High res digital copies or prints?

[dirtee1]

Hello, I'm just curious to know what your policies are on this. Do you provide your clients with full resolution soft copies, or withhold them to sell prints instead? Your reason for either choice?

--

'Life is not measured by how many breaths you take, but by how many moments that take your breath away.' - A friend

 

[LiveM]

I don't provide full-res images in most situations.

Reasons include:

1) I can't sign a photo if I don't print it.
2) Printing uses different file types than digital display.

3) Anything larger than 400x600 for a portrait-orientated image is inappropriate for online use as it is too large for most people to view it on their screens.
4) I can't verify print results if I don't print it.

5) People that want prints will order them. People that don't want to order prints will never order them. There's simply no other reason not to order them.

 

[5D Monster]

I offer both,

Normally I do an image only package (common with weddings) and a print/album package.

I do NOT sell loose prints, but I will sell images, for portraits I charge a $200 sitting fee, then charge $130 per image (double the sell price of an 8"x12" photo) .

Depending on the client, they will normally buy finished prints either framed or in al album. If they want images only, I dont do special affects for the, I only colour correct and hand over the disk.

WHY, basically in giving the client the choice they are free to byu what suits them best. I am also able to target different customers this way. Each is individual and has their own needs.

Hello, I'm just curious to know what your policies are on this. Do
you provide your clients with full resolution soft copies, or
withhold them to sell prints instead? Your reason for either choice?

--
'Life is not measured by how many breaths you take, but by how many
moments that take your breath away.' - A friend

--

http://notsharing.anymore.tired.of.the.abuse.com

 

[5D Monster]

I don't provide full-res images in most situations.

Reasons include:

1) I can't sign a photo if I don't print it.

Why do you sign your prints? thats very 1980...

2) Printing uses different file types than digital display.

thats a new one, care to explain???

3) Anything larger than 400x600 for a portrait-orientated image is
inappropriate for online use as it is too large for most people to
view it on their screens.

So you say, you dont know what software or computer screens your clients have. They may even be computer literate enough to resize to best suit their screen, Oh the humanity!!!

4) I can't verify print results if I don't print it.

and when your client scans your print, you cant verify the results there either, and yes the will scan your prints...

5) People that want prints will order them. People that don't want to
order prints will never order them. There's simply no other reason
not to order them.

sounds like double dutch to me. The client buys or they dont... be in prints or images, they book you for SOME reason... people just dont book a photographer to buy NOTHING...

--

http://notsharing.anymore.tired.of.the.abuse.com

 

[vwgn]

I offer both for my youth sports photos, i sell the files pretty cheap, with release for purchaser to reprint for personal use only. the price of the digital file is about 1.5x what I charge for an 8x10, so in my mind they are getting a super deal, and i am getting alot more profit than on an 8x10 print alone.

that being said, I have sold 2 digital files this year and about 200 prints. and no one that ordered prints ordered a file. I am going to see how the files go thru football season and if the ratio doesnt change i am going to quit offering them just because it doesnt make sense and clutters the menu.

I think most people who are out to purchase photos, want just that. weddings seem to be a different story, since that is likely to be a couple thousand dollar photo purchase, but with sports, parents dont seem to mind spending money to have a print so they dont have to go to a lab etc and hassle with it. Fine by me, i have more control that way, but honeslty Im flattered I even sell my work.

Just an observation from my buisness, your results may vary (hopefully better!)! lol

 

[riddell]

Depends on the client.

Very roughly though, professional clients - magazines, retailers, designers etc. get CDs, simple because that is what they need. The images will be printed in another manner. i.e. magazine, catalogue, flyers etc.

Non-professional clients, i.e. portraits, weddings etc. Get prints because that is what they need, and unlike a professional client, I don't trust a lot of them to print their own prints to a standard that reflects the quality of my photography.

 

[LiveM]

I don't provide full-res images in most situations.

Reasons include:

1) I can't sign a photo if I don't print it.

Why do you sign your prints? thats very 1980...

I know you're a newbie but you'll have to do better than that.

2) Printing uses different file types than digital display.

thats a new one, care to explain???

Got Photoshop??

3) Anything larger than 400x600 for a portrait-orientated image is
inappropriate for online use as it is too large for most people to
view it on their screens.

