to watermark or not to watermark?
That is the question. I really hate to have to do it...and I've already made all my photos on flickr small size only, and not able for download. The real concern is not with the general public, my portraits aren't of much value to a stranger on the internet. Sad to say, it is my clients that are pushing me to make this decision. Or rather, the parents of the children I've photographed. I had two sessions this holiday season where I never got an order. I gave them their 4 x 6 proofs, and that was the last I heard. I understand the occasional person, who may decide after seeing the proofs that they don't want any prints. But one client asked about Christmas cards specifically. I even purchased a set of templates to prepare for her. Then nothing.
Since I don't charge a sitting fee, I don't make any income off my time and efforts spent editing and preparing their proofs. As it is, I barely charge enough to cover my cost of printing.
I wonder how diligent your typical drug store photo lab is. I know they all have policies about not reproducing professional work. My proofs do have printing on the back identifying them as such. But, I would imagine it's not that hard to get away with. I don't know for sure that it has happened, but I just find it odd that I never heard from these people.
At this point I'm thinking of the following options:
The watermark would be most effective, but I think it is tacky. What does it say that I think of my customers when I give them their images with a giant copyright across the front? I also think it is hard to appreciate a photo like that. The other two options sort of say the same thing, but in a much more subtle way.
Any opinions?
Since I don't charge a sitting fee, I don't make any income off my time and efforts spent editing and preparing their proofs. As it is, I barely charge enough to cover my cost of printing.
I wonder how diligent your typical drug store photo lab is. I know they all have policies about not reproducing professional work. My proofs do have printing on the back identifying them as such. But, I would imagine it's not that hard to get away with. I don't know for sure that it has happened, but I just find it odd that I never heard from these people.
At this point I'm thinking of the following options:
1. A large watermark across the center of the image deterring any attempt at copying (or framing the proof).
2. A small logo "strip" running the length of the photo at the bottom making it hard to copy in standard sizes without cropping.
3. Charging a session fee as a deposit that will be applicable to the print order. That way, if they never order I am still compensated.
The watermark would be most effective, but I think it is tacky. What does it say that I think of my customers when I give them their images with a giant copyright across the front? I also think it is hard to appreciate a photo like that. The other two options sort of say the same thing, but in a much more subtle way.
Any opinions?
posted by sometrouble at
9:07 PM
1 Comments
