[filmscanners] RE: Disabling right-click, etc. (was: Webhomepage writing software)

["Laurie Solomon" <laurie@advancenet.net>]

>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: filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk
[mailto:filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of david soderman
Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2002 8:07 PM
To: laurie@advancenet.net
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 listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title
or body

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body