59$ Really? But I dont want that... (Page 3)

That doesn't solve the OP's issue of getting a digital file.

That and a scanner would.

So what you're telling people to do is go out, break the law, and commit copyright laws?

I agree that there should be some options in terms of digital images.  Not everyone want the image to print photos - having a low-res option would be great - especially if it's a cool shot - but you want it for internet use and to share electronically with friends.

I've never had to buy an entire package - but often the cost of a couple digital images is more than buying all the shots together.  (36$ per shot from the last company - when I wanted 3 of the pictures ... that equals more than the 69$ for all)  Plus - I had them add a couple of really cool shots to my gallery so I got some excellent "scenery" pics that my family didn't get.

Not to mention - that being in Canada the shipping is usually exorbitant - so it's more economical for me to download the pictures as opposed to paying for prints and then the added costs of shipping.

I wouldn't hesitate. I bought  the image, the photog got  his money, now it's mine to do what I want.

No, you didn't buy the image, you bought a piece of paper with the image on it.

What do you do for a living bear?

I "commit copyright laws."

I'm not trying to solve the OP's issue.  The OP wants someone to offer a product (at a price point) that (as of now) doesn't exist.  Either this is a business opportunity that most photographers are missing (the view of most on this thread), or it's a product that can't be supported by the current business model (my first guess--though I certainly haven't studied this in any fashion whatsoever--as I simply assume that someone has considered this before and decided it was not worth it, but maybe not).

Edited by JohnnyKay 2009-08-14 11:38 AM

Agreed on both accounts. But still wouldn't hesitate.

Edited by the bear 2009-08-14 11:37 AM

They are not "out" $40 becuase I wasn't going to spend $40 to begin with. You can't loose something you never had.

I understand the math in what you are saying... the price points and having to make up for it when offering a lower price point, etc. But like others have said... the vast majority of people are not willing to pay $60 for a package of digital photos if this is not their first race or a milestone race. But they are VERY willing to pay at a lower price point.

Maybe they tried this price point out "back in the day" and it didn't work - but with today's digital imaging and all of the scripts and automatic stuff everyone on this thread have mentioned, I'd think someone would try a lower price point sooner or later and make some money off of it. I haven't seen it yet though, in my area, so I wonder how photographers are so quick to dismiss it if they haven't tested it out yet.

THere is one guy in Kansas City who posts all of the photos he takes for FREE online.... he rocks.

No, you're still missing it.  It's not YOU who has the photog "out" $40.  It's Person X who WAS going to spend $50, but NOW decided $5 is fine.  The photog now has 2 sales instead of 1, but $10 instead of $50.  He needs 8 more of "YOU" to break even because "X" didn't spend their $50.  The photgrapher is not trying to make the "vast majority of people" happy.  He/she is trying to earn a living.

Maybe you are right and the industry is simply missing this opportunity and doesn't understand that they will make up for lost high dollar sales with more volume.  If so, it's only a matter of time until somebody tries it and finds they make more money.  I have my own doubts about whether this is true but, like I said, it's based more on my hunches than any kind of study of the data.

FYI you got ripped off.
two top of the line digital cameras are going to put you over 2k right there, lenses for said cameras are gonna be another 1-2k, memory another hundred, how did you have doing your photos?!?!?!

I get it... I just don't think there are that many Person X's out there to make the difference. Unless you are at a "My First Tri" or "Ironman" race, people just aren't interested in race photos if they do 10+ races a year.

I honestly think the other smaller sales volume would make up for it. But I could be wrong.

 

I run a small event photography company on the side so I have a little bit of insight into this. In my experience, both sides have unrealistic expectations.

Customers:
Everyone thinks that photographers overcharge, unless the pictures are pretty much free. There is a huge outlay in cost for for both equipment and labor. Photographers make the bulk of their money off prints, so giving up the full rez digital copies basically ends any future revenue from that picture. There is generally no fee for showing up to an event, so all your money comes from photos. And really, when it comes down to it, not as many people buy pictures as you would think.

Photographers:
Some aren't willing to give out digital copies at all, which in this digital age is a little ridiculous. In my opinion, only selling pictures as a package for all them is ridiculous because with race photos there is just to large a chance that there are going to be bad pictures that the customer shouldn't have to pay for. Most photographers will only show up to an event if they are the only photographer allowed to sell photos. This allows them to hike up prices to whatever they like with no competition. Most events will invite you back the following year if you were there the year before so it isnt like there is a bidding process that could drive the price down for the customer.

Honestly, the answer is probably somewhere between the 2 groups. I dont see how any photographer wont offer low rez copies in the era of facebook and my space. A lower cost option that wouldnt allow reprints would quiet a lot of customer price complaints.

few things here:

1- i have tried selling stuff both ways, high and low res, both came out to about hte same amount overall, the high res stuff was a LOT less work.

2- if i could find a happy med and sell lower res stuff at a price worth it, it would be a huge market. that said, the last two races i tried this with people were pissed if it was going to cost them more than 5 dollars. (imagine if you went into their place of work and demanded say insurance for 12 dollars a month, or a computer for 30 bucks?).

