limiting photo size on cd

<p>I am wanting to limit the reproduction size to 5x7 or 8x10 on some images I am putting on CD for a customer. I am not wanting to give him full resolution so he can do just anything with the photos. They are to be used for producing his holiday cards for example. What parameters do I set for jpg size with that in mind? Is there a general rule of thumb for this problem? Thanks. Steve</p>

<p>If your customer intends to make quality prints at 8x10, that means (roughly) 300 pixels per inch, or 300 x 8 (2400) by 300 x 10 (3000) pixels. If you give him a 2400 x 3000 pixel image, and they decide to try printing it at 11 x 14 or even 16 x 20, those larger prints might actually come out quite well, depending on the nature of the image, the printer, the paper, and the intended display method and viewing distance.<br /><br />If you only hand over 5 x 7 files at that same resolution (those would be 1500 x 2100 pixels - just do the math), that might not lend itself as well to larger prints. It really comes down to how fussy the person is, and whether they'll put up with nice, but not great looking larger prints. <br /><br />Once you have comitted to giving them print-worthy image files on a CD, you're totally at the mercy of things beyond your control.</p>

<p>The best way to control how a client uses your photos is through a contract and license agreement. Check out John Harrington's book "Best Business Practices for Photographers" for some examples of both.</p>

<p>There is almost nothing mechanical/electronic you can do to prevent someone from making big prints, even if they aren't very good. I have been able to make 8 X 10 prints, though not very good, from 600 X 800 pixel photos from my gallery on PN.</p>

<p><Chas></p>

<p>Thanks for the responses... I am very supportive of the contract method of controling reproduction; that said, real world is, people WILL scan/copy etc my work to their own ends. I would rather have my work out there looking good rather than the client showing off poor copies or scans. Seems like most of my clients are not very computer literate and don't know how to enhance the images they get on CD. I just wanted something to make it a little more difficult to reproduce the images to a larger size. Both points you guys brought up are good and I agree with them. Not sure what the solution is to prevent people from making copies other than not giving them the CD to start with. And that is problematic as well. Again, thanks for your considerations.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I would rather have my work out there looking good rather than the client showing off poor copies or scans</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is, <em>if they credit you at all.</em></p>

<p>People will make any size print they want and blame you if the quality is poor. You can't control it by giving them small files. A license might not stop it, either, but if they've been told explicitly and in writing that they have no right to enlarge further, maybe...just maybe...they won't.</p>

<p>KD: <em>"People will make any size print they want and blame you if the quality is poor."</em></p>

<p>My experience is that if you send clients a file that's quite small, say, 500 pixels in the longer dimension, it will look perfectly fine in a browser (especially with a bit of final sharpening after downrezing to 500px), but it will be clear to even the most untrained eye that prints from that file look horrible. </p>

<p>When they discover this, I usually get an email along the lines of, "something's wrong with that file, can you send it to me again". In other words, they are already convinced there is nothing wrong with the picture or my abilities as a photographer, it's just a problem with the file that they have.</p>

<p>At that point, I point out that our agreement was only for copies suitable for use on the web, but I'll be happy to send higher rez version(s) for an additional fee. At that point, I usually get a response like, "Oh, that's right. You warned me about that."</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

<p> </p>