$5k for the digital files $3k for just one digital file? Why are people criticizing OP? Op did pay a lot ($2k) not to get the files.2k for some prints (plus some frames).

Photographer not sharing pricing until after the shoot is shady. How high end and how good is this person's work? Getting curious.

If it's really just about having a backup in case of house fire, you could take the photos out of the frame and make a high-res scan if you have access to a good large scanner. You can get a good reproduction.

I used to help manage charity auctions for work and the photographers' "contributions" to our auctions often seemed scammy. They would donate a sitting session for us to auction, but I wondered if they were jacking up their prices for the prints/files to compensate. We got tons of donations of sessions from photographers and learned eventually to start turning them down. They rarely were desirable items, and I often felt like they were using our auction for exposure to potential clients rather than making a donation with real value.

Anonymous wrote:Common. Expect a bunch of photogs to come in and berate you for demeaning their work. Photographers are up there with real estate agents. Seems like a quick way to make a buck, but the world is on to you.

I paid for the pricey "images" once. The pics were--- fine. Nothing worth thousands of dollars. I like my own Iphone pics better.

You don’t pay for the images once. You paid for a session and one print.

If it was so important, you should have taken iPhone pics. This professional took hours to make sure she had great pics.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m so curious that no one is catching, or caring that OP got the session at a fundraiser.

The photograher likely agreed to do her normal 2k (or whatever) worth of work, minus a charitable discount. Anything the charity gets above and beyond that goes to the charity, not the photographer.


I’m guessing the bid said something about prints only, but OP wants a deal, and likely got it

The photographer worked hard to get those pictures that day, but they are not the OPs. They are the chairity’s, should she choose to renegotiate the contract with them.

FWIW no. What I 'purchased' was the sitting session and one 11x14 unframed portrait. I did get a deal (value was $750 and I paid about $450). But anything on top of that is going directly to the photographer. The charity's involvement ended with my purchase that night. So the photographer did give up her sitting fee and the cost of one print to the charity but there is no percentage allocation for the rest of the interaction. It was not even clearly laid out exactly that this is what I was purchasing that night, TBF I didn't know I would be getting one print included.

Then your beef is with the chairity. What you “bought” benefits them. She gets to charge anything she wants to above and beyond. You paid for a sitting fee and one I framed portrait.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Totally normal. It was most likely all spelled out in the contract you signed or their price list. Why are you expecting to get something for free?

I'm not expecting anything for free. I spent 2k on prints.

I bought the session at a charity event via a fundraiser and it wasn't spelled out at the time. I wasn't informed actually until AFTER we had done the shoot about this or any pricing.

The photographer donated the photo session and some prints but he/she owns the digital files.

Anonymous wrote:It’s pretty common. If they didn’t charge high prices for digital, people would just buy the digital and get the prints made more cheaply elsewhere.

I do this exact thing. I use framebridge for printing and framing. Great quality and service for a great price

Common. Expect a bunch of photogs to come in and berate you for demeaning their work. Photographers are up there with real estate agents. Seems like a quick way to make a buck, but the world is on to you.

I paid for the pricey "images" once. The pics were--- fine. Nothing worth thousands of dollars. I like my own Iphone pics better.

Anonymous wrote:I’m so curious that no one is catching, or caring that OP got the session at a fundraiser.

The photograher likely agreed to do her normal 2k (or whatever) worth of work, minus a charitable discount. Anything the charity gets above and beyond that goes to the charity, not the photographer.


I’m guessing the bid said something about prints only, but OP wants a deal, and likely got it

The photographer worked hard to get those pictures that day, but they are not the OPs. They are the chairity’s, should she choose to renegotiate the contract with them.

FWIW no. What I 'purchased' was the sitting session and one 11x14 unframed portrait. I did get a deal (value was $750 and I paid about $450). But anything on top of that is going directly to the photographer. The charity's involvement ended with my purchase that night. So the photographer did give up her sitting fee and the cost of one print to the charity but there is no percentage allocation for the rest of the interaction. It was not even clearly laid out exactly that this is what I was purchasing that night, TBF I didn't know I would be getting one print included.

