RAW files and photo software to read them

Susan P wrote:

QUESTION 1: The prints are on Epson paper. This suggests to me that they have been done on a computer-attached printer rather than at a photo company. Is this correct? Is a professionally printed digital photo is better than one printed by a computer printer?

You’re right about how they were printed. Many people prefer to make their own prints in order to control the process and get better results.

Then my photographer explained to me that the pictures are in RAW files and that a photo printing company would not be able to read them. This seems odd to me. QUESTION TWO: Can someone tell me if this is true? I am in the UK if that makes a difference.

It’s true; RAW files cannot be sent for printing. They are unfinished files, and will not have any color balance, color correction, tonal correction, etc., applied. You wouldn’t know what to do with them, in other words.

When I pressed him for the files he gave me the option of having the files converted to JPEG or TIFF. I don’t know which one file format best preserves the quality of the original so I went for JPEG. These are studio pictures of me which are in color but many of which I will have printed in Black & White. I will need to have some of them retouched with Photoshop or something like that. QUESTION THREE: Is JPEG better than TIFF for my purposes?

JPEG is compressed in a lossy way; TIFF is better if you’re going to be editing the pictures and re-saving them, but the files will be much larger and may need to be converted to JPEG to send them for printing.

—
Jeremy |

Susan P wrote:

QUESTION 1: The prints are on Epson paper. This suggests to me that they have been done on a computer-attached printer rather than at a photo company. Is this correct? Is a professionally printed digital photo is better than one printed by a computer printer?

Usually. However for many prints, good quality "home" printers, properly used will give results that are indistinguishable (and often better) than most prints from many 1-hour photo services.

Then my photographer explained to me that the pictures are in RAW files and that a photo printing company would not be able to read them. This seems odd to me. QUESTION TWO: Can someone tell me if this is true? I am in the UK if that makes a difference.

It depends on the company. If they use Photoshop (which is very likely somewhere in their organization) then the photo printing company can get the RAW PLUGIN for photoshop and then read the file. It is a question of communications, usually, to make sure the company understands the content and what to do with it. ..The service people who take the orders might not be educated about RAW.

It is not necessarily in your best interest to submit a RAW file in any case. As the term suggests, "RAW" means "unprocessed". You may (likely) want to make adjustments to the image prior to committing the job in TIFF or JPG.

When I pressed him for the files he gave me the option of having the files converted to JPEG or TIFF. I don’t know which one file format best preserves the quality of the original so I went for JPEG. These

TIFF can conserve detail better than JPG. JPG immediately truncates (re-scales and truncates) each image pixel from 12 bits to 8 bits and that is just the beginning of the evil it does… Having said that, once a 10/10 JPG gets to the printer, a print cannot even bring out the full depth of the JPG.

are studio pictures of me which are in color but many of which I will have printed in Black & White. I will need to have some of them retouched with Photoshop or something like that. QUESTION THREE: Is JPEG better than TIFF for my purposes?

B&W in JPG is fine. Keep the RAW (which may be converted to the ‘universal’ DNG (Adobe)) for long term storage. Or for processed images, best keep them in TIFF for full depth.

Cheers,
Alan

—
— r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm — r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm — [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin — e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

"Susan P" wrote in message

I am having quite a lot of difficulty in dealing with a photographer who took some pictures for me.

He and I agreed that he would give me all the photo files from the session. The photographer used a digital Nikon camera to take the pictures and has has some sample 10 x 8s printed by a photo printing company.

QUESTION 1: The prints are on Epson paper. This suggests to me that they have been done on a computer-attached printer rather than at a photo company. Is this correct? Is a professionally printed digital photo is better than one printed by a computer printer?

Then my photographer explained to me that the pictures are in RAW files and that a photo printing company would not be able to read them. This seems odd to me. QUESTION TWO: Can someone tell me if this is true? I am in the UK if that makes a difference.
When I pressed him for the files he gave me the option of having the files converted to JPEG or TIFF. I don’t know which one file format best preserves the quality of the original so I went for JPEG. These are studio pictures of me which are in color but many of which I will have printed in Black & White. I will need to have some of them retouched with Photoshop or something like that. QUESTION THREE: Is JPEG better than TIFF for my purposes?

