alex_matus

FInd out what the projector accepts? For example, does it require jpegs? What DPI does it recommend? Also, how does the projector input the files? Finally, you have to try it out before the show to make sure you have the process down to avoid being embarrassed when it does not work for some reason when everyone is there.

Thank you for your reply. Projector is Benq 2050a with Native Full HD 1080p resolution

HI, I am trying to scan 20 year old negatives for a show.

I have 35m negatives and just bought a scanner.

The show will be a digital media display. I will have the photos displayed through a Projector on to a wall.

The scanner setting are asking me for to identify setting / sizes:

DPI

PPI

Resolution

Can you give me your input based on how I want to display the photos what the settings should be?

Thanks for your input.............

Alex

HI, I have never done this before, but I have a show coming up, and I have 20 years old 35 m negatives.

So I need to scan them.

The saner is asking me

1. DPI?

2. PPI

3. Resolution

I have two rolls one is color, the other is b & w. I will have a Digital show, meaning after I scan the photos, they will be displayed via a projector onto a large wall.

Please let me know what the setting should be for scanning.

Thank you in advance for your input

Kind Regards

Alex

In my previous response, I posted links to a couple of ''Best Lightroom alternatives" lists. I've browsed through the lists and clicked on a couple of links. To my mind, both On1 Photo RAW and DxO PhotoLab look interesting, mature, and well worth trying out. This is not to say that others in the lists may suit you better. Just that the On1 Photo RAW and DxO PhotoLab 'software brands' have been considered reputable brands for many years. It's also clear that they've both come a very long way from their humble beginnings as 'RAW image processing software'! Just an additional note on 'organizing': Lightroom is known for it's wide range of 'organizing features'. But the amount of 'organizing' you want to do depends a lot on the type of photography you do and how you store your photos. I have for years transferred all my photos from my camera or cell phone into one photography folder that is subdivided into years. Each year is further subdivided into months and each 'photo import' creates a date-specific folder within a month folder. So my 'structure' is chronological. An alphabetical or subject-based structure is equally good. Whatever the 'folder structure', it helps if this is visible and usable in the software as it is in Lightroocan find a group of photos just by clicking on a year/month folder. An equivalent technique would be to search on meta-data (shooting date) between data ranges. I do find 'rating' and filtering on 'ratings' very useful! My usual 'process is to browse imported photos in any folder and 'rate' them. It doesn't really make much difference to me whether the software provides for 3 or 5 ratings. I only use 3: lowest: good enough (candidate), middle (good). high (best). Any unrated photos (not good enough), I usually delete. I should add that when rating, I'm not only looking at the photo 'as is' (straight out of the camera) but I also consider the potential photo after further post-processing (cropping, adjustments, etc.) Lightroom has a construct called a 'catalog' to which you can import certain photos. In principle, individual photos can be in multiple catalogs. I use the construct mainly for separating out the different photos I take for various voluntary organizations and for specific projects from my 'personal photos'. Any software that allows users to assign keywords to groups of photos and select photos on these keywords would work just as well as separate 'catalogs'. I basically just want to find photo's that I took for organization or project x in 2020 (or whatever). There are just one or two occasions per year when I do larger 'projects' that result in 1000 - 3000 'burst shots'. Keywording and rating help me bring some order into this vast number of shots. In Lightroom, I often use color-coding (as a visual keyword) to distinguish between different sections of an 'event'. But keywords would work just as well. My point is just that 'organizing' can apply to photos taken over a longer timeline (years) or a short timeline (1 day). If you're a frequent contributor to the 'No words' forum, then keywords could help you quickly find photos that correspond to multiple topics.:) I always have to rack my brains to remember in which year/month I took a certain photo that matches a 'No Words' topic! A last point: One of the main reasons why previous Lightroom users have switched to an alternative is IMHO because of Adobe's 'subscription pricing model' introduced a few years back. Since then, consumers can't 'buy' either Lightroom or Photoshop as a product for a one-time payment. They can only sign up to one of Adobe 'subscription plans ' that allows them to use one or more products. Unless someone makes regular use of Photoshop (included with Lightroom in the 'Photography plan'), a subscription just to use Lightroom is very expensive! At least $10-$12 p.m. Let us know how you get on with your trials and evaluations of software. Don't hesitate to post additional questions or observations. I personally hope that this thread will become more of an ongoing 'conversation' than a one-off 'ask a question, get some tips' thread. I for one am interested in learning from your experience in trying out a couple of software packages. I'll post a link to this thread in the 'Digital Darkroom'' forum. Perhaps post-processing enthusiasts have something to add.

