Big Problem - People are printing the Large version and it looks great

jinspin

I have heard that people are printing out my pictures by saving the images on their pc. I am losing sales because of this.

So I did a test and I downloaded a Large version image at 800x534 160kb and printed out a 4x6 size.

And to my surprise the picture came out almost flawlessly.
And I checked the large image dpi and it was at original high res 300dpi. I was assuming every image size woud be set at low res 72 dpi except for the Original high res version? This is very troubling because I have been uploading the 300 dpi version up to smugmug as backup.

Is there an option I forgot to set? How can I stop it from printing so good when people can just save the pics to their pc?
This is a big problem.

Phyxius

Jinspin,
You can limit the size of image that people can see in the customize menu. Also make use of the watermark feature available on Smugmug. Originals are not watermarked, so do not worry about your prints having them on there. And, set your right-click protect.

More info on image protection - http://smugmug.com/help/image-protection

jfriend

An OK 4x6 just doesn't need more bits than a web display does so if you're displaying on the web, 4x6's can be made from that.

The ONLY effective way to protect against people printing 4x6 images is to watermark your images. A tastefully done, partially transparent, appropriately located watermark will protect your images from printing, yet not detract much from the web viewing experience.

jinspin

jfriend wrote:

An OK 4x6 just doesn't need more bits than a web display does so if you're displaying on the web, 4x6's can be made from that.

The ONLY effective way to protect against people printing 4x6 images is to watermark your images. A tastefully done, partially transparent, appropriately located watermark will protect your images from printing, yet not detract much from the web viewing experience.

I do watermark image but I am hearing people are removing watermark probably by using photoshop.
I took the same 300dpi large version and reduced dpi to 72dpi in photoshop. And I printed that out as 4x6 and it came out all pixelated. This is what I want to discourage printing. So how do I upload 300 dpi to smugmug as backup but only show 72dpi to people? this would be my holy grail i think

ps- jfriend I just downloaded one of your pics as Large version and I see it is 240 dpi so theoretically I could print it out no problem. To me this is HUGE problem if you are trying to sell prints.

jfriend

jinspin wrote:

I do watermark image but I am hearing people are removing watermark probably by using photoshop.
I took the same 300dpi large version and reduced dpi to 72dpi in photoshop. And I printed that out as 4x6 and it came out all pixelated. This is what I want to discourage printing. So how do I upload 300 dpi to smugmug as backup but only show 72dpi to people? this would be my holy grail i think

ps- jfriend I just downloaded one of your pics as Large version and I see it is 240 dpi so theoretically I could print it out no problem.

You are not understanding dpi correctly. dpi is mostly a meaningless label on the image. It has little to do with how the image will print. I can give you an image labeled at 1000dpi or 20dpi that will print exactly the same. It makes absolutely NO difference what dpi label a Smugmug Large-size image has. It will not change how it prints.

ALL that determines how well you can print a given size is how many pixels the image has, what size you are trying to print it and the quality of the pixels you have. All "Large" size images on Smugmug are 800px on the long side, regardless of what the dpi on the image says. At that point, the dpi label is absolutely meaningless. It's an 800px image. If you print it as an 8x10, you would get 80 pixels per inch (800 pixels over 10 inches) which is quite low, but some people would consider it acceptable. If you print it as a 4x6, you would get 800/6 = 133 pixels per inch which is still lower than desired buy more people would consider it acceptable.

If people are removing your watermarks in Photoshop, then you are not using an effective watermark. Please give us a link so we can see what you are doing and offer some comments.

My images are mostly not protected as I don't sell for a profit. I prefer to offer the best web viewing experience for friends and family with larger sizes.

jinspin

jfriend wrote:

You are not understanding dpi correctly. dpi is mostly a meaningless label on the image. It has little to do with how the image will print. I can give you an image labeled at 1000dpi or 20dpi that will print exactly the same. It makes absolutely NO difference what dpi label a Smugmug Large-size image has. It will not change how it prints.

ALL that determines how well you can print a given size is how many pixels the image has, what size you are trying to print it and the quality of the pixels you have. All "Large" size images on Smugmug are 800px on the long side, regardless of what the dpi on the image says. At that point, the dpi label is absolutely meaningless. It's an 800px image. If you print it as an 8x10, you would get 80 pixels per inch (800 pixels over 10 inches) which is quite low, but some people would consider it acceptable. If you print it as a 4x6, you would get 800/6 = 133 pixels per inch which is still lower than desired buy more people would consider it acceptable.

