Pro Photos And Watermarking

[Ashanali]

It has just happened to us a second time.

We used to have a frame that we put images in with our stamp on it. Clients never cropped the frame out but it looked quite bulky and cumbersome.

We then decided to stamp the corner of the images, which worked well.

We then decided to watermark across the image but we had too many clients contact us to have a look at images without the watermark as they had issues 'seeing through it'.

So we decided to go back to putting the stamp in the bottom corner. Now TWICE this month, we have had clients think that they could re-crop the photos and post them without the stamp.

Obvious issues are that these are proof photos and we still hold copyright, also by cropping the images they completley change the composition and alot of the images look bad - therefore it reflects poorly on us.

(the clients who have cropped the images have been contacted about it and that is fine).

Questions are:

what sort of stamp/watermark do you have?

Why did you choose that style?

Do you have issues with clients being able to view the image properly with your stamp/watermark?

Do you have issues with clients cropping out your watermark?

[rugerfly]

Thats annoying Ash. Do they pay for them first? are you talking about proofs etc?

[Ashanali]

They're taking them off the proofs.

We only sell a hi-res disc - NOT the copyright. This means that they can't alter the images in any way. We don't put logos on the hi-res images but they are on proof images.

It's just a pain in the butt.

[Hetzer]

The watermark across the image would have to be the best bet to protect your work - can't you make it more transparent to make it less distracting?

[rocco]

I did notice on your Flickr account that you can view all sizes on it. I am not sure if you care or not but you might want to change your setting so they cant grab it off your account.

But sorry cant help on the watermark. Must be very frustrating.

[Legacee]

I would just leave the water mark across the image but lighten it off a little more....

[chezzyr]

Not sure what you are using at the moment but when I do proofs I generate

them as sheets with photoshop and they are quite small :rolleyes:

Sometimes I will stamp them with "proof only" and sometimes I won't.

It is so easy for people to copy/use images that are a decent size eg postcard

size or bigger - why ever would they want to bother to PAY the photographer

for their work???

Do you include any copyright information/requirements when you issue proofs?

So many people think if its out there it can be downloaded and used at will.

The symbol © means nothing to a lot of people

[chezzyr]

OT - You say you sell hi res discs - how do you get on with people printing your fine work on dodgy home printers?

Does that concern you? Again, the results reflect on the photographer.

[kja]

Clients have their own galleries and the word PROOF is across the middle of every image, but faded. You can see what I do by going in to the client log in area of my site and hitting any of the galleries. The client can see more than enough detail to determine if that image is what they want to have printed.

For blogging and the like I use the bar with my logo, name and web site - just like I post here.

[Ashanali]

OT - You say you sell hi res discs - how do you get on with people printing your fine work on dodgy home printers?

Does that concern you? Again, the results reflect on the photographer.

When people purchase hi-res discs, they do so on the understanding that we recommend professional printers only. We also tell people who we would prefer. We let them know that printing anywhere is means that we won't guarantee the quality of the image.

Have only had one smart ar$3 come back and say, "I tried doing it myself and they're really bad... what was the place you recommended again?"

Also, we don't generally sell hi-res without an album purchase... (when dealing with weddings). The album quality speaks for itself so if they get crap prints after getting their album. They will notice the difference.

kja - we have a full watermark on proof disc also but this is where we get complaints. Even with it faded to 10%.

Chezzy - we have a proof book for easy access of file names but the images are only thumbnail size (as they also get the disc). It would be great if we could print out each photo with 'proof' across it but when it's sometimes 1000 photos it gets a bit expensive.

rocco - I actually don't mind if people go to flickr and grab their photos. I think there are only a few files that I accidentally uploaded at full size (d'oh!). Most files I have at flickr are just a bit bigger than proofing size and would only print to a 2x3 inch print without loss of quality. People are free to grab the files - I just want to make sure our name is on them and stays on them! Every little bit of branding helps!

grrrr.... people suck sometimes.

