Photographer only offering digital files at extremely high price

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ll be the outlier. I’m surprised you don’t get the digital file of any picture you bought a print of. I’ve never heard of that before.

I’m assuming you haven’t used a professional photographer before then. It’s pretty standard practice.

I absolutely have. Wedding pictures and baby pictures x2 with 3 different photographers. I have always gotten the digital files for photos that I paid to have printed. I have always had to pay extra for the digitals of photos I wasn't paying to have printed; how that worked varied between photographers.

OP PAID for one photo printed. $450, including the session seems reasonable. She’s upset about the cost of the digital, which is the extended cost (intellectual property to the photographer, who she is not getting to print)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP you clearly scheduled the session, why didn't you ask then if the prices were not on her website? And when you found the prices after the shoot why didn't you use purchase the digital images instead of prints? You made a lot of mistakes here, this is all on you.

There was no option to purchase digital images alone. There was an option to buy a 5k package that included a lot of prints and the digitals. A 3k package with a lot of prints that included one digital image.

I agree I should have asked ahead of time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ll be the outlier. I’m surprised you don’t get the digital file of any picture you bought a print of. I’ve never heard of that before.

I’m assuming you haven’t used a professional photographer before then. It’s pretty standard practice.

I absolutely have. Wedding pictures and baby pictures x2 with 3 different photographers. I have always gotten the digital files for photos that I paid to have printed. I have always had to pay extra for the digitals of photos I wasn't paying to have printed; how that worked varied between photographers.

OP PAID for one photo printed. $450, including the session seems reasonable. She’s upset about the cost of the digital, which is the extended cost (intellectual property to the photographer, who she is not getting to print)

She paid the photographer 2K! and she didn't get digital images for the 2K worth of prints that she paid for!!! I think she should get ALL digital images for $500. but she paid 2K! and STILL DIDN'T get any digital images. Who on earth is your photographer??? Who pays $2500 a year on family photos??

I understand that she paid the charity 450 for a 750 dollar value. And for that she got a session and one print. But she ALSO PAID 2K to the photographer for other prints and didn't get any digital images.

did she make a mistake?? sure, she should have asked hey photographer if I pay for 2K worth of prints do I also get the digital images? She should have asked that. But what a crook the photographer is!!! it's sneaky! And no it's not anywhere close to a normal photography rate. not even a "good" photographer. 2K gets you digital images for a family shoot!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rad 1627, folks. OP paid a fraction of a fraction for service. She did not pay thousands (or even a thousand). She paid 450 on 750 of service.

This is not a case where IP paid thousands, and has a right to be irritated. She paid a pittance on regular service and still isn’t happy. She also had the opportunity to negotiate for other things before the session, but didn’t.

I paid for 2,000 in prints after the service. So what would have cost 2,750 I got for 2,450 which amounts to a discount of 8%. I do not think that is a pittance. That is not out of our price range clearly but that is a lot of money for our family and not remotely what I would call a pittance.

I should have asked for pricing and information before the session, that is true. I do think if you are a high end photographer who knows you are on the high end of cost that you should perhaps proactively disclose that to someone who knows nothing about you prior to the session but I will take that criticism.

You paid for PRINTS.

So I guess you’ve gone to Lowe’s, bought a fridge, and expected a stove as it’s still inter kitchen?


Any lack of understanding in the contract is up to you, even if it seems unreasonable. You wanted the deal, and got it, but it wasn’t up to your standard.

What? I didn't want a deal on anything it was a charity auction. I wanted to bid on something to make a donation.

I don't understand your analogy at all.

Then there is no analogy. You paid 450 at a charity auction for 750 worth of work. That was mini session plus one print.

You now want more (outside the agreement) , which was up to you to negotiate AHEAD OF TIME.

Is it really that hard? Did you think 450wpuld get you full service sessions, or anything?

I'm not sure I can argue with someone that doesn't know what analogy means. Your lowes thing is called an analogy, when you use another scenario to make a point about the discussed scenario without using the words like or as.

I don't want anything, I'm getting a gut check on my irritation. I am not a fan of the photographer's pricing. I won't be using her again but I think I compensated her well for her time by ordering 2k worth of prints.

