Re: Photographers
Sorry for posting on a stale topic, but I can't resist .. I actually *DID* discuss this with a photographer once (who said armchair economics isn't a contact sport? ;-) for the negatives - but the photographers always react with horror to this suggestion and refuse. Alex Ask them how much is the least they would accept in payment for the negative, before you have the picture taken. Go and ask several photographers. If they say I don't sell negatives, offer $10,000. He will probably say OK. Then tell him you will be asking other photographers, and so, what is the least he would accept? I asked. At $5,000 PER NEGATIVE he said he might consider it. You could also mention that if you can't get the negative, you will scan the photo into your computer. The quality won't be as good as with a negative, and folks might think it is the fault of the photographer. He said that scanning the image was a violation of his copyright, and if he found out any of his customers did this, he would definitely sue them. I asked how much he would charge for the right to scan the picture -- after all, I pointed out, the scanned image is a different product than the print. He said he would consider giving permission for a very low resolution scan, for no additional charge, but would not consider allowing high resolution scans at all. As far as having people think the low quality associated with a scan was the fault of the photographer ... well, if people were dumb enough to reveal he was the photographer, they'd get sued for copyright infringement! I asked him if he would consider a photo contract which, in advance, included selling the copyright to the customer, and he was extremely horrified I had even thought of such an idea. It was as if he considered it immoral to sell the copyright. Note that this fellow mostly does weddings, and he said that photographers often help each other out when more than one individual photographer is needed at a wedding. The helpers are paid a fixed fee, and it SEEMED to me that the copyright on all photos went to the guy who got the contract. --Robert
Re: Photographers
Fred's solution looks to be the best. I remember noticing that the copyrights for a lot of celebrity photographs are no longer with the original photographer. Maybe this system does work -yazad Ask them how much is the least they would accept in payment for the negative, before you have the picture taken. Go and ask several photographers. If they say I don't sell negatives, offer $10,000. He will probably say OK. Then tell him you will be asking other photographers, and so, what is the least he would accept? You could also mention that if you can't get the negative, you will scan the photo into your computer. The quality won't be as good as with a negative, and folks might think it is the fault of the photographer. Fred Foldvary = [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do You Yahoo!? Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! http://auctions.yahoo.com __ Do You Yahoo!? Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! http://auctions.yahoo.com
Re: Photographers
for the negatives - but the photographers always react with horror to this suggestion and refuse. Alex Ask them how much is the least they would accept in payment for the negative, before you have the picture taken. Go and ask several photographers. If they say I don't sell negatives, offer $10,000. He will probably say OK. Then tell him you will be asking other photographers, and so, what is the least he would accept? You could also mention that if you can't get the negative, you will scan the photo into your computer. The quality won't be as good as with a negative, and folks might think it is the fault of the photographer. Fred Foldvary = [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do You Yahoo!? Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! http://auctions.yahoo.com
[Fwd: Photographers]
From Mark Steckbeck: -- Prof. Bryan Caplan Department of Economics George Mason University http://www.bcaplan.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] He was thinking that Prince Andrei was in error and did not see the true light, and that he, Pierre, ought to come to his aid, to enlighten and uplift him. But no sooner had he thought out what he should say and how to say it than he foresaw that Prince Andrei, with one word, a single argument, would discredit all his teachings, and he was afraid to begin, afraid to expose to possible ridicule what he cherished and held sacred. Leo Tolstoy, *War and Peace* ---BeginMessage--- Bryan, I am not at home where I have access to my email account related to the Armchair list. Can you post this for me. Thanks, Mark Alex's question does not pertain to individuals taking film from their own personal cameras to be developed. What his question pertains to is the hiring of a professional photographer who, for example, comes to your business (or home) to photograph scenes for an annual report (or a family portrait). It is customary for photographers to provide you with a set number of copies of specific prints and to retain the negatives. Alex poses two questions: Is a two-part tariff efficient and, if not, 2) why doesn't entry into the market change it. First, I presume that the two-part pricing scheme is efficient from a price discrimination point of view. There is little probability that the median consumer of photography services will purchase reprints from existing negatives. Those who do obviously have a more inelastic demand curve. (I once did a shoot for the Metropolitan Washington, DC Baptist Church. I provided them with however many copies they requested and kept the negatives. Only one person contacted me later for reprints and, considering the desperation in her voice, I believe I could easily have charged her say $20 or $30 per reprint). Second, I do know of photographers who will sell the rights to the negatives (i.e., their rights, property rights to negatives belong the the photographer) but they are generally either newcomers to the profession or failing photographers with high time preferences relative to better photographers (i.e., they need cash now). I presume therefore, that either Alex's search costs are too high to find one of them, or his demand for quality precludes him from considering hiring their services. Similarly, anyone seeking to purchase rights to the negatives signals to a prospective photographer their expected future demand curve for reprints. Mark Steckbeck ---End Message---
Re: Photographers
How about asking some photographers? Armchair economics is not a contact sport. JC _ John-Charles Bradbury, Ph.D. Department of Economics The University of the South 735 University Ave. Sewanee, TN 37383 -1000 Phone: (931) 598-1721 Fax: (931) 598-1145 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Photographers
