What to do when people can't follow simple instructions
October 14, 2011 6:43 AM Subscribe
Mrs. dyno04 has started getting a few clients for her photography business now, however most of the initial clients have been neighbors, friends, and family. As part of the end result she gives the clients a set of watermarked images and a set of high-resolution images. The print release specifically states that only the watermarked images can be used on Facebook. A few people have used the non-watermarked images on Facebook and she is wondering what is the best way to approach them to ask them to use the watermarked versions, keeping in mind that most of these people are people we interact with on a regular basis. She doesn't want to become "that" person that is only about making a dime.
Others may disagree, but my personal view is that in the digital landscape, there is no money to be made on the images--only on the services. I'd reprice the packages and give the clients free rein to do what they want with the photos themselves.
You have no control of the images once they get into the wild, and trying to assert otherwise is an exercise in futility.
posted by Admiral Haddock at 6:48 AM on October 14, 2011 [28 favorites]
You have no control of the images once they get into the wild, and trying to assert otherwise is an exercise in futility.
posted by Admiral Haddock at 6:48 AM on October 14, 2011 [28 favorites]
Maybe she could setup an online gallery that links in with Facebook, these gallery images would all have "Photo's by Mrs. dyno04 www.dyno04.com" watermarked at the bottom, with simple one click Facebook/Twitter/Etc share buttons. The idea being that if you make the ability to share the 'free' images easier then sharing the originals, you'll get closer to your goals, and also market her work better.
Also do the client have an option to buy a royalty free license?
Perhaps she should adjust her prices to consider that digital copies will be made and shared around.
posted by Static Vagabond at 6:51 AM on October 14, 2011 [1 favorite]
Also do the client have an option to buy a royalty free license?
Perhaps she should adjust her prices to consider that digital copies will be made and shared around.
posted by Static Vagabond at 6:51 AM on October 14, 2011 [1 favorite]
Yeah, this seems really weird for me. Why in the world would I pay for photographs that I can't use on Facebook or wherever I want? And why would your wife want to prevent people from using the photographs they've paid for?
posted by Jairus at 6:51 AM on October 14, 2011 [5 favorites]
posted by Jairus at 6:51 AM on October 14, 2011 [5 favorites]
Maybe in the future she could offer two pricing options; one for watermarked images only (plus prints?) and one for non-watermarked images. But as far as the existing clients, yeah, the genie's out of the bottle and she'd probably lose as much business by becoming "that person" as she would gain by having her name out there in the watermarks.
What are the clients supposed to be using the high-quality digital images for, if not posting them online?
posted by mskyle at 6:53 AM on October 14, 2011
What are the clients supposed to be using the high-quality digital images for, if not posting them online?
posted by mskyle at 6:53 AM on October 14, 2011
> You have no control of the images once they get into the wild, and trying to assert otherwise is an exercise in futility.
This. Does Mrs. dyno04 want to be a photographer or a lawyer? You can spend a lot of hours chasing small-fry uses of your work and only hurt your business in the long run. (I've known more than a few photographers who drove themselves out of the business because their word of mouth was "pain in the ass to work with about rights.")
Having said that, the classic "pardon me" mail that your grandparents taught you is what you'd want if you insisted on following through. Introduce, acknowledge you are inconveniencing them, explain the problem in human terms, politely propose a specific solution, indicate that you're not opposed to other equally-workable solutions, thank them for their time, signature.
posted by introp at 6:53 AM on October 14, 2011 [2 favorites]
This. Does Mrs. dyno04 want to be a photographer or a lawyer? You can spend a lot of hours chasing small-fry uses of your work and only hurt your business in the long run. (I've known more than a few photographers who drove themselves out of the business because their word of mouth was "pain in the ass to work with about rights.")
