How do you deter scanning of proofs?

[atlantashooter]

Short of putting a PROOF watermark across the print how do you keep people from scanning your proofs before ordering from them? We sell the proofs to people so the watermark idea is pretty much out. I've seen a texture machine that can be used to emboss texture onto prints but to run that process on the volume we put out doesn't seem like it would be cost effective. Anybody got ideas?

[brian.austin]

I like Mark McCall's philosophy: don't let them leave the studio.

[ohenry]

What's the purpose of selling proofs? I say stamp them with PROOF or your studio name embossed across them to prevent unauthorized printing.

[SureFire]

Pebble print if you must give proofs.

[Songman45]

If you are showing finished prints as proofs, don't let them leave without being paid for. If you must let proofs leave then marking them is the only option I see.

[Harry]

Some of the photography venues that I used to deal with would let the proofs go, but they were marked and required a hefty deposit.

[brian.austin]

Originally Posted by Harry

Some of the photography venues that I used to deal with would let the proofs go, but they were marked and required a hefty deposit.

The marked part might deter scanning (a little) but the deposit would be irrelevant. Leave the deposit, take the proofs, scan them, bring them back, recover the deposit and copy at your leisure.

As soon as they leave your hands, you lost control of the sale.

[Mr. Pickles]

Cut each one in 10 square pieces and give them 9 of them....?

[SureFire]

Pebble Print: WHCC

pebble

• A medium to heavy pebble texture, this surface works very well for larger print sizes or in instances where you may want to make clear scanning of a image virtually impossible.

http://www.whcc.com/pricing/whcc_2008_pricing_0608.pdf (search "pebble")

I'm sure other companies offer it as well.

[brian.austin]

Originally Posted by SureFire

Pebble Print: WHCC


pebble

• A medium to heavy pebble texture, this surface works very well for larger print sizes or in instances where you may want to make clear scanning of a image virtually impossible.

http://www.whcc.com/pricing/whcc_2008_pricing_0608.pdf (search "pebble")

I'm sure other companies offer it as well.

What does "larger print sizes" constitute? The minimum size on the price sheet is 4x5, which doesn't seem particularly large.

It's an interesting technique but I wouldn't want it to compromise sales due to visual quality issues. I think I'd have to try a few tests first.

[SureFire]

Originally Posted by brian.austin

What does "larger print sizes" constitute? The minimum size on the price sheet is 4x5, which doesn't seem particularly large.

It's an interesting technique but I wouldn't want it to compromise sales due to visual quality issues. I think I'd have to try a few tests first.
[/left]

Sorry... haven't been on since yesterday...

I read that the pebble print is fine for anything 8x10 plus. However, I have also talked to some who use the pebble for 5x7 proofs and they say it works great. I personally do proofs in person and rarely on the web, but I thought I'd throw the pebble out as a possibility. I read lots of good things about it from time to time. You can probably order a sample.

[atlantashooter]

Thanks to everybody for the input. The more I try to sort out what would work best for us the more it sounds like texturing is the answer. I guess we just cough up the dough for the embossing machine and put texture on any proofs we sell or send out. I don't think just putting the studio name on the proofs will deter people enough.

I was also talking to a guy at one of the labs we use today who mentioned something about a paper that's out there which only shows the PROOF watermark if somebody tries to copy or scan the image. 1st time I've ever heard of it but if it works and isn't cost prohibitive it could solve the problem.

BTW, here's the link to the texturing machine I'm looking at if anybody is interested.

[Songman45]

Thanks atlanta,

Keep us up to speed on how you do with this issue. Its one I'll be facing soon too.

[Jacco]

Don't give physical proofs. Give on-screen photos (website or CD/DVD). If they are no larger than 1024x768 they are unreproduceable in print at true photo quality at any useful sizes.

[Ed Shapiro]

There is no use doing all of theses deterrents and I will tell you why. The people who want quality imagery and understand photography and are respectfully and ethical folks will not bother scanning proofs or copying them photographically, because they want top quality imagery and will purchase well crafted prints from their photographer. Sadly, theses kind of folks are in the minority.

As for the other hundred-zillion people- they don't care about image quality as long as the can see the image any which way or take satisfaction in screwing their photographer. How do I know this?
EXPERIENCE!

