Pricing for a print not made by me?

[DGMPhotography]

Hello:

So my pricing for prints is normally about $50 depending on the print. That's to cover the cost of printing, framing, and about a $5 profit margin. It's not a ton, I realize, but I like to make it affordable.

That said, I have a coworker who wants to purchase a print of a photo I took in Chicago. But we have a very capable printer in the office and he'd like to use that for the print. So my costs would be $0. But it seems silly to charge just $5.

What do you think?

 

[ronlane]

There's no cost to you but there is to the company you work for. I'm not sure what company you work for but I bet they wouldn't be to keen on someone making money while for themselves while using company equipment.

PS. Think of it like you did with the photo that the singer used of yours for the album without asking. (Yes it is the same thing.)

 

[waday]

There's no cost to you but there is to the company you work for. I'm not sure what company you work for but I bet they wouldn't be to keen on someone making money while for themselves while using company equipment.

PS. Think of it like you did with the photo that the singer used of yours for the album without asking. (Yes it is the same thing.)

I agree with Ron.

I think you should go your typical route...

Also, if your company finds out that you are operating a side business with their equipment, time, and materials, you can and likely will be let go very quickly...

 

[tirediron]

"I'm sorry Alvin, but unfortunately printing at the office isn't possible. Aside from the fact that it's inappropriate (Read: "stealing") of me to use office supplies to fund my for-profit business, I have a strict policy against releasing digital files as I don't have the necessary control over the final product to ensure it meets my personal quality standards."

 

[ronlane]

"I'm sorry Alvin, but unfortunately printing at the office isn't possible. Aside from the fact that it's inappropriate (Read: "stealing") of me to use office supplies to fund my for-profit business, I have a strict policy against releasing digital files as I don't have the necessary control over the final product to ensure it meets my personal quality standards."

I'd offer John some money for penning that extremely well written piece and then used it EXACTLY as written, changing the name appropriately.

 

[tirediron]

Sorry, you can't change the name. If your colleague's name wasn't Alvin, it is now!

 

[DGMPhotography]

Sorry, let me elaborate. I probably should have stated this earlier.

It's not me doing the printing. It's the procurement officer who's asking me to do this, and he's going to talk to the graphics guy to print it for him. It has nothing to do with me, except it's my photo he wants to print.

Essentially, I'm thinking that I would be selling the printing rights for a one-time print on the condition the digital file is deleted afterwards or something. Does that make sense?

 

[tirediron]

...Essentially, I'm thinking that I would be selling the printing rights for a one-time print on the condition the digital file is deleted afterwards or something. Does that make sense?

Not unless you can enforce the deletion (and good luck with that), it doesn't. No.

 

[ronlane]

Sorry, let me elaborate. I probably should have stated this earlier.

It's not me doing the printing. It's the procurement officer who's asking me to do this, and he's going to talk to the graphics guy to print it for him. It has nothing to do with me, except it's my photo he wants to print.

Essentially, I'm thinking that I would be selling the printing rights for a one-time print on the condition the digital file is deleted afterwards or something. Does that make sense?

That still doesn't change the fact that they are using the companies money and stuff to produce the print. That is stealing from the company and it doesn't matter who or which of you are doing the printing.

 

[Derrel]

Oh, man, this whole scenario falls under the, "Not only no! But Hell no!" category.

Duuuude....this is just ridonculous.

 

[DGMPhotography]

...Essentially, I'm thinking that I would be selling the printing rights for a one-time print on the condition the digital file is deleted afterwards or something. Does that make sense?

Not unless you can enforce the deletion (and good luck with that), it doesn't. No.

Well he and I are friends so I don't think that would be an issue.

As for the company's money thing, please just try to think outside of that - that wasn't my question.

It's my impression that's it's perfectly fine. Maybe he worked it out with the boss.

I'd just like some feedback on the pricing.

 

[Dave442]

You live in Virginia and took a picture in Chicago, right there I think it is about a $500 image. I'm sure you can give your friend a discount.

 

[vintagesnaps]

Maybe he worked it out with the boss? What's being described sounds like questionable (or more likely, inappropriate) use of work equipment; if your coworkers want to chance it that's up to them but I don't think it sounds like a good idea to do it unless you got approval.

At $5 profit that seems way underpriced. Someone buying a print of a photograph is not just paying for the piece of paper with ink squirted on it - the photographer is charging for talent and ability, (for some) years of practice and learning, and time spent developing skills and expertise in the photography business, etc.

If you're selling a print, you're selling the print for the buyer's personal use (to hang on a wall). If the buyer wants to use the image for some other purpose you'd need to license it for a specific use, amount of time, etc. and provide a contract. See American Society of Media Photographers or PPA. ASMP has a link to a pricing guide and other business resources for photographers.

Pricing can vary, I adjust within range of whatever exhibit/gallery it will be shown in. Depends on the size; usually framed runs minimum $100 to $500 or more (for well known photographers at a regional/national level). Photographers don't usually release an original hi res file (or negative) unless the payment is high enough to cover probably unlimited ongoing usage, depending on terms of the contract.

 

[sm4him]

Okay, I think it's already been well established that using the company printer is a BAD plan, I'm not gonna belabor that.

So for the purpose of this post, I am going to pretend that I never even heard the part about HOW the buyer is going to print the photo. Let's say, that as far as you know, they are going to print it at home. Or take it to Uncle Fred, who owns a printing company.

The real problem, as I see it, is that your pricing structure is off to start with. What you are really selling (or should be) is your photography. The frame and all that is extra.
For my illustration, I'm assuming your friend wants an 11x14; that is of course variable, but it's just a for instance.
I would have a base price for the photo--just for argument's sake, let's say $35. Now, let's say it cost $12 to have an 11x14 printed, and $100 for a frame. I'd basically double the cost of the print, and take on maybe 25% to the price of the frame. So, I'd sell the printed, framed 11x14 for $184 (actually, I'd round up and charge something like $195).

But now, your friend doesn't want you to print it, or frame it. So, if I want to be really nice (and I'm willing to give him a hi-res file), I charge him just the $35 for the photo. Or, I charge him $35 PLUS what I would normally make on a 11x14, for a total of $47.

 

[Derrel]

Nation's Photo Lab is having a HUGE print sale right now...

But, if you do end up printing this at work, I would definitely sneak in 3,000 business cards, 2,000 model release forms, and 250 copies of your resume. Plus any other incidental print jobs you have a need for.