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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
this is the same reason that the photographers name is on
pictures in magazines?
Jason
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
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
15 matches
Mail list logo
