>I have to disagree with Laurie on this one and also to remark that I think >Anthony Atkielski *continuously* thumbs-his-nose at everything and everyone. >As for Laurie's alleged agreeing with Anthony on this one, I'm still >listening.........
You can agree or disagree with me and we can discuss it; but I am not getting involved in gratuitious swipes at people's character or integrity. >This is my 24th year of being a professional portrait photographer. Congratulations, but this has little meaning to me and carries very little weight with me despite the fact that I have been a professional photographer for only 22 years rather than 24 years. I am afraid that I happen to be one who relies more on the substance and logic of arguments than on the credentials (whatever they may be) of the speaker. While I may have pushed your "hot buttons" by using the term "proof," although I do know that the term "preview" is now the fashionable in term, I am not concerned with the particular name you give it. >I've spent lots of time/effort trying to persuade my colleagues to >find a lab that produces "finished print" quality "previews" (or proofs). >This way, a pro photographer can sell the previews for a rewarding profit. >Of course, this arrangement would require a high quality image...for the >customer to choose from. Interesting and admirable; but it presupposes that the photographer has taken perfectly framed and cropped to the client's needs images which (1) have no distractions in the background, (2) are in need of no retouching to take care of blemishes in either lighting; the subjects' clothing, features, and/or hair, or eyeglass glare, (3) contain no noticable color casts and mixed light colorations, and (4) contains no photographic flaws. While some of these things may be possible in a studio setting, they are not as possible in an environmental or on location setting which most event photography involves. But leaving this aside, most "event" photography and even portraiture is sent out for automated processing and proofing (or previewing if you wish) and most professional portrait and "event" photographers want to keep costs down by using automated processing and proofing. What you are calling for would require custom hand printing of previews with the addition of other retouching that goes with finished high quality prints; this comes at an increased processing cost to the photographer. Most professional photographers are unwilling to go for those additional costs on speculation although many might with respect to actually ordered prints. It is no wonder you have met resistance to the idea. That sometimes a photographer occasionally may luck out and sell several of the proof previews from a job does happen I do not deny; but most professional photographers do not set that as their goal. They prefer to sell many copies of a few images and/or enlargements of the images that they have shot rahter than have a client decide to buy the proof preview rather than placing an order for an enlargement of that image or substitute several proof previews of different frames for an order for several copies of a single image or two in possibly a larger size. Those that I know are not willing to pay the extra costs to have finished prints made of all the frames on the roll to show as proof previews to the client in speculative hopes that the client will both place an order and buy the preview proofs as well. Moreover, most labs are unwilling to put that sort of effort into printing preview proofs unless they can make a significant profit from it. Unlike final prints, they are dealing with uncut and uncarded negatives when printing proof previews from the newly processed roll. With final prints, professional labs, while using for the most part automated printing for portraits and event packages, require the photographer to put the selected individual negatives on aperture cards which both frame and crop the images to the desired display as well as a specification of applicable color and other corrections that are wanted. We have not even entered retouching that might be desired or needed to make the raw image into a quality finished product into the time and cost equation. >So...whether it's "previews" in the form of hardcopy prints or on-line >images - what's the difference? There *is* no difference! We're trying to >*sell* the images that we present to our clients! Why? Because we already >*have* the images True but we are not trying to sell the raw as shot preview print or display of the image. We are trying to sell the added value enhanced version of the image which the final print product represents. Architects have designs of buildings which they are trying to sell by means of presenting a display model of the design wherein the finished product that is being bought is the finished building that embodies the design; they are not trying to sell the model the embodies the design because they already have it constructed. >Well, let's do hope that all of the above has already dealt with the lame >tradition of "proofs" vs. "finished prints". First, you have not sold me. From my perspective, it is your recommendation that appears "lame" and the lameness has nothing to do with hard copy prints versus online displays. Whether you use paper proofs or low resolution online preview images, you are still only displaying rough draft versions of the images so you have not put out to the public anything that you are cannot afford to have stolen (although to be sure no one like the idea of having even their proofs and rough drafts stolen). If one shows a full quality final paper preview which one allows the client to take out of the studio to show others or to decide on or one displays a high resolution fully enhanced final quality online digital image on one's web site, then one is a fool who is asking for trouble and for the image to be stolen. In that case , oine indeed has lost something of value - a finished high quality product. >Also, there is another vital concept that seems to be sorely lacking here: >the customer "just settling for" copying "the proofs" - as opposed to "the >real thing". >I don't know where y'all come from...but I'm in a post-industrial community >that would "cheerfully" settle for 2nd best...when push-comes-to-shove. The >ramifications of this are endless. They would be *thrilled* to settle for >whatever they can print off the web. It is not lacking. Definitions of quality have changed to