I did not think 450 would get me anything beyond an hour or so of her time taking my picture. I didn't even know the first print was included. I think as a business model she should have a way to semi affordably purchase digitals while still making it more attractive to also purchase prints which is what makes her money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ll be the outlier. I’m surprised you don’t get the digital file of any picture you bought a print of. I’ve never heard of that before.

I’m assuming you haven’t used a professional photographer before then. It’s pretty standard practice.

I absolutely have. Wedding pictures and baby pictures x2 with 3 different photographers. I have always gotten the digital files for photos that I paid to have printed. I have always had to pay extra for the digitals of photos I wasn't paying to have printed; how that worked varied between photographers.

OP PAID for one photo printed. $450, including the session seems reasonable. She’s upset about the cost of the digital, which is the extended cost (intellectual property to the photographer, who she is not getting to print)

She paid the photographer 2K! and she didn't get digital images for the 2K worth of prints that she paid for!!! I think she should get ALL digital images for $500. but she paid 2K! and STILL DIDN'T get any digital images. Who on earth is your photographer??? Who pays $2500 a year on family photos??

I understand that she paid the charity 450 for a 750 dollar value. And for that she got a session and one print. But she ALSO PAID 2K to the photographer for other prints and didn't get any digital images.

did she make a mistake?? sure, she should have asked hey photographer if I pay for 2K worth of prints do I also get the digital images? She should have asked that. But what a crook the photographer is!!! it's sneaky! And no it's not anywhere close to a normal photography rate. not even a "good" photographer. 2K gets you digital images for a family shoot!

To be fair to the photographer I did ask for them and she said no. I then ordered the prints anyway. She was not deceptive about that at that time. I knew what I was buying. I really liked the photos and there was really no other way to get the pictures I wanted without walking away. She just didn't tell me until AFTER we had the photos taken.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rad 1627, folks. OP paid a fraction of a fraction for service. She did not pay thousands (or even a thousand). She paid 450 on 750 of service.

This is not a case where IP paid thousands, and has a right to be irritated. She paid a pittance on regular service and still isn’t happy. She also had the opportunity to negotiate for other things before the session, but didn’t.

I paid for 2,000 in prints after the service. So what would have cost 2,750 I got for 2,450 which amounts to a discount of 8%. I do not think that is a pittance. That is not out of our price range clearly but that is a lot of money for our family and not remotely what I would call a pittance.

I should have asked for pricing and information before the session, that is true. I do think if you are a high end photographer who knows you are on the high end of cost that you should perhaps proactively disclose that to someone who knows nothing about you prior to the session but I will take that criticism.

You paid for PRINTS.

So I guess you’ve gone to Lowe’s, bought a fridge, and expected a stove as it’s still inter kitchen?


Any lack of understanding in the contract is up to you, even if it seems unreasonable. You wanted the deal, and got it, but it wasn’t up to your standard.

What? I didn't want a deal on anything it was a charity auction. I wanted to bid on something to make a donation.

I don't understand your analogy at all.

Then there is no analogy. You paid 450 at a charity auction for 750 worth of work. That was mini session plus one print.

You now want more (outside the agreement) , which was up to you to negotiate AHEAD OF TIME.

Is it really that hard? Did you think 450wpuld get you full service sessions, or anything?

I'm not sure I can argue with someone that doesn't know what analogy means. Your lowes thing is called an analogy, when you use another scenario to make a point about the discussed scenario without using the words like or as.

I don't want anything, I'm getting a gut check on my irritation. I am not a fan of the photographer's pricing. I won't be using her again but I think I compensated her well for her time by ordering 2k worth of prints.

I did not think 450 would get me anything beyond an hour or so of her time taking my picture. I didn't even know the first print was included. I think as a business model she should have a way to semi affordably purchase digitals while still making it more attractive to also purchase prints which is what makes her money.

OP, I'll do your photos!!! I'm way more reasonable. Thankful it's not my full time job but love it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ll be the outlier. I’m surprised you don’t get the digital file of any picture you bought a print of. I’ve never heard of that before.