Having said that, the classic "pardon me" mail that your grandparents taught you is what you'd want if you insisted on following through. Introduce, acknowledge you are inconveniencing them, explain the problem in human terms, politely propose a specific solution, indicate that you're not opposed to other equally-workable solutions, thank them for their time, signature.
posted by introp at 6:53 AM on October 14, 2011 [2 favorites]
Perhaps the watermark is seen as a kind of advertising? If not, I agree with Jahaza. And in any case, she may have more luck requesting that people credit her in a description of the photo or in a follow-on comment. That has the positive benefit of looking like word-of-mouth praise whereas watermarked photos just look possessive (albeit intentionally and well within the right of the photographer).
posted by cocoagirl at 6:54 AM on October 14, 2011
posted by cocoagirl at 6:54 AM on October 14, 2011
I had to shop around to find a photographer that would allow me to use my photos anyway I damn well pleased. I was willing to pay more for this, but I didn't want to have to go track down the original taker to ask permission to use my own image.
I think portrait photography should be seen as more like work for hire than a copyright agreement, since this is more realistic, but that's my opinion.
Charge more with the agreement they can use them. Or write in a "social media" contract that allows for their use on websites as long as credit is given.
If she insist on asserting copyright she may be legally correct, but she will be "that" person.
Jairus, generally the copyright is held by the photographer and she gets to dictate how the photos are used and you can generally only get additional copies through that studio.
posted by cjorgensen at 6:54 AM on October 14, 2011
I think portrait photography should be seen as more like work for hire than a copyright agreement, since this is more realistic, but that's my opinion.
Charge more with the agreement they can use them. Or write in a "social media" contract that allows for their use on websites as long as credit is given.
If she insist on asserting copyright she may be legally correct, but she will be "that" person.
Jairus, generally the copyright is held by the photographer and she gets to dictate how the photos are used and you can generally only get additional copies through that studio.
posted by cjorgensen at 6:54 AM on October 14, 2011
Ditch the watermarks. Have faith in word of mouth.
Dress designers, caterers, and so on don't watermark their wares. You shouldn't either. You'll lose far more goodwill than you'll gain if you try to force people to only share the watermarked images.
posted by Sticherbeast at 6:55 AM on October 14, 2011 [1 favorite]
Dress designers, caterers, and so on don't watermark their wares. You shouldn't either. You'll lose far more goodwill than you'll gain if you try to force people to only share the watermarked images.
posted by Sticherbeast at 6:55 AM on October 14, 2011 [1 favorite]
When we needed a photographer, we specifically looked for a photographer who would give full use of any photos he took of us. We paid him for a service, taking pictures of us, not for a product, a single copy of the pictures themselves.
Your wife's watermark clause does not sound good for business, in this day and age. Digital copies of photos are as important as a nice print of those same photos. This model might work while her clientele is small (and it's clearly not working as is) but it won't scale up.
posted by lydhre at 6:56 AM on October 14, 2011 [1 favorite]
Your wife's watermark clause does not sound good for business, in this day and age. Digital copies of photos are as important as a nice print of those same photos. This model might work while her clientele is small (and it's clearly not working as is) but it won't scale up.
posted by lydhre at 6:56 AM on October 14, 2011 [1 favorite]
Jairus, generally the copyright is held by the photographer and she gets to dictate how the photos are used and you can generally only get additional copies through that studio.
Is this an American thing? It seems totally crazy to me. Here in Canada, the person who commissions the photography work is the copyright holder, not the photographer.
posted by Jairus at 7:01 AM on October 14, 2011
Is this an American thing? It seems totally crazy to me. Here in Canada, the person who commissions the photography work is the copyright holder, not the photographer.
posted by Jairus at 7:01 AM on October 14, 2011
Response by poster: Let me clarify. She provides watermarked photographs for the sole purpose of allowing the photos to be used on social media, such as Facebook, as that does provide a form of advertising. She provides high-resolution files to allow the client to do whatever else they wanted with them, such as printing them or allowing family members to print. If you look around this is the way countless, numerous photographers these days do business.