Over the years I have tried everything on the face of the earth to prevent unauthorized copying. In the early days there were RED PROOFS for proofing black and white negatives. PRINTING OUT PAPER was used- Kodak called it POP-Studio Proof. There was no chemistry involved- POP paper reacted to UV light. Contact prints were made by sandwiching the negatives and the POP paper in a glass and wooden printing frame and exposed to UV florescent lamps or a roller driven machine with a transparent drum was used whereby the negative and POP paper was fed into the unit, much like a drum print dryer- the 's rotation. Those proofs would quickly black when exposed to sunlight, daylight, flood lights on a copy stand or electronic flash. The paper had a reddish image tone and that's why they called the RED proofs. Some old timers would simply place those contact printing frames in the sun and come back 10 minutes later and the images were formed- they were also know as SUN PROOFS. That paper is no longer made and even if it were, the would turn the image black even by exposure to the scanner light. Now THAT was good protection!

Some photographers would make the proofs on regular photographic paper and not fix them- so the wouldn't last all that long. Then came the matter of defacing the proofs- I have seen everything- marking the proofs width India ink, rubber stamping them right across the image, printing them with a string diagonally placed on the paper during printing, overlays with "PROOF" written on them, and there was a multiple hole puncher that would perforate the proofs with the word proof on every print.

Enter textured paper- silk, pebble, tapestry, crosshatches- guess what? Someone posted a formula on a popular public photo forum explaining how wetting the print and placing it on the scanner glass surface would somewhat eliminate the interference caused by the texturing. Sadly enough, it made perfect technical sense- in cinamatography, WET GATE printing is standard procedure for reprinting scratched film. Once it was on the Internet is was picked up by a nationally syndicated photo-tip newspaper column and a few consumer photo magazines - ISN'T"T THAT SPECIAL?

Well here's the punch line: I once covered a wedding where the bride lived with her parents on a majestic estate- the main house was a 35 room mansion. I walked in to the opulent parlor to set up my lights and there they were, on this massive marble fireplace mantel- 6 graduation photographs with the word PROOF right across the chest of each subject. They apparently were copied and enlarged- the worst printing job I have ever seen in my entire life and to add insult to injury each of the was displayed in expensive Stirling silver frames. Go figure! I have seen this kinda thing many times in different configurations and incarnations. The conclusion is that SOME people will accept prints with dust spots. bad contrast, poor color management, stains, newton's rings, and perhaps mold growing on the surface and long as the subject is smiling. I mean "expressions sells" but this is ridiculous.

I knew I guy who was viewing his proofs on an on-line ordering site and photographed the CRT image in a darkened room. Someone told him- not me- that if you used a shutter speed of 1/15th sec or slower he would get the entire scan- he was as happy as a pig in you know what- he actually captured an image with all the raster lines showing- again- grandma WAS smiling!

I even stamped a notice on the back of each proof advising the client that if theses images were illegally reproduced I would have them arrested and dragged off to prison- well not quite that bad but you know what I mean. Then I us ed to get calls, in spite of my scare tactics, form friends of mine working in photo labs and camera shops reporting things like that "that nice pretty tall blond bride with the groom with a pink bow tie was in here trying to get my proofs copied. ^&*(_%^&*^$%#)(*&^T$#!

My advice? Who knows? There are photographers selling or giving away negatives and printable files, turning the film or CDs over to the client- so what am I gonna do? I don't blame anyone- trends change and photographers can do as they wish in a free enterprise environment. Who am I- the PICTURE POLICE- THE BOGYMAN?

All I can do is insure that my work yields the degree of profit that is commensurate with the quality and service I provide. I FRONT LOAD my wedding assignments and large portrait sittings. That means that I try to create a project or a package deal that satisfies the client and gives me the profitability that I need to run my business and succeed. I am not speculating, worrying about un-guaranteed sales or nickeling and dimming the clients to death. I print all my edited and finished images in the album size with a 25% overage- Most of the clients buy the whole darn batch and it is over with. The proofs are included and after they spend 7 to 10 grand I ain't gonna worry about copying. Most of my clients nowadays, are not really that concerned about files and proofs.

Nothing is perfect- I don't get every wedding in town and the potential clients who are interested an proofs and files rather than finished albums and portraits do not become my clients.

Ed