I’m so curious that no one is catching, or caring that OP got the session at a fundraiser.

The photograher likely agreed to do her normal 2k (or whatever) worth of work, minus a charitable discount. Anything the charity gets above and beyond that goes to the charity, not the photographer.


I’m guessing the bid said something about prints only, but OP wants a deal, and likely got it

The photographer worked hard to get those pictures that day, but they are not the OPs. They are the chairity’s, should she choose to renegotiate the contract with them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just find a hobbyist who is naturally talented. A good friend of mine does this - she is just really good without much training. $175 for a 30 minute shoot and 15-20 edited shots, all digital rights.

Are the “high end” photographers “better?” Maybe. Probably a little. But not for the price difference. No thanks.

Are the high end ones better? Yes. A number of people in my circle use Rebecca Dazenbaker and their photos are amazing. Amazing enough for me to spend $2-3k? Not for me at my current income. I’d rather pay $300-500 1-3x a year for pretty good photos. Then again my kids are young and I just can’t have $3k riding on my kids being in a good mood to cooperate for 1 special hour. We have to spread out our opportunities to get a good picture in the hopes that one is nice enough for the holiday card.

I mean, is a $100 bottle of wine “better” than a $30 one? I guess, but if I’m happy with the $30 why should I spend $100?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most pro's offer a package - Did you ask if they had one? We spent $3k in total for a huge family shoot (grandparent, siblings, close cousins, etc). It came with a photobook for grandma, dozens of prints, 3-5 canvas, and all digital images.

They normally spell it out, and if they don't ask, or don't use them. Most mini-sessions normally include 1-3 digital files as well.

The package that included digitals was $5500. The 3k package included one digital file. For 2k I got 1 framed 16x20, 3 11x 14 (unframed) 4 8x10 (unframed), 7 5 x 7 (unframed).

The photographer will also upload a file or two to a holiday card site they work with to use for christmas cards.

Were they at least different poses/groupings?

Yes it was a really comprehensive group of pictures. Had I gotten digital copies of the photos I ordered prints of I would be 100% satisfied.

5x7s in the cheapest finish (which is quite nice) are $50. So even if you literally were ordering the cheapest photo for the digital to get the whole package would be very expensive. I ended up with 15 photos. So $750. Even if there had been like a 10-15 dollar surcharge per photo to receive the digital that would have seemed more reasonable.

All the people are saying that if I want it I pay for it or whatever. But it feels like this business model will simply drive people away. Like I will likely not use this photographer again despite liking their work and the experience of working with her because of this. Make the digitals expensive! Tie them to a print! But don't make it ridiculously expensive.

Anonymous wrote:Just find a hobbyist who is naturally talented. A good friend of mine does this - she is just really good without much training. $175 for a 30 minute shoot and 15-20 edited shots, all digital rights.

Are the “high end” photographers “better?” Maybe. Probably a little. But not for the price difference. No thanks.

Are the high end ones better? Yes. A number of people in my circle use Rebecca Dazenbaker and their photos are amazing. Amazing enough for me to spend $2-3k? Not for me at my current income. I’d rather pay $300-500 1-3x a year for pretty good photos. Then again my kids are young and I just can’t have $3k riding on my kids being in a good mood to cooperate for 1 special hour. We have to spread out our opportunities to get a good picture in the hopes that one is nice enough for the holiday card.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most pro's offer a package - Did you ask if they had one? We spent $3k in total for a huge family shoot (grandparent, siblings, close cousins, etc). It came with a photobook for grandma, dozens of prints, 3-5 canvas, and all digital images.

They normally spell it out, and if they don't ask, or don't use them. Most mini-sessions normally include 1-3 digital files as well.

The package that included digitals was $5500. The 3k package included one digital file. For 2k I got 1 framed 16x20, 3 11x 14 (unframed) 4 8x10 (unframed), 7 5 x 7 (unframed).

The photographer will also upload a file or two to a holiday card site they work with to use for christmas cards.

Were they at least different poses/groupings?

Think of it like hiring a plastic surgeon. There will be high-end expensive ones and lower-end ones. Whether or not you think the cost difference is worth it is subjective.