The snide comments aren't appreciated at all and gets away from the question.
posted by dyno04 at 7:04 AM on October 14, 2011
The snide comments aren't appreciated at all and gets away from the question.
posted by dyno04 at 7:04 AM on October 14, 2011
I would suspect that a great people many have NO understanding of this as a rights issue (even if it is noted in the release). FWIW, I wouldn't use a photographer who insisted on this.
posted by R. Mutt at 7:11 AM on October 14, 2011 [6 favorites]
posted by R. Mutt at 7:11 AM on October 14, 2011 [6 favorites]
The problem is that what you're describing is either/both confusing to people as to which photo they're "supposed" to use on social media, or they just don't want to have a watermarked image on Facebook because they think it looks tacky and like overt advertising (and, honestly, can you blame them?).
A better and more palatable solution that helps out both sides is to not bother with watermarking, and ask them tag your wife (or rather, her business's Fan Page) in the photo. She has a Fan Page, right? This way, you're taking the work of trying to police the photos off of her, and the potential to get an actual clickthrough to her page and a potential client goes up significantly. You can't force people to do this, but it's much more likely to happen than them uploading an advertisement (which is what a watermarked photo essentially is).
Knowing and working with tons of photographers, they've all reverted to something similar to the method described because it's the one that ends up working out the best for everyone. There are enough cheap "photographers" that if your wife is considered a pain to work with, people will simply go elsewhere. It's just how the climate is nowadays.
posted by chrisfromthelc at 7:14 AM on October 14, 2011 [12 favorites]
A better and more palatable solution that helps out both sides is to not bother with watermarking, and ask them tag your wife (or rather, her business's Fan Page) in the photo. She has a Fan Page, right? This way, you're taking the work of trying to police the photos off of her, and the potential to get an actual clickthrough to her page and a potential client goes up significantly. You can't force people to do this, but it's much more likely to happen than them uploading an advertisement (which is what a watermarked photo essentially is).
Knowing and working with tons of photographers, they've all reverted to something similar to the method described because it's the one that ends up working out the best for everyone. There are enough cheap "photographers" that if your wife is considered a pain to work with, people will simply go elsewhere. It's just how the climate is nowadays.
posted by chrisfromthelc at 7:14 AM on October 14, 2011 [12 favorites]
dyno04, what I'm saying, at least, is that most clients do not want to have to advertise their photographer's work in order to post pictures of themselves on any social media website. You can put it in the contract, and you can try to enforce that rule (but I suspect it would be more trouble than you want to take on), but I think it's going to cost your wife more business than it's going to gain her.
I, and many others, specifically look for photographers who would not do that. These photographers advertise their work by attending trade shows, having professional web sites, showing in galleries, and being generally so awesome that their clients recommend them to others. Digital media, especially on social media web sites, is nowadays probably the one place where one wants to share these images and forcing a watermark is counterproductive.
That said, if I were your wife and desperately wanted my watermark everywhere, I'd contact a lawyer and have him or her look over the contract as written and signed and determine if it's worth it to try and enforce the terms. It might not be, in terms of gain and cost.
posted by lydhre at 7:15 AM on October 14, 2011 [2 favorites]
I, and many others, specifically look for photographers who would not do that. These photographers advertise their work by attending trade shows, having professional web sites, showing in galleries, and being generally so awesome that their clients recommend them to others. Digital media, especially on social media web sites, is nowadays probably the one place where one wants to share these images and forcing a watermark is counterproductive.
That said, if I were your wife and desperately wanted my watermark everywhere, I'd contact a lawyer and have him or her look over the contract as written and signed and determine if it's worth it to try and enforce the terms. It might not be, in terms of gain and cost.
posted by lydhre at 7:15 AM on October 14, 2011 [2 favorites]
She is asking her paying clients to advertise for her for free. What kind of discount is she offering for people to provide this service for her?
If I paid a photographer for a family portrait and the terms of the contract specified I couldn't post un-watermarked images to facebook. I would find that obnoxious.