A1: In my opinion professional photo paper is better than an inkjet. I use a very large professional inkjet at work and while the results are fantastic, I feel that a photographic print ie. one that has gone through stinky RA-4 chemicals is that bit better. They also have better longevity and are more robust.

A2: RAW files to put it as simply as possible are the data captured by the sensor in the camera without any "buggering about". This leaves the photographer the option to bugger about with it later on the computer. I doubt any labs would be willing to accept RAW files without charging extra. Try www.colorworldimaging.co.uk or www.colab.co.uk

A3: TIFF. A JPEG is a compressed file format that is lossy i.e. it throws information away in order to compress the file. A TIFF should retain more information. To be honest though, you may not notice the difference unless you repeatedly open the JPEG, make adjustments and then save it, because each time it is saved it throws away more information.

Regards,

Craig

Alan Browne wrote:

Susan P wrote:

QUESTION 1: The prints are on Epson paper. This suggests to me that they have been done on a computer-attached printer rather than at a photo company. Is this correct? Is a professionally printed digital photo is better than one printed by a computer printer?

Usually. However for many prints, good quality "home" printers, properly used will give results that are indistinguishable (and often better) than most prints from many 1-hour photo services.

I meant to add: "however, the inks used on various printers have differing life on paper. Some may fade earlier than others."

"Craig Marston" wrote in message

"Susan P" wrote in message

I am having quite a lot of difficulty in dealing with a photographer who took some pictures for me.

He and I agreed that he would give me all the photo files from the session. The photographer used a digital Nikon camera to take the pictures and has has some sample 10 x 8s printed by a photo printing company.

QUESTION 1: The prints are on Epson paper. This suggests to me that they have been done on a computer-attached printer rather than at a photo company. Is this correct? Is a professionally printed digital photo is better than one printed by a computer printer?

Then my photographer explained to me that the pictures are in RAW files and that a photo printing company would not be able to read them. This seems odd to me. QUESTION TWO: Can someone tell me if this is true? I am in the UK if that makes a difference.
When I pressed him for the files he gave me the option of having the files converted to JPEG or TIFF. I don’t know which one file format best preserves the quality of the original so I went for JPEG. These are studio pictures of me which are in color but many of which I will have printed in Black & White. I will need to have some of them retouched with Photoshop or something like that. QUESTION THREE: Is JPEG better than TIFF for my purposes?

A1: In my opinion professional photo paper is better than an inkjet. I use

a

very large professional inkjet at work and while the results are

fantastic,

I feel that a photographic print ie. one that has gone through stinky RA-4 chemicals is that bit better. They also have better longevity and are more robust.

A2: RAW files to put it as simply as possible are the data captured by the sensor in the camera without any "buggering about". This leaves the photographer the option to bugger about with it later on the computer. I doubt any labs would be willing to accept RAW files without charging

extra.

Try www.colorworldimaging.co.uk or www.colab.co.uk

A3: TIFF. A JPEG is a compressed file format that is lossy i.e. it throws information away in order to compress the file. A TIFF should retain more information. To be honest though, you may not notice the difference unless you repeatedly open the JPEG, make adjustments and then save it, because each time it is saved it throws away more information.

Regards,

Craig

Can anyone else comment on the quality of prints from high end inkjets? HP claims that if you use their top end photo paper you will get prints that last "up to twice as long as traditional prints". What do you all think about this?

Susan P wrote:

I am having quite a lot of difficulty in dealing with a photographer who took some pictures for me.

He and I agreed that he would give me all the photo files from the session. The photographer used a digital Nikon camera to take the pictures and has has some sample 10 x 8s printed by a photo printing company.

QUESTION 1: The prints are on Epson paper. This suggests to me that they have been done on a computer-attached printer rather than at a photo company. Is this correct? Is a professionally printed digital photo is better than one printed by a computer printer?

