Options
Printmark for digital downloads too small
![Delbean](https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/uploads/customavatars/73/navatar_74473.jpg)
Just trying to figure this one out... If I offer a printmarked digital download, the printmark is supposed to only be able to cover 1% of the image. I want people who view it on the web to be able to actually SEE my copyright and web address on the pic. How can I offer a printmarked download that has a printmark that's actually big enough? I really like my watermark, but can't use that as a printmark, right? It'll be too small.
http://www.rsmithimagesphotography.com/Competitions/Noses/20593868_2nBpN3
Please help me figure this one out.
http://www.rsmithimagesphotography.com/Competitions/Noses/20593868_2nBpN3
Please help me figure this one out.
0
Comments
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Any larger and it would be quite intrusive....think of all the paintings in museums, the artists sig is not very large...but large enuff that you can see it...even tho a lot of are illegible ... ... ...
My sigmatures are added to my files after sizing the file to the final dimensions which is usually at 300-450dpi at what ever size I want...then add the siggy, if the client orders and 8x10 the signature is small and if they order a 40x60 it will be larger....I would prefer them to be exactly the same size but that can only happen if you use a gold stamping machine and use the same slugs for all images or if the Siggy is added during a print delay... ...
hope this helps...head all clogged up with allergy out break, so still may be missing point.
Jason Scott Photography | Blog | FB | Twitter | Google+ | Tumblr | Instagram | YouTube
The gallery I am referring to has almost 900 images. Too large to do over at this point. Just about each dog has a different handler (unique situation), so with close to 100 clients, it wouldn't be practical either.
So the question is one of revenue. Is it worth the revenue to sell the digital copy and all the rights? Or is it worth it to use it as marketing material and then charge more for the shoot itself? A hybrid approach has losses from the digitals out in public domain without any type of protection/watermark.
My approach is to lock down digitals with no sales and a watermark, but free and easy linking so the word gets out. This leads to shoots where the revenue comes from. Any print sales are just bonus.
Want faster uploading? Vote for FTP!
To me, that's the purpose of a watermark. And as the creator of that image, I should be able to put the mark on the image in whatever size I like. I'd like to see SM offer something like LR, where you can permanently watermark digital downloads. I'm not saying to be obnoxious about it, just judicious and sensible when it comes to putting something ont he internet.
SM's watermark feature can be incorporated with gallery presets to always watermark newly uploaded images with your watermark if you use that preset. I actually forgot about the feature because I use it so often that I thought SM was automatically watermarking all my images.
Want faster uploading? Vote for FTP!