Prints from small cameras equals bad wording!!

System

:help :puke
Geesh, discriminating against all of the folks that shoot or crop images in 4::3?

To tell the customer that the print they are about to order is coming from is from a small camera is like telling them not to buy it in my opinion!!!!! WOWZA!!:scratch

Why should someone with a camera that shoots both aspect ratios or has a 5-8 mp camera that shoots 4::3 have to have his images labeled "prints from a small camera??":uhoh

This is a horrible name for a print option. Small means suckier to many people and as a pro I don't want the 4::3 prints I upload to smugmug to only be available as "prints from a small camera" What, you mean small like like a toy?? geeesh....Just make it say 4::3 and 3::2 or something if you can't think of anything better than that! Or go back to your old wording.

I will stack my images from my "little" camera against most any image from your big camera anytime and I am willing to bet my small camera will eat your big camera images for for lunch in many cases.

You could have just named the 3:2 aspect ratio "prints from cameras without live preview", I say. Or you could make it say "prints from people that bought something they do not know how to use properly"

"Prints from a small camera" is possibly the worst marketing blunder for pros shooting images in a 4::3 format that I could imagine or think of. Maybe not for you, but for the pro shooting some 4::3 stuff is he now looking sorta like an idiot here. Please, please, please, please....change the name to something other than "prints from small cameras".

You can print some humongous prints from some of these 4-8mp beauties and just because you have some old 3mp dslr with a larger sensor or a pocket instamatic does not mean you have big camera.

The cameras may have a different size sensors but calling the 4::3 "prints from small cameras" is a somewhat of a joke.

I am supposed to offer 25k to 50k picks here at smugmug as "prints from small cameras"...I don't think so, that's just a bit crazy.


Please get rid of the wording "prints from small cameras",

Thanks

-don

Baldy

And replace it with?

marlof

Just a suggestion: you do have the D for "digital" with those prints, so may be it could be

"4:3 digital format prints"
"2:3 classic format prints"

E-1 and E-300 users that shoot in the 4:3 aspect ratio would be happy with that. And I guess people shooting in the 2:3 aspect ratio might even like the "classic" sound. Or leave it at standard.

System

Baldy wrote:

And replace it with?

Take a poll with some other options, I am not great with titles, I just know that one sucks bad.

Maybe something similar to one of these:

Put both aspect ratios under one option...prints
4:3/3:2 prints
Standard 3:2/Digital 4:3
use your old way
standard/modern
traditional/modern
old format/new format
old print sizes/new print sizes


I am sure someone can come up with something better than I as I have to finish my taxes now and am not great at thinking of catchy descriptive names anyway. When I am finished with my taxes I will try to think of something better. What do all of the other services that you know about call 4::3 prints?

I dunno yet, but "prints from small cameras" is not the greatest term to use by any stretch of the imagination. Maybe Nik can think of something, he is good with that sort of thing.

-don

Baldy

Other services call them digital prints. Been there done that. The customer hasn't a clue why one digital camera's prints should be called digital prints but prints from their Digital Rebel aren't.

The consumer doesn't know for 4:3 ratio prints.

The consumer won't know old/new. I'm not sure I do either. The first digital cameras were 4:3 so are they old?

We're certainly open to suggestions so keep 'em coming.

marlof

I think that's why you shouldn't call them just "digital prints" (which is weird wording anyhow) but "4:3 digital format prints" as opposed to "2:3 standard (or classic) format prints". The aspect ratio would say enough for experts, and the "digital format" and "standard format" should say clear enough for end users that it's about the format of the print, not the way the file is treated or whatever. This might work, since after all, you do expect them to grasp the 4xD idea after they selected "small camera print", and have a great text helping you in getting that across.

On a side note: didn't Olympus state the 4:3 format allowed them to build small cameras?