If people are removing your watermarks in Photoshop, then you are not using an effective watermark. Please give us a link so we can see what you are doing and offer some comments.

My images are mostly not protected as I don't sell for a profit. I prefer to offer the best web viewing experience for friends and family with larger sizes.

You seem to be correct. I just took my original high image and reduced to 72 dpi and it printed out fine on 4x6 presumably because of what you said that there is more pixels per inch.

So are you saying theres nothing to stop people from printing out a decent 4x6 image if they can remove the watermark?

Andy

jinspin wrote:

I do watermark image but I am hearing people are removing watermark probably by using photoshop.

Something like this:

jinspin

Andy wrote:

Something like this:

I see but I am just saying that moon river watermark can be removed in photoshop - most if not all in about 15 minutes i estimate. Once it is removed it can be printed out fine. Even the Medium size printed out fine.

jfriend

jinspin wrote:

You seem to be correct. I just took my original high image and reduced to 72 dpi and it printed out fine on 4x6 presumably because of what you said that there is more pixels per inch.

My sample images of school play are here
http://www.sweetdreamsstudio.com/gallery/8045421_Db2Ap#524402969_vMkqZ

So are you saying theres nothing to stop people from printing out a decent 4x6 image if they can remove the watermark?

You are limiting the max size to only the medium size which is only 600px on the long side. That means a 4x6 is 600/6 = 100 pixels per inch. That is, at best, medium quality, but will probably be OK for many. Try it yourself to see what you get.

You have a fairly good coverage watermark. I do not see how that can be removed in Photoshop and leave anything of quality. Are you sure that's what people are doing? Have you seen what the result looks like? Maybe they are just printing a low quality 4x6 with the watermark? You cannot prevent that if you want to be able to sell effectively on the web. Folks who are satisfied with a low quality 4x6 probably wouldn't have spent much money on your site anyway if at all. So, while it may bother you that they stole it, it might not actually represent much lost business.

It's always worth while to keep in mind that usually the objective is to maximize revenue/profit. First, you serve the honest folks who are legitimately interested in buying by offering the best quality images, the best web presentation you can do and appropriate prices. Then, you encourage the borderline honest folks to "do the right thing" with the right reminders, a few incentives to buy and a few deterrents to steal, while trying not to detract from the experience for the first group.

For the folks who were never going to buy from you anyway, it isn't really worth paying any attention to them. The last thing you would want to do is to crank down your web-site so hard to try to foil this last group that you reduced sales from the other two groups. Remember the objective is to maximize sales, not to minimize theft. Theft by people who were never going to buy anyway may feel wrong, but it doesn't actually cost you anything unless you crank down on your web-site so hard to try to stop it that you impede the sales of the folks who were inclined to buy.

You could also turn on right-click protection which would block unsophisticated folks (it's easy to get around if you know how it works).

You could add a note to the gallery description to remind folks that that these photos are copyright you. They are for sale only and are not for download of any kind. Prints or digital downloads can be purchased here on the web-site. If they are interested in any other type of offering, please contact me for arrangements.

jinspin

jfriend wrote:

You are limiting the max size to only the medium size which is only 600px on the long side. That means a 4x6 is 600/6 = 100 pixels per inch. That is, at best, medium quality, but will probably be OK for many. Try it yourself to see what you get.

You have a fairly good coverage watermark. I do not see how that can be removed in Photoshop and leave anything of quality. Are you sure that's what people are doing? Have you seen what the result looks like? Maybe they are just printing a low quality 4x6 with the watermark? You cannot prevent that if you want to be able to sell effectively on the web. Folks who are satisfied with a low quality 4x6 probably wouldn't have spent much money on your site anyway if at all. So, while it may bother you that they stole it, it might not actually represent must lost business.

It's always worth while to keep in mind that usually the objective is to maximize revenue/profit. First, you serve the honest folks who are legitimately interested in buying by offering the best quality images, the best web presentation you can do and appropriate prices. Then, you encourage the borderline honest folks to "do the right thing" with the right reminders, a few incentives to buy and a few deterrents to steal, while trying not to detract from the experience for the first group.

For the folks who were never going to buy from you anyway, it isn't really worth paying any attention to them. The last thing you would want to do is to crank down your web-site so hard to try to foil this last group that you reduced sales from the other two groups. Remember the objective is to maximize sales, not to minimize theft. Theft by people who were never going to buy anyway may feel wrong, but it doesn't actually cost you anything unless you crank down on your web-site so hard to try to stop it that you impede the sales of the folks who were inclined to buy.

