Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: kevs on October 24, 2007, 06:57:18 pm
-
Shooting with Canon 5D, curious what is a good size and resolution to give out to subject so they can print 8x10 good, but not too much better. thanks. ( ie, I may market these as fine art later)
-
...what is a good size and resolution to give out to subject so they can print 8x10 good...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148488\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Found that I can take a one a meg JPEG image file and make it into a nice 8 x 10.
However, IMO you are doing yourself a disservice by proving any kind of digital image for low resolution client printing. Others may disagree, however when the client prints that image at Sam's, CostCo or Walmart and it comes out poorly your client will be glad to say that this was done by ABC Photography. Not a good way to obtain positive comments about your abilities.
It a print is necessary, I would supply one at a reasonable cost. That way you have 100% control of the process taking that "unknown" issue out of the formula.
Jim
-
I did not understand much of that Jim.
I mean one assistant I use says he just gives the files at 100 resolution.
Curious what others do.
and what about the pixel numbers.
I mean you don't want to give the the full size at 300dpi (as I've been doing for 2 years) if you later figure out you may be selling the images at thousands of dollars right?
-
what is a good size and resolution to give out to subject so they can print 8x10 [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148488\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
8X10 at 300 DPI ?
-
no, 300 dpi, mean they can print at hi rez, is this a beginners forum?
-
no, 300 dpi, mean they can print at hi rez, is this a beginners forum?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148624\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hmm...
180dpi should be sufficient.
-
It never seems a good business practice to try and find the lowest acceptable quality to deliver to a client.
You are going about this a__ backwards. A professional would solve this through defining the usage rights that are being sold. If you want to retain the quality files for later fine art prints, why not limit the usage rights you sell to the client, copyright it, and give them the best file so your work looks good and generates more business. Make it very clear what rights they have and don't have.
-
It never seems a good business practice to try and find the lowest acceptable quality to deliver to a client.
You are going about this a__ backwards. A professional would solve this through defining the usage rights that are being sold. If you want to retain the quality files for later fine art prints, why not limit the usage rights you sell to the client, copyright it, and give them the best file so your work looks good and generates more business. Make it very clear what rights they have and don't have.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148626\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think restricting the quality delivered to a client makes absolute sense
You are protecting yourself by only delivering the file that suits the license which they have purchased
we sell what we simply describe as
web
a5
a4
a3
Being
800pxl
18cim @ 300 DPI
30cm @ 300 DPI
The tiff
This is more about resales than origninal commissions I am talking here BTW
I have rates for doing - 'press' work and 'brochure' work and on press work I deliver A4 files on 'brochure' a full fule
Often I suggest to a client that they go for the bigger files/higher rate but they go for the least cash upfront - this enables my to quote lower than my full rate and compete with the 'medium ballers' (as opposed to low-ballers)
Then the MD sees my images and wants one for the foyer - more money for me - an a lesson for the booker its cheaper to pay a proper fee upfront
Depends on you competition you are pushing
Its because I always try to 'overdeliver' and reap the rewards of doing that
its funny how many of my 'quick snaps' (thier brief) end up a 'brand leading image' (my delivery)
It is insurance ON TOP of licensing T+C copyright ect which we do too
S
-
Morgan,
I mean you don't want to give the the full size at 300dpi (as I've been doing for 2 years) if you later figure out you may be selling the images at thousands of dollars right?
from Kevs
You are making my argument since you deliver 300 DPI files. If I am not mistaken he is trying to figure out how far below 300 DPI he can go for an 8x10. I consider that a very poor business practice no matter what market you are in. And it is certainly not the kind of business practice you profess....as you say: Its because I always try to 'overdeliver' and reap the rewards of doing that
.
-
Morgan,
from Kevs
You are making my argument since you deliver 300 DPI files. If I am not mistaken he is trying to figure out how far below 300 DPI he can go for an 8x10. I consider that a very poor business practice no matter what market you are in. And it is certainly not the kind of business practice you profess....as you say: .
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148636\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
My point is more when someone pays me for a 600PXL for thier website I dont send em a 60MB tif
It is inconvineint to them and someone in the comapny will end up sticking it into their brochure without paying and then they think I am 'difficult' because I want more cash when I spot thier brochure/advert - I spend a lot of time and money on buying papers, visiting websites and picking up brochures to police my work
In an ideal world I would IPTC the file 'this image is availablel as a larger file'
Unfortuanaly there a lot of photographers who just dont care and shoot for a CD/Dayrate (generally no levels or spotting!) and put everyone in a diffucult position
Because the client often doesnt see the difference until after the job is shot and if you dont get the gig you dont shoot the job
many new clients come to me for reshoots !
S
-
I'm a bit confused by this discussion. If I were a client who ordered a headshot session and the photographer said I would get files suitable for 8x10 prints, I would be dissapointed if I were given a disc with 8x10 files at 180dpi and not between 240 and 320dpi.
If however these were just proofs that the photographer were giving me to print and then use to make final print selections, I would be fine with it. There is, at least to my eye, a visable difference in a 180dpi and 320dpi print, depending of course upon the detail in the image.
I do however agree that the files should be scaled to their eventual use however. If the client is looking for web shots, then they should be appropriately sized. If they want product photos for eventual billboard use, so be it. If you feel that the client should come back to you to get rights to use the image in a different format, then state it clearly in your contract and release and provide excellent service. They'll come back when they want a better quality file.
my .02
jdv
-
Kirk:
intersting, I have been giving very high rez files for couple years. But now, many models and hair and make up people have lots of high res images. It's clear it's copyrighted and they cannot use it but for their portfolios -- still would you want all your high res images floating around like that?
Maybe I should not worry about it.
