# Digital File Size/Resolution



## purpleroan (Jun 7, 2016)

Hey everyone! I'll keep it short and sweet...when selling a digital file to a client, how large should it be? Dimensions/resolution? Also, what do you suggest as far as pricing goes? Looking for quick answers! Thanks so much.


----------



## table1349 (Jun 7, 2016)

1. Don't sell a digital file to a client.  Sell them usage rights.  Let them use the full resolution.   
2. Pricing: the cost of your time, and any expenses + 20% profit.


----------



## KmH (Jun 7, 2016)

A retail client or a commercial client?
Commercial clients buy usage rights.

Retail clients need to be granted reproduction rights along with a digital file.
Many print labs won't print a digital file a customer that does not have reproduction  rights to an image file they want the lab to print.

Since a retail client can make many prints from a digital file, digital files should not be inexpensive, unless you don't mind paying out of your own pocket to keep your business in business.

Before I retired my customers had to meet a minimum purchase requirement before they were allowed to buy digital files.
And they then had to buy a minimum number of digital files (25) so it worked out that the least it cost them for digital files was $1250 ($50 per digital file).

Resolution varied with how I had cropped. I always cropped for content and not to accommodate some standard size print.


----------



## unpopular (Jun 7, 2016)

KmH said:


> Before I retired my customers had to meet a minimum purchase requirement before they were allowed to buy digital files.
> And they then had to buy a minimum number of digital files (25) so it worked out that the least it cost them for digital files was $1250 ($50 per digital file).



The reality of the matter is that the good old days of ripping off clients is over. This kind of pricing scheme is simply unrealistic. 

Like it or not, today's market demands flexible licensing.


----------



## purpleroan (Jun 7, 2016)

Hmm...ok. Thank you for the input! I'll just lay it all out. I consider myself to be a non-professional with mid-range gear. I have two paying photography jobs at my university, and I am starting to experiment  with my own little side-business thing, fairly casual. I shot a horse show at my barn a couple weeks ago, and posted the link to my website with the show galleries so that people could purchase prints. One person is interested in digital files, and I'm just looking to provide a price that won't scare them away, and some solid info/suggestions as far as how that file should be sized/formatted so that they can successfully produce their own prints of varying sizes. I'm admittedly still easily confused by the printing/screen res thing, and how its all related. Just trying to wrap my head around all of it and come to some conclusions..I do appreciate the help from everyone!


----------



## purpleroan (Jun 7, 2016)

I used a 70d and a 70-200 f2.8 if that makes any difference as far as file size goes.


----------



## KmH (Jun 7, 2016)

unpopular said:


> ripping off clients is over.


Clueless.
No hidden prices, all very upfront, and the customer always had the option of *not buying*.

How do you think there can be retail photographers today that make an income of well over $50,000 a year?
If you think they are selling digital files for $10 a pop you've no clue regarding the financial realities inherent in keeping a retail photography business alive.


----------



## spiralout462 (Jun 7, 2016)

I would only sell prints in your situation.  Lord knows what they could do with a full resolution file.

Quality and content depending of course.


----------



## Trever1t (Jun 7, 2016)

spiralout462 said:


> I would only sell prints in your situation.  Lord knows what they could do with a full resolution file.
> 
> Quality and content depending of course.




I would have to agree with that. Sell prints.


----------



## tirediron (Jun 8, 2016)

purpleroan said:


> Hey everyone! I'll keep it short and sweet...when selling a digital file to a client, how large should it be? Dimensions/resolution? Also, what do you suggest as far as pricing goes? Looking for quick answers! Thanks so much.


To paraphrase the others, only sell digital files if the client (assuming a retail client) absolutely refuses to buy anything else, in which case they need to be priced in such a way as to make it worthwhile knowing that you will get NO repeat business.  While I don't have a minimum purchase requirement, I do charge $65 per file when I sell them (rarely).  What I do have are a set of pairs of sample prints.  One print is done by my lab, one by the local big-box photo mart...  I show them what they're getting when they pay me $25 instead of ***-mart $5.00 for a print.


----------



## unpopular (Jun 8, 2016)

Trever1t said:


> I would have to agree with that. Sell prints.



You know what will happen. Senior Sally will snap a photo with her phone post it on facebook, and provided that it's not THAT blurry, there's your logo.

Or worse, they take that crude duplicate and print it off at wal-mart.

You can complain all you want about copyright violation. You can sue Senior Sally's parents, and no matter if you're within your legal rights or not, they're going to tell all their friends what a greedy, sue-happy nutjob you are. Even if you don't need to get that far, it's not going to go over well.

Yeah. It's not fair. And you can cry about it not being fair all you want.

But at the end of the day clients will go to whoever offers the best deal. Yes. Quality is important, but trust me, just because you're old and inflexible and unwilling to adapt to current market conditions does not make you a better photographer.

there are plenty of talented, young photographers out there who are willing to meet this market requirement.

Because ultimately, fairness doesn't matter.


----------



## robbins.photo (Jun 8, 2016)

Does present a rather interesting dilemma.  For the photographer the best deal of course is to sell prints.  However since most people want to share photos via facebook and email, I can see where there would probably be a pretty significant market demand for digital files instead.

Maybe you could find a happy medium in there somewhere, did your client specify what his/her ultimate goal was for the digital file?  Are they hoping to print it themselves, share it via social media, both, etc...


----------



## unpopular (Jun 8, 2016)

As always clear terms that meet both party's needs are important. A license should be an agreement.


