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] >
