low resolution CDs

I haven't seen this anywhere else and I'm wondering what you all

think. I give a low resolution CD copy of images to the couple after

the wedding. What do you think about making several copies so they

can pass them on to their parents, friends and families to cull

orders? Is there something I'm missing from doing this? Do you

think they would be less likely order since they've already got a

copy, even though it's low resolution?

<i>"...even though it's low resolution..."</i>

 

<p>There are people who print and frame shots taken with their 0.2 megapixel cell phone

cameras.

 

<p>I'm not saying you shouldn't do it. Just know that non-photographers' quality

standards can be much lower than ours.

Kelly....i would suggest obtaining a program such as "Photoshop Elements" that will produce a web page automatically for you. You could burn that web page (HTML) layout onto a CD. The good thing about doing this is because you can copyright your photos in various ways, the resolution will only be 72dpi and anyone will be able to use their browser to view the images. I don't see anything wrong with doing this (it would be just like haveing a web page for them to view) but i would not offer origional jpegs or tiffs in any way.

I give a disk with 4X6 100dpi to the B&G when they pay 75%. Then it cost them just a bit more to complete the order.

 

I tell them that they can get 4X6 prints off the disk if they want with my blessings. For larger they need to come to me. Reprints are not a big for me so I don't care. I make on the main order.

 

Errol

DPI is a printer setting and is not part of a JPG, BMP, or GIF image that sits on a CD-ROM. You can select whatever DPI you want when you're ready to print provided the source image has enough data to "fulfill the print request."<p>

"<i>Do you think they would be less likely order since they've already got a copy, even though it's low resolution?"</i>

<br>Yes. Welcome to the digital world. Just figure that part in in your original price.

I will second the website idea. I post my shoots for the clients to see and share, but I

protect the images from being downloaded. They can order prints from the site, but they

can't get anything but thumbnails onto their hard drive without A LOT of work (I had a

computer science PhD friend try it, and it took him a little while to figure it out).

 

<p>I use <a href="http://www.smugmug.com/?

referrer=68jv8qv7EHg8w">smugmug.com</a> for my site, and they include all of these

features in their pro package ($100/year), along with unlimited hosting and plenty of

other goodies. It is pretty simple to use (much easier than building your own site). The

prints are quite good (and inexpensive enough that you can make a decent profit).

 

<p>I see a website as an opportunity to sell more prints, as all of the people who the link

is forwarded to are potential buyers.

 

<p>If you want to see an example of what I am talking about, check out my site at <a

href="http://www.adamweissphotography.com/">http://

www.adamweissphotography.com/</a>. Browse the galleries, try to download pictures,

try out the shopping cart, etc.

 

<p>I have been very happy with them so far. If you do decide to give them a try, I have a

discount code that I can post. I'm recommending them without it though, so this doesn't

seem like a sales pitch to get my few dollar credit for a referral.

What about a PDF? I don't have Photoshop in front of me right now, but I think it will create a PDF presentation, and you should be able to lock it so it can't be printed. You'd probably still need to use smallish images as they could capture the screen and print that, but the quality would be bad.

 

On the other hand, I'm not sure how many people would purchase prints if they could just pop a CD in their computer and look at the pictures.

One would only want to do it if, and only if, every low-res .jpg file had "Joe Smith Photography © 2005, All Rights Reserved" in text about one inch from bottom of each image. As noted above, anyone who can find a Fuji Frontier machine (i.e., Wal-mart) would be so happy to have a low-res file CD to print their 4x6s from....over and over again.

Adam, for what it's worth, your large jpgs are in the browser cache. Not exactly hard to copy. Personally, I hate right-click disabling. Do I get a PhD in computer science now? I'm only kidding.

<p><i>Browse the galleries, try to download pictures, try out the shopping cart, etc.</i></p>

 

<p>All right, I was going to resist the temptation but since you asked...here are three obvious ways to download the pictures (general ideas, not specific instructions, I'm not trying to help people that wouldn't already know how to do it):</p>

 

<ul>

<li>Turn off javascript. Right click to your heart's content.</li>

<li>View page source. Observe the URL the image is stored at, retrieve fom there.</li>

<li>Take screenshot, paste into Photoshop, crop, save</li>

</ul>

 

<p>Nonetheless I don't necessarily think setting up your web site that way is a bad idea. It probably deters the most casual downloaders and it notifies the others that you care about copyright infringement. But the fact remains that anyone really <i>relying</i> on some kind of technological countermeasure to prevent copying is wasting their time. People that care about quality will buy your prints; people that don't will get good enough copies with a flatbed scanner and inkjet printer, no matter what you do.</p>