DoctorIt

this is a tough one. I gotta say that when i ordered prints this morning, I saw that "...small camera" thing and said


so I agree with both sides. small camera's is a weird title, but also, most consumers won't have a clue about the correct ratio. And classic? forget about it! What about all those new Drebel people - they have 3:2 format and would never think they're latest greastest dslr was "classic".

it's probably best the way it is. those of us in the know will look at this and explore deeper, while it remains obvious for those with less tech knowledge.

Andy

DoctorIt wrote:

And classic? forget about it! What about all those new Drebel people - they have 3:2 format and would never think they're latest greastest dslr was "classic".

remember new coke and classic coke?

how about the buick classic?

marlof

As long as you're printing your own prints -all I ever do- there's nothing wrong. People with smaller cams will know where to go, 4:3 DSLR owners will learn to swallow their pride, and the rest is standard. But when ordering prints from other peoples pictures, things can go wrong. How does the unknowing customer know what kind of camera shot the picture? Wouldn't he be more confused by the new wording? Just thinking out loud, trying to help.

That said: I do understand smugmug making it as easy as possible for as many people as possible, and Baldy probably has more experience with people getting mixed up by unclear wording than we.

dragon300zx

Baldy wrote:

You're correct. Far as I can tell looking through the top 100 print-selling pros, they're all using 3:2 cameras.

Baldy,
But what about the upstart pro who doesnt have a 3:2 camera yet? What about the freelancer who may use both 4:3 and 3:2 or only a 4:3? Put another way I have been doing shoots for some ZCar clubs lately and am about to be posting them online for the guys to order prints. I was planning on signing up for a smugmug account for this but to be quite honest if some of my prints are going to be called a print from a small camera that is really bad marketing. They are prolly gonna think why buy my prints cause they have small cameras too and could just try to reproduce my picture on their camera. Or who knows what else as consumers always look for the cheapest way.

I understand your point but at the same time you have more than 100 clients with pro accounts I am sure. So does it mean that only your top 100 clients get consideration in this matter because they all are using 3:2 cameras and the rest of your clients don't matter? Cause thats how that statement reads. Even calling them Crop Factor 1 and Crop Factor 2 would seem better when it comes to marketing the prints from small cameras. I do understand your point but you even admit that it doesn't sound good. Which leaves me at do I still go with smug or figure something else out cry:uhoh.

Baldy

Hi Dragoon,

Certainly for someone whose customers actually end up in the cart, we'd love to have a cart that works for them and hence the call for better wording.

I shoot cars at Pebble Beach Concours each year and sell lots of enlargements, and I tend to pre-crop to a .75 ratio before uploading to smugmug. It wouldn't make things clear for my customers to see prints for small cameras in the drop-down.

For the bulk of our customers, however, it's a much clearer term than what we had before. If someone trumps it, we'll switch.

Thanks,
Baldy

Nikolai

Suggestions..

Baldy wrote:

And replace it with?

I hear ya: for grandma Betty or uncle Joe all those fancy terms (dslr, ratio 2:3, 4:3) mean jack.

OTOH, we have other (usually younger and more computer/photography literate) crowd, for which those tems make total sense.

I, for one, was a bit ticked off this morning when I saw that my 8mp sony 828 shots (yes, I did shoot few thousands pictures in 4:3, although now I'm almost always shooting in 2:3) fell into "small camera". Actually, I was ready to print a few, and that very wording killed my attempt..

Why don't we try a compromise - something, which grandma Betty would not have trouble to read through, and something that gives us geeks more info?

How about starting with simply smth like generic and non-camera-specific for gradma, and then getting more techy in the end?
Example:

• Type A [all d-shots combo here ] ("4:3" digital only)
• Type B [the other combo here] ("2:3" film/digital)

Use can use Type 1/2, Type I/II, or whatever, but it has to be something which cannot be misintepreted, hence it should be neutral.

Just my $.02

dragon300zx

How about starting with simply smth like generic and non-camera-specific for gradma, and then getting more techy in the end?
Example:

• Type A [all d-shots combo here ] ("4:3" digital only)
• Type B [the other combo here] ("2:3" film/digital)

Use can use Type 1/2, Type I/II, or whatever, but it has to be something which cannot be misintepreted, hence it should be neutral.

