# Nicely Denying Digital File Sales.......



## OnTheFly7 (Aug 4, 2017)

To quickly set the stage.......

I cover rodeo events through out the year.  I am hire by the "Association" and the "Producer" of the events.  I am there on their behalf, to provide images for them.  Then, anyone who may be interested in images of themselves, I am able to sell directly to them.

That said.......

As I am sure we all are getting, I had an inquiry about selling digital files.  I provided my usual response which is something along the lines of: we very rarely sell our digital files.  We would be happy to include social media sized files of purchase images of a certain size or larger.  In the very rare instance where we have sold a digital file, the prices have started at $X and went up from there (price being determined by intended use of the image).  Also, we do not ever sell or turn over our rights to an image.

I then elaborate a bit on the above by mentioning the quality of the prints by utilizing "my" professional printer, as opposed to a Wal-Mart, Walgreens, etc.  

They reply saying: okay.  So there is no way for me to purchase the digital file so I can have it and get a canvas print made?

They asked this, after I had already sent them a current pricing sheet.  The pricing sheet also clearly shows that we offer canvas prints.  The sizes of the canvas prints are listed, along with their costs.

In the end, this individual did not pay for my service and time of being at the event.  Images of them were a product of me being there for someone else.  Now, they want a canvas print, but do not want to purchase it from me.  

There is a part of me that says, sure, I will sell you the digital file.  The cost will be 2/3 to 75% of the cost of a canvas if purchased from me.  Which I am fairly certain they will not agree to.  Then, part of me wants to simply say.......I'm sorry but I can not help you.

What says the forum crowd?


----------



## pixmedic (Aug 4, 2017)

im always willing to sell the customer what they want...for the right price. 
they want a canvas print, but they feel they can get it done cheaper themselves. 
they didnt pay for your time or a sitting fee so really they just want to snag a picture off you cheap on someone elses dime. 
If they wont buy a print from you, I would absolutely make the digital file as expensive as the canvas print. if they ask why?
tell them that a digital file is worth more because they can make many different prints with it, not just one. 
if they wont pay, dont give them the file. 
ultimately what that file is worth is up to you.


----------



## 480sparky (Aug 4, 2017)

OnTheFly7 said:


> .....  Also, we do not ever sell or turn over our rights to an image.................




Well, technically, you actually do. You _have_ to.  At least, in order to sell anything.

If you sell a print, you are actually selling the actual print.... plus the right to own that one print. And if you sell the digital file, you are selling the right(s) to the customer to do what they declare they are intending to do with it (print, publish, display, etc).  Those uses need to be included in the contract of sale.... if for no other reason than to protect you.


----------



## Gary A. (Aug 4, 2017)

My answer to their question would be a nice "No". 

If you are hired to shoot the event for someone else ... depending on the terms of the contract ... the images could belong to the employer and they are merely giving you the rights to sell on the side.


----------



## Flash Harry (Aug 4, 2017)

If you're offering canvas prints then they can buy from you, its as simple as that and I wouldn't be offering up any files at 75% as they could print dozens while selling them on for more than you're making out of the file. Too many want photography for nothing these days, I'd rather delete every file than give them away for peanuts.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Aug 4, 2017)

Not unless they intend to pull an armored truck full of cash up to my front door.


It probably needs to be made clear that it's going to cost more, way more(a whole lot more) to buy a high priced digital file just to go have it printed cheap somewhere, than to buy a canvas print from you.


----------



## qmr55 (Aug 4, 2017)

I'd probably sell them the digital file.  But it would cost them a lot more than 2/3 the cost of the canvas.  Remember, they can in turn print it as many times as they'd like.


----------



## Designer (Aug 4, 2017)

OnTheFly7 said:


> There is a part of me that says, sure, I will sell you the digital file.  The cost will be 2/3 to 75% of the cost of a canvas if purchased from me.  Which I am fairly certain they will not agree to.


