Photographers: ordering prints - posting to FB?

Discussion in 'Photography' started by Fran101, Feb 3, 2014.

  1. Fran101

    Fran101 Resident fainting goat

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2008
    Messages:
    12,547
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Boston
    I am trying to wrap my head around all this.. I am doing a photoshoot in a few months. Which is supposed to be really fun but is turning into kind of a headache
    If I buy a bunch of prints, can THOSE be put on facebook?
    ..or do I have to buy the digital file?

    /why the heck is the digital file $150 and the print $50 UGH

    I think the whole print thing is a little ridiculous honestly. WTF am I gonna do with a bunch of prints of myself? Put them in an album and pull it out for guests? It's 2014 for heaven's sake.
    I don't want a PRINT of a picture of myself.

    and if I buy the print...what is the harm of it being on facebook. Is it just kinda frowned upon or actually messed up for me to do this.

    I fully intend on purchasing prints even though I don't really need them... I am all about quality prints and supporting the photographers, I get it.
    ....but I also feel like what's the difference between me taking MY PRINT and displaying it on my wall and taking my print and posting it on facebook.
    I am not using it to make money or anything.

    If anything me posting it on facebook/giving credit is certainly going to get you more clients than the pics sitting on my mantle.

    So long story short....Is it ok to post a print (that you bought from a photoshoot you paid for) to facebook?
     
  2. RBark

    RBark Got Floof?

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2008
    Messages:
    961
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Legally speaking it's not okay. The reason the digital file is expensive is because you are buying ownership of the photograph. Among photographers this is a big deal. You will always find hobby photographers or even some professional photographers who do not know the value of ownership.

    A print is cheap because it's not reproduceable, editable, and so on without some loss of quality. Digital files do not have that issue.

    You can certainly find someone who is willing to sell you photos for cheaper, but photography is a expensive profession that is difficult to earn money in. $150 sounds cheap to me, for the work involved, as well as the equipment (a studio setup plus camera/lenses cost tens of thousands of dollars.)
     
  3. release the hounds

    release the hounds Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2008
    Messages:
    4,381
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Occupation:
    7
    Location:
    Midwest
    ^^^^^^

    What she said

    And pros get paid. A hobbiest might take cheaper pics or someone looking to start out, but others aren't going to take much studio and editing time for a 30 dollar job. I probably wouldn't either. If someone just wants snapshot stuff to share on Fb, why hire a pro?
     
  4. Fran101

    Fran101 Resident fainting goat

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2008
    Messages:
    12,547
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Boston
    It's just so frustrating. There has to be a photographer somewhere who is a little more understanding of the issue. I understand if it was selling me the commercial rights but it's FACEBOOK. It's sharing the picture personally among friends.

    I am paying over $1000+ for the photo-shoot itself , which will last tops 2 hours and buying the prints. It's not like I am talking about running away with some kind of bargain.

    I never understood WHY my facebook is covered with scans of images and pictures of prints but **** I am starting to understand. At $150+ per pop just to share a print you already bought... I certainly understand the impulse.
     
  5. Fran101

    Fran101 Resident fainting goat

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2008
    Messages:
    12,547
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Boston
    The photoshoot itself is more than $1000 (for less than 2 hours)
    The minimum basic print package is around $800 (prints + artbook etc..).
    I would gather that the photographer in question is making a bit more than $30. Even without me buying a single digital. This is what SHE DOES (small photo sessions I mean) It's not like I'm booking someone shooting for nat geo or weddings lol

    I want a professional because I want someone with talent, and because sharing on FB is not the primary purpose of these pictures. Some prints are going to my parents, some are being hung up at work etc.. so I need someone that can handle prints.
    and that can handle editing.

    I really am not looking to dollar and change these people. I just am finding it hard to wrap my head around such a stringent digital policy in this day and age I guess.
    Why not make less-than-printable-lower-quality files for sharing on social media?

    They MUST know that with the digital files being more than double the price of prints people are just going to share them on facebook anyway.

    EDITED TO ADD: I of course would not share prints on FB now that I know that legally, this isn't ok to do (I thought maybe you bought the ownership of the image with the print or it was just kind of a "well you can but they don't exactly like it") that said, I certainly understand the impulse. I want to share the images with people I love, I would love a way to do that that didn't involve paying such a huge sum for the ownership of them on top of everything else like I am going to use them for an ad campaign
     
  6. Michiyo-Fir

    Michiyo-Fir New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2010
    Messages:
    2,494
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You can talk to the photographer and ask for low resolution web sized images for Facebook. Legally, you cannot scan/take photos of the prints you buy, no matter the price to use for Facebook or reprint because the rights belong to the photographer and with it being online, the images could be stolen by other people. It doesn't matter if the shoot is $100 or $100000, copyrights are a huge deal in the photography business.