As @conrad_hoffman says, it depends on what you want to do.

 

The main areas of functionality that I use a lot are:

a) organizing: cataloging, rating, selection, keywording, etc.

b) 'global adjustments' to exposure, contrast, white balance, etc

c) importing and exporting images in different file formats and sizes

 

Less often:

d) much more detailed and refined (local) adjustments, edits and filters that I can build up in "layers" and apply in different intensities and blending modes and with different 'masks'

 

For a), b) and c), I use Adobe Lightroom (where I can apply all filters too). For d), I use Photoshop. An important point for me is 'non-destructive editing' so that I can go back and adjust my edits to an image that I've saved. This is one of Lightroom's main features - the trail of 'adjustments' is saved in the Lightroom catalog, leaving the original image file unchanged. Photoshop too, enables a way of working (in layers, using "masks") so that saved files can be adjusted later.

 

I tried Affinity Photo some years ago and I liked it. I'm sure the product has come a long way since then. At the time, the main reason why I decided to stay with Adobe was that I couldn't find a really good alternative to Lightroom. And I liked the 'seamless integration' between Lightroom and Photoshop.

 

Times have changed since then so it's worth making a list of what you want to do with software and comparing different products. My guess is that different products have relative strengths and weaknesses in one or more of the areas above. Here are some links that might help:

 

- Best Lightroom alternatives of 2022 (Techradar)

- 10 Top Alternatives to Adobe Lightroom Classic (Photography.Tutsplus.com)

- Photoshop vs Affinity Photo (educba.com)

Thank you. This is very helpful

Depends on what you want to do. "Easy" is great until you realize it won't do what needs to be done, but you probably don't want a huge learning curve either. IMO, they all have a learning curve. Budget? I like Affinity Photo. It's inexpensive and powerful. There are all sorts of free choices like Irfanview and paint.net. Luminar is pretty good for a lot of things. Almost everything has a free demo or 30 day trial. Try some!

Thank you, very helpful.

Can anyone recommend a good easy to use software for photography except Photoshop?

Thank you

There are lots of possible answers to this one. Some people will crop out the watermark, depending on how critical that area of the image is. So in that case, maybe a lower res file would do. Perhaps apply a heavier compression so that it looks okay on a mobile device, but not so great when printed.

 

If it's on a website only, you can protect the image behind an invisible layer of a lower quality version of that image. So that when someone wants to download the image, they're getting the lower quality version. Or, you can divide it into multiple strips, so that you can't just download the whole file with one action.

My question is: Is putting a watermark on a photo enough for someone not to print it or replicate it as their own? Or do I also need to make the resolution smaller?

Cheers

Alex

Ahh thank you. I did hit contact it did not take me anywhere. No email or phone number. But I am happy to know its not just my account.

Thank you Fred.

I been with them for over 17 years, all of the sudden my photos are not showing. Does anyone know how to contat them?

This is the first time I am trying.

Kind Regards

Alex

Easy. Find photos similar to yours and see how much they are going for. If you think your's are better, price them a little higher. Look for what the market is paying for it and price accordingly.

Thank you for your input. A very good idea :)) Simple and to the point.

Thank you WW,

I see you point. I spoke to the organization, they not willing to do an email blast to thousands of their followers. Do to their privacy laws. I asked. They are willing to promote me on their social media. I need to find out the traffic. I also clearly understand your point about limited edition, makes sense. This will be my first run, so I dont want to price the prints to high. In order to see how many will actually sell. However, you brought up an interesting point, I might offer limited time ( say 3 months). This way i can create another photo shoot after that time. I also can see what the response will be.