That seems way too cheap.  If the customer can print say three or four prints (i.e. for family members) from the digital file, they would most likely jump at it and feel as if they had gotten the better deal.


----------



## OnTheFly7 (Aug 4, 2017)

I appreciate all of the answers.

I forgot to mention, she flat out said she can get a discount on canvas somewhere else.  

Yeah, nope.  I'm not selling this one.


----------



## zombiesniper (Aug 4, 2017)

Full rez raw file and the rights to do what ever you want with it. Price starts at $10k. Too rich? Here's my print pricing sheet.


----------



## Destin (Aug 5, 2017)

I'm going to play devils advocate here, and I'm sure it won't make me very popular.

Times are changing. EVERYBODY wants digital files. Most have no interest in getting any prints at all anymore. You'll see the day soon when photographers won't get hired if their packages don't include reasonable priced digital files. And there are plenty of other very skilled photographers waiting in the wings who will gladly take those clients and give them what they want if you aren't willing to.

Ultimately, it's easier for me to sell digital files right off the bat. There is no product cost involved with selling a file, the price is pure profit. The majority of customers, especially from sporting events, will NEVER return to you for another print whether they have the file or not.

Your circumstance is unique in that you're contracted and paid to be there by the company. But as a rule, sports/event coverage photos (when sold to the participants) are a high volume/low price market. I'm not saying you should be giving your work away, however people are only going to spend a set amount on photos from an event like this. It's all about perceived value, and the perceived value of sporting event photos is much lower than say, wedding or portrait work. Most professional photographers I see covering local sporting events are selling prints with prices ranging from $5 for a 4x6 to $20 for an 8x10, or $20-25 for a full resolution .jpg. Why? Because that's all the market will support. If you want to sell ANY photos and make money from the event, you can't charge higher.. at least not in my area of the country.

Ultimately you can sell them the digital file and make pure profit on it, or you can make no money because they'll buy nothing from you.

Me? I'll take the cash in my pocket every time. I see no value in letting cash walk away from me, as long as there isn't someone else in line that I could get to pay more for the same item.


----------



## tirediron (Aug 5, 2017)

Destin said:


> ...Times are changing.


True.



Destin said:


> ...EVERYBODY wants digital files.


Nooooooooooo...  a lot of people _think_ they want digital files.  They think that, because that's today's norm.  However my experience has been that in many cases when they stop and think about it they change their mind.  Whenever I have a client who wants only digital files, I tell them that I can provide them, but...  The "but" is a series of questions I ask:

1.  How many digital photos do you think you currently have?  The answer is usually thousands, if not tens of thousands.

2.  How often do you look at them?  The answer is usually something along the lines of "not very often".

3.  Do you have any real special photos stored on your computer/'phone/tablet/whatever device?  The answer is almost always, "yes".

4.  When was the last time you actually took the time to enjoy that image?  Embarrassed silence normally follows.

5.  The digital files and session fee will come to $XXX.XX; do you really want to pay that much money for images that you might look at again?  If you get <selection of several from the session> as prints in <various sizes>, this one will look great on your hall table, these are perfect to give to grandparents as mementos... etc.

RARELY does this not convert into a print order.


----------



## 480sparky (Aug 5, 2017)

tirediron said:


> Nooooooooooo...  a lot of people _think_ they want digital files.  They think that, because that's today's norm.  ............



If everyone asks for digital files "because that's today's norm", then............_ that's what the market is demanding_.  Why is not relevant.

And if you cannot (or simply refuse) fulfill the needs of the market, you ain't gonna last long.  Just ask Kodak.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 5, 2017)

See Post #12 from Destin. NOT selling what you can sell, and trying to apply an outmoded, last century sales model. Not smart for many shooters.

Sell the danged files.

As far as educating people about your "profesisonal printer"; the massive industrial, leased printers the big stores use, you know, the $100,000-plus, leased machines they have, with fresh inks and papers...ummmm...not really much of an argument IMHO. Do you have a Fuji or Noritsu printer the size of a small closet? Likely not.

