Proofs and Diginegs

[visualpoetry]

Am I right to say that by putting a logo on an image, no printers would allow it to be duplicated? I want to make sure that by adding something to my digital wedding proofs, clients will be required to purchase digital negatives and NOT be able to take that disk into the local printer.

I am almost positive this is the case but I wanted to be sure.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Big Mike]

Technically, they shouldn't be allowed to make duplicates...whether there is a logo or not.
Putting a logo or 'watermark' on the photos should certainly help though.
Also, check to see if your lab will print print something on the back of the images, to dissuade them from being copied.

Another option is to do away with physical proof prints and doing it on-line.

 

[visualpoetry]

What would persuade a printer to not touch an image without a watermark or logo? Especially when people can easily upload images on the web to printers when the printer doesn't even see the disk it stems from?

Another question..
Is there a way to 'lock' an image so no one can edit it? I do sell digital negatives to clients and give them finished JPEG files but would hate to see an image ruined by someone who has no idea what they're doing - then having my name on the image.

Thanks!!

 

[*Mike*]

Unfortunately, there's no way to really "lock" a photo... If they want to edit, they will. I'd consider it a tradeoff of selling hi-res files. If you want the sale of the disk, then oyu sacrifice some control (in addition to reprint sales).

As for proofs... You said "digital wedding proofs?" Are these files or prints? If you're proofing with files, are you only providing low-res?

 

[Big Mike]

What would persuade a printer to not touch an image without a watermark or logo?

Fear of a law suit. Some labs/prints have been sued over this and it's a pretty black and white case.

Of course, people can just upload images to most labs these days...but all labs will have some sort of a message that says something to the effect of 'by uploading these images, you acknowledge that you own the copyright to them'. So that way, the lab is covered and it's the client who is at fault.

You can try to 'lock' images by putting them into a slide show or into a PDF document...etc. I'm sure there are other ways...but there is almost always a way for someone to steal them, if they are determined enough.

This is a common issue for most photographers and there is no standard because this a fairly new thing.

 

[visualpoetry]

That is true. As much as I'd like to keep all printing in-house, I can understand the market for diginegs and think they are an important product to offer.

I have used both methods.. digital and print proofs. I am trying to decide which is more beneficial. When using digital (files) proofs, I definitly provide low res images.

 

[visualpoetry]

Yeah, I've seen the disclosure before. I just wish there was a better way. Looks like I'll be plastering my name on proofs, either way. Thanks for taking the time to answer..

 

[Big Mike]

A lot of photographers are getting away from proof prints. They aren't necessary in many cases and so that's an expense that can be avoided.

On-line proofing is easier for you and perhaps easier for your clients. It should also be easier to protect your images this way.

Have a look at Photocart. It allows the clients to view and order prints and other products, right on your web site.

 

[visualpoetry]

Photocart here I come.

 

[*Mike*]

Online galleries are great - but they probably shouldn't be your primary, initial, form of ordering. Orders will consistently be substantially higher if you proof in person, and take the initial order at the proofing/ordering session.

 

[Big Mike]

Online galleries are great - but they probably shouldn't be your primary, initial, form of ordering. Orders will consistently be substantially higher if you proof in person, and take the initial order at the proofing/ordering session.

There are a lot of 'what ifs' about that.

From what I'm hearing from a lot of photographers, the on-line ordering is great because it is easily accessible to not only the immediate clients...but to their family as well.

Take a wedding, for example. The B&G might order a set of prints, a few enlargements and an album etc. They might order a few prints as gifts for their family. But if you give their family the same opportunity to order prints...you may get direct orders from them...and they might well be much bigger orders than if they were made by the B&G for their family.

The same can apply for family and children's portraits. Grandparents will often be very willing to spend money on prints of their grand kids.

Of course, it's still good to have some face time with your primary clients. And you can use that time to sell custom products like albums etc.

 

[Alfred D.]

If by 'diginegs' (digital negatives) you mean your original RAW files, then you should never ever hand those over to third parties. It is almost an invitation to edit and print them themselves. And certainly technically possible.
In the film days a pro photog would also never ever hand over his/her negatives. Ever!

If you want to deliver proofs to the customer (couple) so that they can view them and select which they want and don't want printed, then deliver on-screen images of 800x600 or 1024x768 pixels max (at 72dpi). Those look good on-screen but are unprintable in practice (because they need to be scaled down to 25% to get photo quality prints, which is unusably small).

 

[*Mike*]

There are a lot of 'what ifs' about that...

Anytime you can proof in, and sell, in person you're better off. Wedding, families, seniors...

Proof in person, and then use the online gallery for supplemental orders. Get the primary order in first. The in-person session also offers the chance to upsell albums, or sell additional albums. )

We've actually switched to projected proofing, which has been incredible.

If by 'diginegs' (digital negatives) you mean your original RAW files, then you should never ever hand those over to third parties.

I really wish it was possible to get everyone onto the same page in terms of terminology. So many photogs call the files by different names. We're endlessly having to educate clients as to what they're buying, despite how things have been phrased by others.

Personally, I consider "digital negs" to be hi-res, printable images... typically in jpg format. But, for the reason above, we dropped use of the term entirely.

 

[visualpoetry]

I never hand out RAW files.. only JPEG images suitable for printing when a client purchases digital negatives. Yes, the term is used with a bunch of different meanings.. but I meant JPEG, hig res images.

I just added a proofing gallery to my webpage which should help. However, I still plan to offer the print proofs as well with my logo plastered on them.

Good call on sizing down the digital proofs. It's another option I will consider.

I appreciate everyone's input! Thanks so much.

 

[Alfred D.]

Good call on sizing down the digital proofs. It's another option I will consider.

You can fashion the proofs into a slide show (800x600 or 1024x768, max.) that you can personally present (on a laptop), as Big Mike advised, to your clients. (That's cheaper than proof prints too!) You could then leave a CD or DVD, with that slide show on it, behind so that they can pick and choose at their leisure which they want printed, and at what sizes, but they cannot do that themselves (from the slide show), ensuring the print orders will come back to you.
You can also post that slide show on the web for other wedding guests to order from.

Note:
don't go crazy with the soundtrack of the slide show! Add some pleasant, non-descript wedding music at low volume.

Note 2:
you have a title slide, with the names of the wedded couple, the date and the location, and the last slide of course lists the credits. A good opportunity for some modest, but unmissable self-advertising...