Posted: 07/08/2014 at 14:09
If you want a print I'd pay £10. By the time the photographer dicks about with printing and postage that sounds reasonable.
I think a better model is to take a small retainer, allow everyone free downloads so they can print their own, but higher resolution/larger downloads cost.
Then it's largely down to the quality of the shots. If they're good, people will pay for them.
Yeah I did the Run Through Wimbledon Half Marathon a couple of weeks ago and was really pleased to see all of the official photographers photos were just posted up on Facebook without watermarks etc. I think it's a much better model for the organisers to add on a pound or so to the entry fee and hire a photographer at a flat rate. IMO race photos are a much better freebie than a medal or t-shirt that will probably end up in the bin when you get home.
I've never bought a photo at the usual rate of £10+ but I can see why a photographer would want to charge that much to try to make it worth their while.
I've done Run Through events and thought the same thing. Conversely I think it was Run Hackney where the pictures were shit and they wanted a small fortune.
I think the business model for race pictures is totally flawed. We go to clubnights like Torture Garden and Anti-Christ where outfits are a huge part of the night so pictures are alwatys popular. The club pay photographers the pictures end up on Facebook, they get shared, the clubnight gets promoted, the photographer gets promoted (just a small watermark rather than one that obscures the pic) and if you want a high resolution one you can ask for one. I think the same would work with running (and cycling for that matter). The quality of most pictures quite simply aren't worth paying for. I take better pictures than some so called professional photographers.