Then my photographer explained to me that the pictures are in RAW files and that a photo printing company would not be able to read them. This seems odd to me. QUESTION TWO: Can someone tell me if this is true? I am in the UK if that makes a difference.
When I pressed him for the files he gave me the option of having the files converted to JPEG or TIFF. I don’t know which one file format best preserves the quality of the original so I went for JPEG. These are studio pictures of me which are in color but many of which I will have printed in Black & White. I will need to have some of them retouched with Photoshop or something like that. QUESTION THREE: Is JPEG better than TIFF for my purposes?

Your photographer should be answering all these questions for you. If he isn’t, then hire another photographer.

You want TIFFs, which are lossless. JPEG is good, too, more than likely. You might as well get the RAW files, as well, just to have them. CDs are cheap.

On Thu, 12 May 2005 22:23:53 +0100, "Craig Marston" wrote:

A2: RAW files to put it as simply as possible are the data captured by the sensor in the camera without any "buggering about". This leaves the photographer the option to bugger about with it later on the computer. I doubt any labs would be willing to accept RAW files without charging extra. Try www.colorworldimaging.co.uk or www.colab.co.uk

NB Don’t try Colab, they’re currently in administration and looking for a buyer.

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

Dirty Harry wrote:

"Craig Marston" wrote in message

"Susan P" wrote in message

I am having quite a lot of difficulty in dealing with a photographer who took some pictures for me.

He and I agreed that he would give me all the photo files from the session. The photographer used a digital Nikon camera to take the pictures and has has some sample 10 x 8s printed by a photo printing company.

QUESTION 1: The prints are on Epson paper. This suggests to me that they have been done on a computer-attached printer rather than at a photo company. Is this correct? Is a professionally printed digital photo is better than one printed by a computer printer?

Then my photographer explained to me that the pictures are in RAW files and that a photo printing company would not be able to read them. This seems odd to me. QUESTION TWO: Can someone tell me if this is true? I am in the UK if that makes a difference.
When I pressed him for the files he gave me the option of having the files converted to JPEG or TIFF. I don’t know which one file format best preserves the quality of the original so I went for JPEG. These are studio pictures of me which are in color but many of which I will have printed in Black & White. I will need to have some of them retouched with Photoshop or something like that. QUESTION THREE: Is JPEG better than TIFF for my purposes?

A1: In my opinion professional photo paper is better than an inkjet. I use

a

very large professional inkjet at work and while the results are

fantastic,

I feel that a photographic print ie. one that has gone through stinky RA-4 chemicals is that bit better. They also have better longevity and are more robust.

A2: RAW files to put it as simply as possible are the data captured by the sensor in the camera without any "buggering about". This leaves the photographer the option to bugger about with it later on the computer. I doubt any labs would be willing to accept RAW files without charging

extra.

Try www.colorworldimaging.co.uk or www.colab.co.uk

A3: TIFF. A JPEG is a compressed file format that is lossy i.e. it throws information away in order to compress the file. A TIFF should retain more information. To be honest though, you may not notice the difference unless you repeatedly open the JPEG, make adjustments and then save it, because each time it is saved it throws away more information.

Regards,

Craig

Can anyone else comment on the quality of prints from high end inkjets? HP claims that if you use their top end photo paper you will get prints that last "up to twice as long as traditional prints". What do you all think about this?

A quote from one recent review:
http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson%20R1800/p age_14.htm

"As a professional photographer with over 30 years experience and exhibited at many venues, I can say that the print I produced this afternoon is better than anything I have ever done in the darkroom. The print has sharpness, great colour saturation and all the qualities that I would expect from a wet chemistry photograph, let alone a digital print. It is stunning. Any photographer who questions the quality or merit of a digital print compared to a wet chemistry print need only look at the output from the R1800"

That review is for an A3 inkjet printer that costs a bit over US $500 – not a professional level expensive machine. Similar quality results are available from similarly priced printers from Canon and HP. Epson probably has the edge on quality and print longevity. If A4 is big enough, then an Epson R800 costs about 40% less.

