From: jmorris (jmorris@morriseditions.com)
Date: 09/03/02-10:16:09 AM Z
on 9/3/02 9:41 AM, shannon stoney at sstoney@pdq.net wrote:
> Somebody asked me yesterday to make some large format photographs of
> his landscaping work so that he can use them on his website and make
> some large prints to hang in his office and garden store. I was
> going to charge him a small hourly fee and let him pay for the film
> and processing and give him the negatives to have prints made; and
> maybe I would scan them for him also. My partner has hired
> architectural photographers before, and he said that he thinks the
> normal thing is for the photographer to keep the negatives and have
> prints made for the client. Would it be better to do it that way, or
> give the guy the negatives? I've never done anything "for hire"
> before so I'm not sure how to proceed.
>
> --shannon
Hi Shannon:
Generally, I (as the photographer) would keep the negatives (or whatever the
original might be) and provide the client with the prints, scanning, etc. as
the final product. I am looking at this from strictly the "business"
perspective as you retain the potential for future income by maintaining
control of the originals. You also maintain certain controls over the
quality of the material your client ultimately receives.
Most of my clients actually like the idea that I maintain control of the
original film (or scans, etc.) because it's easier for them to get the
necessary materials from me when they need them (e.g. scans set-up for
offset printing, large format prints, slides, etc.). Many of my clients
don't know what to do with the originals, and most don't want to know.
Jim Morris
PS- Not all my clients buy this line of reasoning. If a client really
wants control of the original it can be negotiated.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 10/01/02-03:47:07 PM Z CST