Just my $.02

Nik That is what I was in the process of typing up but you beat me to it. However I was going to add this. Currently when someone goes to order a print if they choose non-crop from the crop menu they get a pop up that explains to them what crop non crop means, they also get the explination when they mouse-over the "crop" label. They also get a mouse-ver when they go over product that asks them to click on the product to get the details. You could also add the pop-up when they switch from product a to product b and so on explaining the differences and the ratio's. Thus cutting down on confusion, solving the problem of "prints from small camera", educating the customer, and not using any methods you aren't already using.

I think Nik's suggestiosn of product categories would work

• Type A [all d-shots combo here ] ("2:3" film/digital)
• Type B [the other combo here] ("4:3" digital only)

Or even change it to
Print Standard A (2:3 film/digital)
Print Standard B (4:3 Digital Only)

As is is the standard for photo gifts isn't normal and has an explination for it.

Using this method it's not as confusing, it educates the consumer, and it's not hard cause its methods you are already using. Plus with multiple layers of explination they consumer can't say the information wasn't there for them to see cause it pops up in front of them.

Nikolai

I like it even more

dragon300zx wrote:

I think Nik's suggestiosn of product categories would work

• Type A [all d-shots combo here ] ("2:3" film/digital)
• Type B [the other combo here] ("4:3" digital only)

Or even change it to
Print Standard A (2:3 film/digital)
Print Standard B (4:3 Digital Only)

As is is the standard for photo gifts isn't normal and has an explination for it.

Using this method it's not as confusing, it educates the consumer, and it's not hard cause its methods you are already using. Plus with multiple layers of explination they consumer can't say the information wasn't there for them to see cause it pops up in front of them.

"Standard" in both cases looks better

Baldy

Okay, I moved the Minoltaman rants to their own closed thread, gave him his $100 back, and honored Shay's (actually now more than a dozen of our customer's) requests to put the ban on.

Back on topic: can we do better than "prints for small cameras"?

Type A and Type B is pretty geeky, no? They'd certainly have to be explained somehow. And what are other companies going to call them?

Can we do better?

bkriete

I think something like:

"4:3 ratio (example 9x12)"
"2:3 ratio (example 4:6)"

as the dropdown menu would work well...you could also put a mouseover popup similar to the one on the "color" option reading "Choose 4:3 ratio for compact camera or cropped SLR-type prints or 2:3 ratio for SLR and 35 mm prints in their original form." Somebody smarter than me can probably come up with better wording.

DoctorIt

bkriete wrote:

I think something like:

"4:3 ratio (example 9x12)"
"2:3 ratio (example 4:6)"

as the dropdown menu would work well...you could also put a mouseover popup similar to the one on the "color" option reading "Choose 4:3 ratio for compact camera or cropped SLR-type prints or 2:3 ratio for SLR and 35 mm prints in their original form." Somebody smarter than me can probably come up with better wording.

I think somewhere in between this and "prints from small cameras". Type A and B is pretty geeky, I agree with Baldy. Either call it what it is, 4:3 and 3:2, or put it in plain english, "prints from point and shoot cameras(digital only). Why introduce another "type " to confuse people even more?

I thnik we're all getting a taste of how hard it is to be Baldy... can't please everyone


(and thank goodness Minolta is gone, talk about short temper!)

bkriete

howzabout this...when someone adds a picture to their cart, instead of a screen having a bunch of drop-down menus, have a thumbnail of the picture superimposed over all of the different aspect ratios with the sizes and prices for each listed beneath? That way people don't have to understand aspect ratio, just "hey, this'll crop off some on each side" or "if I choose this, I'll get funny little bars." Would that require too much server-side processing?

Nikolai

Excuse me..

DoctorIt wrote:

prints from point and shoot cameras(digital only)

You're calling my 828 "point-and-shoot" ?