 

<p>By the way, I completely believe that the CS PhD took a while to figure out one of the above. I work in a CS department and the professors know far less than the average sophomore about working around this kind of "inconvenience".</p>

MP - If you copyright protect them - those large JPEGS will have the copyright on them. In my case, it would have it running from the right corner to lower left corner. Not really usable for them at all. Now if you can find an easy way to remove that from the large JPEGS in a timly manner such that you could print it and frame it - you have my vote for a PHD. :)

Actually Mike, I thought the same thing but those first two options *don't* work. I couldn't resist the challenge either. I turned off Javascript (2 clicks with the Web Developer toolbar in Firefox) and tried right-click > save. The resulting file was a one-pixel transparent gif. Viewing source *does* get you the URL, but it's 'encoded' (alternately represented might be a better term). It's actually a surprisingly clever technique! Not perfect, but likely to deter a higher percentage of people trying to download the image than just disabling right-click.

 

But there's *always* the option to just do a screen capture.

I didn't mean to suggest that it would be extremely hard to retrieve the pictures from my

site. However, it is <i>hard enough</i> to thwart most people.

 

<p>To address most of the concerns Michael brought up:

 

<p>1. The javascript does not prevent right-clicking. It only warns you that the image is

copyrighted. In fact, the second right-click allows you to choose save. However, all you get

from a save operation is a blank GIF file.

 

<p>2. The page source does not show an obvious URL for the image. It shows the URL of

the blank spacer. The actual URL is there, but it is encoded in hex-code and layered below

other elements. It is possible to translate this, but well above the average user (or even

most power-users).

 

<p>3. Smugmug does auto-watermarking if desired. This would thwart screen grabs or

cache-surfing. I chose not to enable this feature because I wanted the photos unmarked.

 

<p>I know that people will copy my pictures if they <i>really</i> want to. There is no

way to stop that. In fact, I include a full-res JPEG with the order of an 8x10 because I know

people can scan that print and make good 4x6's to their hearts' content. That way, the

copies at least have a chance of reflecting will on my work.

 

<p>If I make it hard enough to get free copies, people will buy copies. I'm not terribly

concerned with the ~0.5% of people who have both the know-how and the desire to work

around my copy-protection.

 

<p>To Jammey: I can auto-watermark the small files on my site while leaving the originals

untouched for printing (and unavailable for download). Give the PhD to the tricky people at

smugmug.

Steven: I was typing my explanation as you replied. I'm glad you actually tried to do it. I

posted the link because I wanted to show that you can make it hard for people to get

copies. Even more importantly, it can be done by a novice website-owner because

someone else will do it for you!

It is common for folks to bring in " low resolution CDs " to print shops and wanting photos printed; posters made; images on coffee cups, mouse pads or t-shirts. . The majority of them are not watermarked; and are unlabeled CD's; of the unknown photographer; often wedding images. Since no attempt was made to define ownership; or mark the images; our attorney considers them to be abandoned; if we cannot tell what photographer shot them; and after a deligent set of calls. These are a photographers "gift to the couple" since watermarking or stamping prints wasnt used; ancient marking tools rarely used anymore. The tools are their to mark images; mark CD's; give clues as to the ownership; they are just rarely used; and considered old hat; too much trouble to do. Folks will take "their images" to print shops and want copies made. It is bizzare why folks hide from rework; or make no attempts to watermark; use a logo; or even a rubber stamp. The attorney calls it abandonment; the tools are there; photographers are just giving these images away.

<i>If you want to see an example of what I am talking about, check out my site at http:// www.adamweissphotography.com/. Browse the galleries, try to download pictures, try out the shopping cart, etc.

</i><p>

Adam, I have only a B.S. in Computer Science and found it trivially easy to "download" large images from your site. Sometimes even PhD's don't even know the simplest, common sense way to do things tangentially related to their field of expertise. If something appears on the Web anyone can obtain the image. You do good work however! Very nice with the eye.<br>

FYI... Ken.

Ken,

 

Here is the real question: Would someone else have found it trivial to retrieve the image,

or would it take someone with your expertise?

 

I'm not trying to keep people with any kind of CS degree (or any other deep technical

know-how) from getting my pictures. It's Uncle Matt who thinks he knows something

about computers (but is really just a slightly above-average user) who I am trying to deter.

Oh, and thank you for the complement. I'm just getting started in the pro photography

world, and encouragement is deeply appreciated.

 

Adam