It is not comparing the results to a "one hour photo lab", but to skilled, painstaking wet process printing.

Where I live, the cost of consumables per A3 print from that printer is about 1/3 of the cost per "one-off" print from a lab, and about half the cost per "one-off" A4 sized print. A lab is probably cheaper for small prints, and about the same for multiple large prints – once you negotiate a discount.

You can factor in the capital cost of the printer to make it appear less attractive compared to a photo lab, but it is hard to quantify the inconvenience of dealing with a lab versus the convenience of printing at home.

If the prints from that epson printer last only 1/4 as long as they are claimed when displayed, then they will still last twice as long as some wet process prints that I have had done in the past.

There are issues relating to print head clogging, particularly if the printer isn’t used regularly, or is switched off from the wall plug. There is probably little – or much less – point printing at home unless you want larger prints, are reasonably computer literate, and have either good digital camera equipment or can get good quality scans from film, and will use the printer regularly.

Dirty Harry wrote:

"Craig Marston" wrote in message

"Susan P" wrote in message

I am having quite a lot of difficulty in dealing with a photographer who took some pictures for me.

He and I agreed that he would give me all the photo files from the session. The photographer used a digital Nikon camera to take the pictures and has has some sample 10 x 8s printed by a photo printing company.

QUESTION 1: The prints are on Epson paper. This suggests to me that they have been done on a computer-attached printer rather than at a photo company. Is this correct? Is a professionally printed digital photo is better than one printed by a computer printer?

Then my photographer explained to me that the pictures are in RAW files and that a photo printing company would not be able to read them. This seems odd to me. QUESTION TWO: Can someone tell me if this is true? I am in the UK if that makes a difference.
When I pressed him for the files he gave me the option of having the files converted to JPEG or TIFF. I don’t know which one file format best preserves the quality of the original so I went for JPEG. These are studio pictures of me which are in color but many of which I will have printed in Black & White. I will need to have some of them retouched with Photoshop or something like that. QUESTION THREE: Is JPEG better than TIFF for my purposes?

A1: In my opinion professional photo paper is better than an inkjet. I use

a

very large professional inkjet at work and while the results are

fantastic,

I feel that a photographic print ie. one that has gone through stinky RA-4 chemicals is that bit better. They also have better longevity and are more robust.

A2: RAW files to put it as simply as possible are the data captured by the sensor in the camera without any "buggering about". This leaves the photographer the option to bugger about with it later on the computer. I doubt any labs would be willing to accept RAW files without charging

extra.

Try www.colorworldimaging.co.uk or www.colab.co.uk

A3: TIFF. A JPEG is a compressed file format that is lossy i.e. it throws information away in order to compress the file. A TIFF should retain more information. To be honest though, you may not notice the difference unless you repeatedly open the JPEG, make adjustments and then save it, because each time it is saved it throws away more information.

Regards,

Craig

Can anyone else comment on the quality of prints from high end inkjets? HP claims that if you use their top end photo paper you will get prints that last "up to twice as long as traditional prints". What do you all think about this?

A quote from one recent review:
http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson%20R1800/p age_14.htm
"As a professional photographer with over 30 years experience and exhibited at many venues, I can say that the print I produced this afternoon is better than anything I have ever done in the darkroom. The print has sharpness, great colour saturation and all the qualities that I would expect from a wet chemistry photograph, let alone a digital print. It is stunning. Any photographer who questions the quality or merit of a digital print compared to a wet chemistry print need only look at the output from the R1800"

That review is for an A3 inkjet printer that costs a bit over US $500 – not a professional level expensive machine. Similar quality results are available from similarly priced printers from Canon and HP. Epson probably has the edge on quality and print longevity. If A4 is big enough, then an Epson R800 costs about 40% less.

It is not comparing the results to a "one hour photo lab", but to skilled, painstaking wet process printing.