It's no different than the "small cameras". Means "crappy". The idea behind "Type A", or, even better, "Standard 1" is to have absolutely NO implication about potential image quality. We're talking about shape of the print, for crying out loud..

The name of the crop factor should have nothing to do with the camera/lens size.

We all saw great pictures from the "small" cameras and total crap from the most expensive dslrs.

My suggestion stands: provide absolutely neutral name first simply to distinguish the format separation (call it type, standard, crop, format, shape, selection, choice, group, set, collection, cluster - whatever denotes a number of similarly shaped objects), followed by a more precise technical explanation
(e.g. "4:3, digital only" VS "3:2, film/digital")

Thanks for reading!

onethumb

Remember, guys, we're talking about Grandma being able to order prints here.

She has no idea what "4:3" is, or why it's different from "2:3". She doesn't know what the heck "Type A" and "Standard 1" are.

She definitely understands that some cameras are different from others. It seems perfectly logical, in her mind, that smaller cameras take different photos than larger cameras. It's been this way since the advent of film - Ansel Adams' 9x10 camera was huge, and a Hasselblad is larger than a point-and-shoot. She gets this and needs no explanation.

We'd love to hear more suggestions, but they've gotta be Grandma suggestions - not techy photographer suggestions. If an explanantion is needed, it's not gonna fly - Grandma doesn't read explanations.

Don

ginger_55

I think I understood it before. I ordered prints before, successfully. I do not understand the ratios. Even as a photographer I don't want to be educated, I just want to get the job done.

I haven't ordered anything recently, but alot of the suggestions have confused me.

I have a 20D, I had a Rebel, before that I had a pt and shoot digital. I understand if my photo is going to have to be cropped a bit to fit the norm as I have known it my 65 years. Especially as there were marks to show me what I was going to get, I could move them to take more off the bottom or the top, whatever suited me. I basically understood it before.

But I don't understand the ratios, and I think I am a photographer. My daughter cannot even understand Elements. She uses words like "user friendly", still has her digital prints done by Sam's.

I don't know how far my daughter is going to get in her understanding, when, but this grandmother liked smugmug's way of doing things a few months ago, except for constantly being sent back to the photo page in so many seconds. I learned to work with it. Please do not make me work with ratios.

ginger (born in 1939)

winnjewett

Don, you say that suggestions have to be "grandma proof". I guess I need to find a grandma and ask her what "4xD, 5xD and 8xD" mean, because I haven't a clue.

I shoot the Olympus E-1, which is a professional 4/3 camera. The E-3 will be out in the not too distant future, and will probably cost $5k. It also will be 4/3, and is certainly not a "small" camera.

I think that in order to solve this delema, we have to go back to square one. Why did we split these two groups of prints in the first place? What is the primary difference? Do both groups fit equally well into picture frames?

How about one solution for pros who shoot or crop 4/3, and one solution for actual point and shooters.

The pro can call it whatever he wants, but it defaults to "prints for small cameras".

I think this is a very easy solution that addresses everyone's needs. What do you think?
-w

winnjewett

winnjewett wrote:

How about one solution for pros who shoot or crop 4/3, and one solution for actual point and shooters.

I forgot that there is only one cart; not one for each pro. Bummer.
-w

Nikolai

I dig "grandma"

onethumb wrote:

We'd love to hear more suggestions, but they've gotta be Grandma suggestions - not techy photographer suggestions. If an explanantion is needed, it's not gonna fly - Grandma doesn't read explanations.
Don

OK, let me break it down.

We have two different sets of formats (one being 4:3, another being 3:2) in our shopping cart, in addition to the non-standard formats and gifts.

We have to explain this - very subtle - difference between the two to an audience that cannot possibly grasp the concept of difference between digital/film, p&s/slr, or any mathematical subject (ratio, proportion, format, shape, etc.) for that matter...



