cropping in photoshop

Ok, so I want to offer my clients a CD with fully edited HIGH RESOLUTION images. I am telling them that they will get the 10x16 version. right? So, if they decide to print a 10x16 picture...it should be perfect, but now what if they want to print a 24 x 30? Will it still be perfect and IF SO...then if I offered them a CD with fully edited LOW RESOLUTION photos (say 4x6) wouldn't they still be able to print perfectly fine 10x16 prints with those as well?

If you're offering them the full res image file, I wouldn't worry about making smaller sizes. It would be more trouble than it's worth telling the client which image is for what size and keeping them all sorted. Just give them the full res file and let them print what size they want from it.


I guess this is what I'm getting at:

A local photographer near me has her prices listed on her website. She has a flat rate "session fee" then she sells 5x7 or 8 x10 or whatever prints from these pictures, but she also gives her clients a disk with all of the images in LOW RES she says are suitable for printing 4x6. Couldn't they just print their own 5x7 and 8x10 anyway and get pretty decent prints?

The reason I am asking all of this is that I'm in the process of actually setting up a price list for my website and people these days are getting used to the "shoot and burn" photographer who gives them ALL of their images. I would like to sell prints, but I would like to offer them something like the above mentioned photographer does. However, why would they buy prints from me if they can just print their own from the low res. images I gave them on the disk? Is there a DIFFERENT adjustment you make in photoshop to make the pixel count smaller or something that makes them look really crappy if they enlarge? I know I am going off on a tangent a bit, but just trying to make sense of the whole process.

If you are growing tired of my endless questions, feel free to let this thread go. I am so grateful for your help so far and you've really cleared a lot up for me already.

By the way, I have like 100 more questions about the different "quality" sizes of the jpeg (maybe THAT is the difference in print quality??) so it may not end anytime soon :blushing:
 
I guess this is what I'm getting at:

A local photographer near me has her prices listed on her website. She has a flat rate "session fee" then she sells 5x7 or 8 x10 or whatever prints from these pictures, but she also gives her clients a disk with all of the images in LOW RES she says are suitable for printing 4x6. Couldn't they just print their own 5x7 and 8x10 anyway and get pretty decent prints?

They could, but if they have been downsampled to 4x6 they may look crappy if printed as 8x10s, unless they've been upsampled (enlarged). I've never done that so I don't know for sure.

The reason I am asking all of this is that I'm in the process of actually setting up a price list for my website and people these days are getting used to the "shoot and burn" photographer who gives them ALL of their images. I would like to sell prints, but I would like to offer them something like the above mentioned photographer does. However, why would they buy prints from me if they can just print their own from the low res. images I gave them on the disk? Is there a DIFFERENT adjustment you make in photoshop to make the pixel count smaller or something that makes them look really crappy if they enlarge? I know I am going off on a tangent a bit, but just trying to make sense of the whole process.

Offering low res images for 4x6 prints is a good idea. If you downsample the image to 4x6, then if your client tries to print larger they might not look great. But there's nothing stopping them from upsampling, provided they have the right software, like Photoshop.

If you are growing tired of my endless questions, feel free to let this thread go. I am so grateful for your help so far and you've really cleared a lot up for me already.

By the way, I have like 100 more questions about the different "quality" sizes of the jpeg (maybe THAT is the difference in print quality??) so it may not end anytime soon :blushing:

When saving a JPEG for print I always do highest quality. File > Save As... > Choose JPEG from the drop down menu > Choose quality 12 (highest) and hit OK. If you're making web-sized images you don't need 12, 10 is plenty.
 
Offering low res images for 4x6 prints is a good idea. If you downsample the image to 4x6, then if your client tries to print larger they might not look great. But there's nothing stopping them from upsampling, provided they have the right software, like Photoshop.

So I was thinking after reading this that MAYBE if I resize to a 4x6 from my original 10x16 that when you went to order a 5X7 or 8X10 etc, that it woudn't "fit" in the printer's template. So I resized a picture to 4x6 saved at high quality "12" jpg and opened that file in Bay Photo and clicked on 8x10. The picture just automatically resizes to fit (resonably.. but clearly the ratio difference was cut off) into the template. All I have to do is hit the order button and now I have an 8x10 of a picture I resized to 4x6 in PS and I didn't have to have any skills to do that. So my clients will be able to do the same thing and not have to pay for an 8x10...why should they? And the quality difference would probably be minimal to the average eye on a good printing press. So what can I do to change the quality instead of the size? Do you change the dpi?? Is THAT the difference? Or the quality of the jpeg from 12 to like a 3 or 4? Would THAT make the difference?

THANK YOU DENNIS for your incredible patience with my never ending questioning.
 