This is the 21st century, closing in on the end of the second decade. Wall-hanging prints are not what a lot of people want. Some people can be persuaded, yes, but not everybody can. Life's too short to "educate" and upsell customers, and many people resent it. The WANT digitized images they can USE. Sell them what they fricking want...or, not.

Time for a re-adjustment of the ideas behind event photos, like rodeos, sports, etc.. I think, for some people. Not everybody can "work" clients...some people want a pay-and-get delivery of what they want...digital images.

Not making ANY money from a no-sale, as opposed to trying to shoot then sell high-priced prints? Isn;t that the real issue in many cases? I'm not so sure that keeping those files all to yourself and not selling jack-squat to people who want a digital file is the economically most-viable way to approach images in the social media explosion era. Differnet business models, different locations, different customers, different pricing structures.

So many people in their 50's and 60's recall fondly the pricing/market model of the 80's and 1990's very fondly, ignoring the HUGE proliferation of cameras and images and the quick-use, immediate SHARING of images that people want today. This is no longer the Reagan/Thatcher era.

You've got people who want digital files, for digital uses. *Clinging to the idea of high-markup printed images does not make sense, for some market segments*. Not everything is a family photo, nor a wedding photo. The end goal is NOT a wall-hanging, large printed image...it's a digital, quality image that people can BUY.

Sell your EDITING skills if you must "sell" something, to justify some decent level of price.

Do your market analysis and cost/price/profit analysis; see what pricing you can get. SOME sale revenue is better than jack-squat. Ideals go out the window. Selling anything is better than sitting on files on  a hard disk and feeling smug about "not bringing the market down", IMHO.


----------



## tirediron (Aug 5, 2017)

480sparky said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > Nooooooooooo...  a lot of people _think_ they want digital files.  They think that, because that's today's norm.  ............
> ...





Derrel said:


> See Post #12 from Destin. NOT selling what you can sell, and trying to apply an outmoded, last century sales model. Not smart for many shooters.
> 
> Sell the danged files..


Don't get me wrong; if  people will pay money, I will sell.  BUT...  I genuinely believe that people are in many cases doing themselves a dis-service when they insist on only purchasing digital files.  Images get lost in digital storage, important images get lost, and when a client is paying hundreds or thousands for those files, they deserve to see them.  Business clients?  Digital files all the way.  Family clients?  I always try and guide them into purchasing at least a few prints.  An interesting addendum to the "everyone wants digital files" contention is my highschool football sales last year:  Of all the orders I had, only ONE asked for digital files, and these are all boys in the 15-17 age range.


----------



## 480sparky (Aug 5, 2017)

tirediron said:


> ...........I genuinely believe that people are in many cases doing themselves a dis-service when they insist on only purchasing digital files.  Images get lost in digital storage, important images get lost, and when a client is paying hundreds or thousands for those files, they deserve to see them. .............



I don't get this.  They get what they wanted.......... the digital files.  Is it the sellers' responsibility to maintain those files for the buyer?  I think not.  If the buyer doesn't have the wherewithal to set up a rigorous backup procedure, that's not the seller's problem.

I lost a ten-dollar bill last month.  Should the US Treasury Department be responsible?


----------



## tirediron (Aug 5, 2017)

480sparky said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > ...........I genuinely believe that people are in many cases doing themselves a dis-service when they insist on only purchasing digital files.  Images get lost in digital storage, important images get lost, and when a client is paying hundreds or thousands for those files, they deserve to see them. .............
> ...


Sparky... you're not getting my point.  It's nothing to do with back-ups ('though that is a service that I provide as a courtesy to my clients).  My point is that when people add yet more digital images to their ever-increasing collection, they get mixed amongst all the others and forgotten about and rarely, if ever seen again.  It's sad, and I (and yes, there's no small part of personal vanity involved here) want my work to be seen, and I think when the client is paying for a professional service, they should get tangible value for their money.  Granted, what they do with digital files is their choice.


