Hi-rez vs Low-rez

Just changed the wording on my CD package contacts, They now get two CD's one high rez and one low rez,

My contract is worded to read that only the low rez images can be used for online/social media display for the first 30days - high rez is for print media only,

The low rez CD is watermarked maybe this will bring in some more work from there friends and family, After the 30days they can use the high rez images online if they so wish.

whats your take on this ( costs me about 0.50 and takes me about 10 minutes to do )

i dont shoot parties/weddings/funer​als - however if i did. I would provide the customer with 2 things for one price. Web ready and print ready files.
It just seems too me that we are giving people too many options(not in your case, just in general), You hired me to take pics of the wedding, you pay me this much, you get the CD with all the images, thank you and see ya. I personally dont care if that person makes 1000 copies at wallmart and gives them to their friends or sells them. Having said that, i would charge accordingly for my services.

to me just seems like there is too much messing around with different packages or this and that.. i take pics, you either like them and hired me or you dont and u didnt. It is rather simple, no?

i hear of this all the time, photogs complaining that a couple made prints from wallmart and they werent allowed and i'm just thinking to myself. if i'm a busy wedding photog, would i have time or care about this issue- the answer is no.

The 30 day low rez usage limitation is simply too complicated for your average personal client, and if something is complicated-there is a very good chance it will be ignored. I think it is a better strategy to provide 1 folder of photos labeled "high resolution" without logo, and another labeled "web use" with a small logo in the corner.

I'm sure any paying client is not going to be happy with any usage restrictions.

^ pay once, do as you like with the stuff.

TBH i dont care what they do with the images, ive been paid already, I think just be implying they should use one disk for facebook ect will make people actually upload it, giving me some advertising

LONDON808 wrote in post #14869409
TBH i dont care what they do with the images, ive been paid already, I think just be implying they should use one disk for facebook ect will make people actually upload it, giving me some advertising

So what's with the 30-day stipulation if you don't care what they do with the images?

Are you providing so many images that you're maxing out a single disc?

Similar to sspellman, I have one disk containing two folders marked "For Printing" and "For the Web" with corresponding images in each.

given the option between uploading a photo with a watermark and a photo without a watermark, the average Joe will ALWAYS upload the one without the watermark. If you give them two different CD's, they will likely throw that low-res CD out and only use the high res. After all, uploading to facebook / flickr will auto-resize for them!

^bingo.

I include a low-res (1200px) folder on the same DVD and don't restrict their use in terms of when they're shared. I suspect that adding a restriction will do nothing other than annoy people.

^ exactly, people dont like restrictions, if they bought an item they want to be able to do as they like with it, even if you make two diff things for them and you can and its good idea
all on one CD/DVD
small web .jpg watermarked
reg print files, non watermarked

there are some people who will not know how to use flickr/photobucket/pho​toshop so they will use the small web images on fb etc , while other ppl will be more savy etc.

however keep this in mind, watermarking images is great and all but im a firm beliver that it does not get work. Its cool to copyright your image with your watermark. If your client likes your work they will keep you in mind if anyone asks them about a photog. Word of mouth is still the number 1 selling feature

On the topic of watermarks, if you are getting your pictures posted to someone's facebook you will get alot of coverage. Every time someone comments on the picture it shows up in that persons feed, so people who aren't friends with/have no personal connection to the person in the photo would see a picture they liked and instead of thinking 'hmm thats great I wonder who took them' they would think' hmm ____ photography is great I am going to contact them for my next event.'

Purposes must be understood. "Watermarking" is not copyrighting. The images are already copyrighted. There are two reasons to put a mark on an image.

One purpose is to prevent it from being used without license. That's the use I call "watermarking," and it means laying a big, ugly, obtrusive symbol or verbiage over the image that deliberately prevents it from being fully enjoyed.

The other purpose is to identify the author of the work. This is what I call "branding," and in this case it's a signature or a logo that is sized and located in a way that it still permits the work to be fully enjoyed. Ideally, the client would want the author to be known and gets a certain amount of pleasure in being associated with that author. For instance, no one who owns a painting by a famous artist covers or cuts off the signature.

In the context of an image going on Facebook, if the photographer has established a relationship with the client such that the client gets further personal pleasure out of the association (in other words, willing to provide word of mouth), the client will be glad to allow the image to be branded.

In the Facebook universe, the use of a branded image is the "word of mouth," just as a person wears designer-branded clothing specifically to be seen wearing that brand.

People will do whatever they want no matter what you say.