My S/O (who will qualify for a "grandma" in a heartbeat:-) suggested "more squared" vs "less squared".. My teen daughters suggested "(more)squared" vs "(more)rectangular". They also suggested to provide a little glyph whcih would visually show ratio difference, smth like this:

• [_] digital only
• [__] digital/film

At this point I'm at a loss. I only know that I DON'T like "small" and "point-and-shoot" because of its "in your face" derogatory implication on the picture quality.

HTH

Nikolai

Something like this:
This is actual 4:3 20x30 vs 3:2 21x28 pixels. And since "grandmas do not read the explanations anyway", I hope it's ok to put some *real* explanation (sorry, Ginger:-)

• film/digital (3:2 ratio)
• digital only (4:3 ratio)

Since visual difference is *really* subtle I think it could be ok to exaggerate it a little and show 5:3 instead of 3:2.

• film/digital (3:2 ratio) - actual glyph 5:3
• digital only (4:3 ratio)

The important thing is to keep the area approximately the same to avoid the impression that one is bigger/smaller than the other.

Waddayathink?

Mitch

Please correct me if I am wrong, but the main reason for having the different sections for ordering prints is so the drop down box doesn't drop off the bottom of the screen. I think that "Standard Prints", "Prints for Small Cameras", and "Specialty Prints" titles do little toward being grandma friendly. To grandma what difference does it make from what kind of camera the picture came from? What she is thinking is I want a picture of my grandkids to carry in my wallet or I would like to have a picture of the kids at the get together to frame and put on the end table.

As I see it the size of the finished print is more important to the "grandma" or anyone than what ratio it started out as. My suggestion is to create 4 headings:

Small Wallets to 5X7
Med. 8X8 to 11X14
Large 16X20 to 18X24
XL 20X24 to 30X40

Some how make the crop marks stand out a little better with maybe a warning "For this size print the picture will be croped Please choose another size or click on the crop button." If the raitos match them maybe something like "This picture fits this print size no cropping needed"

Well that's my 2 cents worth.

Mitch

Nikolai

It's a great suggestion!
WTG, Mitch!

Ben

there are some great ideas in here, thanks for the feedback. A few things to keep in mind though that I have noticed just from dealing with the majority of the customer support emails:

-People don't read. They want to get through the shopping cart as fast as possible, so they don't read descriptions, help text, buttons... they just look for "next". You guys pay close attention, because you are selling prints through the system and want to know intimately how it works. The more words we add, the more people get frustrated and complain about how inconvenient the system is. It needs to be simple, have as few words as possible... and have those words be relatively simple to understand.

-Most consumers have no idea what xD means, but a huge number of them want it. We get far fewer complaints of people who get an odd shaped print than we got of people who lost the head or soccer ball or whatever when their image was cropped to put on a 4x6. If we lump xD prints in with all other prints, people won't choose them and we are back to square 1 on complaints.

-The more warnings and popups and nasty messages about how the world will end if they choose that print option, the more intimidated they will be by ordering and either give up, or not want to go through it again the next order.

I really like the ideas being kicked around, as this is exactly what the forum is for. I am not the person making the end decision of course, but my inclination is to be looking for a simple wording change for the "prints for small cameras". Changing the structure of the cart, and warnings in the cart opens up whole new cans of worms.

And lastly... remember, you are aiming this branding at customers who have no knowledge of cameras and/or prints. They don't know what a 3:4 is or a 2:3. All they know is 4x6, 5x7, 8x10. And they think all of those are the same size ratio and don't understand why you lose part of the image when printing a 4x6 at 8x10. So there is your challenge... lets keep the ideas coming.

lynnesite

Ben wrote:

there are some great ideas in here, thanks for the feedback. A few things to keep in mind though that I have noticed just from dealing with the majority of the customer support emails: -The more warnings and popups and nasty messages about how the world will end if they choose that print option, the more intimidated they will be by ordering and either give up, or not want to go through it again the next order.