3- for those with photos they copied off the race photog website, i would not go around annoucing you have them on your profile, this is a public forum and some people that work at these places do come on here, and there are some nasty fines associated with that.


ok, on to race photos. if i see a big enough market and people are interested, i'll start shooting more events, race photos can be seen on my blog and one of the sites i work for:

http://www.davidsavoiesports.blogspot.com/

and the boulder peak pro race:

http://triathlonshots.com/BoulderTriathlon.html

Yes, everything you say is true. I would never say that the photographers and the company shouldn't make a living or make a profit. What I've always questioned is the business model of getting a smaller number of large $$ pictures vs a larger number of smaller $ pictures. From what I've read and from my own feelings, $10 seems to be the sweet spot for getting people to open up their wallet and make a purchase. It's just a different business model. Couldn't this work?

The person who was going to buy the digital package so they could load them into a digital picture frame or print an 8x11 isn't going to buy a 72dpi 150x120 pixel image.  Again, you are looking at two COMPLETELY different markets. 10 years ago social networking and the likes was barely around, there wasn't an AVATAR market. People still printed everything out, thus the need for high quality images.

The point is there is a whole NEW market segment they are missing out on.   Nobody is going to buy an AVATAR image and try to print it out, and even if they did it would look HORRIBLE.   So yes, this $5 or $10 dollar sale would be completely new and seperate from the full photo package.

This is YOUR assumption about the market.  You may be right, I don't know.  I do know that if the market you are talking about is big enough, somebody will figure it out.  Clearly there are people here who think so, so I'm sure sombody on the other side of the lens will give it some consideration (if they haven't already).

Or you could be right. 

My post was really about the people saying it's simply new revenue with no (or very low) incremental cost, without considering other possibilities from the business perspective (i.e., impact on current revenues).  Since the costs are (relatively) fixed, it has to drive incremental net revenue ('new' sales - 'lost' sales) to make it worthwhile for the business.  If it does, then there's an opportunity there.

x2
My wife and I enjoy quality photography, and we have no problem paying for it when it is worth it. (See the previous post of not using tri event photography.)

As a gift, I paid for an fairly expensive photo session with a good photographer for my wife.

This photographer has all sorts of fancy packages for prints, matting, calendars, etc.
When we inquired about a Hi-Rez DVD, for which we were prepared to consider dropping an equivalent amount of $$$ as the session.

For about 10 seconds, she looked at me like I ran over her cat.
The she said that if she would consider providing a disk, maybe, it would be around the price of the most expensive package. (Which was like a fully-mounted and matted mahogany-framed wall mural.)

As a result, we may not even do the session and take the loss... have not decided yet.

Again, we were willing to pay an additional couple of hundred dollars...

But race fees go up kind of indiscriminately from year to year, don't they? When you pay for a race, you don't get an itemized breakdown of what your $65 or $225 is paying for. It's kind of my argument about the airlines. Most people don't need a second suitcase when they travel. If they just raised everyone's fare by $10, no one would fuss about it since the prices are so arbitrary anyway. Then they could let people have the second bag for "free" without this nickel-and-dime-y "2nd bag charge" that got them such bad press.

Likewise, if the cost of race X went from $65 in 2009 to $70 in 2010, most people would assume it was inflation or higher insurance costs or whatever. Then, in the race packet, if there was a flyer from Brightroom saying , "Hey, feel free to pick a photo and download it!" I think people would see it as part of the race swag, rather than something they paid extra for and they wouldn't be as upset if there wasn't a museum-quality shot of them. I'd liken it to getting an ugly race t-shirt. It's disappointing to get a race t-shirt that I know I'd never wear, but I don't get too upset because I got it for "free", even though I know that part of my race fee went to purchase the shirt.

Good Stuff right there!

So, it's harder than it looks.

It's hard to get well composed pictures of people doing athletic activities where they look good. Athletes are sweating and grunting and making weird faces too much of the time. Then they zig when you think they are going to zag and you miss the shot or cut off their arm or something.

Except they aren't really. They *say* they are. But most of them get what they want out of the photo just by looking at it online.

I sold onsite with my business and I got watch the customers look at their photos and hear them talk about them. Most people don't value photography. They are as happy with a free photo that's slightly blurry as with a perfect image. They tell you that they don't buy because the prices are too high. They probably believe it too.

I believed them when I first started out and priced my stuff too low. Then, the same people who told me that they didn't buy from other people because the price was too high for what you got, still didn't buy my stuff that was much better quality.

So I raised my prices and the people who valued photography continued to buy and I made more money.

I'm a full time photographer.

Photography is not art. It is a business. It's our job to take the best pictures possible and then figure out a way to get the most money for our time, talent and effort.

You can make a great deal of money with volume photography. Anything that costs you too much time causes you to lose money.

We sell reproduction rights for $35 to $50 per file for some of our portrait clients AFTER they have purchased a minimum order in prints.

What would be ideal for the photographer and the racers would be if the entry fee covered the cost of a few images that would then be available to you via a link to a download site. No selling for the photographer and much less hassle.

I only wish that I had a decent picture of my wife and I from the triathlon last April. It was our first race.