So you say, you dont know what software or computer screens your
clients have. They may even be computer literate enough to resize to
best suit their screen, Oh the humanity!!!

Of course I know. In fact, many times the users won't know, only I. But it makes no difference as to what is the best size to provide the images, as they have to suit a number of different users looking from different machines.

4) I can't verify print results if I don't print it.

and when your client scans your print, you cant verify the results
there either, and yes the will scan your prints...

Unlikely, but irrelevant. They already have the proper print.

5) People that want prints will order them. People that don't want to
order prints will never order them. There's simply no other reason
not to order them.

sounds like double dutch to me. The client buys or they dont... be in
prints or images, they book you for SOME reason... people just dont
book a photographer to buy NOTHING...

That's right. So there is no reason for them not to order prints through me.

 

[Richard Katris]

why sign prints? very 1980s?

REPUTATION word of mouth sells, but only if the people know who took the photos. Signing indicates also a pride in your work...also reflects well when viewed by prospective clients.

No signature...no reputation to build upon.

I have clients who remind me (as if I wouldn't!) to sign the photos because they want my name on the pictures.

Google my work with "photo by Chanan" ... see what you find. LOTS of stuff....without the signature most of that wouldn't be there. If you want to build a reputation signing is about the best way to do it.

I estimate that 90% of monitors are set up badly...really badly. So if they look at the photos before they try to print them...they will change and likely ruin them. As was stated...different file treatments for web use vs. printing is also an issue.

Lastly, you say they will scan the prints anyway...true...but as long as the scans are OBVIOUSLY scans...no one who looks at them is going to blame the photographer for the bad colors in the prints...and when the signature is two inches high on that print...everyone is going to know the owner took the orignal and scanned it, so it should have little bearing on other peoples perceptions with regard to the photographer's work.

Commercial clients have knowledgeable help (one hopes!!) to make their ads and so files are appropriate, but for portrait customers them making the prints from your files is likely to just hurt your reputation.
--
Richard Katris aka Chanan

 

[Joe Lavee]

I have three categories:

Commercial and business portraits get digital files.

Weddings, it is an option foe extra charge,

Portraits, prints only, no digital files.

 

[Neuffy]

I estimate that 90% of monitors are set up badly...really badly. So
if they look at the photos before they try to print them...they will
change and likely ruin them. As was stated...different file
treatments for web use vs. printing is also an issue.

This is the best argument I know of for opposing giving clients the digital images. The degree to which people have monitors with bad color/image reproduction is stunning. For the average consumer, there is a very real risk that their digital viewing equipment will result in a scenario just as you have said - and you probably will get the blame. (Or perhaps they just won't care...)

I've done some photography and web development for (physical) artists, and they repeatedly have problems understanding that things may look different on other machines. Personally, I think around 95-98% of monitors are either of sufficiently low quality or set up badly enough that they do not accurately represent the images. [Most notable examples - Burnt out CRTs, 6-bit LCD displays, very wrong gamma, very wrong color balance.]

If you truly care about the absolute integrity and color reproduction of your images, I don't feel that there is any other option than prints that are done by yourself (and do indeed sign them - I know I pay more for signed prints...).

Then all you have to worry about is how they're going to light it....but that's a much smaller concern compared to digital display.

 

[5D Monster]

I don't provide full-res images in most situations.

Reasons include:

1) I can't sign a photo if I don't print it.

Why do you sign your prints? thats very 1980...

I know you're a newbie but you'll have to do better than that.

Ahh Im sorry, Im not a newbie. Get your facts right. The signing of prints died back in the late 1990s, You can always put a logo with business info on the back of a framed print, or in yuor albums. Thats common practice for me.

2) Printing uses different file types than digital display.

thats a new one, care to explain???

Got Photoshop??

Yes I have photoshop, like millions of other people have photoshop. People use all kinds of imaging software, and they all recognise JPEG files.

3) Anything larger than 400x600 for a portrait-orientated image is
inappropriate for online use as it is too large for most people to
view it on their screens.

So you say, you dont know what software or computer screens your
clients have. They may even be computer literate enough to resize to
best suit their screen, Oh the humanity!!!

Of course I know. In fact, many times the users won't know, only I.
But it makes no difference as to what is the best size to provide the
images, as they have to suit a number of different users looking from
different machines.

