The Palatial Palace of Suck and Peace

Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

12/12/2008 06:51:02 AM · #776

hey everyone! i'm stopping lurking to ask an opinion.

a wedding client has said they're very happy with the shots, (they just received the DVD etc.) but find my signature on the bottom of the images to be 'aesthetically unappealing', and have asked me to remove it, and the white border (which makes the images 4x6, 8x10 and 16x20, not the rather useless ratio 35mm images actually are).

i'm pretty pissed off about this - would they publish their scientific articles with no name on them? how do i handle this? any ideas?

12/12/2008 07:18:55 AM · #777

I've gone looking at professional stuff I've had done over the years of my kids and the only one with a sig on the front is Olin Mills (and that was canvas). Are you doing prints or just dvd? Can you have your sig printed on the back if doing prints? What was your agreement on the use of the dvd? If they get unlimited print rights it might be best not to have a sig anyway. As for the border... I'm not much help.

xianart

Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

12/12/2008 07:31:12 AM · #778

o, yeah, meant to include this to show the sig. it's not like it's that obnoxious. and it's at 60% opacity on their shots. there was no mention of it in the contract, as it never crossed my mind not to sign them. you don't sign working shots, you do sing finished works. i sign my drawings, paintings and prints, why on earth not my photographs?

Message edited by author 2008-12-12 07:31:25.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

12/12/2008 07:41:21 AM · #779

Looks fine to me. You might want to start a thread and see how the other professionals handle this situation, because I was just giving an opinion. On the one hand, you'd like word of mouth referrals from happy customers, on the other hand are your principles. In the end, it going to come down to compromising between the two.

Melethia

Canon EOS-80D

12/12/2008 07:56:02 AM · #780

Though it would be a complete pain in the ass to do so, offer them (just these clients, just this time) a choice of a different, less apparent signature - perhaps your name rather than the studio name, at perhaps 40% opacity and see if they prefer it. Are they requesting this be deleted from the electronic versions or print versions? As for the border, I'd tell them the same thing you said here - that the border creates the proper dimensions for print format.

May be a lesson learned here - have samples to show clients beforehand - with and without borders, with different options for signatures. I do agree that it's your call to sign your work (and I'd be honored to have the photog sign their work!) but I don't deal with customers of any kind so I can't speak to whether or not you need to hold firm on this with this particular client.

Good to hear from you, and pleased to see an entry of yours in a recent challenge, too!

Quigley

Nikon D700

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

12/12/2008 08:35:07 AM · #781

Originally posted by xianart:

__________________________________

Christian, they most likely don't want your "PROFESSIONAL" signature on the shots so they can take them into a place with a flat scanner and make prints for family and friends for Christmas.

These places are (supposed to be) bound by copy right law and are not supposed to reproduce any copy righted photographs without your expressed written or verbal consent.

I would offer to change the signature a little but I would NEVER remove it from the image, even though they are paying for the images you own the copy right unless you had a prior agreement to turn over the original digital files and to relinquish your rights to them. In which case your sum for taking the photos would reflect that with a LARGE buy out for you.

You could always offer to make new arrangements for the original files and hit them with an amount that you feel is fair for that process.

Hope this helps.

MAX!

Message edited by author 2008-12-12 08:51:42.

xianart

Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

12/12/2008 09:08:57 AM · #782

they're getting a dvd of the images, to reproduce ad infinitum if they want. it says specifially in the contract that i retain the copyright to the images.

plus, i really don't feel like redoing 200 images.

i do show samples to the clients, and they have the signature on them, so, hoenstly, i'm a little surprised by this.

gah.

Melethia

Canon EOS-80D

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

12/12/2008 09:55:55 AM · #783

If you've shown samples, and they knew what they were getting, I'd say leave it be. I can't see re-editing 200 photos either. :-)

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

12/12/2008 09:58:32 AM · #784

Originally posted by Melethia:

If you've shown samples, and they knew what they were getting, I'd say leave it be. I can't see re-editing 200 photos either. :-)

I agree with Deb! And I would just remind them that they saw samples, that's how it's done and sorry!

Quigley

Nikon D700

12/12/2008 10:48:13 AM · #785

Originally posted by xianart:

_______________

Then you have done all you can do to represent yourself honestly and the problem is theirs and they'll have to deal with it themselves. You covered everything off in the contract and by showing sample images with your signature on them and if they didn't speak up at the time then they have exactly what they paid for. Stick to your guns and let them find a way to solve this themselves or they can pay you to do it.

Hang in there we're pulling for you.

MAX!

12/12/2008 12:21:41 PM · #786

Just a semi-stupid question for my suckers. any idea why the buildings in my photo are kinda purply with the misty stuff? it wasnt misty out, not sure what it would be.

goinskiing

Canon EOS-6D

12/12/2008 12:44:47 PM · #787

Originally posted by JDubsgirl:

Just a semi-stupid question for my suckers. any idea why the buildings in my photo are kinda purply with the misty stuff? it wasnt misty out, not sure what it would be.

Sometimes I get that when sharpening, especially with NeatImage.

12/12/2008 12:46:26 PM · #788

Originally posted by goinskiing:

Originally posted by JDubsgirl:
Just a semi-stupid question for my suckers. any idea why the buildings in my photo are kinda purply with the misty stuff? it wasnt misty out, not sure what it would be.

