass, nitrogen filled environmentally conditioned cabinets to keep our prints in tip top shape.

Different people have different levels of tolerance, and for Danielle, the point is to not get too hung up on the topic(or prints or files on CD) if it's going to be a cause for not making a sale.

In a few years time, when you're competing at the same level as the likes of Annie Leibovitz, you then have the power to command how your images are to be distributed.
For now, the important thing is to make a sale, as efficiently as you can.

[ricktas]

Just like cars. People can afford a Cherry or a Bugatti. There is a market there across the entire spectrum, and customers in all those markets.

[MiniFighter]

I try not to think too much.

But this is yet another reason i dont have FB

[William W]

apologies for the slight misunderstanding on my comment on the burden of proof being on the photographer. This wasn't meant to be taken literally in that the photographer should waste resources (ie. money) on unnecessary prints of no worth to them. But the photographer may have high quality prints they could share (possibly of other subject matter .. as an indication that there are differences in quality between KMart prints and the real thing from your chosen supplier.

. . . . I can understand the Photographer having a portfolio of Prints – and establishing with the Client (prior to sale of files) that: “this is the Print quality I get from my lab.”

Thank you for your response. No apology is necessary. I was seeking the clarification of the meaning.

WW

[Redgum]

Success in photography (as a professional) is judged by the amount of money you make, not your Facebook page. Morals aside.

[ricktas]

Success in photography (as a professional) is judged by the amount of money you make, not your Facebook page. Morals aside.

Interesting. I would say success in BUSINESS is about how much money you make. Success in photography as a professional not necessarily so. Did Ansel Adams end up with a heap of money? Annie Leibovitz is very successful, but went bankrupt. I think success can be assessed in many ways, not just monetary.

[milesy]

The thing is they have 800-1000 likes on their pages, I just don't get it???

I have 84 lol

Facebook is a funny thing like this....there are a couple of people who are 'friends' with me on FB and some if the images they put up there are ok however it becomes a sort of religion with people that any crap that they post people will tell them how wonderful the photo is etc etc .........they also post things almots hourly to keep the traffic moving so i wouldnt put any value in the number of 'likes' they have on FB