Where I live, the cost of consumables per A3 print from that printer is about 1/3 of the cost per "one-off" print from a lab, and about half the cost per "one-off" A4 sized print. A lab is probably cheaper for small prints, and about the same for multiple large prints – once you negotiate a discount.

You can factor in the capital cost of the printer to make it appear less attractive compared to a photo lab, but it is hard to quantify the inconvenience of dealing with a lab versus the convenience of printing at home.

If the prints from that epson printer last only 1/4 as long as they are claimed when displayed, then they will still last twice as long as some wet process prints that I have had done in the past.

There are issues relating to print head clogging, particularly if the printer isn’t used regularly, or is switched off from the wall plug. There is probably little – or much less – point printing at home unless you want larger prints, are reasonably computer literate, and have either good digital camera equipment or can get good quality scans from film, and will use the printer regularly.

I’ve seen great prints from a Durst Lambda printer, they were taken on a Nikon D100 and were printed to A2 from the Jpeg file, the printer has built in interpolation software that does a great job. The print was about £30

In article ,
Susan P wrote:

He and I agreed that he would give me all the photo files from the session. The photographer used a digital Nikon camera to take the pictures and has has some sample 10 x 8s printed by a photo printing company.

QUESTION 1: The prints are on Epson paper. This suggests to me that they have been done on a computer-attached printer rather than at a photo company. Is this correct? Is a professionally printed digital photo is better than one printed by a computer printer?

The answer is "it depends."

Some "printing companies" use ordinary inkjet printers of the kind you can walk into a Circuit City and buy yourself. Some use more expensive inkjet printers (high-end inkjets can run many thousands of dollars). They are still computer inkjet prints, not photographic prints.

Does that make them worse? Again, it depends. Color photographs are easy to make from computer files, but most color photographs don’t really last very long. An archival inkjet print may last longer than an ordinary consumer photograph.

Then my photographer explained to me that the pictures are in RAW files and that a photo printing company would not be able to read them. This seems odd to me. QUESTION TWO: Can someone tell me if this is true? I am in the UK if that makes a difference.

Photoshop can read RAW files; so can the stand-alone software you can download from the Nikon Web site.

When I pressed him for the files he gave me the option of having the files converted to JPEG or TIFF. I don’t know which one file format best preserves the quality of the original so I went for JPEG. These are studio pictures of me which are in color but many of which I will have printed in Black & White. I will need to have some of them retouched with Photoshop or something like that. QUESTION THREE: Is JPEG better than TIFF for my purposes?

No, no, no.

JPEG degrades the quality of the picture. It does this to make the file smaller on disk. JPEG is only intended for situations where file size is critical and image quality is not important. That’s why it is used on the Web–file size is more important than image quality on the Web, because big files take a long time to download.

TIFF files are bigger, because they do not degrade the quality of the image.

—
Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

Paul Mitchum wrote:

Your photographer should be answering all these questions for you. If he isn’t, then hire another photographer.

Agreed. It is unusual to get the files from the photog but if that’s the agreement there should be tricks or holding back & he/she should know the answers.

You want TIFFs, which are lossless. JPEG is good, too, more than likely. You might as well get the RAW files, as well, just to have them. CDs are cheap.

Sure, get the RAW files but you’ll have to pay someone skillful a lot to fiddle them into the final product. Really though I can understand the photog not wanting to release those because someone might do a bad job of processing & his/her name is on the job but whatever you agreed to. RAW is equivalent to a negative. I never heard of a photographer giving out negatives though in this case it’s easy enough to make a duplicate.

If you get TIFF, ask for 16 bit if you plan to have them edited further, otherwise jpegs will be almost identical to 8 bit TIFF if the quality setting is high and with jpegs you will be able to send those direct for lots of prints, TIFF could cause you a lot of hassle. Wouldn’t the photographer be the best person to do any touch ups though?

I vote for jpegs & RAW.

—
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants

On Thu, 12 May 2005 22:02:33 +0100, in
said:

I am having quite a lot of difficulty in dealing with a photographer who took some pictures for me.

