# Professional Photography Rates (help!)



## raiserroofer

I had some portraits taken at a professional photography studio about a   week ago, resulting in about 45 proofs. The shoot was three and a half   hours long, and for the session (essentially that three and a half   hours) he charged $400, which seemed perfectly reasonable to me.

At this point I was under the impression that he would charge me $200   more for 12 touched-up photos on a CD (but in all honesty because I   don't have this on paper, I'm not sure if what I interpreted is   different from what he said), but when I arrived a few days later to   trim down the 45 stills to 12 with him, he told me it's $200 PER   touched-up image. That's $2400 for 12 pictures.

I know at the end of the day that this is my fault for not having a   clear understanding before I started the session, however these photos   wound up fantastic. He knows it, and he knows I know it. I'm reluctant   to go back to another place and have to re-do a photo shoot because   while the pictures are fantastic, I just simply don't have $2400+ for   him.

Do these rates seem  sane to you? An entire day's shoot at a wedding  starts at around $2500  from what I've researched for most professional  photographers, and we  did our session AT his studio at it wasn't nearly  as long. Does it make _sense_  that my session's more expensive?

FYI, the prices are in Canadian dollars.

Also, the pictures are not even the raw images, which he says is MORE  expensive with touch-ups.  He wants to give me a .jpg and .tiff for each  still, hence what he  calls the "package price" at $200 per image.


----------



## Alpha

Unfortunately for you I think the prices are reasonable. The last time I went for a sitting with a photographer whose work I admire, it cost $900 and I got one picture. Retouching takes time, as well.

The fault here, as you've reluctantly acknowledged (as we are all wont to do in situations like this), is that you weren't clear on the pricing. Could you get great shots from someone who charges less? Probably. But his rates are his rates. If you understand them and don't like them, then you can walk.


----------



## IlSan

I'll have to agree with Alpha on this.

Not 100% sure about Canada / USA prices, but back here we charge around HKD 1000 - 2000 per shot, which is between <200> in Canadian Dollars.


----------



## raiserroofer

How about image ownership?

So I payed $400 for the shoot, does he technically own the proofs? What are your price differences if I want them processed versus unprocessed?


----------



## IlSan

I guess this depends on the business practice...
Basically this is how we do it:

Client comes in for a photo shoot, we prepare some paperwork i.e. model release form (which grants us the image ownership to use the image as agreed upon in the release form) and a general sales contract stating the price of the shoot itself, price for prints and price for CD / digital media.

Unprocessed pictures we do not release to the client, but again, this is just the business practice that we use. We only supply processed pictures, and here it depends on whether it is in print (print is of course the more expensive variety) or on CD / USB (here again, depending on if we supply the USB we would charge a small fee for it, or if the client brings his/her own, of course not. CD surcharge we do not apply).

Not sure how the photographer that you have worked with usually handles this, but I guess it would be worth asking him/her about this.


----------



## raiserroofer

> Client comes in for a photo shoot, we prepare some paperwork i.e. model  release form (which grants us the image ownership to use the image as  agreed upon in the release form) and a general sales contract stating  the price of the shoot itself, price for prints and price for CD /  digital media.


The interesting thing about my case is that this _never happened_. Which I believe to be standard business practice, as well as unorthodox for this photographer as he is a thoroughly established one in the area. So, theoretically, what happens if there are pictures taken of me in a photo-shoot in which absolutely no paperwork exists for?


----------



## IlSan

Hmm *scratching head*
For this I honestly cannot answer with certainty. Not that familiar with the law / practises what that is concerned. Especially not in the US or Canada.

In general however I would say, that as long as there is no models release form the photographer does not own the rights to use the images in any commercial sense, i.e. selling to a magazine - he may however use them for his portfolio (please don't shoot me if I'm wrong here...)

I am surprised about this, honestly, maybe talk with him? Maybe ask him about the lack of paperwork, etc...


----------



## Alpha

For the most part I think all this banter about the model release is beside the point. The model release would typically only state that you're giving permission for the photographer to do what he likes with the photos. The release is mostly for his benefit and protection, not yours. You can cite the nonexistent model release all you want, but it's really only an issue if the photographer does something with the photo that you don't approve of or from which he would otherwise stand to gain. 

Again, rates are rates. I feel for you and agree that the pricing should have been spelled out ahead of time. I think that's only fair.

If you want to sue him in small claims court you could allege that he has no exclusive rights to the photos because there was no release, and ask the court to compel him to release all of them to you. Short of that, I'm sorry to report that you're out of luck.


----------



## IlSan

Ah but of course they are only for the photographer :mrgreen:



> Again, rates are rates. I feel for you and agree that the pricing should have been spelled out ahead of time. I think that's only fair.


 
Maybe take that point up with him and see, what can be done. Maybe a deal can be made for unprocessed photos...

Good Luck!


----------



## Alpha

I'm doubtful. Although editing can be a time suck, I would NEVER release unretouched photos to a client unless it was a requirement of the shoot.


----------



## IlSan

+1 on that...wouldn't do it either...but who know, someone out there might...

As I said, not versed at all in the laws in the US/Canada, but what are the chances of winning such a court-battle to get the pics? (just curious about it)


----------



## raiserroofer

Alpha -- you might have misinterpreted. I'm not looking to take anything to court, however I just want to ensure that if this is not resolved between the two of us (i.e. a deal is not made for me to attain the pictures), that I would not like him to use the pictures elsewhere.

All I'd really like is to have the 8-10 choice pictures at something I could afford (that is, near a price I had thought it would be). If that doesn't happen, then I lose $400, the pictures don't see the light of day and I find another photographer. That's all there is to it, really.