I’m assuming you haven’t used a professional photographer before then. It’s pretty standard practice.

I absolutely have. Wedding pictures and baby pictures x2 with 3 different photographers. I have always gotten the digital files for photos that I paid to have printed. I have always had to pay extra for the digitals of photos I wasn't paying to have printed; how that worked varied between photographers.

OP PAID for one photo printed. $450, including the session seems reasonable. She’s upset about the cost of the digital, which is the extended cost (intellectual property to the photographer, who she is not getting to print)

She paid the photographer 2K! and she didn't get digital images for the 2K worth of prints that she paid for!!! I think she should get ALL digital images for $500. but she paid 2K! and STILL DIDN'T get any digital images. Who on earth is your photographer??? Who pays $2500 a year on family photos??

I understand that she paid the charity 450 for a 750 dollar value. And for that she got a session and one print. But she ALSO PAID 2K to the photographer for other prints and didn't get any digital images.

did she make a mistake?? sure, she should have asked hey photographer if I pay for 2K worth of prints do I also get the digital images? She should have asked that. But what a crook the photographer is!!! it's sneaky! And no it's not anywhere close to a normal photography rate. not even a "good" photographer. 2K gets you digital images for a family shoot!

To be fair to the photographer I did ask for them and she said no. I then ordered the prints anyway. She was not deceptive about that at that time. I knew what I was buying. I really liked the photos and there was really no other way to get the pictures I wanted without walking away. She just didn't tell me until AFTER we had the photos taken.

I’m not an artist, but here’s the problem for them. You loved her photos, but think anyone could produce them. You had EVERY opportunity to ask about an extended package beforehand, but didn’t, so now it’s on her to give you some kind of reduction.

Skills are skills. You don’t pay iPhone prices for an Android, even though in general, they can do the same thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rad 1627, folks. OP paid a fraction of a fraction for service. She did not pay thousands (or even a thousand). She paid 450 on 750 of service.

This is not a case where IP paid thousands, and has a right to be irritated. She paid a pittance on regular service and still isn’t happy. She also had the opportunity to negotiate for other things before the session, but didn’t.

I paid for 2,000 in prints after the service. So what would have cost 2,750 I got for 2,450 which amounts to a discount of 8%. I do not think that is a pittance. That is not out of our price range clearly but that is a lot of money for our family and not remotely what I would call a pittance.

I should have asked for pricing and information before the session, that is true. I do think if you are a high end photographer who knows you are on the high end of cost that you should perhaps proactively disclose that to someone who knows nothing about you prior to the session but I will take that criticism.

You paid for PRINTS.

So I guess you’ve gone to Lowe’s, bought a fridge, and expected a stove as it’s still inter kitchen?


Any lack of understanding in the contract is up to you, even if it seems unreasonable. You wanted the deal, and got it, but it wasn’t up to your standard.

What? I didn't want a deal on anything it was a charity auction. I wanted to bid on something to make a donation.

I don't understand your analogy at all.

Then there is no analogy. You paid 450 at a charity auction for 750 worth of work. That was mini session plus one print.

You now want more (outside the agreement) , which was up to you to negotiate AHEAD OF TIME.

Is it really that hard? Did you think 450wpuld get you full service sessions, or anything?

I'm not sure I can argue with someone that doesn't know what analogy means. Your lowes thing is called an analogy, when you use another scenario to make a point about the discussed scenario without using the words like or as.

I don't want anything, I'm getting a gut check on my irritation. I am not a fan of the photographer's pricing. I won't be using her again but I think I compensated her well for her time by ordering 2k worth of prints.

I did not think 450 would get me anything beyond an hour or so of her time taking my picture. I didn't even know the first print was included. I think as a business model she should have a way to semi affordably purchase digitals while still making it more attractive to also purchase prints which is what makes her money.

OP, I'll do your photos!!! I'm way more reasonable. Thankful it's not my full time job but love it

I'm not in the DC area but lesson learned I will shop around next time!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ll be the outlier. I’m surprised you don’t get the digital file of any picture you bought a print of. I’ve never heard of that before.