Blah, Blah, Blah... clients are more computer literate than you think. and with the new print labs in Harvey Norman (yes they do print very well) in NZ, why not give the client the files.

4) I can't verify print results if I don't print it.

and when your client scans your print, you cant verify the results
there either, and yes the will scan your prints...

Unlikely, but irrelevant. They already have the proper print.

Well arent your silly, people buy ONE print of each photo, then take it home and SCAN the photo to reprint their own copies for grandparents, aunties, uncles, etc... If you only knew what your clients did with unframed prints, or prints not in albums, you would never sell a loose print again... and dont start with "my clients would just buy the prints", becasue they buy one, then copy the rest. Hell even I do that when I have photos taken of the family and only have 1 print of each pose.

5) People that want prints will order them. People that don't want to
order prints will never order them. There's simply no other reason
not to order them.

sounds like double dutch to me. The client buys or they dont... be in
prints or images, they book you for SOME reason... people just dont
book a photographer to buy NOTHING...

That's right. So there is no reason for them not to order prints
through me.

yes, you may be too expensive, they may want more but cant afford your prints, they may see them and run away too... your photos are what I wuold call award winning images!!!

--

http://notsharing.anymore.tired.of.the.abuse.com

 

[dirtee1]

I estimate that 90% of monitors are set up badly...really badly. So
if they look at the photos before they try to print them...they will
change and likely ruin them. As was stated...different file
treatments for web use vs. printing is also an issue.

Lastly, you say they will scan the prints anyway...true...but as long
as the scans are OBVIOUSLY scans...no one who looks at them is going
to blame the photographer for the bad colors in the prints...and when
the signature is two inches high on that print...everyone is going to
know the owner took the orignal and scanned it, so it should have
little bearing on other peoples perceptions with regard to the
photographer's work.

I see a little bit of contradiction here. Isn't a bad print equally obvious as an error by the end-user printer? Also, why does monitor calibration matter if the client does not alter the colors before print?

--

'Life is not measured by how many breaths you take, but by how many moments that take your breath away.' - A friend

 

[Richard Katris]

I don't know about you, but I have found that a single file will print quite differently on different machines and at different labs. Heck, I ordered the same file printed on glossy and matte at the same lab one time, and got back totally different colored interpretations from the single file.

I profile the printers I use for a reason...to know the printing characteristics of that particular printer, I then modify the file for that printer before I take it to the lab. This IS what color management is all about. This also assumes that the client doesn't open up the file on their computer at home, and modify the image to "look better" on his probably uncalibrated monitor as noted above before taking it to the printer.

Next issue...what color space should I provide the file in to the client? aRGB? a nice wide gamut higher quality color space? or sRGB the lowest common denominator color space? You and I know aRGB is far better, but also far more likely to be mucked up by someone who doesn't have an image manipulation program that can render aRGB properly...and many do not. Do I need to provide it in both spaces...just in case I have a knowledgeable client? Half the publications I deal with don't understand color spaces or color depths...and they are ostensibly professionals.....do you think my average client knows about this stuff?

No matter what I supply my clients it is unlikely they will do it any favors in getting the prints made, and that will merely be blamed on me or on professional photographers as a whole...neither result will improve business prospects in this field. Thankfully, what it will do, is teach the client that the photographer obviously knows how to get the prints made BETTER than they seem to be able to do...and that is gradually bringing them back to ordering prints when they want them to come out well.

In my business this is turning it around to where my orders are up from the two previous years when everyone was buying the "it's digital it must be perfect and perfectly easy" lines that the manufacturers were touting. They are beginning to understand that there is a difference in good and bad prints, and that as a rule, they can't make them as well as the photographer can.
--
Richard Katris aka Chanan

 

[LiveM]

you may be too expensive, they may want more but cant afford
your prints, they may see them and run away too... your photos are
what I wuold call award winning images!!!

Thanks for the compliment. I don't think the quality will scare them away, though. On the contrary, it can act as a filter, which means I am dealing with people who know quality and are wanting to buy it. That said, my prices are but a fraction of others in my area.