If a photographer instead explained to me that the watermarked images were a form of word of mouth advertising and if I was happy with the service, to please use the watermarked images when posting to social media as it would really help her business. I might be inclined to oblige her.
If the watermarks are obnoxious (too large or gaudy) that may be another reason why people don't want to use them on facebook. But really, I think these terms are ridiculous and unenforceable.
So, TLDR, my advice is to drop the 'requirement' and make it a polite request with subtle, tasteful watermarks. You get more bees with honey than vinegar.
posted by j03 at 7:15 AM on October 14, 2011 [1 favorite]
If I paid a photographer for a family portrait and the terms of the contract specified I couldn't post un-watermarked images to facebook. I would find that obnoxious.
If a photographer instead explained to me that the watermarked images were a form of word of mouth advertising and if I was happy with the service, to please use the watermarked images when posting to social media as it would really help her business. I might be inclined to oblige her.
If the watermarks are obnoxious (too large or gaudy) that may be another reason why people don't want to use them on facebook. But really, I think these terms are ridiculous and unenforceable.
So, TLDR, my advice is to drop the 'requirement' and make it a polite request with subtle, tasteful watermarks. You get more bees with honey than vinegar.
posted by j03 at 7:15 AM on October 14, 2011 [1 favorite]
Best answer: Along the lines of Static Vagabond's idea, can your wife set up a Facebook page with all of her images, and send each client the link to their individual album once the photos are uploaded (before providing the client with anything)? The clients can then tag themselves and their friends or link to the album for friends to see. Friends of mine who are photographers have done exactly this, and whether they watermark the images or not, anyone who looks at the images has a little link straight back to your page. People are much more likely to click on a link than they are to read a watermark, Google it and attempt to find the right page. Additionally, when people click, her entire portfolio is now there for people to view.
posted by lovedbymarylane at 7:16 AM on October 14, 2011 [11 favorites]
posted by lovedbymarylane at 7:16 AM on October 14, 2011 [11 favorites]
Best answer: For all practical purposes, this is a war she cannot win, and thus should not even wage. I realize that may sound snide, but it's not meant to be.
Right now, she can see her friends and family posting her images without watermarks because they are friends and family. In the future, as she builds a client list of people she is not friends with on Facebook, she won't have any visibility to what they are doing with her photos anyway. So she can fight this battle with her friends, but it won't work long term.
A better approach would be to ask them for credit.
"Hey, I saw you posted the pictures from our session on Facebook. I'm glad you like them!
As you know, I'm really trying to build up my photography business, so would you mind adding a description to the photos or album listing me as your photographer and linking to my website (link)?"
Since they're friends and family, they'll likely be happy to help and to talk her up, and she won't have made any enemies.
posted by jacquilynne at 7:18 AM on October 14, 2011 [7 favorites]
Right now, she can see her friends and family posting her images without watermarks because they are friends and family. In the future, as she builds a client list of people she is not friends with on Facebook, she won't have any visibility to what they are doing with her photos anyway. So she can fight this battle with her friends, but it won't work long term.
A better approach would be to ask them for credit.
"Hey, I saw you posted the pictures from our session on Facebook. I'm glad you like them!
As you know, I'm really trying to build up my photography business, so would you mind adding a description to the photos or album listing me as your photographer and linking to my website (link)?"
Since they're friends and family, they'll likely be happy to help and to talk her up, and she won't have made any enemies.
posted by jacquilynne at 7:18 AM on October 14, 2011 [7 favorites]
We had portraits done last year by a local guy who is, at this point, really successful and has a rep for being super cool. He never once said word one about how we should or should not use the photos on Facebook. They are successful by any metric (they've been featured on offbeat bride, a practical wedding, etc, and have no shortage of biz - at this point the guy is a friend of ours).