I’m assuming you haven’t used a professional photographer before then. It’s pretty standard practice.

I absolutely have. Wedding pictures and baby pictures x2 with 3 different photographers. I have always gotten the digital files for photos that I paid to have printed. I have always had to pay extra for the digitals of photos I wasn't paying to have printed; how that worked varied between photographers.

OP PAID for one photo printed. $450, including the session seems reasonable. She’s upset about the cost of the digital, which is the extended cost (intellectual property to the photographer, who she is not getting to print)

She paid the photographer 2K! and she didn't get digital images for the 2K worth of prints that she paid for!!! I think she should get ALL digital images for $500. but she paid 2K! and STILL DIDN'T get any digital images. Who on earth is your photographer??? Who pays $2500 a year on family photos??

I understand that she paid the charity 450 for a 750 dollar value. And for that she got a session and one print. But she ALSO PAID 2K to the photographer for other prints and didn't get any digital images.

did she make a mistake?? sure, she should have asked hey photographer if I pay for 2K worth of prints do I also get the digital images? She should have asked that. But what a crook the photographer is!!! it's sneaky! And no it's not anywhere close to a normal photography rate. not even a "good" photographer. 2K gets you digital images for a family shoot!

To be fair to the photographer I did ask for them and she said no. I then ordered the prints anyway. She was not deceptive about that at that time. I knew what I was buying. I really liked the photos and there was really no other way to get the pictures I wanted without walking away. She just didn't tell me until AFTER we had the photos taken.

I’m not an artist, but here’s the problem for them. You loved her photos, but think anyone could produce them. You had EVERY opportunity to ask about an extended package beforehand, but didn’t, so now it’s on her to give you some kind of reduction.

Skills are skills. You don’t pay iPhone prices for an Android, even though in general, they can do the same thing.

Dude what are you talking about??!! There was no room for negotiation in her pricing. And I was not able to negotiate prior to agreeing to the session so I'm not sure what you mean.

I don't think anyone could reproduce them, which is why I paid her TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS to get prints. I also have not asked for a reduction, I accepted it and purchased the photos. I'm criticizing her pricing. The only repercussion to my feelings about this that she is suffering is not getting me as a repeat customer. That is it, she has not been harmed by this at all.

[Anonymous]

I find this whole argument from people weird.

Look, this photographer is able to charge high rates so most likely she is an in-demand and very good photographer producing really nice work. It's not about what she "should" charge anymore that what a Gucci bag "should" cost.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She paid $2,450 for a regular photo shoot and didn't get high res digital images. This was NOT a wedding shoot which takes all day and produces at least 500 photos.

That price is absurd. She should get digital images for that price. I don't know where you people having your family photo shoots?? We get them done every year and don't pay anywhere close to that price and get the high res digital images.

OP I would let the charity know so they don't get a "donation" from this person again

She didn’t. She paid 450 TO A CHARITY (not the photog) on a session and one print.

Anything else was above and beyond.

Do you even have an idea at how long it takes to edit photos?

NP- yes, not that long given modern photo editing software. DC because of it's wealthy population will still have a market for people willing to pay for family photo sessions and such, but the reality given modern camera technology is that making a living based on photography skills is not really viable at this point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No not common. I get photos taken 2x a year with my family and we never have to pay for digital files. I pay a higher up front fee and get everything. [/quote]
this

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’ll be the outlier. I’m surprised you don’t get the digital file of any picture you bought a print of. I’ve never heard of that before.

I hire photographers - THIS IS HOW IT WORKS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ll be the outlier. I’m surprised you don’t get the digital file of any picture you bought a print of. I’ve never heard of that before.

I hire photographers - THIS IS HOW IT WORKS.

I feel like the photographers on this thread are upset that business is having trouble and frustrated that this is the direction people are going and that it is upsetting that a lot of people feel this way.

Be upset at modern technology not people who can't afford to pay thousands of dollars for family photos on the regular. That is just cost prohibitive to most families.

[Anonymous]

When people take a photographer's work and make poor quality prints, it reflects poorly on the photographer. This is also part of the reasoning -- they control their product.