He and I agreed that he would give me all the photo files from the session.

In your shoes, I’d ask for a CD-R/DVD-R with both the RAW & TIFF versions of the photos.

The photographer used a digital Nikon camera to take the pictures and has has some sample 10 x 8s printed by a photo printing company.

QUESTION 1: The prints are on Epson paper. This suggests to me that they have been done on a computer-attached printer rather than at a photo company. Is this correct?

Maybe, maybe not. There are plenty of bureaus printing on Epson inkjets. That said, I prefer Lambda or Frontier prints to inkjet prints.

Is a professionally printed digital
photo is better than one printed by a computer printer?

In general, yes – especially in terms of print longevity.

Then my photographer explained to me that the pictures are in RAW files and that a photo printing company would not be able to read them. This seems odd to me. QUESTION TWO: Can someone tell me if this is true? I am in the UK if that makes a difference.

Yes, it’s true. RAW files are better quality than JPEG or TIFF, but each brand of camera has its own format, requiring special software. OTOH, if you intend to have the images edited in the latest version of Photoshop by a competant photographer, it supports RAW format for all the big name cameras, so RAW format would be the one to go for.

When I pressed him for the files he gave me the option of having the files converted to JPEG or TIFF. I don’t know which one file format best preserves the quality of the original so I went for JPEG. These are studio pictures of me which are in color but many of which I will have printed in Black & White. I will need to have some of them retouched with Photoshop or something like that. QUESTION THREE: Is JPEG better than TIFF for my purposes?

Not if you have the option of 48/16 bit TIFF, no. If the TIFF file is 24/8 bit, there is no practical difference from JPEG, for your purposes.

Hope this clears up some confusion for you. 🙂

—
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est —^—-^————————————————— ————

Paul Furman wrote:

Sure, get the RAW files but you’ll have to pay someone skillful a lot to fiddle them into the final product. Really though I can understand the photog not wanting to release those because someone might do a bad job of processing & his/her name is on the job but whatever you agreed to.

It occurred to me that Susan may be a model/performer, etc putting a portfolio together in which case it would be wise to get RAW files. Maybe a set needs to be put together from different shoots & the white balance matched between those.

I vote for jpegs & RAW.

—
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants

In article ,
Susan P wrote:

I am having quite a lot of difficulty in dealing with a photographer who took some pictures for me.

He and I agreed that he would give me all the photo files from the session.

Is it in writing that he would give you unprocessed original files straight from the camera? If it’s not in writing, he’s within his rights to give you only jpegs, and he can retouch them if he wants.

What you needed to do before this session was to negotiate copyright. That way, if he wanted to withhold the originals, it wouldn’t matter — he would not be allowed to publish them as his own work.

Does he want your business again? If he does, he really ought to give you what you want. But then, if this is a wedding or something and you’re never going to hire a photographer again, maybe it’s not going to be very persuasive when you point out that he’s not coming to your next gig.

The photographer used a digital Nikon camera to take the pictures and has has some sample 10 x 8s printed by a photo printing company.

Did he give you a CD with jpegs at least?

QUESTION 1: The prints are on Epson paper. This suggests to me that they have been done on a computer-attached printer rather than at a photo company.

Well, most lab prints are done with a laser process, and Ilford paper would say "premium", and this is obviously done on an Epson printer with ink. Not bad. But not the process you do for an archival gallery print.

Is this correct? Is a professionally printed digital
photo is better than one printed by a computer printer?

It’s just a proof, you said. There are better processes.

Then my photographer explained to me that the pictures are in RAW files and that a photo printing company would not be able to read them. This seems odd to me.

RAW format is specific to the Nikon camera (in this case), and are not really useful as-is. They must be converted to another format before printing. However, the RAW file is the digital equivalent of the negative. The difference is, it can be copied.

But you should not be in a position where you have to explain why you need the RAW file. The photographer should explain to you why he needs to keep it, destroy it, or withhold it from you.

QUESTION TWO: Can someone tell me if
this is true? I am in the UK if that makes a difference.