----------



## Designer (Aug 5, 2017)

Alternate scenario:

I would like to buy some digital files from a professional in Arizona.  His SmugMug page lists only 5x7 prints, but no 8x10 prints or art papers.  If he printed them the cost of mailing prints would have to be added to his price for printing.  

Instead of his printing and shipping, if he could shoot me the electronic files, I would be willing to pay a reasonable price per shot.  If I could score the files, and print them myself, I would save the cost of handling and shipping.  

The last print I bought was an odd size, so I had to make a custom frame for it.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Aug 5, 2017)

I found working with families (not in photography) that they'd often talk about something they'd heard about, read about, or whatever. That may or may not be the best option for them/their child. It takes providing other options, and sometimes they'd go, oh! and end liking another option better than what they'd been asking about in the first place - because they never heard about the other options. 

Seems like with photography people want the Raw files or 'all' the pictures etc. just because they heard something about it but don't really understand what they're asking for or what will actually meet their needs. 

It seems to be a disservice to just go with the latest trend instead of providing other options. I think there's a difference providing digital images for commercial use and providing digital copies and prints for someone's personal use as far as what's provided and the pricing. 

Try ASMP or PPA to find out from a pro photographers organization what are some good options that are workable.


----------



## Designer (Aug 5, 2017)

vintagesnaps said:


> Seems like with photography people want the Raw files or 'all' the pictures etc.


One daughter-in-law is that way.  She is very insistent when she asks for all the pictures.  I simply cannot turn over the obvious flubs or even some that need WB adjustments.  Is that prideful?  Maybe, but it also saves time and frustration for anyone who is viewing them.  Instead of seeing utter crapola and flipping past it, I delete the crapola, thereby saving everyone time.  

Some years ago we all went to our local pro for family shots.  My wife asked him for the digital files, even though he had shot everything on film.  His lab did the scanning, so we did receive a CD with the files, but we have not done anything with them since.  No prints, no sharing, nothing at all.


----------



## 480sparky (Aug 5, 2017)

tirediron said:


> Sparky... you're not getting my point.  It's nothing to do with back-ups ('though that is a service that I provide as a courtesy to my clients).  My point is that when people add yet more digital images to their ever-increasing collection, they get mixed amongst all the others and forgotten about and rarely, if ever seen again.  It's sad, and I (and yes, there's no small part of personal vanity involved here) want my work to be seen, and I think when the client is paying for a professional service, they should get tangible value for their money.  Granted, what they do with digital files is their choice.



So, your point is........... you won't sell them digital files because you think your work won't be seen by them?  

So what? If I paid you to create a print, then I took it home and shoved it into the back of a closet, why should you care?  Or if I paid you for an album chock full of 4x6s and put it on a shelf never to be opened again?  What's the difference?

Perhaps we should create an Image Viewing Enforcement Police force. Go door-to-door, demanding to see proof that customers who have purchased photos from others (either print or digital) have actually looked at them. If so, what criteria should be used? How often must they look at them?  For how long?  Should higher-priced images be viewed more often, or for longer periods of time?  (insert snarky emoji here)


----------



## orljustin (Aug 5, 2017)

480sparky said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > Nooooooooooo...  a lot of people _think_ they want digital files.  They think that, because that's today's norm.  ............
> ...



Amen.  And the sooner the better.  When I read about nonsense like $10k for a digital file, I hope to see them out of business soon.


----------



## 480sparky (Aug 5, 2017)

orljustin said:


> Amen.  And the sooner the better.  When I read about nonsense like $10k for a digital file, I hope to see them out of business soon.



$10k for a digital file is not an unreasonable price.......... but it would depend on the intended use.

$10k for one file, just so the customer can have a print or two, or an enlargement, made up, yeah, that's outrageous.