----------



## tirediron (Jun 8, 2016)

robbins.photo said:


> Does present a rather interesting dilemma.  For the photographer the best deal of course is to sell prints.  However since most people want to share photos via facebook and email, I can see where there would probably be a pretty significant market demand for digital files instead.
> 
> Maybe you could find a happy medium in there somewhere, did your client specify what his/her ultimate goal was for the digital file?  Are they hoping to print it themselves, share it via social media, both, etc...


There is, and in my experience, the best way to capitalize on it is to offer free, "social-media ready" files (72 ppi, 400 pixels on the long edge) with every print purchase.  That has two benefits, the younger customers get their all important digital files for facespace, and you still get to sell prints.


----------



## Vtec44 (Jun 8, 2016)

unpopular said:


> The reality of the matter is that the good old days of ripping off clients is over.



Yikes.  Why is it ripping off?  It's all supply and demand.  As long as both parties are aware and agree to it, I don't see anything wrong with it.  

The problem I see is that us photographers lower our value because we don't think we're worth it, and when others demand what they're worth and we feel that they're wrong or ripping people off. 

BTW, my pricing is kind of similar and proportion to what the clients paid.


----------



## KmH (Jun 8, 2016)

unpopular said:


> But at the end of the day clients will go to whoever offers the best deal.


You're probably talking about the average buyer, and buyers that live pay check to pay check.

There are people out there that look for the best - regardless the price.
Those are the 15% of the people in the US that have 85% of the money.
Those are the people retail photographers need to market and promote to.

Today most retail photographers go out of business in a very short period of time because their prices are TO LOW for them to stay in business, let alone make an income.


----------



## unpopular (Jun 9, 2016)

That's probably true. But at the same time I genuinely believe that printed product-oriented just isn't a good business plan. I think that there is definitely room in retail photography for licensing that can meet clients expectations without under selling oneself.

I do not think most people will be willing to buy $1250-worth of digital files, this is compounded by the fact that you can get a decent scanner for less than $50. Is it illegal, you bet it is. Does that matter? No. At the end of the day, you're out $1250 and you have no control over the quality of the images and no real say in how the files are being used. If you try claim your copyright, you're screwed again. It sucks, it's total victim-blaming, but it's true. You cannot win like this.

Ultimately it's the entrepreneur's challenge to make it in existing markets. The reality of today's market is, one, clients are demanding flexible licensing, and two, people are willing to and feel justified in stealing from you. How you navigate these challenges is up to you - but failing to meet these challenges is why businesses go under. For some, they fail to make it by charging too little. Others fail to by charging too much for products that people don't want. For a few they fail because they have a sense of right and wrong and get burned for it. It's unfortunate. But the end result is that they failed.


----------



## smoke665 (Jun 9, 2016)

KmH said:


> retail photographers today that make an income of well over $50,000 a year?



Seriously, 50k??? I had truck drivers making better than that 15 years ago, and they had no investment in anything. The metro population of our area is about 80,000. There are two studios that have been in business in excess of 20 years, they do great work, but they aren't cheap, don't try to be. Not sure what their income is, but I'm pretty sure it's well in excess of 50k, knowing their lifestyle. Then we have an over abundance of "wanna be's" operating out of their house that will charge you a $25 sitting fee, and a low cost package  Chances are they'll be gone by next month, talking about how bad it is, because they can't make a living at it. After 45 successful years in business I can tell you that the biggest mistake an entrepreneur can make is to undervalue their product/service, just so they can reach a market segment. You need to research your market "before" you jump in. If you can't expect a reasonable return for your time and investment, you'd be better off doing something in life that can earn you a good income. That way you'll have extra  to spend on what's really important in life like new photography equipment


----------



## KmH (Jun 9, 2016)

Yes. Seriously.

According to US Department of Labor statistics fewer than 15% of US photographers make income of $50,000 a year or more. Most of that 15% are commercial photographers, not retail photographers.

Most retail photographers in the US do not make income above minimum wage.
And most of the retail photography businesses that are able to stay in business are only able to stay in business because the business is supported with other income.
In a lot of cases that additional income comes from spouse income or a 'day' job.


----------



## Vtec44 (Jun 9, 2016)

I don't think you can make it even at 50k annual income.  Tax, insurance, expenses, etc would quickly reduce that to 20k and that is basically poverty level in many US cities.


----------



## smoke665 (Jun 9, 2016)

KmH said:


> Most retail photographers in the US do not make income above minimum
> wage.



That's sad because it doesn't have to be, there are jobs out there in the field that pay a decent wage. Pulled these off Salary dot com - Photographer (media) $59k, Photographer (scientific) $45k, Photographer (biomedical) $52k, and the list went on and on. It may not be exactly what you want to do, but if you're working for a client you're not free either. You have to decide if it's a hobby or a career and act appropriately.

Have some good friends, the wife is an artist that has made a very good income over the years. It's paid for a nice house, and 45' MH to travel to showings. Another mutual friend asked her one time if she'd paint a picture to hang over his fireplace. She told him politely but firmly "you can't afford it"


----------



## JacaRanda (Jun 15, 2016)




----------



## KmH (Jun 15, 2016)

smoke665 said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > Most retail photographers in the US do not make income above minimum wage.
> ...


None of those are retail photography jobs.


----------



## smoke665 (Jun 15, 2016)

KmH said:


> None of those are retail photography jobs



Didn't say they were "retail photography", I said they were "photography"  jobs. Wasn't disputing you what you were saying about "retail photography" pay, I said it was "sad" that anyone with a specialized skill set would stay in that position, when there were other avenues open to practice "photography" and make a decent living.


----------