the point that the standard is non-existent in contemporary society no matter where you come from. The global mass market mentality has won. Settling for second best, which often is defined as high quality, does not depend on push coming to shove; it is an everyday event. In fact, most are willing to settle for something that is merely satisfactory when it comes to buying goods or services. What you say holds for hard copies as well as the web; the key difference is that with hard copies you have more control over what happens with the image and the conditions under which the client gets to preview it (i.e. restricting its viewing to in the studio or by projecting transviews onto a projection screen rather than using paper. But as you have pointed out, for this security you give up the possibility of selling to a larger, more geographically distributed market. With the web, you have to decide if going after that market is worth the costs of the images that are being stolen. If so than those images are ones which you have decided you can afford to have stolen (i.e., a loss leader so to speak) in hopes of the risk producing more sales than one would have had otherwise with increased profits. If you are unwilling to write the loss of those images off, then you should not be on the web and should give up any notions of going after the online market. You cannot have it both ways - selling to the online market without risking the theft of your images and the possible lost income that could result from such thefts. Thus, what Anthony said holds: To paraphrase, you have not put anything on your site that you absolutely do not want stolen under any circumstances. If you use the images on the web as a loss leader to attract and get additonal sales outside your traditional market, you must be willing to reconcile yourself to the fact that they might be stolen and accept the fact; therefore, you have not put anything of high value on the web that you cannot afford to loose. >Perhaps we all ought to know just a trifle more about what we are >espousing...or who we are puckering up to...before we begin tickling the >keyboard with our digits? ;-) What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Maybe, you should not be making assumptions about what others know and do not know, what their history and experiences are or have been, or how realistic what you are expousing might be in practical terms. Just because the hype has it that something is all the rage and state of the art does not make it so; nor does it change the environment in which one lives, works, and operates. Just as locks are for honest people, the web is for images that the owner can stand or afford to loose to theft. Marketing and selling by the web is a crap shoot involving trade-offs in which one makes compromises based on speculative assessments of potential costs versus profits; there is no non-risk, non-cost road to marketing images on the web. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of david soderman Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2002 8:07 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Disabling right-click, etc. (was: Webhomepage writing software) David Soderman wrote: >>But it's not quite that easy nor as cut-and-dried as the above. For >>example, you've just thumbed-your-nose at the state-of-the-art in >>professional event photography. On-line proofing is currently all the rage >>in that area...especially for out-of-town customers. Laurie S. wrote: > Well actually it is. >I have to agree with Anthony on this one and also to > remark that I do not think his remarks indicates that he is > thumbing-his-nose-up at the state-of-the-art in professional event > photography. I have to disagree with Laurie on this one and also to remark that I think Anthony Atkielski *continuously* thumbs-his-nose at everything and everyone. As for Laurie's alleged agreeing with Anthony on this one, I'm still listening......... Laurie S. wrote: > After all, there is nothing that says that one needs to show > the high resolution final printed version as online proofs. Afterall, these > are proofs not the final product so one typically does not even have to > color correct the image beyond that which is automatically done by the > processing lab for paper proofs; nor does or should one spot, retouch, > sharpen, or carry out other image enhancement proofs for online display Hmmmmm. Where do I begin...and how can I be gentle? Let's get to the point; let's be a little loose & cryptic. Most assuredly, you've pushed one of my "hot buttons" here. This is my 24th year of being a professional portrait photographer. Throughout all of this time, I've been an advocate of BANISHING FOREVER that old, antiquated term "Proof"! I've spent lots of time/effort trying to persuade my colleagues to find a lab that produces "finished print" quality "previews" (or proofs). This way, a pro photographer can sell the previews for a rewarding profit. Of course, this arrangement would require a high quality image...for the customer to choose from. So...whether it's "previews" in the form of hardcopy prints or on-line images - what's the difference? There *is* no difference! We're trying to *sell* the images that we present to our clients! Why? Because we already *have* the images! Laurie S. wrote: > Thus, to use Anthony's words, you have not put anything on your site that > you absolutely do not want stolen under any circumstances." If the > non-finished low resolution proofs are stolen, you have to accept it just as > you often have to accept customers that steal and copy your paper proofs. Well, let's do hope that all of the above has already dealt with the lame tradition of "proofs" vs. "finished prints". Also, there is another vital concept that seems to be sorely lacking here: the customer "just settling for" copying "the proofs" - as opposed to "the real thing". I don't know where y'all come from...but I'm in a post-industrial community that would "cheerfully" settle for 2nd best...when push-comes-to-shove. The ramifications of this are endless. They would be *thrilled* to settle for whatever they can print off the web. Perhaps we all ought to know just a trifle more about what we are espousing...or who we are puckering up to...before we begin tickling the keyboard with our digits? ;-) Joyfully, -david soderman- <>< ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------ Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body