But if James Patterson called me up and said, "Hey, Sparky... I noticed an image you have available for purchase.  I'd like to obtain digital rights to use it on the cover of my next book that's due out this November. We expect this new book to sell 50 million copies in the first year alone. And I'd also require that you remove that image from all possible future sales."  $10k here is outrageous as well.  Outrageously LOW!


----------



## orljustin (Aug 5, 2017)

Well, obviously that isn't what is being discussed here.


----------



## Flash Harry (Aug 6, 2017)

I agree, it needs to be priced on usage though certain stuff I'd never hand over and nobody gets files or prints of every shot either otherwise they'd blame the tog for those crappy shots they themselves ruined by blinking, digital has been the best thing ever for saving otherwise useless shots with a head or eye transplant.


----------



## Braineack (Aug 6, 2017)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Looks like wall size canvas prints (54"x120") go for $700 - $800 a print.  I would add 50% to that price for the Digital file.



I just searched my email:
_1 - 46x30 Traditional Thin Wrap Canvas_
*Grand Total:* $130.92

I'm just going to guess the OPs prices aren't close to that.   I'd always opt on the side of making money.  Selling the file to them to print put pure profit in your pocket on a file that you'll more than likely never look at ever again in your career.


----------



## OnTheFly7 (Aug 6, 2017)

Great remarks and thoughts.

Update.......

She emailed me once again stating that she wants the file, because she can get a canvas print made at Wal-Mart for $40, rather than pay what my pricing is for canvas.

I fully grasp the concept of pure profit on offering the digital files.  That is one of the reasons that I started to offer social media sized images for purchase.  However, even if I did offer the sell her the full size, full rez file, it will be quite a bit more than the $40 she would spend at Wal-Mart.  By the time she buys the file from me, has the canvas made at Wal-Mart, she could have purchased the canvas from me for less.

I am finding this to be more and more of an issue with the younger (I'm not that old, 38) generations who want everything now, want it for free and think if they whine loud enough, they will get their way.

I can understand most side of the arguement here, but for me, it is also coming down to principle.  I find it extremely rude to ask someone for a file for cheap, when they never paid a session fee, just to go somewhere else to get what they want.  To me, that is unethical on the consumers part.  Goes back to my working retail days in the outdoors industry for smaller pro shops.  Someone would buy a bow or a reel at some big box store, not know how to use it (or have an issue with it) and then they would come to us to show them (because the big box store who sold it to them had no idea) and they would expect free service on a product they purchased else where.

I just don't get the thought process~


----------



## Braineack (Aug 6, 2017)

OnTheFly7 said:


> I fully grasp the concept of pure profit on offering the digital files. That is one of the reasons that I started to offer social media sized images for purchase. However, even if I did offer the sell her the full size, full rez file, it will be quite a bit more than the $40 she would spend at Wal-Mart. By the time she buys the file from me, has the canvas made at Wal-Mart, she could have purchased the canvas from me for less.



present that same argument to her.


----------



## Designer (Aug 6, 2017)

OnTheFly7 said:


> To me, that is unethical ..


The concept of ethics seems to be lacking in much of the population.  You probably can't do much about it.


----------



## Destin (Aug 6, 2017)

Designer said:


> Alternate scenario:
> 
> I would like to buy some digital files from a professional in Arizona.  His SmugMug page lists only 5x7 prints, but no 8x10 prints or art papers.  If he printed them the cost of mailing prints would have to be added to his price for printing.
> 
> ...





Designer said:


> Alternate scenario:
> 
> I would like to buy some digital files from a professional in Arizona.  His SmugMug page lists only 5x7 prints, but no 8x10 prints or art papers.  If he printed them the cost of mailing prints would have to be added to his price for printing.
> 
> ...