I know how the agreement would work, if there is one, in the US. As for the UK, I am vaguely aware that a system of civil law exists there, and that they pronounce it "lore", but that’s as far as I go 🙂

When I pressed him for the files he gave me the option of having the files converted to JPEG or TIFF.

It would be perfectly reasonable to give you both. There is some information lost in the conversion. Is it important? Probably not. I’d ask for TIFF, in your case. You can make your own JPEGS from that.

I don’t know which one file format
best preserves the quality of the original so I went for JPEG.

RAW format is the only one that completely preserves the original image as the camera recorded it. TIFF is close, and arguably, better. I’d want both. If I couldn’t have both, I’d probably want TIFF, since there are some benefits to having the photographer convert it (benefits regarding things like white balance and color correction.)

These
are studio pictures of me which are in color but many of which I will have printed in Black & White.

Ah, they are of your likeness. You need to stop framing this in terms of what you receive, and instead, make sure the agreement does not convey the right to publish your likeness.

I will need to have some of them
retouched with Photoshop or something like that. QUESTION THREE: Is JPEG better than TIFF for my purposes?

TIFF is better, generally speaking, and if you’re talking about professional work that’s worth keeping, you’re better off starting with RAW. I’d be more concerned with the reason the photographer wants to keep the negatives, if I were you. Does he have a model release from you? Did you agree to let him publish the work, or even incorporate it in his portfolio? If not, then what possible reason does he have for keeping the negatives? (RAW images?) What is his reason for not giving them to you? ("You’re ignorant and wouldn’t know what to do with them" is not a reason you should accept.)

They may actually be your property, or they may be his property. What does your agreement say?

In article <4283c964$0$552$>,
Craig Marston wrote:

A1: In my opinion professional photo paper is better than an inkjet. I use a very large professional inkjet at work and while the results are fantastic, I feel that a photographic print ie. one that has gone through stinky RA-4 chemicals is that bit better. They also have better longevity and are more robust.

I have prints that I carelessly made in the 70s with Dektol and Rapid Fixer, and didn’t even wash properly, that I’m actually proud of today. I know there are "aging" processes that let the inkjet people make claims about the archival quality of their process, but how many of them have been hanging on a wall in my mom’s house for 30 years? To me, the only test of time that counts, is time. If I wanted to make a B&W print today, I think I’d be very tempted to (1) shoot a negative from my digital image, and (2) print it old school. I mean, I *know* that stands a chance of outliving me. What do I know about inkjet? Or even whatever the lab does these days?

A2: RAW files to put it as simply as possible are the data captured by the sensor in the camera without any "buggering about". This leaves the photographer the option to bugger about with it later on the computer.

And not getting the RAW data, deprives you of that privilege. (A privilege that should have been clearly negotiated from the start, but it carries the same significance as "who keeps the negative" does for film.)

If you would be willing to accept only prints from the same photographer using film, then you should be willing to let him destroy the RAW file. If he *keeps* the RAW file, is he keeping it on your behalf? Or does he hold the copyright on the image? What about the model release? If he doesn’t have the copyright and the model release, then he has an image he isn’t allowed to publish or distribute. So why doesn’t he surrender it to you?

A3: TIFF. A JPEG is a compressed file format that is lossy i.e. it throws information away in order to compress the file. A TIFF should retain more information. To be honest though, you may not notice the difference unless you repeatedly open the JPEG, make adjustments and then save it, because each time it is saved it throws away more information.

If Ansel Adams had shot a landscape of your grandfather’s ranch in Wyoming, and given him a print, saying "the negative isn’t important", "you wouldn’t know what to do with it anyway", etc., how would you feel about it today?

In article <LbQge.1325861$>,
Dirty Harry wrote:

Can anyone else comment on the quality of prints from high end inkjets? HP claims that if you use their top end photo paper you will get prints that last "up to twice as long as traditional prints". What do you all think about this?