Sometimes I get that when sharpening, especially with NeatImage.

this is how it popped out of the HDR thing(its called photo-something...). i didnt over-do something to make it purple. i guess i could have made it all black, but its kinda growing on me. huh

goinskiing

Canon EOS-6D

12/12/2008 12:52:57 PM · #789

I think it's called Photomatix.

There could be something in the algorithm it uses to get thatpurple halo-ey look.

12/12/2008 12:56:06 PM · #790

oh yeh, its photomatrix. whats an algorithm and how to i control it. it sounds like something from my precalc class

goinskiing

Canon EOS-6D

12/12/2008 12:57:46 PM · #791

I've actually never used it, but I'm sure there is an option somewhere that allows you to tone down sharpening, or tone down something as I think it's a result of a strong setting. An algorithm is just a series of steps.

12/12/2008 12:58:31 PM · #792

lol ok. thanks. ill mess around with photomatrix a bit more when i get home tonight

quiet_observation

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

12/12/2008 12:59:38 PM · #793

Originally posted by Quigley:

Originally posted by xianart:
they're getting a dvd of the images, to reproduce ad infinitum if they want. it says specifially in the contract that i retain the copyright to the images.

plus, i really don't feel like redoing 200 images.

i do show samples to the clients, and they have the signature on them, so, honestly, i'm a little surprised by this.

gah.

_______________

Then you have done all you can do to represent yourself honestly and the problem is theirs and they'll have to deal with it themselves. You covered everything off in the contract and by showing sample images with your signature on them and if they didn't speak up at the time then they have exactly what they paid for. Stick to your guns and let them find a way to solve this themselves or they can pay you to do it.

Hang in there we're pulling for you.

MAX!

Sorry, wedding photography is commercial photography and is really about satisfying the customer. None of the professional wedding photograpers that I know embed their name in the final prints. Watermark the samples but give them good final prints.

SteveJ

Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM

12/14/2008 03:10:31 PM · #794

I notice there are a lot of side challenges getting prepared for January 2009 and on through the year. This got me thinking about starting a new project of my own and the best subject for me is something that I have been interested in since a small boy.

Wildlife, that's fauna and flora, that's Birds, Mammals, Reptiles, Insects and Plants. So, where to go in search of these ~~victims~~ volunteers? Where better to start than my own backyard, so to speak, where I work. I work on a 72 acre private garden/park with numerous habitats. All I need is permission from management and security before making a start.

On site there are Badgers, Roe Deer, Foxes, Rabbits, Muntjac Deer etc, etc. Plenty of tracking, hide building and photo opportunities.

Then, I will try to travel further afield to get shots of rarer species and diverse plantlife. Okay, so that's the basic plan. Now on to the more detailed work and some kind of timetable for the year:))

Message edited by author 2008-12-14 15:10:46.

Quigley

Nikon D700

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

12/14/2008 03:26:05 PM · #795

Originally posted by quiet_observation:

Originally posted by Quigley:

Originally posted by xianart:
they're getting a dvd of the images, to reproduce ad infinitum if they want. it says specifially in the contract that i retain the copyright to the images.

plus, i really don't feel like redoing 200 images.

i do show samples to the clients, and they have the signature on them, so, honestly, i'm a little surprised by this.

gah.

_______________

Then you have done all you can do to represent yourself honestly and the problem is theirs and they'll have to deal with it themselves. You covered everything off in the contract and by showing sample images with your signature on them and if they didn't speak up at the time then they have exactly what they paid for. Stick to your guns and let them find a way to solve this themselves or they can pay you to do it.

Hang in there we're pulling for you.

MAX!

Sorry, wedding photography is commercial photography and is really about satisfying the customer. None of the professional wedding photograpers that I know embed their name in the final prints. Watermark the samples but give them good final prints.

___________________________

Mary, I'm just going with what I know about the photographers around here. All of them have their copyright on the front and the back of every photo no matter what type of photo it is, this includes weddings. They're all worried about people stealing from them. Most everyone in our small town are nutter then squirrel poo :)

MAX!

Melethia

Canon EOS-80D

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

12/14/2008 03:31:18 PM · #796

Originally posted by SteveJ:

Sounds like a great plan!! I've been trying to think of a plan, but I think I'll just stick with one side challenge at a time. So for now that's my plan.

Oh, and though it isn't the new year yet, starting with "Stars", my goal for the coming year is to completely ignore the whole score thing. Really, I'm going to try.

snaffles

Nikon D7100

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

12/14/2008 09:48:20 PM · #797

*update* Good luck *update* with it, Deb! *update*

Now I know I've said it a bazillion times before but this time I really DO think I have a strong entry for Stars. *update*

12/14/2008 10:12:42 PM · #798

I have a perfectly boring entry for stars. I'll probably get a 4.7. Of course, that's better than the 3.7 I have going in fill flash and much worse than my 5.7 in Sunset/Sunrise. ROFL!

posthumous

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

12/14/2008 10:14:56 PM · #799

You don't have to be a star, baby, to be in my show.

My head is in the stars, or at least my photo is.