You could also turn on right-click protection which would block unsophisticated folks (it's easy to get around if you know how it works).

You could add a note to the gallery description to remind folks that that these photos are copyright you. They are for sale only and are not for download of any kind. Prints or digital downloads can be purchased here on the web-site. If they are interested in any other type of offering, please contact me for arrangements.

yes i guess its a balancing act. I will make all galleries medium size and I might turn on right click protection. And leave some note about copyright. I guess that is most I can do. Thanks

nipprdog

jinspin wrote:

and I might turn on right click protection.

:wow

You don't have it turned on??????

jinspin

nipprdog wrote:

:wow

You don't have it turned on??????

Should I? I was thinking it would be free promotion at least if my watermark was on it and they posted it online I wouldn't mind it as much. I read that is what a popular photographer did on his website. So it is a tradeoff that I am trying to decide.

bandgeekndb

I've heard of people allowing one, or two photos out at a low size for posting on Facebook, specifically catering towards HS Seniors. But, I believe they did it themselves, not making the files available on SmugMug, but emailing the actual one or two images to the client. Then, SmugMug was just used for the proofing and the sales.

I think if you are really trying to push sales, and your clients would like a limited size version, then go for it, turn on right-click protection and give them their images separately, via email or CD. Heck, add it to your package..."One MILLION Digital photos for sharing online with friends and family" or some similar wording

Good luck!
~Nick

denisegoldberg

jinspin wrote:

Should I? I was thinking it would be free promotion at least if my watermark was on it and they posted it online I wouldn't mind it as much. I read that is what a popular photographer did on his website. So it is a tradeoff that I am trying to decide.

Just so you know... turning right-click protection on is just a minor deterrent. It can easily be circumvented.

http://blogs.smugmug.com/pros/2008/07/04/right-click-protection-and-image-security/

--- Denise

jinspin

bandgeekndb wrote:

I've heard of people allowing one, or two photos out at a low size for posting on Facebook, specifically catering towards HS Seniors. But, I believe they did it themselves, not making the files available on SmugMug, but emailing the actual one or two images to the client. Then, SmugMug was just used for the proofing and the sales.

I think if you are really trying to push sales, and your clients would like a limited size version, then go for it, turn on right-click protection and give them their images separately, via email or CD. Heck, add it to your package..."One MILLION Digital photos for sharing online with friends and family" or some similar wording

Good luck!
~Nick

thanks for all the comments. i have turned on right click protection and set size medium. I guess that is most i can do. i have high school play shoot tomorrow so I will see how that goes.

johng

as for removing watermarks. Have fun removing this. It's not a fancy watermark but it's not overly obrusive and it performs it's function well - it covers enough of the image that removing it would be more trouble than it's worth. I leave transparency light but you could bump it up if you were more nervous.

jinspin

johng wrote:

as for removing watermarks. Have fun removing this. It's not a fancy watermark but it's not overly obrusive and it performs it's function well - it covers enough of the image that removing it would be more trouble than it's worth. I leave transparency light but you could bump it up if you were more nervous.

holy cow! that is a great watermark. it would be a pain in butt to remove. nice!

termina3

I really don't see the Moon River watermark coming off all that easily.

Turn on the right-click warning, and consider customizing it (search these forma for "right click customization").

Marlowe

johng wrote:

as for removing watermarks. Have fun removing this. It's not a fancy watermark but it's not overly obrusive and it performs it's function well - it covers enough of the image that removing it would be more trouble than it's worth. I leave transparency light but you could bump it up if you were more nervous.

This is exactly the kind of watermark I've been looking for. Do you mind my asking how you made this one? Did you make just one watermark and apply it to both horizontal and vertical images? I've been looking for something with more coverage; for now I have a diagonal tiled but I'm not really happy with it.
Jon

johng

Marlowe wrote:

This is exactly the kind of watermark I've been looking for. Do you mind my asking how you made this one? Did you make just one watermark and apply it to both horizontal and vertical images? I've been looking for something with more coverage; for now I have a diagonal tiled but I'm not really happy with it.
Jon

I defined the watermark to smugmug and smugmug has an option to allow it to repeat.

mercphoto

johng wrote:

I defined the watermark to smugmug and smugmug has an option to allow it to repeat.