And lastly... remember, you are aiming this branding at customers who have no knowledge of cameras and/or prints. They don't know what a 3:4 is or a 2:3. All they know is 4x6, 5x7, 8x10. And they think all of those are the same size ratio and don't understand why you lose part of the image when printing a 4x6 at 8x10. So there is your challenge... lets keep the ideas coming.

Wow, good stuff in this thread. As a pro who shoots events some of the time I am watching with great interest. I liked the "more rectangular" with image example with the aspect ratio alongside in parentheses.

And for what it's worth, I shoot with the 20D but crop shots to 4:3 or 3:4 (let's really confuse 'em) whenever that's the "right" thing to do for a particular image, and sell 'em that way. It is a great conundrum, my clients will accept "this oughta be an 8x12, not an 8x10" without argument, and thus informed, order the print-prepped version that way. I disable printing out of the proof galleries so they can't make mistakes. When I think a particular shopper is gonna be particularly confused, I set the pricing by image and ONLY make the sizes that work available for selection (thanks for that feature).

Mitch

Ben wrote:

And lastly... remember, you are aiming this branding at customers who have no knowledge of cameras and/or prints. They don't know what a 3:4 is or a 2:3. All they know is 4x6, 5x7, 8x10. And they think all of those are the same size ratio and don't understand why you lose part of the image when printing a 4x6 at 8x10. So there is your challenge... lets keep the ideas coming.

Which is why giving them the print sizes and saying either yes this fits or no it doesn't and if it doesn't but you still want this size then here is how to get it to fit.

There is another option. Don't give them all of the sizes to choose from. Just the sizes that will fit the ratio. Should be able to tell that a 2:3 ratio will not fit on an 8X8 print so don't offer it.

While I'm on a roll. I used to work in a camera store. When ordering print for most people the thought process goes something like this. Customer walks in...I want a print of #4. "What size?" Just the regular size. (Did I ge into ratio? No!) "Ok..that will be a 4X4 print (or what ever size came from the instamatic)." NO..I wanted the one that is taller than it is wide. "Ok...Yes sir 4X6, but you will loose this part of the picture." That's ok, no one in the family likes her anyway so you can cut her out. "How many would you like?" 3 should do it. "Would you like those glossy, matte or luster?" Let's do the glossy.

You are right I have not worked in a camera store in a long time, but the customers are still the same. They have a rough idea of the size of print they want. How many they want. Maybe finish.


Keep it as simple for the customer as possible. If you think it is important to offer multi sizes then you have to tell the customer we are going to cut part of the picture off. If different sizes are not important then only offer the print that fits the ratio. Ok...maybe not in those words, but you get the meaning. I believe aprox print size is more important to the customer than is ratio. For those who know what they are doing (or just like to click buttons) there could be an advanced button.

My second suggestion. Move the finish choice further into the process.
1. what size
2. how many
3. what finish.

This would shorten the list of sizes and make it a little less confusing.

I as the photographer can restrict the sizes available to the customer by pricing. If it is important to me I will only price the print sizes that fit the ratio.

I guess 4 cents now, but who's counting.

Nikolai

Uhm..

Mitch wrote:

There is another option. Don't give them all of the sizes to choose from. Just the sizes that will fit the ratio. Should be able to tell that a 2:3 ratio will not fit on an 8X8 print so don't offer it.

while I generally like the idea about breakdown by sizes, I would respectfully disagree about "leave only fitting sizes" idea.

Here's the case I started to bug Sm about "best-fit"/no crop feature upon.

I had a few pictures taken with "small"/"point-and-shoot" 8mp sony in 4:3.
I wanted to have them in 20x30. There was no 20x30D match, everything else was either smaller, or way more expensive. There was no warning "your images will be cropped ruthlessly" either. So, I ordered 20x30 only to realize upon its arrival that top and the bottom was cropped.

Oh, btw - did I mention the fact that the image had custom border:



Well, you can imagine HOW it arrived. I lost about $50 worth of prints and practically stopped using SM printing service.

As I mentioned above, I was about to try printing again after best fit was added this week, but then I saw "the small camera" thingie...:uhoh