Braineack said:


> OnTheFly7 said:
> 
> 
> > I fully grasp the concept of pure profit on offering the digital files. That is one of the reasons that I started to offer social media sized images for purchase. However, even if I did offer the sell her the full size, full rez file, it will be quite a bit more than the $40 she would spend at Wal-Mart. By the time she buys the file from me, has the canvas made at Wal-Mart, she could have purchased the canvas from me for less.
> ...




I get yhat


OnTheFly7 said:


> Great remarks and thoughts.
> 
> Update.......
> 
> ...



I get that your primary business at this event wasn't selling prints to folks..

But for event coverage photography charging north of $40 for a file is absolutely absurd. The market won't support it, as your situation has proven. 

I'll say it again: the average going rate for a full resolution file from a sporting event in the northeast is anywhere from $15-25. And I've found that even at $25 they don't sell because they're viewed as too expensive. 

Unless you're shooting an event with some very affluent people, asking $40+ for a file from an event isn't going to happen. Period.


----------



## OnTheFly7 (Aug 6, 2017)

Destin said:


> Designer said:
> 
> 
> > Alternate scenario:
> ...





Agree with most points.

But.......

When you are traveling in a 4 stall horse trailer with living quarters that runs north of 6 figures, being pulled by a new dually that runs norht of $70k, running and maintaining livestock and horses, whether the market bears it or not, to try to play the cheap card just isn't going to cut it with me.

Fortunately, my income from other segments within the industry helps to offset this segment.  Therefore, I do not feel the need to lower prices simply because someone asks.  Do it once, and you will be fighting that fight the rest of your days.


----------



## Braineack (Aug 6, 2017)

It seems like youre the one fighting the laws of economics to me.  It's great you're in a position that you don't need to sell the files.  Then simply don't.


----------



## pixmedic (Aug 6, 2017)

its interesting, the different viewpoints on this. 
we sold mostly digital files because thats primarily what our clients wanted for sharing on webpages and social media. 
but photos of people that see your prices beforehand and then ask you to do the work are different than someone seeing a random photo and wanting to buy it. 
does it matter if its all profit? not really. why should the photographer lower the value of their work just because of its profit margin?  why is the photo worth less because there are no other buyers currently lined up to purchase it? 
if the OP has placed a value on the digital file and is ok with losing the sale by sticking to that price, then I think thats just fine. 
I wouldnt do portraits for $40 just because people called me and said they could get that price on FB or Craigslist, and from what I have seen most people here would absolutely turn down that work because the price does not reflect the quality of their work and time....so why is it different in this case simply because it is an existing photo? the OP still had to take and edit the photo the same as if it was a comissioned piece.


----------



## KmH (Aug 6, 2017)

OnTheFly7 said:


> She emailed me once again stating that she wants the file, because she can get a canvas print made at Wal-Mart for $40, rather than pay what my pricing is for canvas.


Questions to ask the customer.
• Does Walmart  print on actual canvas. Or does Walmart prints on plastic textured to mimic canvas.
• Is the Walmart print going to be delivered mounted on stretcher bars, or shipped rolled up in a tube.
• If on stretcher bars, what kind of wood and what size stretcher bars?
• Does the customer understand how much of the image is going to be wrapped 'around the corner' of the stretcher bars?

A large part of the problem many photographers have today trying to sell prints is that the photographer isn't well informed about print making or print presentation.
The other problem when it comes to selling prints is trying to sell prints online.
Effectively selling prints requires having physical samples to show and selling in person.


----------



## Gary A. (Aug 6, 2017)

I have a digital frame ...


----------



## KmH (Aug 6, 2017)

Good for you.
My digital image files are $50 _each_ regardless.


----------



## Flash Harry (Aug 8, 2017)

OnTheFly7 said:


> When you are traveling in a 4 stall horse trailer with living quarters that runs north of 6 figures, being pulled by a new dually that runs norht of $70k, running and maintaining livestock and horses, whether the market bears it or not, to try to play the cheap card just isn't going to cut it with me.



