Swifty ([info]swifty0682) wrote,
@ 2008-09-03 11:01:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
ILHC Photos & the Lindy Hopper's Fund

ILHC Friday
Originally uploaded by Swifty.

I had an awesome, if exhausting, time at ILHC last weekend. I did double-duty as a DJ and photographer, and I've just put my photos on Flickr.

I've decided to make prints available for purchase (5x7 for $8) with all profits going to the Lindy Hopper's Fund, an amazing charitable organization started by the equally amazing Tena Morales and others. I've decided to do this with all of my Lindy Hop photography - if you'd like a print, just let me know!

The big question that remains is that the vast majority of requests have been for digital copies of photos, not prints. My original stance was prints-only, as that would allow the most control over how photos are distributed, but I'm trying to figure out a fair way to allow folks to purchase hi-res digital files. Charging the same $8 for a hi-res file doesn't seem fair since you can use that file and just print it out yourself an unlimited number of times. Would people be willing to pay more for a hi-res file - say, $20? Is it reasonable to include terms of use (include a photo credit & link online, have permission of the subjects before using commercially) of the digital file as well?

Anyone have any suggestions or input?


(Post a new comment)

THIS IS BECKTO
(Anonymous)
2008-09-03 03:20 pm UTC (link)
Maybe up it to $10 for digital, but it can only be used on the facebooks and the myspaces. Not for professional use, and even on the facebooks it has to be credited to you? Maybe?

(Reply to this)


[info]libberroo
2008-09-03 03:33 pm UTC (link)
When I run races, there are always event photographers on the course taking photos. I almost never buy them because they are pretty expensive, and I don't often look very good in the pictures, because nobody looks good running.

The cheapest print I can buy from running the Cleveland Marathon is 1 5X7 for $15. I can also buy a high-resolution digital image for $29, or have the picture transferred to my Snapfish account for $25.

Your prices are much lower than this, which, given the amount Lindy Hoppers seem to be willing to spend on things (and race photography involves organizing tens of thousands of photos and cataloging them so you can look up photos of you by your race number), is probably about right for your market. But maybe charging in the same kinds of increments would be a good guideline? $15-$20 for a high-res digital image, and/or maybe $12 gets the photo uploaded into their Kodak gallery to print smaller or larger sizes (and thus won't have the high res digital image to manipulate in photoshop or repost on the web everywhere or whatever).

By the way, the photos look great. :-)

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]swifty0682
2008-09-03 08:43 pm UTC (link)
Thanks everyone for the input. Libby - my experience with buying prints when I ran 10k races definitely was a consideration when trying to set my price point for prints.

I think what you've proposed is in the direction I'm probably going to go. The tricky part is how to handle images going onto Facebook and blogs, since once the image is out "in the wild" control over use is obviously out of my hands.

I wrote this on Yehoodi:

As far as digital copies go, I'll probably go for a two-tier commercial/non-commercial rate. Just quickly browsing around, it seems like a typical rate for buying a royalty-free image can easly go for upwards of $80. Obviously I'm not going to be charging that much, but at the end of the day, if dance instructors and event promoters are be going to be making money from the websites and flyers they create with these images, I don't think it's unreasonable to charge a more substantial amount for them. The trouble with a non-commercial rate is once one person puts a photo on Facebook, people seem to think it's free for the taking. I don't yet know how to reconcile that other than maintaining a watermark, which is unsightly. I might go for a nominal fee (a buck or two?) for lo-res, watermarked images for the Facebooks and the like, but I'm still debating that.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]libberroo
2008-09-03 09:22 pm UTC (link)
I think putting a watermark is fine as long as it doesn't mar the picture. Yeah, people can crop it out, blah blah blah, but I think at the end of the day, you may just have to accept that people will do that and there's only so much you can do to mitigate it.

I mean, even event photographers that provide small low-res pictures for previewing on their websites (or in your case, preview images on flickr) run the risk of having those images taken and used. But they are honestly of pretty much no commercial value because they're so small.

