grad photographer able to detect that his proofs have been scanned?

First off, I would never steal someone elses work, but I would also never tell an outright lie to protect my own work from being stolen.

My daughter has been a great student, and deserves every reward for her efforts. She recently paid a pro for a sitting and after paying for the studio work, and giving a 200 dollar deposit we got to see the proofs. Nice work, I am impressed by the poses, creativity, lighting and post production. I will gladly pay.

Here is the deal: In with the proofs was a warning that any attempt to scan them would be detectable by an unnamed "new technology", and if detected, we would forfeit our 200 and get nothing more than our proofs for the money spent.

I have never heard of this technology, anyone care to put a name on it? I feel a little vulnerable. witha fictitous technology in play, could a fictitous accusation be far behind? what if this guy decides that anyone who orders just 150 worth of shots is guilty of scanning and therefore pays the 200 for the proofs? makes me want to show up with exactly one dollar and buy exactly 201 bucks worth, but we will be buying whatever my daughter desires, she did an excellent job in highschool, and I would never end it all with a cheap photo shoot, or worse yet a dishonest purchase. I just feel a little vulnerable dealing with something I don't understand or truly beleive.

Only if he printed proofs on some type of light sensitive photo paper that would activate when the bright light of the scanner passed over it. Otherwise I think he's bluffing.

Ask him.

When you make your prints order, tell him your interested in photography, and you would like to know how the scanning detection works.

Bird, I agree with Bishop. He is bluffing, I am more into the technology side of this hobby and film, I know of nothing that shows you scanned it!

agreed. Just to be safe should I keep them out of the light except when looking at them? Maybe put them in a dark black plastic bag? I think I know a store that sells its stuff in dark black bags!

maybe I should buy what we are going to buy, start talking photography with the guy, then ask for advice on keeping proofs from being scanned. I am hoping I am not being set up for a ride, but if I am not, I can't resist the opportunity to go for a little bit of a ride for myself.

Meanwhile, if anyone knows anything about a technology like this, I am interested to hear about it, thanks.

I think it's BS. I just searched google and I think if it were true I'd find it somewhere. (probably on this forum). Don't worry he's just trying to scare people.

birdfromboat wrote in post #7753841
First off, I would never steal someone elses work ....

So why get so concerned about something that you dont need to worry about?

birdfromboat wrote in post #7753841
... I would also never tell an outright lie to protect my own work from being stolen.

I have, and so have most of the event photographers I know as we all tell our event customers that the final layer being applied to a dyesub print is an anti scan layer. Makes the difference between selling one print which you know will get scanned and copies passed around and maybe ten or more print sales.

Its a sales technique nothing more, nothing less. Maybe heavy handed but unfortunately as more and more people do scan images you cant blame the photographer for trying to protect his income.

the only reason I worry is that he might accuse me of something that I can't prove myself innocent of, and that he has only to accuse me of. Its a game I would rather not play, but here I sit at his table and he is dealing the cards. I plan to buy all my daughter wants, but for my money, I want him to explain how his dye layer technology works, while I stare unblinkingly into his eyes.

I believe Digimarc www.digimarc.com has the capability to read digital watermarks in printed and digital images. And I'm not sure how it related directly to scanned images, but since it can be read in a printed or digital image, it may be possible.

With that said, I highly doubt it's being used for portrait photography due to the expense. It's seen a little activity in the commercial end, but not much their either to the best of my knowledge.

Hmm...ask him...cause now I'm curious

I've heard people talk about a "pebble" finish for their prints. I'm not sure if that is different than the typical rough matte prints, but it is supposedly difficult for scanners to deal with and produces crappy results when scanned. I've never heard of any detection technology though...other than Tineye.

Maybe he was talking about digital watermarking
https://www.digimarc.c​om/solutions/dwm.asp

Looking more into the Digimarc technology, its unlikely that it will transcend being scanned. Since its an embedded digital code, it will stick with the image if it remains in its digital form, even when cropped, or lightly manipulated, and even out to print. But for the coding to stick through a scanning process, I'm not sure thats possible. Digimarc doesn't address scanning in their documentation either, but does mention a variety of other media. So its not clear at the moment.

I know some photogs use texture on their prints like "pebble" etc...when those are scanned they look really bad. That could be what he's referring to but it's far from a "new technology".

this thread reminds me of the story of when my mom went to get her car fixed and the repairman told her that the winter air had to be taken out of her tires and replaced with springtime air