That is the big question for many photographers when they start out but it’s also the second question that most clients ask (the first of course being how much?)

It’s been a well debated subject in many forums and websites and has often been considered as amateurish by many professionals. Often in these debates someone points out that “You wouldn’t have given someone the negatives” which whilst being valid is also an irrelevant argument as many photographers today would have never even used a film camera in their business (if at all).
I was a 16-year-old at college the first time I had the chance to pick up a digital camera and that was over 15 years ago! The world today is very different, client expectations and the industry has changed so dramatically it’s almost unrecognisable.

The digital image is a very different being and I don’t think the transition is fully complete. Mainstream digital photography is, after all, still in its adolescence no matter how grown up it appears to be.
After all, digital photography has only accounts for roughly 10% of photography’s 160 year history so no wonder attitudes to change are difficult.
Throughout the last 160 years photography’s most successful innovations have always been geared towards the mass market, either in how it was consumed or distributed.

The same is true today and I think perhaps it might be foolish to ignore what has made the digital photography so successful: The digital image.

If we deny our clients digital files then aren’t we just offering the same products (in essence) that were available over 100 years ago?

Photography’s founding fathers had basically two products:
Louis Daguerre’s products were essentially one-off images that couldn’t be reproduced and Fox Talbot first product was basically a photo-book (The Pencil of Nature).

So if you are selling only wall art and photo books, how is this any different? More worryingly, is it denying the digital images’ true potential before it has even been properly realised?

All this said, it’s important to remember that we are running businesses. The Daguerreotype’s eventual downfall was due to the fact that the images couldn’t be reproduced even though in the early days, and mostly in part to the licensing and patent restrictions of Fox Talbot’s Calotype, it was more popular.

So with all this in mind I thought it might be worth looking again at some pros and cons of shoot to burn photography.

The customer gets what they want
Arguably, every client want images on DVD. As I mentioned it’s normally the second question you get from prospective clients.

Pros
Happy clients! Your images will also have more potential in how they are consumed by the client.

Cons
If the client has everything they want then what else would they buy? Once you realise this it does make it easier to price your digital files.

Controlling the output
The need for control is born out of fear and as George Lucas pointed out, that can only lead to one thing. Seriously though, control over the eventual output of your images is important but I fear that many of us might be fighting a losing battle.

Pros
If you don’t offer digital files then you have at least control over your images’ first incarnation in the form of printed images, wall art or books. You can use suppliers that don’t print on auto (and colour correct) and your images will be cropped and sized in the way you always envisaged.

Cons
That’s all well and good but you’re forgetting one thing….. Camera phones.
Most people don’t even own scanners anymore as they opt for the £300 laptop option for their home computing rather than the desktop computer/scanner/printer/webcam bundles we used to have on offer in many high street retailers.
In some ways I wished people would scan my images rather than shoot a image with their iPhone and upload that version to Facebook.
On Flickr there are more images coming from camera phones than from any other photography device….. Scary thought!

Low Material Costs
The biggest draw for shot to burn has to be the incredibly low material costs. Even if you are creating custom DVD boxes and burning your files to gold archive discs, your costs are still only going to be in low double figures. (Yes I know there are other costs but they are going to be the same either way).

Pros
High profit margin

Cons
Perceived value. Clients know that blank DVDs cost very little and actually value a single file less than it’s printed counterpart. Whilst profit margins are high the potential revenue is perhaps less.

Shoot to burn is easier and quicker
Yes and No. The time spent ordering a £300 framed print for example, is considerably less than editing a full portrait session to a high standard. If of course you’re showing unedited images to the client (which I wouldn’t recommend but I know many do).

Pros
After a full edit no additional editing or preparation is needed.

Cons
It depends on what you show your clients. Quick edits can look good on screen for viewings but you wouldn’t want them to be burned to DVD for the client.

I can make more money doing shoot to burn
Shoot to burn is really about playing the numbers game. If we take two experienced wedding photographers who both have the same amount of bookings it’s likely that the photographer shooting for and selling albums will make more revenue. Whether that translates into a greater profit depends on the photographer and his/her choice of products.

Pros
You can make more money with shoot to burn but you’ll also need more clients to achieve that.

Cons
Money saved on low material costs will have to be used on marketing in order to bring in those clients.

Shoot to burn is for the amateurs
Perhaps a valid point 5 years ago but there’s nothing amateurish about shooting 100 weddings a year at £1000 a pop and there are photographers out there who have been doing just that for many years.

Pros
If you price yourself right, the marketing is good and your images are awesome then you won’t appear amateurish.

Cons
For now at least, there’s still the attitude amongst professionals that shoot to burn is for beginners and unfortunately that attitude filters it’s way down to the client.

In conclusion…

There are of course many other reasons for and against shoot to burn so please share your thoughts in the comments.

This author remains on the fence as I’ve seen the benefits and the slippery slope that many other photographers often fall into when offering only digital files.

This might be an old debate but I think it’s still worth continuing. If history has taught us anything it’s that photography, and how it’s consumed will always be dictated by the mass market.