And if they're not of commercial value (ie, just going up on Facebook or whatever) then perhaps it's not worth the battle if people are going to do that? I can't answer that one for you, but I think getting upset over ever photo posted on Facebook without permission is probably not worth the rise in blood pressure.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]swifty0682
2008-09-03 09:31 pm UTC (link)
Yeah, personally I cannot stand watermarks but what can you do? I've kept mine on the border of images, even though I'm repeatedly recommended to put them across the center of the image.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(Anonymous)
2008-09-03 03:49 pm UTC (link)
I bought a digital picture from All Bal for $7. We didn't want a print since we wouldn't have any use for it. He gave me all rights to it including printing, though we're just using it in a wedding slideshow.

I think the way to maximize cash flow is to minimize the cost to the buyer. If the digital print is $20, people will be very picky about which pics (if any) they buy. If it's $5 or less, they probably won't think twice about buying several. Kind of like iTunes. $0.99 is nothing to pay for a song. I'd much rather buy it there than try to find a CD or a copy somewhere. But $20 for an album is enough that I won't buy the CD unless I *must* have that song.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]shanabanana
2008-09-03 03:49 pm UTC (link)
And "Anonymous" would be me.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]swifty0682
2008-09-03 08:57 pm UTC (link)
Right. Thanks for the All Bal info, I wasn't aware of that availability. Who took those pictures, do you know?

I see what you're saying regarding pricing structure. Like I mentioned above to Libby, I'm considering a no- or small-fee rate for watermarked images for Facebook, LJ, what-have-you, and a higher rate for hi-res, commercial-use images. $8 prints would obviously be the middle price point and aimed at people that would want the hi-res photo just so they can print it themselves without any desire for using images commercially.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]jazzdance.wordpress.com
2008-09-03 05:21 pm UTC (link)
I think it's great that you are offering up physical prints for $ donated to the LHF.

However, for digital copies I'm much less willing to shell out more than for a physical object. The production cost is non-existent and even though I could then go and print out (at high-res) my own copies, most people are not going to bother with that option.

You can always have terms of use regarding commercial applications requiring permission, or even larger payment. But for non-commercial use charging more will probably drive people away.

Perhaps 5$ but even then I'm not usually keen to spend anything on digital photography if its available somewhere online already (your flickr stream).

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]swifty0682
2008-09-03 08:54 pm UTC (link)
Thanks, Carl. Personally, I don't quite understand the requests for copies of the digital files "for personal use" or for someone's "personal files" myself if they're already on Flickr but I get that a lot.

I wasn't sure if Terms of Use would be a point of contention among folks but it seems like they would be met without much hullabaloo.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]libberroo
2008-09-03 09:29 pm UTC (link)
"For personal use" would be just to have, I think. I mean, what happens 20 years from now when Flickr goes the way of the dodo and all your photos on there are gone? I mean, times change, people change, but people like to keep a digital copy of a photo for lots of reasons.

As Shana said, she used one for a wedding slideshow. People like having photos for archival reasons, to keep their memories close at hand. Honestly, with my friends who don't feel the need to control/charge/etc for their snapshots I have been doing this for years. Keeping copies of photos of me or my friends or other memories on my hard drive, just to have. To show my mom when she's visiting (it's easier when they're all in one place) or make a virtual photo album since people don't really do print copies as much anymore...

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]chstrfieldj
2008-09-03 10:26 pm UTC (link)
By "for personal use" I'd mean I want a hi res file I can browse on my free time and not have to go search for a small image on flickr if I want to view that particular photo. I like to flip through images on my comp like I would a physical photo album and smile at the things I had forgotten about. The last photo I have a print of was from high school some 6 years ago. All my photos since then are digital. I don't know how I'd go about a fair distribution of digital copies if I were in your position. I hope my description of "personal use" helps.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]swifty0682
2008-09-03 10:53 pm UTC (link)
It does, thanks!

I meant to reply to your email....I'm still trying to figure out a digital policy. :-)

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…