As for being too expensive, how on Earth does supplying digital files affect how expensive I am? The only way it can affect the customer is negatively, as they would have to pay up front before they even decide how large they would like to print. I wounldn't offer the ability to print a wall portrait without charging for it, regardless of what size they actually want.

 

[dirtee1]

I agree mostly with what you said, although you could've used fewer words to get the point across. However it still doesn't answer my question relating to your previous post:

Why does monitor calibration matter if the client isn't going to alter them?

I'm also interested in knowing what percentage of your clients, to the best of your knowlege, have attempted to "correct" your work then print it out? Do they then predictably blame you for providing them a poor photo, despite knowing that they have already tampered with it?

I don't know about you, but I have found that a single file will
print quite differently on different machines and at different labs.
Heck, I ordered the same file printed on glossy and matte at the same
lab one time, and got back totally different colored interpretations
from the single file.

I profile the printers I use for a reason...to know the printing
characteristics of that particular printer, I then modify the file
for that printer before I take it to the lab. This IS what color
management is all about. This also assumes that the client doesn't
open up the file on their computer at home, and modify the image to
"look better" on his probably uncalibrated monitor as noted above
before taking it to the printer.

Next issue...what color space should I provide the file in to the
client? aRGB? a nice wide gamut higher quality color space? or sRGB
the lowest common denominator color space? You and I know aRGB is
far better, but also far more likely to be mucked up by someone who
doesn't have an image manipulation program that can render aRGB
properly...and many do not. Do I need to provide it in both
spaces...just in case I have a knowledgeable client? Half the
publications I deal with don't understand color spaces or color
depths...and they are ostensibly professionals.....do you think my
average client knows about this stuff?

No matter what I supply my clients it is unlikely they will do it any
favors in getting the prints made, and that will merely be blamed on
me or on professional photographers as a whole...neither result will
improve business prospects in this field. Thankfully, what it will
do, is teach the client that the photographer obviously knows how to
get the prints made BETTER than they seem to be able to do...and that
is gradually bringing them back to ordering prints when they want
them to come out well.

In my business this is turning it around to where my orders are up
from the two previous years when everyone was buying the "it's
digital it must be perfect and perfectly easy" lines that the
manufacturers were touting. They are beginning to understand that
there is a difference in good and bad prints, and that as a rule,
they can't make them as well as the photographer can.
--
Richard Katris aka Chanan

--

'Life is not measured by how many breaths you take, but by how many moments that take your breath away.' - A friend

 

[Richard Katris]

the pictures didn't "look right" on their monitor when I have emailed them low res digital proofs. They want me to "make it look correct on their machine"...which is of course a nightmare for many obvious reasons. Most who have a problem with the files indicate that the images look washed out on their monitors...which is exactly how they would look if they have the monitor set up too bright, which in my estimation most people do, as they primarily use their computers for text viewing, and a high contrast bright screen is easier for text work....

Digital has been sold as a slam dunk perfect solution. The reality is that everything from the color video card in the computer to the monitor and how it is set up affects how correctly images will be displayed on a given computer. Apple is better because they dictated the design and operation of all color cards in their computers. IBM machines (windows) however allowed a totally open architecture so any manufacturer who could make a card could sell them. The problem is with our patent laden society...every manufacturer had to do it differently from all the others so as to not step on any patent toes....so every card arrives at the colors it displays differently, every monitor is different as well....is it any wonder it is a challenge to get two monitors to display the same image identically?

Add to that the fact that one of the opening pages in the Adobe Photoshop manual has a couple of very interesting lines... it says...

'it is imposible for any monitor to display the same colors that your digital camera is capable of recording"....in the next line it says "it is likewise imposible for any printer to render the same colors that your monitor is capable of displaying."

So....now we are faced with trying to print prints with the colors that we see on our monitors....and the people who manufacture the industry standard leading software to play with images have told us right up front that what we are trying to accomplish is a defacto imposibility.

Anyone who understand photography should already know that trying to display a 1000:1 lighted scene on a 64:1 piece of reflected paper has always been a major compromise from the original scene in life both in film days, and today with digital. But most clients really don't realize that and can find fault with any print if they really think that the print will be a true rendition of any scene.

Today, the manufacturers of cameras, computers and printers are selling their products with the promise that they can deliver perfect results....even in the hands of amateurs...read the ads.