This is why I quit pro-photography six years back, cheapskates want it all for zilch and too many digi togs are prepared to let them have their way, tell them you aren't selling and you'd rather delete the file than ever give them it, nobody got negatives back in the day.

Anyone trying to make a living these days is under-valued by the machine gun 'professionals' out there topping up their own jobs meagre wages by competing on the cheap with people who've sunk their lives into being a legit business, I'd rather be retired than be insulted, bl**dy walmart, stick to your guns.


----------



## Braineack (Aug 8, 2017)

i can hear the dinosaurs dying right now.


----------



## Destin (Aug 8, 2017)

Braineack said:


> i can hear the dinosaurs dying right now.



Yep. Adapt or die. 

All those guys that stuck with film are doing great. Right kodak?


----------



## KmH (Aug 8, 2017)

Braineack said:


> i can hear the dinosaurs dying right now.





Destin said:


> Yep. Adapt or die.
> 
> All those guys that stuck with film are doing great. Right kodak?


Do you guys make the vast majority of your income from selling your photographs?


----------



## Flash Harry (Aug 9, 2017)

Braineack said:


> i can hear the dinosaurs dying right now.



Yeah I'm a dinosaur who made plenty dough working that way, think back to 2001 when I charged $20 for a 7x5 in strut mount and sold hundreds per wedding on the night after the 'do' by hand printing one shot while showing 'proofs' I had done at 'walmart', now think about the 10x8 and bigger, I wasn't running my ass off through the week wondering what to spend 40 bucks on that I'd got for my negs, 2004 I turned digital and it took only a few months to see where the photography game was heading thanks to 'togs' like you and Destin and a lot more I met on here around those times, you want to be part of the cheapo economy, I don't.


----------



## tirediron (Aug 9, 2017)

Flash Harry said:


> ...it took only a few months to see where the photography game was heading thanks to 'togs' like you and Destin and a lot more I met on here around those times, you want to be part of the cheapo economy, I don't.


Steady on mate; there's no call to get nasty about this!  I suspect that a whole lot of wet-plate photographers said more-or-less the same thing when that young whippersnapper Kodak came out with that new-fangled roll-film.  "WHAT?  Loading more than one frame in the camera at one time?  That'll be the death of photography!"  The profession survived....

At the end of the day, times and the whole profession have changed.  Like it or not we have to adapt or give up; there really isn't a third option.  That does NOT mean however that we can't try and educate clients and show them the benefits of prints over digital.  I sell VERY few digital files to my family customers; in fact I would say that it's probably 90-95% print sales over digital files.


----------



## Flash Harry (Aug 9, 2017)

tirediron said:


> Flash Harry said:
> 
> 
> > ...it took only a few months to see where the photography game was heading thanks to 'togs' like you and Destin and a lot more I met on here around those times, you want to be part of the cheapo economy, I don't.
> ...



I'm not getting 'nasty' I'm telling it like it is to people who are undercutting others in their area who have no other option than to cut prices and offer similar packages to those already working in other fields. I adapted, it cost me a lot more money to change to digital and nowhere near the returns I made with film precisely because of weekend warriors and 'customers' like the one the OP has who obviously has the money to pay for a canvas from the poster but is a cheapskate and wants the file for pennies.

I carried on till 2012 as a pro but called it a day because I wasn't commissioned to supply files though everyone and their granny expected those as 'Everybody else does it', those 'everyone elses' are like those above who wouldn't like me telling their bosses I'd do the same job as them for half the price which is basically what they're doing, its little wonder the workforce across the west appears to be on a race to the bottom where income is concerned yet they cant see the reason why, this is the reason and only the wealthiest are profiting from it.


----------



## Destin (Aug 9, 2017)

KmH said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> > i can hear the dinosaurs dying right now.
> ...



No, I don't. But I very likely could if I didn't have a great career that I love. I have a registered business. I have liability and equipment insurance. I shoot with professional equipment. 