So I was thinking after reading this that MAYBE if I resize to a 4x6 from my original 10x16 that when you went to order a 5X7 or 8X10 etc, that it woudn't "fit" in the printer's template. So I resized a picture to 4x6 saved at high quality "12" jpg and opened that file in Bay Photo and clicked on 8x10. The picture just automatically resizes to fit (resonably.. but clearly the ratio difference was cut off) into the template. All I have to do is hit the order button and now I have an 8x10 of a picture I resized to 4x6 in PS and I didn't have to have any skills to do that. So my clients will be able to do the same thing and not have to pay for an 8x10...why should they? And the quality difference would probably be minimal to the average eye on a good printing press. So what can I do to change the quality instead of the size? Do you change the dpi?? Is THAT the difference? Or the quality of the jpeg from 12 to like a 3 or 4? Would THAT make the difference?

THANK YOU DENNIS for your incredible patience with my never ending questioning.

Yes you can change the ppi. A lower ppi won't look too bad on a small print like a 4x6 I don't think. Experiment with different ppi (I've never done this myself). Instead of 300 ppi (typical) or whatever yours is set to, try lowering it to 150 and then resize down to a 4x6. Print it and see if it looks good. Then print an 8x10 from the same file and see if it looks just as good. My guess is it won't, but if it does, lower the ppi even more, like 100 and try it. Just experiment with it until you find a ppi that looks good on 4x6 but not so good on a larger print.

You could also try lowering the JPEG quality, which should be less noticable on a small print. I've never experimented with either of these options though, so it's up to you.

Do you know this other photographer personally? Maybe if you're really, really nice you can ask her what she does for her 4x6 files she gives to clients.
 
Dennis,
You have been so helpful. I really appreciate you sticking with me through my endless questions. I feel a little more comfortable with all of this and feel like if I do some research now on my own, I will at least have a tiny foundation of understanding.

I might work up the guts to ask this photographer what she does to her pictures to make them "only suitable for printing 4x6". Maybe she will give up her secret. I'm sure it's not THAT big of a secret.

Thanks again for all of your help!

Linda
 
Curious...why not sell the prints yourself, and not give out the disk, OR give them the disk at a higher price? I've not given that end of the business much thought, honestly.
 
Curious...why not sell the prints yourself, and not give out the disk, OR give them the disk at a higher price? I've not given that end of the business much thought, honestly.

So many of the local photographers here are "shoot and burners". People just expect it these days so to be competitive, I feel like I need to offer it. I am still on the fence about whether or not I will just jump on the "shoot and burn" bandwagon. But, honestly, it is A LOT of work!! I am a perfectionist and I meticulously and painfully edit EACH picture in photoshop and it takes FOREVER to edit 80- 100 pictures for a family photoshoot. I need to charge a fortune to make it worth my time, but then people won't understand why I cost so much. It is so much easier to do some quick contrast/sat/sharpening for proofing and THEN edit their choices more thoroughly. I just have a hard time handing over a disk that doesn't have EVERY picture edited to the best of my ability. I guess regardless of whether I give them the full or low res. pics...if I'm handing over a CD, I'm going to have to edit each picture anyway. I'm just trying to figure out what I'm going to do. Maybe I'll just keep doing it for free :(
 
Dennis,
You have been so helpful. I really appreciate you sticking with me through my endless questions. I feel a little more comfortable with all of this and feel like if I do some research now on my own, I will at least have a tiny foundation of understanding.

I might work up the guts to ask this photographer what she does to her pictures to make them "only suitable for printing 4x6". Maybe she will give up her secret. I'm sure it's not THAT big of a secret.

Thanks again for all of your help!

Linda

You're welcome, glad I could help.

OR give them the disk at a higher price?

That's what I was thinking too. I'm not in the business of photography, but if I was selling the actual image files I'd be charging quite a bit more for them.

So many of the local photographers here are "shoot and burners". People just expect it these days so to be competitive, I feel like I need to offer it. I am still on the fence about whether or not I will just jump on the "shoot and burn" bandwagon. But, honestly, it is A LOT of work!! I am a perfectionist and I meticulously and painfully edit EACH picture in photoshop and it takes FOREVER to edit 80- 100 pictures for a family photoshoot. I need to charge a fortune to make it worth my time, but then people won't understand why I cost so much. It is so much easier to do some quick contrast/sat/sharpening for proofing and THEN edit their choices more thoroughly. I just have a hard time handing over a disk that doesn't have EVERY picture edited to the best of my ability. I guess regardless of whether I give them the full or low res. pics...if I'm handing over a CD, I'm going to have to edit each picture anyway. I'm just trying to figure out what I'm going to do. Maybe I'll just keep doing it for free :(

Look around at what other photographers are doing. If everyone down there is doing the "shoot and burn" then they must have pricing for that on a website somewhere.