I think you could do worse than to look at how they do what they do, because he quit his day job for this. Leah and Mark. Others may be doing what you are saying, but others are also doing different things. This is simply a statement in support of those other things, as a consumer of said services.
posted by Medieval Maven at 7:19 AM on October 14, 2011 [1 favorite]
I think you could do worse than to look at how they do what they do, because he quit his day job for this. Leah and Mark. Others may be doing what you are saying, but others are also doing different things. This is simply a statement in support of those other things, as a consumer of said services.
posted by Medieval Maven at 7:19 AM on October 14, 2011 [1 favorite]
Best answer: I'm a photographer. Once things are up, especially in such a personal space as a Facebook page, you really have to let it go.
I think the reason that a lot of people are being critical is that it's not a sustainable approach. I can see the benefit from her end, but not from the client's end. Lovebymaryjane's idea is a good once - I'd explore that.
To stay on topic, she just needs to keep the emails simple and not overly apologetic. Something like this:
"Hi xxx,
I'm so glad to see you're delighted with the photos and it's lovely to see them being shared online. Unfortunately, I noticed that you've put up the non-watermarked version, which is actually outside of our prior agreement. Could you please replace them with the watermarked ones as soon as it's convenient?
Many thanks,
Mrs. dyno04"
posted by Magnakai at 7:22 AM on October 14, 2011
I think the reason that a lot of people are being critical is that it's not a sustainable approach. I can see the benefit from her end, but not from the client's end. Lovebymaryjane's idea is a good once - I'd explore that.
To stay on topic, she just needs to keep the emails simple and not overly apologetic. Something like this:
"Hi xxx,
I'm so glad to see you're delighted with the photos and it's lovely to see them being shared online. Unfortunately, I noticed that you've put up the non-watermarked version, which is actually outside of our prior agreement. Could you please replace them with the watermarked ones as soon as it's convenient?
Many thanks,
Mrs. dyno04"
posted by Magnakai at 7:22 AM on October 14, 2011
FWIW, I've actually been in a similar scenario. I did a (private, unpaid) shoot that I didn't want going on Facebook. Unfortunately, I wasn't really clear enough with that request. One of the models put up low-res photos and got really upset when I asked her to take them down (with a bit less tact than I was suggesting before). The best I could do was ask for a credit, like jacquilynne suggested.
posted by Magnakai at 7:26 AM on October 14, 2011
posted by Magnakai at 7:26 AM on October 14, 2011
If you look around this is the way countless, numerous photographers these days do business.
There are also a number of articles about the bottom dropping out for wedding photographers and a number of posts in this thread talking about how people willfully choose photographers who do not do this.
You're technically allowed to control this matter, but she will unavoidably be "that" person for policing it, and overall it's a problematic long-term business practice.
posted by Sticherbeast at 7:28 AM on October 14, 2011 [1 favorite]
There are also a number of articles about the bottom dropping out for wedding photographers and a number of posts in this thread talking about how people willfully choose photographers who do not do this.
You're technically allowed to control this matter, but she will unavoidably be "that" person for policing it, and overall it's a problematic long-term business practice.
posted by Sticherbeast at 7:28 AM on October 14, 2011 [1 favorite]
Nthing just letting it go.
As an occasional wedding photographer, my life is six bazillion times easier if I charge for my services as a photographer and editor, then turn over *everything* after I'm done. RAW files, .xml files with the LR adjustments, etc. I make recommendations for where to get them printed if they want them to look right and say goodbye. It lets me charge more for the service because I'm not holding THEIR data hostage, avoids all this watermark crap, and means that when I'm done, I'm done.
From a business perspective, your value added step as a photographer is setting up the shot, taking it, and editing it. Ordering prints is a complete waste of your skill set.
posted by pjaust at 7:29 AM on October 14, 2011 [2 favorites]
As an occasional wedding photographer, my life is six bazillion times easier if I charge for my services as a photographer and editor, then turn over *everything* after I'm done. RAW files, .xml files with the LR adjustments, etc. I make recommendations for where to get them printed if they want them to look right and say goodbye. It lets me charge more for the service because I'm not holding THEIR data hostage, avoids all this watermark crap, and means that when I'm done, I'm done.