The clients believe the advertising, and assume that if there is any problem in the rendering of the images you provide to them, that the fault will have been with the person supplying them with the images...so, yes I think they will blame the photographer when in most cases the fault may be with their ignorance of how to utilize the technology properly.

I have clients all the time who tell me they have a 'brand new high end computer', and so OF course the colors are correct on it.....you and I know they probably bought a computer packaged with a TN screen that is only 6 bits that couldn't render photos well even if you had the best calibration system in the world.... That same client thinks that if they spent $2000 on the best computer system in the store, that they have a really good set up....never realizing that a good monitor could cost them between $1500 and $7500 for the monitor alone....and that still might not give good colors unless it is calibrated properly.

There is a falacy on this forum that digital has taken the mystery out of the darkroom and now made everyone an equal, and so getting good pictures is now so easy that photographers are losing business. I would counter that the magic is still in knowing how to make good prints properly, and that in many ways it may be as hard or harder to do today with digital than it was with wet darkrooms.

True anyone can now make photos, and more easily than was done with wet darkrooms, but making truely outstanding prints is still no easier than it was in film days, and just as rare to see. The photographers who survive will be the ones who can produce work so much better than what the clients are used to seeing, that the clients will want them to do the work for them.

I think the art of photography is and always has been in making truly exceptional prints....not digital files to sell to the client and have him try to make his own prints.
--
Richard Katris aka Chanan

 

[Richard Katris]

and then embed that profile in the file before printing it, or convert the file using that profile before sending it to the printer.

Not knowing what printer the client is likely to use, the photographer cannot totally prepare the file for printing on any particular machine. The file will render differently and unpredictably on each different printer to which it is sent. Two identical machines side by side may require different profiles to print the file the same.

Today there is no uniform single profile that will accurately print on all printers, and the client is not likely to understand this nor know how to apply profiles to image files.
--
Richard Katris aka Chanan

 

[E300]

I am a bit on the fence on this issue - Sure, some cases it is easy to just bundle everything up and include the digital files. But reading more here, this may not be the best way!

Yes, every computer unless specifically set up and calibrated does show graphics differently - and it is always something I consider when providing digital files.

Yes, everyone who has a digital file may not know how to tweak or change it because their monitor is rubbish and they will probably get prints done at the Local shop - whomever does it the cheapest. At least, here in Australia, with the huge number of kiosk machines that the consumer shoves in their media and orders their $0.20 6x4 prints the kiosk software has an auto enhance button. Yes, I sometimes use one of these places to do proofs and look at the person beside me and they almost always click on the auto enhance button - because they want to get a "better" print.

So, your carefully prepared digital file can even be messed with by the dumbest consumer who does not have a clue! I have done several experiments by taking the same 4 photos to about 5 of the local print places - they all print differently. I have taken the same sample back on a different day and the results were different day to day (some of them far more than others). Yes, I have had prints done of photos with and without the dumbed down auto fix - you guessed it - different and sometimes on critical areas photos ruined by the auto process. My experimenting in just doing this type of prints has netted me with finding only 2 high volume consumer labs that I am game to go near out of around 15 that I have tested. In addition, I never trust them for anything critical or larger than a 6x8 - that is what a pro lab is for where every digital file I hand over comes back exactly as expected.

Yes, sometimes it is easy to hand over a CD with the full rez jpg files and sometimes that is what the customer thinks they want, but lets face it, there is just too many ways for these people to mess it up because the photos don't look so good on their expensive ($2000) new computer.

Really this discussion has been great and it has convinced me to re-think my strategy of dealing with full-sized digital images. I will probably up the price considerably on digital files from 2x largest print price to much, much more. The digital files need to be seen by the customer as something that is very valuable as-is and then, they are less likely to try and "fix" them.

 

[John1940]

Lavee and riddell have it right IMO (based on experience as a sometime customer of pro photographers). If pros get too rigid it will be at the expense greater sales in the business sector.

Another thing to remember is that business people don't want to waste time negotiating pricing and terms of the sale. It's good to keep your pricing structure clear and simple, the way Joe put it. Business customers are busy too--trying to run a business and make a profit.
--
John1940

 

[Jon Stewart]

You just about covered all of my thoughts on this matter.
Thanks
--
Jon Stewart