• Images
  • Text
  • Find a Couple + Registry
GO
Photos and Video

Is this worth negotiating?

My fiance and I hired a photographer for our wedding and later decided that we wanted to add an engagement package. The photographer has two packages --1 package includes a $100 credit to purchase prints of images and the other package ($200 more) includes rights to all of the images and all images on a disk. 

So, long story short, we want to move forward with the first package but request that we receive the rights to 1 image.  The photographer says that this is going to cost us $70 for 1 image.  Is this industry standard, if so, is this price in-line with purchasing rights to 1 image?

KnotRiley

Re: Is this worth negotiating?

  • photokittyphotokitty where I want to be mod
    Moderator Knottie Warrior 5000 Comments 500 Love Its
    It's not uncommon. But more importantly, it's his pricing, so you can pay it or not hire him.

    Why don't you just buy the second package for 200 more? I would never hire a photog that didn't give me the print rights.

    My fiance and I hired a photographer for our wedding and later decided that we wanted to add an engagement package. The photographer has two packages --1 package includes a $100 credit to purchase prints of images and the other package ($200 more) includes rights to all of the images and all images on a disk. 


    So, long story short, we want to move forward with the first package but request that we receive the rights to 1 image.  The photographer says that this is going to cost us $70 for 1 image.  Is this industry standard, if so, is this price in-line with purchasing rights to 1 image?

    :kiss: ~xoxo~ :kiss:

    pinupbride6189ILoveBeachMusic
  • I think that's pretty standard. Our photographer is less expensive than many others we talked to, and he charges $65 for one print. We bought all printing rights. I think you'll save so much money in the long run going with the second package. I kind of doubt he'll give you full rights to one photo, but maybe. 
    Anyway, just buy the printing rights. 
  • Out of curiosity, why wouldn't you want the rights to all of your images?  Particularly when the price differential is only $200 (well, $300 if you count that the first package gives you a credit), why wouldn't you want unlimited access to everything to do with what you please without the hassle of going back to the photographer every time you want more of something?  Maybe your budget is stretched thin and it seems like too much to pay now, but what happens if you change your mind in the future?

    For the record, googling photographer price per photo will get you your answer - which is that it varies greatly. I would say the average in my experience is between $100-200 per print though for good, reputable photographers.  You're not just paying for the price of printing paper - they have to price themselves to make a living and cover their overhead for the whole year and most of them have an average of one wedding per weekend if they are lucky and maybe they'll book a portrait session per week.  And let's face it, they probably aren't shooting 52 weddings a year - there are some months that are probably pretty lean. 

  •  Hi happen across this post and could not help but reply, As Wedding and Event Photographers and like all other photographers you own the rights to ALL your photos, We ask permission to use photos for advertising, portfolio and even contest , but if a couple says no, end of story. I don't know who you have but in my opinion, they are wrong.
  • I think it's kinda absurd not to have the rights to your own images.
    Think of it this way: Anyone taking photos of you needs your permission, right? So why would you pay this person to perform the work of photographing you but have them own your images? 
    I'm willing to bet you have lots of photographers to choose from, so pick someone who's willing to work with you and your requests, within reason of course.
  • Go with the 2nd package.  I hate how some photographers will watermark the images and you can't get access to the hi-res without ordering the picture through the photographer.  You don't want to have a handful of images you want and have to pay for each individual image.  Get rights to them all.  Plus, besides putting pictures in frames, have a digital version will allow you to do whatever you want with them.  You can use them to make literally anything on these photo sites like pictures books, studio wrapped prints, you name it.  Just think- you want to make Christmas gifts for your parents like a framed picture, you can just go online and upload the image and probably save a lot of money.  
  • photokittyphotokitty where I want to be mod
    Moderator Knottie Warrior 5000 Comments 500 Love Its
    I think it's kinda absurd not to have the rights to your own images.
    Think of it this way: Anyone taking photos of you needs your permission, right? So why would you pay this person to perform the work of photographing you but have them own your images? 
    I'm willing to bet you have lots of photographers to choose from, so pick someone who's willing to work with you and your requests, within reason of course.

    Printing rights and copyrights are two different things. It is much easier to obtain the printing rights, like package #2 offers than full copyrights. And if you are public property or have entered private property that states by entering you can be photographed, than you don't have to grant permission to have your photo taken.

    You pay them to photograph you, but they own the copyright bc they created the image. An excellent photog is going to charge a premium to surrender their copyright.

    I would never hire a photog who didn't sell me full printing rights. I would never expect to get full copyrights tho.

    :kiss: ~xoxo~ :kiss:

  • Doesn't matter if we agree or disagree with who owns the rights.  The law says the photographer does. It is their product to price and sell. With so many of us who want the rights to design our own albums and print our own photos, I imagine they have all lost a significant portion of their income.


  • I think it's kinda absurd not to have the rights to your own images.
    Think of it this way: Anyone taking photos of you needs your permission, right? So why would you pay this person to perform the work of photographing you but have them own your images? 
    I'm willing to bet you have lots of photographers to choose from, so pick someone who's willing to work with you and your requests, within reason of course.
    1.  Printing rights and copyrights are two different things.  Here's a blog post from a photographer that explains it.
    http://205photography.com/2013/11/copyright-vs-print-rights/

    2.  You also have to remember that it was not too long ago that digital photography didn't exist and you couldn't have just any random person with an iPhone and instagram filters shoot unlimited photos to your heart's content.  People hired photographers or went to photo studios, the photographers exercised a great deal of care using their expertise because they were shooting on rolls of film that could only carry 24-36 shots a roll and then developing these pictures in a darkroom.  There was only one set of negatives, period.  They provided you with a contact sheet or a set of proofs and then you picked which ones you liked best and ordered the number and sizes you wanted.  Then the photographer went back in the dark room with the negatives and created those prints for you.  If you wanted more at a later time, you had to go back to the photographer and order them.  It's why when you asked people what three things they would save from their house in a fire, one of those things was usually a photo album because it was harder and more costly to replace those items (and impossible if the negatives were gone) - their photos were not just digitally hanging out in a cloud somewhere to be accessed from any old computer/tablet/phone in the world.  And it's how photographers made their money - by being the keepers of these negatives and being the source of the printed copies and charging for them.

    Then, digital came along and we with that we got the ability for any old moron with a color printer to go ahead and alter the photos any way they wanted with whatever software they purchased and print them out - possibly altering the photos enough that it misrepresents the artist's work and taking a large chunk of income away from the photographers who used to be the sole source of your printed photos.  So yeah - to protect their work and be able to make a living now that most people want to have the control themselves because they bought themselves a fancy printer, photographers had to start charging for other things in the digital age to compensate for the loss of income that was part of the deal in the film age.  It's really not that unreasonable, though maybe if you didn't grow up when film was prevalent it's hard to understand the work and artistry that goes into making quality photos or why things get priced the way they do.
  • edited August 2015
    If you don't move forward with this photographer, I hired The Reason (Chris + Allie) and they are willing to work with your budget. They can provide an engagement session and your wedding. They also do videography, which you will LOVE!

    I hope this helps!
This discussion has been closed.
Choose Another Board
Search Boards