From a business perspective, your value added step as a photographer is setting up the shot, taking it, and editing it. Ordering prints is a complete waste of your skill set.
posted by pjaust at 7:29 AM on October 14, 2011 [2 favorites]
Response by poster: Ok, I appreciate all of the follow-up comments. I talked with Mrs. dyno04 and we both agree that the collective hive mind is probably right.
She is going to change the print-release and follow the advice of Magnakai and lovedbymarylane.
posted by dyno04 at 7:32 AM on October 14, 2011 [1 favorite]
She is going to change the print-release and follow the advice of Magnakai and lovedbymarylane.
posted by dyno04 at 7:32 AM on October 14, 2011 [1 favorite]
If I spent some $ to help out a friend/family member in their new business, and got an e-mail like the one Magnakai suggested, I would be very put off--so definitely be careful in how you word these requests. Even if I wouldn't be put off by semi-threatening ("firm") language from some random corporation, it would really irk me in this context. I think jacquilynne's advice was much better...just my two cents.
posted by _Silky_ at 7:48 AM on October 14, 2011 [8 favorites]
posted by _Silky_ at 7:48 AM on October 14, 2011 [8 favorites]
Lots of good advice above. She could also provide the high res files in .tif format. Most people won't know how to convert them etc. to get them up on Facebook but printing services accept that format.
posted by mikepop at 8:10 AM on October 14, 2011
posted by mikepop at 8:10 AM on October 14, 2011
Glad to see you're open to this feedback. We specifically sought out a photographer for our wedding that gave us full-res versions and had no restrictions. Use it as differentiator, it will help. Then become part of the conversation on FB.
posted by dripdripdrop at 8:24 AM on October 14, 2011
posted by dripdripdrop at 8:24 AM on October 14, 2011
The watermark isn't the ad. The photo is the ad. It's only good publicity if your wife's clients are posting her pictures on Facebook, but it's not good if she becomes known as the annoying photographer chasing people around.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 8:46 AM on October 14, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 8:46 AM on October 14, 2011 [1 favorite]
If anything, just make it super easy to share the watermarked photos on facebook (that is, just have a facebook page where they can tag them. People are lazy and will do something like that before they bother uploading hi res images, especially if you give them the hi res images in something that can't be easily uploaded to facebook.
posted by empath at 8:48 AM on October 14, 2011
posted by empath at 8:48 AM on October 14, 2011
One other suggestion - the photographer provides the non-watermarked high res images on CD-R to the clients, hosts the watermarked versions on the web, and also emails links to the hosted, watermarked, images to the clients.
Most clients will probably take the path of least resistance to getting the images on facebook, which is using the links from the email. This also has the advantage of getting the photographer's web site url visible.
posted by de void at 9:23 AM on October 14, 2011
Most clients will probably take the path of least resistance to getting the images on facebook, which is using the links from the email. This also has the advantage of getting the photographer's web site url visible.
posted by de void at 9:23 AM on October 14, 2011
I would make a Ms Dyno04 Photography page on Facebook, and make the requirement that they tag that page in all those unwatermarked photos of yours that they upload. Then when anyone views the photo, they'll have a one-click link to your page. No one types out URLs from watermarks anyway.
posted by Jairus at 9:27 AM on October 14, 2011
posted by Jairus at 9:27 AM on October 14, 2011
echoing what _silky_ said...
Especially with a friend/friend of family if I got a note citing the legal agreement I would not only sour on the experience, but I would NOT recommend said services. I'd 100% recommend the approach jacquilynne lays out if you really feel you have to do this at all.
posted by FlamingBore at 10:02 AM on October 14, 2011
Especially with a friend/friend of family if I got a note citing the legal agreement I would not only sour on the experience, but I would NOT recommend said services. I'd 100% recommend the approach jacquilynne lays out if you really feel you have to do this at all.
posted by FlamingBore at 10:02 AM on October 14, 2011
She is only realizing that people are breaking the agreement because they are friends, family neighbors: in other words, her clients are people she is friends with on facebook.