I don't really see how that is relevant. If I do a senior portrait shoot for $350 and give the client files, and you do a senior shoot for $500 that includes a print package, who made more money? Neither. We probably both made the same because you have lots of product cost tied up in the prints. If I can make the same amount of money for less work and less taxes paid, then why wouldn't I? It's just sound business. 

You sell your client prints and they're just going to scan them and post them online and reprint them anyway most of the time, so the argument that they'll come back to you for prints in the future doesn't really hold water anymore. 

You're all free to run your businesses how you want. But to imply that photographers who adapt and sell clients what they're asking for are "ruining the industry" is hogwash. Fauxtographers who sell all the digital files for $75 and put out subpar work while carrying no insurance and paying no taxes on their photo income are hurting the industry. Legitimate photographers who are simply selling the client the product they're asking for aren't hurting anything, except maybe the ego and income of photographers who refuse to adapt.


----------



## Flash Harry (Aug 9, 2017)

My ego not bruised, like I stated the problem is everyone with a digital camera is now a pro-photographer come the weekend and whether you like it or not its harmed the industry, I pulled out because of that as I can't afford to compete here in the UK with some kid offering to do a wedding with all files on disc for 200 quid, even those who mess them up, its not even worth getting out of bed for and I sure as hell ain't going to pay insurances/taxes etc on top of what I've already lost on renewing gear every couple of years, it just wasn't worth it.

I jacked it in back then and another local took my place, high st studio, lots of gear etc etc, he's gone to the wall already. Business is to make money, not to do with 'something you love' oh its a bonus if you enjoy what you do but first and foremost its about success and when your success is being undermined its time to cut and run.


----------



## 480sparky (Aug 9, 2017)

If your clientele is only interested in the price, then perhaps it's not you who is failing but your _marketing_ is.  Not everyone is interested in just a low price.  There's folks out there who are willing to pay more for a better product.

Reinvent your marketing strategy, identify your target market and head in that direction instead.  Promoting yourself as WalMart Photography is merely a race to the bottom.  And it's like being a drug dealer.... every time one gets taken off the street, there's 25 more who will merrily take their place.

Improve your product, charge more, work less, make more money............... and be happy.


----------



## Flash Harry (Aug 9, 2017)

The product was always spot on, its the 'charging more' in a 'deprived area' which doesn't work and I'd had my fill of city life after ten years in London, I moved back to my home town 300 miles north after taking several bookings there and thought I'd continue till retirement in the area, I didn't come into this as a hobbyist and spent money retraining in digital image manipulation while digital pro cameras were knocking out a few megapixels and consumer cameras were at the 1mb image stage, I didn't even consider turning digital till the output was 12mb, around 04-5, there were few hobbyists offering services which could compete back then but since the crash it seems people only want 'cheap', I'm not and I'm not relocating again chasing money.


----------



## Designer (Aug 9, 2017)

480sparky said:


> There's folks out there who are willing to pay more for a better product.


Finding those folks is the trick, innit? 

I have in past posts advocated educating one's potential clients as to what is good and what is not so good.  

Like any similar endeavor, that takes time, patience, skill, and a customer who is willing to undergo the learning process.  

So never mind.


----------



## 480sparky (Aug 9, 2017)

Designer said:


> Finding those folks is the trick, innit?.....



As it is in every business enterprise. But once you start learning what watering hole the big game prefers,  one finds they tend to refer each other to you.

Yes, it takes time. Yes, it's more work. No, there's no shortcuts. And if you're going to succeed in any business venture, you've got to ditch the employee attitude of "Hey, I'm working so I must be making money."  Yet in order to get that work, far too many cut thier prices until they are no longer profitable.  

Only after months of hemorrhaging do many realize their business was dead long ago.


----------



## KmH (Aug 9, 2017)

Designer said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > There's folks out there who are willing to pay more for a better product.
> ...


Or to sum up in two word - Salesmanship & Marketing.


----------