    But depending on the photographer, they might be able to give you low-res files for web posting that cannot be printed.
     
  7. Fran101

    Fran101 Resident fainting goat

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2008
    Messages:
    12,547
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Boston
    Now that makes more sense.
    I actually never thought about the copyright and the images being stolen by other people.

    This is just such a frustrating process.
    Finding someone professional enough to do a nice job and cool enough to not change me enough to buy a small island in Tahiti.

    I'm a college student I just want some nice pictures of myself whyyyyyyyyyyyy
     
  8. GingerKid

    GingerKid New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2014
    Messages:
    88
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Two
    Location:
    Alberta, Canada
    Photography is expensive. Period. It is a ton of work, the equipment is expensive... and while anyone can point a camera and shoot and take an okay photo, it really does take talent and experience to artistically compose a photo and then also have the technical skill to capture it.

    Regarding your question...

    Short answer: it may or may not be allowed, depending on the specific contract/licencing agreement you signed with the photographer. Some photographers allow unlimited personal use of digital prints, some do not. It just depends.

    Long answer: Buying the digital file is not always about ownership, and in my experience is much more often about rights of access/usage. Think of when you buy a DVD. Yes, you own the disc (like you would own a physical print), but you can't show the movie and make money off of it because the licence included when you purchased the physical disc doesn't allow for it. You can, however, have friends over to watch that DVD with you, lend it to your cousin, etc. As the creators of works of art, most photographers want to retain some amount of control over how their work is used, so that they are not misrepresented, and that their art is less likely to be misappropriated.

    That is the arrangement we have with our wedding photographer. She legally owns the rights to the photographs, and can used them publicly or sell them (e.g to an ad company) but its written into our contract that she can only do it with our consent. On the other hand, we are allowed to freely distribute our wedding photos, including the digital files, to friends and family including on Facebook, as long as we mention the photography studio. We cannot distribute the photos without her permission to any companies (all of our vendors have requested photos of the wedding), wedding blogs or websites... essentially anything that could at some point make money. During our search we also looked into other photographers who would only provide digital files for large sums of money or only offered prints with their packages and the digital files were extra.

    In the end, it just depends on your photographer, the package you chose, and the contract that you signed.
     
  9. release the hounds

    release the hounds Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2008
    Messages:
    4,381
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Occupation:
    7
    Location:
    Midwest
    I didnt realize you had a 1000 dollar studio session with an 800 min print package. That would have me asking questions too :) I'd think any body I was doing g business with could find it in their heart to make a few low res files for social media as part of the package. If not I'd find one that would.
     
  10. skittledoo

    skittledoo Crazy naked dog lady

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2007
    Messages:
    13,667
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Gender:
    Female
    Occupation:
    Dog Trainer CPDT-KA
    Location:
    Fredericksburg
    When I do photoshoots of people I do allow them to put photos on Facebook as long as they purchase the digital file from me. Per contract they are not allowed to remove the watermark so that I am still being credited for the image. My equipment is not cheap and editing images requires skill and time so purchased digital images are not going to be cheap. If someone is going to spend a lot of money on the photos then I don't mind them putting them up on Facebook.
     
  11. kady05

    kady05 Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2011
    Messages:
    1,285
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Occupation:
    5
    Location:
    Chesapeake, Virginia
    Home Page:
    I'm a pet photographer, so have a little experience here ;)

    FWIW, I DO give low-res digital files to my clients so they can post them on FB, have them on their phone, etc. Those are included in my session fee, actual prints are not. I'm considering changing that soon and only offering low-res files to go along with any prints they purchase (ex. They buy an 8x10, they get a low-res file of that image along with it). These files are not printable (I mean, I guess you could, but they'd look bad) and have my logo on them. I'm of the mentality that it's a "digital age", so I want to give my clients something they can share online, but I absolutely refuse to sell my full-res digital files. No way.

    When you sell a full-res file, you're basically throwing any profit you might make down the toilet. That's why the good photographers who do sell them (note I said good, lots of "photographers" will include all digital files from the session, drives me nuts) charge a very high amount for them. When you have a full res file, you can go make any type/size of print you want from it, in theory.

    I think for a $1000 session, the photographer you're using should be including some low-res files along with it. JMO though. Everyone is different.
     

Share This Page