Newspaper is BUTCHERING photos

[MDalby]

Sheesh, My weekly is butchering my shots when they post to the web edition. The shots look good in print but the web they are TERRIBLE. I am wondering if I need ot give the shots to them in two different qualities, one for print and one for web so they don't have to save it differently.

Here is my shot and how it turned out on the web. Any thoughts on what I can do differently so it posts OK on the web for them?

http://dalbyphoto.smugmug.com/photos/470945056_EASfe-L.jpg

http://ldslastdays.com/05_spts_bbb_legend_pk.jpg

[KMCC]

At least they didn't crop the action right out of the shot; as I've seen done before.

I figure if the paper is paying for my images, they unfortunately have the right to mangle them.

[Art Scott]

yeah once you sell your rights away....well they are gone........it looks to me that once they have done their half toning they save a jpg of that at web resolution and post it.......since the half toning gets rid of a lot of information and then saving for the web gets rid of more......well yours don't look that bad.....I have seen worse.

[donek]

Mark,

When they print on newsprint, they tend to brighten things up quite a bit. This is done because the paper is sort of tan color. If they don't everything looks really dark. My guess is, they are editing and saving to the original file. As a result, they post the same thing they print.

[clcoronios]

Have you tried talking to the production folks at the paper? I'd do that - suggesting that you could send them a print file and a web file.

They also removed your copyright from the web version. That would NOT make me happy.

C

[aj986s]

......They also removed your copyright from the web version. That would NOT make me happy.

C

Interesting observation. Were originals provided with with and without watermark? Not an easy exercise to remove that watermark. Post-post-processing to remove the watermark may be tied to the final recoloring of the web version. If original was only provided with the watermark, is its removal a breach?

[jonh68]

Have you tried talking to the production folks at the paper? I'd do that - suggesting that you could send them a print file and a web file.

They also removed your copyright from the web version. That would NOT make me happy.

C

When you freelance, you lose all rights to the photograph unless you submit and don't get paid, at least that's the way it usually works. I freelance and those are my terms. However, what I don't send to the paper I can post on my website and sell the pictures.

This has to be an original. A publication is not going to take anything with a watermark.

Actually, I am surprised the paper would allow reproducing even on here if the picture was bought.

[clcoronios]

Hmmmm....when a publication uses one of my photos, a big part of the contract is leaving my copyright in place and giving photo credit.

The first image posted DOES have the copyright - maybe I misunderstood. I thought the first was print and the smaller was web.

Carol

[jonh68]

Hmmmm....when a publication uses one of my photos, a big part of the contract is leaving my copyright in place and giving photo credit.

The first image posted DOES have the copyright - maybe I misunderstood. I thought the first was print and the smaller was web.

Carol

Newspapers are different. I freelance for a newspaper and a magazine. The magazine pays me for a one time usage and I retain the rights.

I sell the paper the images and as a result, they own the copyright.

Copyright and watermark are different issues. I don't see too many pictures published that have the watermarks with them.

[Cygnus Studios]

At least they didn't crop the action right out of the shot; as I've seen done before.

Sometimes you can work with the web master or whomever works the site, but often you just enjoy the cash and hope people realize that your work is better than being presented.

[VinnyC01]

Sometimes you can work with the web master or whomever works the site, but often you just enjoy the cash and hope people realize that your work is better than being presented.

I am glad you posted this. I thought it was me.

A player scored her 1000th point. They took the lay-up shot and the shot with the player, ball, coach. I posted it online, etc. Looked great!

The next day, the paper came out and it was all over exposed, just horrible. Much like they did to yours. My name right under it! Upsetting - as I am sure you were.

Thank you again for keeping me some what sane.'

[clcoronios]

Newspapers are different. I freelance for a newspaper and a magazine. The magazine pays me for a one time usage and I retain the rights.

I sell the paper the images and as a result, they own the copyright.

Copyright and watermark are different issues. I don't see too many pictures published that have the watermarks with them.

OK - haven't dealt with papers. Good to know.

I do understand the difference between copyright and watermark. We all sign so differently, I assumed the (what may just be a) watermark on the first image to be the way the photog signs.

C

[jonh68]

OK - haven't dealt with papers. Good to know.

I do understand the difference between copyright and watermark. We all sign so differently, I assumed the (what may just be a) watermark on the first image to be the way the photog signs.

C

:thumb