I'm sure someone on this forum sells image files to clients in addition to prints. Maybe start a new thread asking about that specifically and what they charge.
 
Dennis,
You have been so helpful. I really appreciate you sticking with me through my endless questions. I feel a little more comfortable with all of this and feel like if I do some research now on my own, I will at least have a tiny foundation of understanding.

I might work up the guts to ask this photographer what she does to her pictures to make them "only suitable for printing 4x6". Maybe she will give up her secret. I'm sure it's not THAT big of a secret.

Thanks again for all of your help!

Linda

You're welcome, glad I could help.

OR give them the disk at a higher price?

That's what I was thinking too. I'm not in the business of photography, but if I was selling the actual image files I'd be charging quite a bit more for them.

So many of the local photographers here are "shoot and burners". People just expect it these days so to be competitive, I feel like I need to offer it. I am still on the fence about whether or not I will just jump on the "shoot and burn" bandwagon. But, honestly, it is A LOT of work!! I am a perfectionist and I meticulously and painfully edit EACH picture in photoshop and it takes FOREVER to edit 80- 100 pictures for a family photoshoot. I need to charge a fortune to make it worth my time, but then people won't understand why I cost so much. It is so much easier to do some quick contrast/sat/sharpening for proofing and THEN edit their choices more thoroughly. I just have a hard time handing over a disk that doesn't have EVERY picture edited to the best of my ability. I guess regardless of whether I give them the full or low res. pics...if I'm handing over a CD, I'm going to have to edit each picture anyway. I'm just trying to figure out what I'm going to do. Maybe I'll just keep doing it for free :(

Look around at what other photographers are doing. If everyone down there is doing the "shoot and burn" then they must have pricing for that on a website somewhere.

I'm sure someone on this forum sells image files to clients in addition to prints. Maybe start a new thread asking about that specifically and what they charge.

There is quite a difference in price with the three local photographers here really close to me. For family sessions, one is $950, one is $350 and one is $200. The $350 one is the one who also sells prints and just gives her images on disk in a lower resolution suitable for 4x6 printing. The $200 one is just plain ridiculous. She gives all of her high resolution images on a disk for this price and she won't budge on it. She calls it her "ministry" to the people who can't afford the higher prices. The problem is, even the people who CAN afford the higher prices are going to her too...because why the hell not? Her husband makes plenty of money to support her family and she does it for fun. It's pretty frustrating for everyone else. So I'm thinking I can do similar to what the $350 photog. does or charge maybe around $550 and just give the disk and not bother with the printing. I emailed her recently and she made a good point...you spend less time editing ALL of the images when you are proofing to sell prints, but you end up spending about the same time ordering, packaging and sending the prints anyway. So it's kind of a wash whether you spend the time editing ALL of your pictures thoroughly or whether you are hassling with printing. It is a lot to think about. The interesting thing is that the $950 photog and the $200 photog have the most business. That $350 photog. really struggles. I guess that's something to think about too. Maybe innately, people want to think they are "high class" when they go to the expensive photographer or they want to brag about the deal they got from the cheap photographer, but no one wants that middle of the road guy.
 
There is quite a difference in price with the three local photographers here really close to me. For family sessions, one is $950, one is $350 and one is $200. The $350 one is the one who also sells prints and just gives her images on disk in a lower resolution suitable for 4x6 printing. The $200 one is just plain ridiculous. She gives all of her high resolution images on a disk for this price and she won't budge on it. She calls it her "ministry" to the people who can't afford the higher prices. The problem is, even the people who CAN afford the higher prices are going to her too...because why the hell not? Her husband makes plenty of money to support her family and she does it for fun. It's pretty frustrating for everyone else. So I'm thinking I can do similar to what the $350 photog. does or charge maybe around $550 and just give the disk and not bother with the printing. I emailed her recently and she made a good point...you spend less time editing ALL of the images when you are proofing to sell prints, but you end up spending about the same time ordering, packaging and sending the prints anyway. So it's kind of a wash whether you spend the time editing ALL of your pictures thoroughly or whether you are hassling with printing. It is a lot to think about. The interesting thing is that the $950 photog and the $200 photog have the most business. That $350 photog. really struggles. I guess that's something to think about too. Maybe innately, people want to think they are "high class" when they go to the expensive photographer or they want to brag about the deal they got from the cheap photographer, but no one wants that middle of the road guy.

Either that or the $950 and $200 photogs are better business people than the $350 photog.

I can see how this would be frustrating. Maybe offer both as a package choice? Disc only, or prints only. The $350 photog may not have a good business model offering both. Hard to know, I'm just speculating. Best of luck on your decision, which ever you choose.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top