MOrgan, Can you translate that info pixels/dpi? (or inches)
Actually, when I think aboaut it, it's not the dpi that matters so much really. the camera spit it out at 72. It's that I've been giving, from the Raw conversion the full pixel amount from the Canon 5d.
so acutually, I should just reduce the pixels. What would be good for models and actors etc.
-
Kevs,
I've been at this for 29 years and tried many approaches. It has changed of course since going digital. But I have found the folowing approach to be very profitable and efficient. For instance, most of my clients currently are regional and national architecture related magazines and architecture firms. AP is somewhat of a volume business so a profitable workflow involves standardization. I standardize on a file that gives a 300 DPI 16x20 with explicit written contracts about the extent of usage--for magazines it is always only one time use.....period. The 300 DPI 16x20 image gives them enough quality for a double truck spread on horizontals, and for architects a reasonable size file for presentations or whatever. It works if you do the contracts and your info and rights granted is in your metadata. About half of my stock sales comes from referrals from the primary architect client. The other half comes from the reuse of the magazine shoots for books foreign magazines etc. For me shooting fees are where the real money is. I want to charge a good price up front, deliver a job and move on to the next shooting assignment. Otherwise I get overwhelmed by petty requests for services that don't pay nearly as well as shooting and have no time for my art photography, exhibiting, teaching workshops etc.
-
I agree that giving digital rights to print may be problematic. However, many people need them for digital use, such as websites and online promos.
From a thread I created which is similar to this thread, I've come to two conclusions.:
(1) Never give away print rights.
(2) If you do give out print rights, make sure you stipulate in contract specifically what they are, such as web usage only, one time print, size, whatever you want to control.
Remember too that with digital, it's a whole new ball game. People are going to want digital rights to use online more and more. Thus there must be some conclusion. There is a lot to think about.
For example, if you are hired to do a family reunion, or even a wedding, you can be pretty sure those images are not going to be reprinted and sold for profit. As a precaution, you may want to list usage rights as "no profit use" or other tag.
Also, if someone prints one of your images and it looks like crap, you get a nice reputation as a hack.
-
Guys, I'm not giving any rights away, just a CD for portfolio use.
So for models etc, what is good for their limited needs?
1024 x 1536
1354 x 2048
-
Guys, I'm not giving any rights away, just a CD for portfolio use.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148904\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You're giving them rights to print. You'll find various suggestions for "sizes." Why not have a few printed at different resolutions and see what you think?
-
thanks DW, but if anyone really want to help with coherent answer please pipe in
-
thanks DW, but if anyone really want to help with coherent answer please pipe in
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149030\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
How much more coherent can you get besides printing them yourself and looking at the results? The fact that someone else thinks X instead of Y size is best, does not necessitate your acceptance of that size. You may be able to come up with a solution that is better than other's.
-
thanks DW, but if anyone really want to help with coherent answer please pipe in
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149030\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That's just downright offensive.
-
I've tested/ played around, and realized that if I give out a reduced file size, someone can just uprez and sharpen the image and make any file size they want anyway. It wont be quite as good, but it could make a decent 16x20 photo, so what's the point? I don't see the extra energy expened worth it.
-
If you give them a 72dpi file at 600 x 600 maximum they won't be able to print crap, or rather, they will be able to print crap. I've decided that I'll give them the files they want printed on a disk at 72dpi and 600 maximum size.
It just doesn't seem right to keep people from sharing their photos on the web via email or their websites, such as myspace. a 600 pixel by 72dpi file compressed to the verge of pixelation will not print well at all. It will look like a 16 color gif.
I've tested/ played around, and realized that if I give out a reduced file size, someone can just uprez and sharpen the image and make any file size they want anyway. It wont be quite as good, but it could make a decent 16x20 photo, so what's the point? I don't see the extra energy expened worth it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=150427\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
thanks DW, but if anyone really want to help with coherent answer please pipe in
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149030\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Seems like a lot of people have already given you very good responses and you may not be aware of it. Most of the pros here are thinking clients, but it sounds like you are only talking about giving files to models for their portfolio and not real clients. Why not just make an 8x10 and give them that plus small files for web use like 600x600 pixels max.
-
Thanks good tips.
yes, the only solution is to give prints, but I've gotten so used to the ease of just giving large jpegs of the whole shoot to models, actors, hair and make up people etc. just so easy, and then then can decide what they like later.
The whole issue here, is that after a couple of years of doing this, than I now may want to sell some of these images on a new fine art site, and the worry, or maybe paranoia, if you want to call it, is now all these folks have essentially the files floating around.
In film days, non issue, you had the only negative.
So that's the impetus of this post. ie, someone with bad intentions could market my shots...
But I think I'm just not going to worry about it. I don't want the hassle of printing, and limiting what they can look over, and reducing file and pixel size as I don't think that works anyway.
Please feel free to comment.
-
One thing wrong with giving clients large prints is that you will need to process every file you give out, unless you want them floating around without processing (i.e., cropping, RAW adjustments, touch ups, etc.), plus you can never tell who will print them. I'd be more worried about people seeing your photography and thinking it's shit.
Thanks good tips.
yes, the only solution is to give prints, but I've gotten so used to the ease of just giving large jpegs of the whole shoot to models, actors, hair and make up people etc. just so easy, and then then can decide what they like later.
The whole issue here, is that after a couple of years of doing this, than I now may want to sell some of these images on a new fine art site, and the worry, or maybe paranoia, if you want to call it, is now all these folks have essentially the files floating around.
In film days, non issue, you had the only negative.
So that's the impetus of this post. ie, someone with bad intentions could market my shots...
But I think I'm just not going to worry about it. I don't want the hassle of printing, and limiting what they can look over, and reducing file and pixel size as I don't think that works anyway.
Please feel free to comment.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=150561\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
that is not a big worry as I have lot of experince shooting chromes where images are pretty good out of camera.