I've just never heard of a price point of $200 an image for some Photoshop work. I have plenty of friends and family who do professional web design and corporate marketing and have done plenty of work with photos who'd be happy to touch up my pictures for free. The pictures hardly need much (if any) touching up as-is. I reckon anyone who knows what s/he's doing with Photoshop would only need like 15 minutes an image.


----------



## Alpha

I don't know what to tell you. I think this person is unlikely to release a photo for less than they're asking. It doesn't hurt to ask, and I do agree it should have been spelled out ahead of time, but I think it's unlikely.


----------



## njw1224

The rates are fair. My question would be do you have to have 12 images? Can't you just but a few of your absolute favorites? Also, is he willing to sell you prints? If you only need a handful of images for wall decor and such, it may be cheaper to buy prints than the original files. But if you need to use the files to make lots and lots of your own prints, then you can see why he charges so much for the files - because once a client has the files they can print as much as they want without coming back to the photographer. In the end I don't think he's trying to rob you. It just sounds like a case of miscommunication/misinterpretation.


----------



## KmH

The legalities of copyright are different here in the US, than they are in Canada.

In Canada, whoever commissioned the photos to be made owns the copyright, unless the photographer and the client agree otherwise in writing. Here in the US the photographer usually owns the copyright.

Canada is in the process of totally revamping their copyright statutes and I don't know the current status of that endeavor.

I find it utterly amazing you weren't required to sign a contract prior to the sitting.


----------



## raiserroofer

I've narrowed down the pictures to eight, and with tax we've agreed upon $1000. I'm to get 2100px by 2100px .tiff images, which is about half of the size of the RAW files. I believe I can do whatever I want with them, although I should ask. I STILL haven't signed anything other than a cheque.

I suppose it's just an industry I don't understand, and frankly I don't care much to.

I received an invoice for the photographs which sets the pricing in stone, however I was still presented with nothing that determines the use of the photos, so I presume everything I do is fair game.

By the way, he refuses to part with the RAW files for business reasons -- he says someone who comes in and asks for a RAW image has the capability of plastering it on a billboard (a condition in which he believes he should earn more compensation), and because he doesn't work in terms of to what purpose each image will be used for, he simply makes the RAW images more expensive. Does this seem right?


----------



## Alpha

raiserroofer said:


> By the way, he refuses to part with the RAW files for business reasons -- he says someone who comes in and asks for a RAW image has the capability of plastering it on a billboard (a condition in which he believes he should earn more compensation), and because he doesn't work in terms of to what purpose each image will be used for, he simply makes the RAW images more expensive. Does this seem right?



The reason you don't release RAW files is because they're unfinished. If substandard work (compared to the finished product) is floating around with your name on it, that's no good. 

However, this guy is possibly an idiot and at the very least has never shot a billboard. Billboards, in fact, only require an image of between 15 and 60 PPI because the viewing distance is so great. In other words, you could nearly shoot a photo for a billboard with an iPhone camera.


----------



## KmH

Alpha said:


> raiserroofer said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, he refuses to part with the RAW files for business reasons -- he says someone who comes in and asks for a RAW image has the capability of plastering it on a billboard (a condition in which he believes he should earn more compensation), and because he doesn't work in terms of to what purpose each image will be used for, he simply makes the RAW images more expensive. Does this seem right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The reason you don't release RAW files is because they're unfinished. If substandard work (compared to the finished product) is floating around with your name on it, that's no good.
> 
> However, this guy is possibly an idiot and at the very least has never shot a billboard. Billboards, in fact, only require an image of between 15 and 60 PPI because the viewing distance is so great. In other words, you could nearly shoot a photo for a billboard with an iPhone camera.
Click to expand...

 
And if he is that hot on retaining the RAW files, it leads me to believe he thinks he owns the copyright.

For your side of it, what counts is the law in Canada, not possible wrong assumptions made by you.

I'm with Alpha that this pro photographer is begining to sound not so professional after all. Of course we are only hearing one side of the story from a person that admits , "I suppose it's just an industry I don't understand, and frankly I don't care much to."


----------



## raiserroofer

KmH said:


> I'm with Alpha that this pro photographer is begining to sound not so professional after all. Of course we are only hearing one side of the story from a person that admits , "I suppose it's just an industry I don't understand, and frankly I don't care much to."


Obviously you're right about this, however I should mention I'm not technically illiterate unlike most of the clients he probably gets. The spin to it all is that I'm 20, and more times than enough I've seen this as an opening for people to exploit my lack of worldly knowledge. I was apprehensive as to whether or not this (yet again) may be the case. It turns out that my concerns are probably moot.

I don't know if he enjoys the elitism of it or if he's simply just used to it, but he puts these things in lamens terms; the billboard analogy was simply the easiest way to dismiss the RAW file discussion, however the reality is probably closer to what Alpha was mentioning.

As to whether or not he's actually a professional, I have absolutely no doubt about it. I would probably say -- just from a glance -- he's one of the top photographers in Toronto, and has some prime real estate for his business which pretty much dictates that he doesn't come cheap.



KmH said:


> And if he is that hot on retaining the RAW files, it leads me to believe  he thinks he owns the copyright.
> 
> For your side of it, what counts is the law in Canada, not possible  wrong assumptions made by you.


I find this fascinating. Are you absolutely sure about this? You're saying I do, in fact, own these RAWs and if I ask for them, he's legally obliged to give them to me? This man has been doing professional photography for almost 30 years; I would be shocked if that were the case.


----------