Good photographers keep their negatives because they predict that satisfied customers are more likely to come back for reprints, while unsatisfied customers would only throw away the negatives or not use them anyway if they were able to buy them. Less proficient photographers sell their negatives because they don't expect to make any money on reprinting mediocre pictures. Selling the negatives helps make up for the loss incurred when customers don't come back. A photographer's willingness to sell the negatives or to provide bargain reprints is a signal of the poor quality of the pictures he takes. Similarly, a customer's desire to buy the negatives could be a signal to photographers that the customer doesn't value the photos being taken enough to pay a premium for reprints, and thus may be less likely to buy lots of prints in the first place. Another explantion could be that the customer who wants to buy negatives is like the person who buys things on layaway--he wants the good, but prefers for some reason to put a little down now and pay the rest later. So he pays for the sitting and the negatives (lower profit items for the photographer), and takes the negatives to the drug store next month to by prints. The unwillingness to sell negatives and the practice of charging high prices for reprints could be a way for photographers to weed out the cheap-skates who might otherwise eat into their profit margins by not buying many prints or not returning for reprints. Sadly, my own experience with my wedding photographer provides anecdotal evidence for Mark Steckbeck's theory that photographers who sell their negatives might do so to compensate for the inferior quality of their photographs compared to photographers who won't sell their negatives. Eric M. McDaniel University of Tulsa [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of John-charles Bradbury Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2002 12:11 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Photographers How about asking some photographers? Armchair economics is not a contact sport. JC _ John-Charles Bradbury, Ph.D. Department of Economics The University of the South 735 University Ave. Sewanee, TN 37383 -1000 Phone: (931) 598-1721 Fax: (931) 598-1145 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Photographers
Dear Alex, I am (semi-)married (divorce looming) to a photographer. Actually, he is a "public information officer" (propagandist -- see why we're getting divorced? I am unsupportive) who uses his talents as a photographer and graphic artist in his work. I have forwarded your message on to him for reply, as your offer to pay extra and receive the negatives seems completely fair to me. Truly, Terri "A good deal of tyranny goes by the name of protection." - Crystal Eastman (activist/author; 1881-1928)
RE: Photographers
relatedly, how will this change (or has this changed?) given the fact that you can get a fairly good quality digital scan of a photo for a relatively low price - and reprint it from the file (or by rescanning) ad infinitum at no additional cost? seems that as the scanning/digitalization process improves, professional photographers will have an added incentive to sell you the negatives rather than keep a library of negatives (which must also entail a cost) in hopes you'll be back for more later. etb -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Alex Tabarrok Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2002 4:57 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Photographers Whenever I get a professional photograph I am always infuriated that the photographers keep the negatives and then charge me every time I want a print. This wouldn't be so bad but the system is inefficient since I move around a lot and can lose track of who holds the negatives to photographs that I had taken 10 years ago. I have tried several times to arrange an alternative deal - paying more up front in return for the negatives - but the photographers always react with horror to this suggestion and refuse. I have a two part question. First, why do photographers want the system this way. (Note that obviously the photographers have a monopoly over the prints once the prints are taken but that this does not really answer the question - see Landsburgh's discussion of the popcorn problem in The Armchair Economist.) Second and relatedly why don't entrants offer an alternative system? Alex -- Dr. Alexander Tabarrok Vice President and Director of Research The Independent Institute 100 Swan Way Oakland, CA, 94621-1428 Tel. 510-632-1366, FAX: 510-568-6040 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Photographers
I'm not a pro, but what are those brown strips of film that have impressions like the pictures you had developed that come back from Ritz when you get the pics? Burns, Erik wrote: relatedly, how will this change (or has this changed?) given the fact that you can get a fairly good quality digital scan of a photo for a relatively low price - and reprint it from the file (or by rescanning) ad infinitum at no additional cost? seems that as the scanning/digitalization process improves, professional photographers will have an added incentive to sell you the negatives rather than keep a library of negatives (which must also entail a cost) in hopes you'll be back for more later. etb -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Alex Tabarrok Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2002 4:57 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Photographers Whenever I get a professional photograph I am always infuriated that the photographers keep the negatives and then charge me every time I want a print. This wouldn't be so bad but the system is inefficient since I move around a lot and can lose track of who holds the negatives to photographs that I had taken 10 years ago. I have tried several times to arrange an alternative deal - paying more up front in return for the negatives - but the photographers always react with horror to this suggestion and refuse. I have a two part question. First, why do photographers want the system this way. (Note that obviously the photographers have a monopoly over the prints once the prints are taken but that this does not really answer the question - see Landsburgh's discussion of the popcorn problem in The Armchair Economist.) Second and relatedly why don't entrants offer an alternative system? Alex -- Dr. Alexander Tabarrok Vice President and Director of Research The Independent Institute 100 Swan Way Oakland, CA, 94621-1428 Tel. 510-632-1366, FAX: 510-568-6040 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Photographers