Should her business grow to include a wider range of people (non-FB-"friends"), she will never see what they post on there. Many people have their privacy settings set to only allow friends to see their photos. Even if she wanted to enforce it, she would have to be able to identify infractions easily, which is pretty much impossible.
posted by halseyaa at 10:17 AM on October 14, 2011
Should her business grow to include a wider range of people (non-FB-"friends"), she will never see what they post on there. Many people have their privacy settings set to only allow friends to see their photos. Even if she wanted to enforce it, she would have to be able to identify infractions easily, which is pretty much impossible.
posted by halseyaa at 10:17 AM on October 14, 2011
If I got an email requesting the non-watermarked photos be taken down from Facebook and replaced with watermarked versions, I'd immediately delete the entire album and not replace it. No way would I spend time re-tagging, nor losing any comments made by friends, plus it just looks like I'm trying to get more eyeballs on my photos by reposting them.
Figure out what the goal is here. Her clients want to share the photographs. She wants people to know who took those photos, and be able to find her so they can hire her. Make this as easy as possible. Make a professional website, upload their photos, make them easy to tweet or email, and post them to Facebook, where they can tag or copy to their own albums. If they do copy to their own albums, just ask if they can tag your business page or website.
Pricing by the image might have made some sense when there was actual film involved. Or if they want tons of re-touched photos. But for the general collection of photographs in the digital age, it makes more sense to realize that she is not providing photographs as a consumer good. She's providing the service of taking those photos. Figure out what it costs to take a series of photos ($x for a birthday party of 100 photos, $y for a wedding of 500 photos, $z for a 3 day wedding of 1000 photos) and build in the time that it takes to get those photos ready for public viewing. Offer a few photos to be more professionally touched-up and more can be added onto the final price.
When friends and family have selected a photographer, across a variety of price points, one of the biggest deciding factors was "How easily can I share these photos and do what I want with them?" The people who were the most neurotic about this were crossed off the list right away.
Don't try to fight the cultural use of images and experiences. Make it so easy and welcoming that people will want to work with you.
posted by barnone at 10:22 AM on October 14, 2011 [4 favorites]
Figure out what the goal is here. Her clients want to share the photographs. She wants people to know who took those photos, and be able to find her so they can hire her. Make this as easy as possible. Make a professional website, upload their photos, make them easy to tweet or email, and post them to Facebook, where they can tag or copy to their own albums. If they do copy to their own albums, just ask if they can tag your business page or website.
Pricing by the image might have made some sense when there was actual film involved. Or if they want tons of re-touched photos. But for the general collection of photographs in the digital age, it makes more sense to realize that she is not providing photographs as a consumer good. She's providing the service of taking those photos. Figure out what it costs to take a series of photos ($x for a birthday party of 100 photos, $y for a wedding of 500 photos, $z for a 3 day wedding of 1000 photos) and build in the time that it takes to get those photos ready for public viewing. Offer a few photos to be more professionally touched-up and more can be added onto the final price.
When friends and family have selected a photographer, across a variety of price points, one of the biggest deciding factors was "How easily can I share these photos and do what I want with them?" The people who were the most neurotic about this were crossed off the list right away.
Don't try to fight the cultural use of images and experiences. Make it so easy and welcoming that people will want to work with you.
posted by barnone at 10:22 AM on October 14, 2011 [4 favorites]
I wouldn't use a photographer's services if the only photos I could share online had watermarks (personally, I hate watermarks, but that's only my preference). Perhaps her clients feel the same way about them; it is like having an advertisement on your photos.
posted by cp311 at 12:14 PM on October 14, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by cp311 at 12:14 PM on October 14, 2011 [1 favorite]
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by Jahaza at 6:45 AM on October 14, 2011 [1 favorite]