Resolution size of images for Proof CD resolution so that client can enlarge greater than 4x6?

Discussion in 'Wedding and Event' started by jessica_sims, Jul 3, 2008.

  1. Thanks for taking the time to read this post. Any advice would be very welcome.

    A client has asked for a proof CD for 4x6 images of their wedding. Normally I sell prints only however I have
    negotiated a good price.

    My problem lies in the resolution of the images that I will give them. I don't want to give them images at 300
    dpi as I fear they will enlarge them and thus lessen the likely hood that they will spend more money on
    enlargements of said prints.

    What resolution would you recommend to give them a nice 4x6 print but not offer them any hope at a decent 5x7 or
    larger? After all the price I negotiated wasn't that good ;)

    Thanks,
    Jessica
     
  2. Do you object to watermarking the images?
     
  3. You have to give a good quality print if you are selling it to her.... yes that is the risk we take that they get enlarged and scanned... you might want to put your studio name in the corner of every print.... and even write a professional letter reminding her of the copyright laws...

    If you give her prints of poor quality it might reflect badly on your studio if they get around to other potential clients....

    Some labs offer a rough finish layer on the 4x6's ( i think fullcolor.com and/ h&h lab) for .10 cents each additional print and this gives for a horrible scanned print.... i've even heard clients relate back to me "i tried to scan the print and it came out really poorly, do you know why?" and then i had to gently explain the copyright law to them....
     
  4. If they can get a good print at 4x6, they're not likely to hesitate for settling for just an OK print at 8x10, 11x14, or larger. If you're going to sell the images I would suggest a hi-res file. You can only control just so much......
     
  5. I agree with David. Photographers are going to have to revise their product. I do a number of weddings and events where the cd with hi res files is the product. Many clients are jjpg savvy and can create their own hard copies. We will still need to offer albums for those who want. We changed to digital so now is the time to embrace it.
     
  6. I include high resolution files for my clients as part of the up-front investment. I would rather have them obtain an
    enlargement off of those files rather than using a low resolution file or scanning proofs.

    The only print orders I do now are the greater than 8/10 sizes.
     
  7. Using Irfranview's Information screen, a 100 DPI 640x480 should yeild basically a 4x6 print. All you can do is try it and see how it works. Create a file and take it down to your local do-it-yourself photo machine and have a 4x6 and a 5x7 made of it, and see if that works for you.
     
  8. Re What resolution would you recommend to give them a nice 4x6 print but not offer them any hope at a decent 5x7

    With enlarging; there is never going to be a "NO HOPE" image and a "NICE" image when the "NO HOPE" is only 5/4 larger than the "NICE" image; whether on clay tablet; film or digital! :)
     
  9. Thank you for your responses. I appeciate all of you taking the time to share your expertise :) JS
     
  10. Always >>> 300 dpi ... 8x12 crop - -20+ meg files
     
  11. Our "proof CD" is for digital proofing only, not for making proof prints, and images are 400x600 pixels at 72ppi with
    our copyright on the bottom right corner of every image.

    We have provided "medium res" images sized 4x6 inches at 180dpi. I'm sure a person would still go on and print it
    out at 5x7 or larger, even if it resulted in a slightly poorer quality.

    If the purpose of this disc is to allow your client to print out a proof, then you could test out different resolutions using
    a simple inkjet printer. Just go with the lowest dpi that you find acceptable.

    Also, I gotta ask! If the couple wanted digital files for printing 4x6s, why not just sell them 4x6 paper proofs instead
    With them asking for digital files, I would not put it past them to try to make bigger prints than what you've agreed to.


    And IMO, photographers should never have started giving away hi-res image files. The only reason so many clients
    expect to get
    digital files now is because of all the Uncle Bobs and budget shoot-and-burn photographers who give them away as if
    all they are worth is the cost of the disc they've been burned on.

    If all
    photographers set the standard that hi-res image files, reprint licenses, and image copyrights are valuable
    commodities and are
    therefore not available for free (or with budget-priced packages) then expectations would change and
    the industry could once again be an esteemed industry where good pro photographers would be able to earn
    better livings, and not so good photographers would go out of business...which is precisely the reason why
    this giving away the
    digital files thing will never stop. Even if pro photographers banded together to set a new standard of not providing free
    or low-cost
    digital files, amateurs would keep the industry down by providing them free willy-nilly.

    Sorry about the rant, but I just feel that the industry has really shot itself in the foot with this trend of "included digital
    files". BTW Rangefinder had a good article on this subject 2 issues back. Obviously studios have to do whatever it
    takes to keeps them afloat, even if that means competing with lower standards. Doesn't mean it isn't a shame,
    though. We're artists for pete's sake! :) Ok, end rant.
     
  12. As everything in this world - evolution - is expected in every business and we shouldn't complain about what others can do. Nowadays everybody can have a good (acceptable for at least 8x10 high quality images), so shooting a wedding is not longer an exclusive task for “professional photographers”, and film is phasing out (not for everybody), so digital is the main choice today.

    People takes pictures to record their precious moments but sharing is a huge part of the reason why people had prints in the film era.

    Now with the internet and digital cameras, Facebook, Shutterbug, Kodak gallery, Picasa, or any other online photo sharing service are becoming the principal tool where your photos will be posted, and we won’t be able to stop that, probably photographers (we) will have to change the way to market the product, or people will start to shoot themselves (or with a friend that has a good camera) just to have the freedom to print and post and share all the photos without a moral restriction imposed by the photographer or the copyright laws. Anyway, that was their wedding not ours (that’s what the customer may think)

    Not selling a CD or DVD with high quality negatives will be like not selling a movie DVD because it can be copied. What we need is a Fair price on it, and that will depend on the quality of the work, not in the pixel count of the files.

    If you are interested in some marketing analysis, you could google “Kano Analysis” and you will see there are basically four types of customer needs, or reactions to product characteristics / attributes:
    1. The 'Surprise & Delight' factors. These really make your product stand out from the others. Example, a CD/DVD with High Resolution files.
    2. The 'More is Better'. E.g. High Amount of photos with high quality.
    3. The 'must be' things. Without this, you'll never sell the product. E.g. Photos of the important parts of the ceremony.
    4. Finally, there are the 'dissatisfiers', the things that cause your customers not to like your product. E.g. really bad quality shoots or that you couldn’t or lost the photos due to equipment failure, etc.

    So evolution means that todays “Surprise & Delight” factors will becomes “More is better” tomorrow, and “more is better” as “Must Be”. So its our job to find new Surprise & Delight factors to stay competitive in the business every day.

    That what we ask to Camera manufactures, and no surprise if customers ask us the same.

    Regards, JUAN
     

Share This Page