I'm looking to get shots done, and wondering how standard is for photog to not give jpg's after shoot.

With one particular studio, you're forced to print only thru their associated printer, and only then do you get those JPG image(s) on CD. For any other images you later may want, forced to come back to same printer.

it's like keeping the negatives.

is this typical?

I have been to 2 places, one here in LA and one in Dallas before I moved. The first one wanted me to pay Copywright releases to duplicate the photos. The one here in LA gave me ALL the images on a DVD, and retouched 5 looks for free. I could use them where ever whenever I wanted. It sounds like that photographer might be getting payola kickbacks from the printer. I wouldn't say its typical, most of the places I researched give the images on a CD and you could get them printed at target if you wanted.

I havent done a survey for this bit of trivua, but Id just ask before hand whether or not your photographer will give you everything on a DVD. some do, some dont, some takes pictures in RAW and most actors dont have the ability to do anything with that anyway.. but ask and good luck

quote:

Originally posted by nycdon:
I'm looking to get shots done, and wondering how standard is for photog to not give jpg's after shoot.
With one particular studio, you're forced to print only thru their associated printer, and only then do you get those JPG image(s) on CD. For any other images you later may want, forced to come back to same printer.
it's like keeping the negatives.
is this typical?

THERE IS ONLY ONE RULE REGARDING WHO KEEPS ALL THE NEGATIVES, OR TODAY, THE DIGITAL FILES.

THAT RULE IS: THERE IS NO RULE.

Every photographer has different policies regarding every aspect of your session. That's why, for the 100th time on this site I reiterate, ALWAYS, ALWAYS GET EVERYTHING IN WRITING! What you should expect from your session, and who keeps what.

As far as your photographer FORCING you to have your headshots taken to a particular printer is concerned, "nycdon," that is something else again. I always recommend the best printers to my clients. But what your photographer is essentially doing is holding your jpegs hostage unless you comply with his unrealistic demands, and that is totally without precedent. I have never heard of such a practice.
The jpegs you paid for are your personal property, to do with as you please.

”I deliver results, not promises.”

www.robertkim.com
Special Back Stage Discounts
www.imdb.com/name/nm0453647/

I think there's danger of confusion on copyright law and practice given that there are a lot of issues at hand in the original post and it's not entirely clear what's going on.

First, the issue of being "forced" to use a specific printer: if the photographer is abusing this by charging a markup wildly inconsistent with what the market rate is for these services, then you are likely better off going elsewhere.

However, this photographer might be trying to create a body of work that has a consistent level of quality and repeatable look & feel, and I can't fault them for that. This is why a company like Apple controls the entire product pipeline -- to ensure a consistent experience for a large number of customers.

Given the lack of details I'm not sure which is true in your case, and in fact they both might be partly true. These are the kinds of things you'd be best sorting out ahead of time by weighing your options and looking at this photographer's fees and services against the backdrop of what competing photographers offer.

As for "who owns the negatives" -- the phrase itself is an oversimplification of the issue and the answers given are too reductive. The bottom line is, a photographer is the copyright holder of the images they produce every time they press the shutter release button.

Under most circumstances, no client ever pays for ownership of images -- they pay for a usage license of copies of the original images. A release defines the terms of this usage which both parties agree are amicable.

To put it another way: you're never paying a photographer for photos, you're paying them first for their creative style and expertise in producing a kind of photograph, and then, the right to use copies of those images as defined by your agreement. You are not paying to own photographs.

Speaking for myself, as of now I produce a CD for my clients of the entire shoot, less the technical out-takes (blinking, focus off, strobe mis-fired), as well as two retouched final images. They are free to take the images to be printed wherever they like. In exchange I expect a signed release that grants me their permission to use the images how I see fit for self-promotion in print and web.

quote:

As for "who owns the negatives" -- the phrase itself is an oversimplification of the issue and the answers given are too reductive. The bottom line is, a photographer is the copyright holder of the images they produce every time they press the shutter release button.

Under U.S. law, the owner of a copyright in a work is the author. In most cases, this is the individual or group of individuals that creates the work. However, when a work is considered a work made for hire - more commonly called a "work for hire", abbreviated as "WFH" - the author of the work is no longer the individual creator or creators. Instead, the author is considered to be the entity that hired the creator of the work.

quote:

Under U.S. law, the owner of a copyright in a work is the author. In most cases, this is the individual or group of individuals that creates the work. However, when a work is considered a work made for hire - more commonly called a "work for hire", abbreviated as "WFH" - the author of the work is no longer the individual creator or creators. Instead, the author is considered to be the entity that hired the creator of the work.

There is one very important ingredient missing from your incorrect assumption: The creator has to agree to "work for hire" in writing before the work is created.
rod

It is a good question to ask the photographer. You are going to pay a fair deal of money if you want to get a good product. I always give everything to the client. Be demanding. You should not view the headshot photographer as an artist. We are in the service industry and it is our job to get you work so don't fall for anyone that makes you sign anything you don't want to or forces you to do anything with the images you don't approve of. This is your stuff and you are paying for it.

All five headshot shoots Brian has done have given us a CD - some with all the pics and some with the retouched selections.

We wouldn't shoot with anyone that didn't release pics to us or made us use their reproductions company. My attitude is I'm paying you for a headshot, I want the headshot. Most times you can find that on the photorapher's website or simply ask when you interview them.

I also refuse to work with any photographer who refuses to give me the goods after I pay.

back in the day, I ask where the photographer developes his film. if I dont like it, I took the film to taranto labs for dip and dunk processing + contacts.


I would also oversee my own dodging and burning and cropping and worked with the prolab to create a good master headshot.

dupes were made with full size negatives wich were made from the master headshot..

all in all a very heavy process that alot of actors dont have knowledge of. and can ruin alot of things taking the negatives to Kmart for processing.

The photographer is usually knowlegable about post shooting procedures, so if you dont know what you are doing, you best leave the negatives with the photographer..

nowadays, it s all digital. AFter shooting, I take my files, ALL OF THEM, and I do my own photoshopping. I do much better work than those guys at reproductions who charge you 40+ dollars for 15 minutes of retouching. I really go into the file and work very very carefully, as I am not doing it for money where the more I do the more I get paid.

So for me, I get all my files.

but any plain actor who dont have expertise in this field best leave their JPGS with the photographer. the photog will touch up, and prep the file so it looks good.

Some people dont know, and take the file straight to reproduction, and the headshot isnt as good as it can be...

so Should you get your files ? If you know what to do with them yes. if you dont know what to do with them than do yourself a favor then no.