Professional Photography Rates (help!)

[raiserroofer]

I've narrowed down the pictures to eight, and with tax we've agreed upon $1000. I'm to get 2100px by 2100px .tiff images, which is about half of the size of the RAW files. I believe I can do whatever I want with them, although I should ask. I STILL haven't signed anything other than a cheque.

I suppose it's just an industry I don't understand, and frankly I don't care much to.

I received an invoice for the photographs which sets the pricing in stone, however I was still presented with nothing that determines the use of the photos, so I presume everything I do is fair game.

By the way, he refuses to part with the RAW files for business reasons -- he says someone who comes in and asks for a RAW image has the capability of plastering it on a billboard (a condition in which he believes he should earn more compensation), and because he doesn't work in terms of to what purpose each image will be used for, he simply makes the RAW images more expensive. Does this seem right?

 

[Alpha]

By the way, he refuses to part with the RAW files for business reasons -- he says someone who comes in and asks for a RAW image has the capability of plastering it on a billboard (a condition in which he believes he should earn more compensation), and because he doesn't work in terms of to what purpose each image will be used for, he simply makes the RAW images more expensive. Does this seem right?

The reason you don't release RAW files is because they're unfinished. If substandard work (compared to the finished product) is floating around with your name on it, that's no good.

However, this guy is possibly an idiot and at the very least has never shot a billboard. Billboards, in fact, only require an image of between 15 and 60 PPI because the viewing distance is so great. In other words, you could nearly shoot a photo for a billboard with an iPhone camera.

 

[KmH]

By the way, he refuses to part with the RAW files for business reasons -- he says someone who comes in and asks for a RAW image has the capability of plastering it on a billboard (a condition in which he believes he should earn more compensation), and because he doesn't work in terms of to what purpose each image will be used for, he simply makes the RAW images more expensive. Does this seem right?

The reason you don't release RAW files is because they're unfinished. If substandard work (compared to the finished product) is floating around with your name on it, that's no good.

However, this guy is possibly an idiot and at the very least has never shot a billboard. Billboards, in fact, only require an image of between 15 and 60 PPI because the viewing distance is so great. In other words, you could nearly shoot a photo for a billboard with an iPhone camera.

And if he is that hot on retaining the RAW files, it leads me to believe he thinks he owns the copyright.

For your side of it, what counts is the law in Canada, not possible wrong assumptions made by you.

I'm with Alpha that this pro photographer is begining to sound not so professional after all. Of course we are only hearing one side of the story from a person that admits , "I suppose it's just an industry I don't understand, and frankly I don't care much to."

 

[raiserroofer]

I'm with Alpha that this pro photographer is begining to sound not so professional after all. Of course we are only hearing one side of the story from a person that admits , "I suppose it's just an industry I don't understand, and frankly I don't care much to."

Obviously you're right about this, however I should mention I'm not technically illiterate unlike most of the clients he probably gets. The spin to it all is that I'm 20, and more times than enough I've seen this as an opening for people to exploit my lack of worldly knowledge. I was apprehensive as to whether or not this (yet again) may be the case. It turns out that my concerns are probably moot.

I don't know if he enjoys the elitism of it or if he's simply just used to it, but he puts these things in lamens terms; the billboard analogy was simply the easiest way to dismiss the RAW file discussion, however the reality is probably closer to what Alpha was mentioning.

As to whether or not he's actually a professional, I have absolutely no doubt about it. I would probably say -- just from a glance -- he's one of the top photographers in Toronto, and has some prime real estate for his business which pretty much dictates that he doesn't come cheap.

And if he is that hot on retaining the RAW files, it leads me to believe he thinks he owns the copyright.

For your side of it, what counts is the law in Canada, not possible wrong assumptions made by you.

I find this fascinating. Are you absolutely sure about this? You're saying I do, in fact, own these RAWs and if I ask for them, he's legally obliged to give them to me? This man has been doing professional photography for almost 30 years; I would be shocked if that were the case.