If you say it is a limited edition, then it must really be a limited edition. New York, among other states, has laws about this and you must keep records and be able to document that you have only made the number that you say you are going to make. The argument for limiting an edition is that you have created scarcity by stating that there will only be a fixed number of prints and therefore can justify a higher price. If you think that you can potentially sell thousands of prints of an image then you may choose not to limit the edition since the initial buyers may profit from future resale of a now more valuable print due to scarcity. To be blunt, unless your name is Paul Strand, Edward Weston or Ansel Adams this probably won't happen. To be clear, I don't mean to cast any aspersions on the quality or value of your photographs, but I do mean to point out the realities of the market place, which are that there is a limited demand for photographic prints from any but the most famous (and usually dead) photographers. I wish it wasn't true, but in my experience it is. Back to your original question--for fundraising purposes, a lot of lower priced prints will probably raise more money than fewer expensive ones, but that is something that the fundraising people from the organization you're working with should have some knowledge of. They should have a good idea of who their donors are and the size of usual donations, which might be a good start on figuring out what kind of printing method to use, quantities, etc.

HI AJG,

Thank you for your valuable input. That is what I gathered. My name is not Pal Strand or Edward Weston, unfortunately. Limited editions are great but I am no where near them. It was a good idea though. Unfortunately non-profit can not help me with this issue at hand. Its is completely up to me and good people like yourself to decide how to prices the prints. For now I am thinking in or around $99 dollars for a standard print 10 x 18. ,

If you think like that, then you are behind the eight-ball before you start and likely you will never succeed in realizing your goal..

 

You want to sell prints on line to raise money for a good cause...

 

Consider making each print a LIMITED RUN (200 is a good number) and guarantee destruction of the image file: and triple or quintriple the price that you have already thought of.

 

You are already an established "sold" artist - $1000 for a photo - Advertise that as a fact.

 

Only release a selection of a few prints at any one time and keep an update on the number remaining before the destruction of the image file.

 

As Charles mentioned get them printed - make sure that they are excellent display quality and package them well and ensure prompt delivery.

 

Apart from the cost of printing, packing and posting (which you would have anyway) - the only additional effort required is presenting yourself as professional, successful and worthy of the asking price ... before the limited edition ends.

 

WW

WW,

Thank you for your input, it is much appreciated. Its a great thought. If this fund raiser works out, will limited edition wont actually limit the number of prints I can sell?

I was pondering on this idea as well. IF I sell the photos for say $100 to $150 per print depends on the size, in unlimited number. Verses selling he print for $250 - $350 limited edition. Yes fewer buyers but the cost per print is more. Will that not limit the the number of prints I can sell? And will that not limit the fund raiser itself? The presentation and who I am as a photographer is not an issue. I can present my bio, including the 9/11 photos that are in the Memorial Museum in NY. But the cost per print still stands. What would you charge per print? Limited edition verses non limited?

Kind Regards

Alex

If you are going to sell thousands or even hundreds of prints, you need to have them printed by offset lithography, because even a few minutes per print will add up to way too much time.

Thank you for you input.

Thanks

When I sold prints of my landscape photos, I typically charged $150 for a matted, framed, 10 X 15 archival print in a 16 X 20 frame. I based that price on the fact that, at the time, it cost me about $40 to produce such print ($20 frame, $8 ink, $12 paper and mat board and mounting materials).

When I sold prints of my landscape photos, I typically charged $150 for a matted, framed, 10 X 15 archival print in a 16 X 20 frame. I based that price on the fact that, at the time, it cost me about $40 to produce such print ($20 frame, $8 ink, $12 paper and mat board and mounting materials).

Thank you for your input. These photos will be sold online. The idea is to sell prints only, I do not believe we will be framing them as well. Simply the fun raiser will be done online, and it could be into thousands of prints ( or we hope that it will ). IF we start framing them as well, we will simply run out money, since most of the budget will be spend to market online. Or do you think we should frame them as well?

again. Yes you are right, the more people I speak to in the business the more I understand that everyone sets up their prices accordi

Alex, I hope that you get some additional input from others here--but obviously there is no 'magic formula' for figuring prices on any sort of art. At the aforementioned program I attended, this question was asked of each of the very talented and nationally known facilitators/presenters--and the answer was that"it varies." :confused:

 

Anyone else care to chime in on this?

