photographers rip off or not ? on the Peoria.com Forums

do all photographers charge u 50$ for the xtra cd of ur pics after u pay the upwardsof 500$ for the package ? now im not talken about a lic and insured person im talken about a uses picnic to edit and faux . i just seen this and was in shock . i understand chargen ya for mileage and 20$ per xtra person but 50$ if u want a 2nd cd with the pics on it .

That definitely sounds like a ripoff, why not just take the one CD and make a copy of it yourself and save $50?

You have to be really careful this day and age because anyone and everyone fancies themselves a professional photographer with the way photo technology has leapt

Actually, this would be good as a thread. How do you feel you've been ripped off?

No, not everyone does that but it doesn't make it wrong. The photographer is basically selling you the unlimited rights to print as many pics as you want through that CD and taking the huge risk that you're not going to copy it and give it to your friends, which equals unlimited lost money for him/her through future sales.

Btw, doesn't matter what program the photographer uses to edit photos in if the pics can stand for themselves.

my question is couldnt u get the 1 cd and just burn a copy of it to give to family ? im sure thats what her clients have done . i just wondered if it was the '" norm" in the biz is all . i was flabbergasted when i seen the price sheet for her weddings and at the bottem i see where she charges for mileage and xtra cds and xtra price per person ..

I doubt that she is charging $50 for an EXTRA CD. I'm sure that is for A CD.

nope she is charging 50$ for xtra cd with printing rights . its at the bottom of the page . i too was in shock and said nope that cant be 50$ has to be 50 cents .

Doesn't sound outrageous to me, but the easy answer is if you don't like what "she" is charging, use someone else.

i am not using her and wouldnt . does any one know of lacy taber ? shes outta peoria . im actully going w her this fall . i like her work and she seems rele nice . looking forward to haven our family pixs done this fall .

With the evolution of digital cameras and their quality, there seem to be 2 big problems:

- Everyone with an SLR thinks they can be pro.
- Everyone wants something for nothing. For example, I covered the Peoria Heights Half Marathon this year and was minimally compensated for being there considering the time investment. The coordinator wanted a copy of every photo I took. I told him I would not give every photo, but I'd be willing to give a few of what I felt were the best photos that they can use for their site or future ads. He wanted to make a slide show to put on their site, so I generated a slide show from my website and gave him the code to embed it into their site. Problem solved. He still hasn't come back asking for any photos for their site, though.

@mizzouman_2000:

that would seem to be the issue with diez. She thinks 50 cents for a CD WITH PRINTING RIGHTS (read: release of copyright) is fair compensation for someone who spends a few hours of their time taking pictures with a camera that likely cost between 2,500 - 5,000 dollars, a few grand more for some lenses, another grand for decent lights...

Yep, 50 cents should cover it, right?

photography isn't art. A photographer is just capturing an image with technology, they aren't creating anything.

If a photographer can claim a "copyright" by using technology to capture an image, than in the same right, the manufacture of the camera could.

@Pock:

I know some photographers who would disagree with you.

@AverageJoe:

I'm married to one of them. There is a lot more too it than showing up with a disposable camera from Walgreens. If you don't believe it, ask wedding photographers why they have to carry insurance. People sue when the "capture" is not just right. Almost as if it's an art or something.

* This message has been revised.

@AverageJoe:

All of them would. Trust me, I've been down that road lol

The cost of doing business should be considered in the price. No Doubt; although I've never understood how someone could claim a "copyright" which, in it's definition is "is giving the creator of an original work exclusive rights to it" for using a camera to take a picture. How is it original work, if I was standing next to the photographer and we both took the same picture?

The law states you can; although it has never made logical sense to me... Now, if someone PAINTED the scene, and actually made an original work.. I'd understand it.. no two paintings are the same.. although pictures? Not art and certainly not original.

I'm not advocating people not be compensated for their time and equipment, and maybe that price should be higher than going rates; but I'm not sold on the copyright part.

* This message has been revised.