I've also resorted to a fading drop shadow on the text, which adds just a bit more of a problem when it comes to removing the watermark. You gotta right-click protect. You gotta restrict the maximum size available. You gotta watermark. Its a shame how much you have to do just to keep people from stealing your images. And its a shame that people don't see it as theft in the first place.

Marlowe

mercphoto wrote:

I've also resorted to a fading drop shadow on the text, which adds just a bit more of a problem when it comes to removing the watermark. You gotta right-click protect. You gotta restrict the maximum size available. You gotta watermark. Its a shame how much you have to do just to keep people from stealing your images. And its a shame that people don't see it as theft in the first place.

OK made a quick one and tried it in this gallery:
http://cxphotos.smugmug.com/gallery/4186426_Ag9JB

Just have to adjust the dimensions of the watermark so it doesn't repeat side-by-side, just one on top of the other. Any idea if I can add a fading drop shadow to an embossed version in Photoshop Elements? Can do an emboss but can't seem to find the drop shadow among the filter tools or style.
Thanks,
Jon

Montec

I have had this happen to many of my images, I see my images all the time on FaceBook. I just consider it part of the cost of doing business online. These people were probably not going to buy them anyways.

mercphoto

Montec wrote:

I have had this happen to many of my images, I see my images all the time on FaceBook. I just consider it part of the cost of doing business online. These people were probably not going to buy them anyways.

Its a moral hazard thing. People get used to the idea that other people's effort and property aren't worth anything. And sure, they might not have bought it, but does that give them to right to simply take it for free, just because they won't pay anything for it?

jfriend

mercphoto wrote:

Its a moral hazard thing. People get used to the idea that other people's effort and property aren't worth anything. And sure, they might not have bought it, but does that give them to right to simply take it for free, just because they won't pay anything for it?

No, it does not give them the right. But, if you have you're trying to optimize your overall business income/profit, you have to think long and hard about whether you should crank down your site so hard to stop people from doing this that you impact the people who do want to buy. If you have your pure business hat on, the people that wouldn't have bought anything anyway are not worth one moment of time as long as they aren't impacting the people who are interested in buying and they are certainly not worth acting upon in a way that will negatively impact the people who are buying.

So, while it feels bad that they take stuff they shouldn't, one does have to decide whether the goal is to prevent all theft or to maximize income because, in this case, the two can occasionally be at odds with one another.

For example, a drugstore could probably prevent nearly all customer theft if they searched each customer as they were leaving the store. At the very least, customers interested in stealing would at least just go to a different store that wasn't doing that. But, drugstores decide that this isn't a good business decision, either because it costs too much to implement or because it really inconveniences all the good customers or probably a combination of the two. So, it's all a tradeoff and you need to set the balance where it's best for your overall objectives (which for a pro photographer is usually maximizing profit).

mercphoto

jfriend wrote:

No, it does not give them the right. But, if you have you're trying to optimize your overall business income/profit, you have to think long and hard about whether you should crank down your site so hard to stop people from doing this that you impact the people who do want to buy. If you have your pure business hat on, the people that wouldn't have bought anything anyway are not worth one moment of time as long as they aren't impacting the people who are interested in buying and they are certainly not worth acting upon in a way that will negatively impact the people who are buying.

This is why I watermark, why I disable right-click. It can't stop all theft, but what they do steal won't be ready-to-print and will be of low resolution. Does it stop some legit buyers? Based on my personal experience, no it does not. But not using those tools meant nearly zero legit sales.

For example, a drugstore could probably prevent nearly all customer theft if they searched each customer as they were leaving the store.

Sounds like Sam's Club and Costco.

jfriend

mercphoto wrote:

This is why I watermark, why I disable right-click. It can't stop all theft, but what they do steal won't be ready-to-print and will be of low resolution. Does it stop some legit buyers? Based on my personal experience, no it does not. But not using those tools meant nearly zero legit sales.

That is what we have recommended to the OP along with limiting the max size available on the web.

mercphoto wrote:

Sounds like Sam's Club and Costco.

Yep, I was thinking of Fry's Electronics when I wrote it.

David Manning

I know this isn't the case for many photographers, but I don't expect much revenue from print sales. As a wedding photographer, I make most of my money from package prices and album sales. There's nothing I hate worse than an image theif, but in this business, I'm afraid it's a cost of doing business. Do you add royalty free or appropriately licensed music to your slideshows? I almost always do, but sometimes I don't.