[kja]

I dunno then, mine is only faded to 30% or so I think.

Maybe just explain why it's there more clearly and make sure to make a point of explaining it at the time of booking when you talk about how they will view the images? I let them know at the first contact that proof images are marked with PROOF and everyone seems groovy with it so far.

[Ashanali]

I dunno then, mine is only faded to 30% or so I think.

Maybe just explain why it's there more clearly and make sure to make a point of explaining it at the time of booking when you talk about how they will view the images? I let them know at the first contact that proof images are marked with PROOF and everyone seems groovy with it so far.

We usually do explain it this is what has us perplexed In all these years, it hasn't happened to us and now it's happened twice in the last month. I guess we're just lucky.

But yes, Alex and I talked about it earlier and we are going to make sure that explaining the proofs is now made as an explicit point.

[rubiton]

I watermark everything that goes out without being purchased. The watermark is done in photoshop as per below

They want it without they have to buy it and they will get a high res image up to 1mb emailed. That will print out to 4x6 or even 5x7 but after that will look ordinary.

Proofs posted out are usually 20 to a page thru photoshop - sometimes one off up to 12 to a page but optherwise emailed. If they cannot decide with the watermark mark they either want a free unmarked copy or are too picky (I havent had a problem with this though but my customers would also see others photographers work also watermarked)

[kja]

They want it without they have to buy it and they will get a high res image up to 1mb emailed. That will print out to 4x6 or even 5x7 but after that will look ordinary.

Be careful assuming this. I've had images that were WAY less than 1MB published and printed them 8x12 and they came up far far nicer than I expected. I've seen four of my larger files (still under 1MB by a good margin) - before I started putting up 100kb or so size - printed to 8x12 from a discount lab (Walmart in this case) and there's just nothing wrong with them at all.

The printers are getting better and better and good paper is becoming more common in "consumer" labs and in personal homes. Now, the longevity of these prints remains to be seen and prints from a pro lab still have that certain something that makes them stand out...but ...

[Ashanali]

We can compress 12 x 16 inch files to 400kb and still print to an acceptable quality.

Proof sizes on a disc are usually 6 x 9 inch, 72 DPI saved at jpg 5. the few images from each wedding that I post to flickr or facebook are 12 x 8inch, 72 dpi at jpg quality 5.

Having worked in a lab, I know how these print up. The smaller proofs look horrible. The larger ones will work as a wallet size print only. Any bigger and they start to lose quality.

I now tell all clients the story of a well known award winning Sydney photographer. He did a very high priced wedding and due to the amount the clients spent, they had their hi-res disc included.

So the groom went around to all his family, told them to choose the images they wanted and quoted the prices from the professional photographer. The groom then went to Big W and had them printed from the disc and presented them to his family saying they were professionally printed by the photographer.

Well, the mother of the groom wasn't impressed with the quality and ended up telling anyone and everyone who would listen about the horrible print quality produced by xxx photographer. Still the groom didn't own up to what he had done.

Soon the photographer lost three confirmed bookings... it was only on the third one that the couple were honest and told the photographer why they were pulling out, "we've heard that what you see in the studio is different to the quality we actually receive, thanks but no thanks". After some more questioning they told him where they had heard this.

The photographer contacted the groom and STILL he wouldn't admit to printing the photos and saying the photographer did it. The photographer had no choice but to sue the couple and also the mother for loss of business. (remember, he was a high priced photographer - three weddings would likely be about $25,000 + profit ).

It was only when it went to court that the groom finally came clean. The photographer was awarded damages from both the mother and the groom.

We tell this story to clients, then tell them our preferred printers (btw - having worked in mini-labs, you would be surprised at the quality that a well run and maintained mini-lab can produce. I worked in 2 awesome labs and one crappy one. I would get small jobs printed in the good labs in a heartbeat). This story is effective so far because it reminds clients that they have something to lose if they don't listen to the advice of the photographer.

[rugerfly]

What a shit fight