Papa Tango,

You are an inspiration with your input. Thank you for you detailed response its much appreciated. . I will check all of the websites you mentioned and all tine info you provided.

I can then can make some sort of a decision. I feel as if I am all ALONE in this process an no one really can give me an answer, understandably so.

Thank you again, you gave me a base to start with.

Yours Truly,

Photographer at work :))

ALex

This is a mystical art! One cannot equate a selling price derived from a charitable fundraiser auction with 'regular' production and sales channels. People will spend LOTS of money supporting a cause--and not necessarily having anything to do with the pecuniary worth of your art. I recently had one 'slow moving' print go for $450 at a domestic violence shelter fundraiser--the same print would normally retail for $90-100 (13x19 size in 18x24"conservation matte).

 

Consider this a very 'regional' pricing schema. I just completed a Creative-Arts/NYSCA professional development program, and we wrestled with this matter for three months. There is gallery pricing, venue pricing, and online pricing. Each will vary according to where one is within a region--large cities bear a greater price than locations in 'flyover country.' Here are a few tips though:

 

• Look at Etsy for artists producing similar content to yours. Average some prices together per print size. This is your bottom line price.
  
• Check local venues--custom decorating outlets and galleries. Average the price.
  
• Unless you are recognized, gallery price does not matter. And whatever prices you see--remain aware that the gallery is taking 30-40% of the cost for their services.
  

Consult your Ouija board, and make sure that your costs and time are properly covered. You can go with your arrived at 'normal' cost, or choose something incrementally up to double that cost--just because it is for fundraising purposes and people will pay for that consideration...

This is a mystical art! One cannot equate a selling price derived from a charitable fundraiser auction with 'regular' production and sales channels. People will spend LOTS of money supporting a cause--and not necessarily having anything to do with the pecuniary worth of your art. I recently had one 'slow moving' print go for $450 at a domestic violence shelter fundraiser--the same print would normally retail for $90-100 (13x19 size in 18x24"conservation matte).

 

Consider this a very 'regional' pricing schema. I just completed a Creative-Arts/NYSCA professional development program, and we wrestled with this matter for three months. There is gallery pricing, venue pricing, and online pricing. Each will vary according to where one is within a region--large cities bear a greater price than locations in 'flyover country.' Here are a few tips though:

 

• Look at Etsy for artists producing similar content to yours. Average some prices together per print size. This is your bottom line price.
  
• Check local venues--custom decorating outlets and galleries. Average the price.
  
• Unless you are recognized, gallery price does not matter. And whatever prices you see--remain aware that the gallery is taking 30-40% of the cost for their services.
  

Consult your Ouija board, and make sure that your costs and time are properly covered. You can go with your arrived at 'normal' cost, or choose something incrementally up to double that cost--just because it is for fundraising purposes and people will pay for that consideration...

Hello to everyone,

I have been a part time photographer for many years. I do know how to charge say for couple of hours of a photo-shoot. I do NOT know how to price a photo. Lets say its an art photo. I was asked to raise money for a good cause for a non profit. They asked me what is the price of your photos? I have no idea how to price them. My audience will be online and of course we want to raise as much funds as we can. I have donated few photos before that went at the auction for $800 to $1000 a piece. But I do not think that even for a good cause people will pay that much per photo.

So how do I price a photo?

Please help............ All your ideas, comments and input is welcomed.

Thank you.

Alex

<p>Jeff and Charles again thank you for your input. Based on your previous suggestions is why i am doing this. The Museum emailed me today and are certainly interested in making the photos part of the collection. </p>

<p>Again my hat of to you guys. </p>

<p>Kind Regards</p>

<p>Alex Matus</p>

<p>Hi ,</p>

<p>How does one go about creating copy rights for photos? <br>

<br />And does anyone know how long does the process takes? </p>

<p>Thank you for your help</p>

<p>Alex</p>