And of course normal developers always include the negatives. -- Prof. Bryan Caplan Department of Economics George Mason University http://www.bcaplan.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] He was thinking that Prince Andrei was in error and did not see the true light, and that he, Pierre, ought to come to his aid, to enlighten and uplift him. But no sooner had he thought out what he should say and how to say it than he foresaw that Prince Andrei, with one word, a single argument, would discredit all his teachings, and he was afraid to begin, afraid to expose to possible ridicule what he cherished and held sacred. Leo Tolstoy, *War and Peace*
Re: Photographers
Sure, if you take your own pictures you get the negatives. But if you hire a profesional photographer for say a wedding or if you have a portrait done they are insistent on keeping the negatives. Alex -- Dr. Alexander Tabarrok Vice President and Director of Research The Independent Institute 100 Swan Way Oakland, CA, 94621-1428 Tel. 510-632-1366, FAX: 510-568-6040 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Photographers
Producing a photograph requires creating a negative and transfering it to a positive image. It would seem simple to separate the two processes. Certainly, a photographer ought to be able to sell the negatives for the PV of the positive image revenue. The industry probably does not specialize in negatives and positives, due to economies of scope. But, even with scope economies a photographer would still be willing to sell his negatives. It is the buyer who pays bears the cost of separating the production process. The real problem in this industry may be the nature of reputation acquisition as a photographer. Most viewers judge photographers by the positive print. I would guess that most wedding photographers are picked out from seeing the photos from a friend's wedding. Photographers who develop their own pictures (most good photograohers do) take the negative with the knowledge that they can manipulate the negative image. Developers may misprint a photograph, because they do not have the information that the photographer has. Passing the negative onto the owner, puts the reputation of the photographer into the hands of another individual who may, or may not, do as good a job. This external cost argument raises the question of why the photograoher does not offer sell at a price that will compensate for lost revenue from a damaged reputation. JC _ John-Charles Bradbury, Ph.D. Department of Economics The University of the South 735 University Ave. Sewanee, TN 37383 -1000 Phone: (931) 598-1721 Fax: (931) 598-1145 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Alex Tabarrok [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2002 10:56 AM Subject: Photographers Whenever I get a professional photograph I am always infuriated that the photographers keep the negatives and then charge me every time I want a print. This wouldn't be so bad but the system is inefficient since I move around a lot and can lose track of who holds the negatives to photographs that I had taken 10 years ago. I have tried several times to arrange an alternative deal - paying more up front in return for the negatives - but the photographers always react with horror to this suggestion and refuse. I have a two part question. First, why do photographers want the system this way. (Note that obviously the photographers have a monopoly over the prints once the prints are taken but that this does not really answer the question - see Landsburgh's discussion of the popcorn problem in The Armchair Economist.) Second and relatedly why don't entrants offer an alternative system? Alex -- Dr. Alexander Tabarrok Vice President and Director of Research The Independent Institute 100 Swan Way Oakland, CA, 94621-1428 Tel. 510-632-1366, FAX: 510-568-6040 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Photographers
The professional photographer keeping the negatives may be because that photo is his/her property and he/she is trying to protect the unauthorized use of it. A photo development shop just prints your photos where as the pro is taking them and so they are his/hers. I am guessing this is the same reason that the photographers name is on pictures in magazines? Jason
Re: Photographers
Alex Tabarrok wrote: Sure, if you take your own pictures you get the negatives. But if you hire a profesional photographer for say a wedding or if you have a portrait done they are insistent on keeping the negatives. What's wrong with a simple adverse selection story here? The only people who try to buy the negatives from you are precisely the people who would be willing to pay a lot for extra copies. -- Prof. Bryan Caplan Department of Economics George Mason University http://www.bcaplan.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] He was thinking that Prince Andrei was in error and did not see the true light, and that he, Pierre, ought to come to his aid, to enlighten and uplift him. But no sooner had he thought out what he should say and how to say it than he foresaw that Prince Andrei, with one word, a single argument, would discredit all his teachings, and he was afraid to begin, afraid to expose to possible ridicule what he cherished and held sacred. Leo Tolstoy, *War and Peace*
Re: Photographers
Tbe adverse selection story, really a price discrimination story, assumes monopoly power in the photography market. But there is free entry into photography and hundreds of photographers easily available in the phone book thus price should fall to MC which implies that photographers should be willing to give up the negatives for a penny. John-Charles's answer (keeping the negative is a form of quality control necessary for the photographer to keep and maintain a good reputation) is more promising. It could be the case that the cost of the potential loss in reputation to the photographer is worth more than the negatives to the buyer and thus no trade is made. The main question I would have is whether quality of print versus quality of photograph is that difficult to ascertain - but I'm willing to go with this for now. JC's answer, by the way, is consistent with price being at marginal cost. Thus an important test suggests itself - when the photographer has your negative is price above marginal cost for developing a print - i.e. is the price higher than if you had the negative and went elsewhere? I had always assumed that it was but JCs answer suggests I should investigate further. Alex -- Dr. Alexander Tabarrok Vice President and Director of Research The Independent Institute 100 Swan Way Oakland, CA, 94621-1428 Tel. 510-632-1366, FAX: 510-568-6040 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