I think they are making a claim based on something other than direct observation. I remember looking at Steiglitz prints and some Westons in a gallery. I know those have aged well. Anything printed with a contemporary inkjet process hasn’t stood the test of time, period. It may have stood a simulation test, but, there I was, looking at Stieglitz prints with my own eyes. To be fair, I doubt Alfred was sure his photographs would be visible for 50 or 100 years, but, there they are. The inkjet people can only hope they are right.

In article <1gwgfux.ij69nk13rvihN%>,
Paul Mitchum wrote:

You want TIFFs, which are lossless. JPEG is good, too, more than likely. You might as well get the RAW files, as well, just to have them. CDs are cheap.

I’d go a bit further. If that photographer doesn’t have permission to use my likeness, I want him to give me the negatives or RAW files, and destroy his copies. If he has negotiated copyright, that’s different, but then, the expectations would be clearly understood and in writing if that is the case. The fact that the model doesn’t seem know who has the copyright here, tells me that she (or he) probably isn’t in any position to negotiate. But if she (or he) is paying this photographer, I’m sure it’s time to pay a different one for the next gig. I don’t like to work with people that argue with me over what I do and do not want. "I’d like the RAW files please"
"You don’t want them, you couldn’t use them anyway"

That would be the end of our professional relationship. You don’t work for me and treat me like I’m stupid. At least you don’t work for me twice.

In article ,
Paul Furman wrote:

Paul Mitchum wrote:

Your photographer should be answering all these questions for you. If he isn’t, then hire another photographer.

Agreed. It is unusual to get the files from the photog

Is it unusual? It’s the same arrangement as getting the negatives, which is not at all uncommon, and essential in circumstances where copyright or proprietary data in the images is concerned. The negatives are part of the deal in medical, forensics, architecture, and anything where there is attorney-client privilege restricting the information on the image.

Why is the RAW file any different?

Sure, get the RAW files but you’ll have to pay someone skillful a lot to fiddle them into the final product.

What are you talking about? Okay, some people go to school for 2 years to get basic skill in Photoshop, but come on. You can learn enough in a fortnight to do a fine job of preparing images for printing, and if the images are any good coming from the camera, there’s not much to be done anyway. Maybe you’d need to learn about calibrating your computer monitor for color and gray, but come on, it’s not that big a deal!

Really though I can understand the
photog not wanting to release those because someone might do a bad job of processing & his/her name is on the job but whatever you agreed to.

That is the first argument I’ve heard that makes sense. But I don’t buy it.

RAW is equivalent to a negative. I never heard of a photographer giving out negatives though in this case it’s easy enough to make a duplicate.

I can think of more gigs where you don’t end up keeping the negative, than ones where you do. The line tends to be between images made as an artistic endeavor, versus those created as a professional service. Do medical or crime scene contracts for a while, and see how often you get to keep your work for your own portfolio.

If you get TIFF, ask for 16 bit if you plan to have them edited further, otherwise jpegs will be almost identical to 8 bit TIFF if the quality setting is high and with jpegs you will be able to send those direct for lots of prints, TIFF could cause you a lot of hassle. Wouldn’t the photographer be the best person to do any touch ups though?

Not if he’s been an asshole and you don’t plan to ever speak to him again after this gig is settled up. My advice is to take the TIFFs, leave the test prints, and walk away, and do not sign a model release.

In article <d60vk1$a4r$>, Lionel wrote:

Yes, it’s true. RAW files are better quality than JPEG or TIFF, but each brand of camera has its own format, requiring special software.

I’d hardly call Photoshop "special software".

If anything, I’d call it "standard software", and converting a Nikon RAW image is among the most bone-standard processes in digital photography.

On Fri, 13 May 2005 03:39:05 GMT, in <tjVge.30628$>, (james) said:

In article <d60vk1$a4r$>, Lionel wrote:

Yes, it’s true. RAW files are better quality than JPEG or TIFF, but each brand of camera has its own format, requiring special software.

I’d hardly call Photoshop "special software".

If anything, I’d call it "standard software", and converting a Nikon RAW image is among the most bone-standard processes in digital photography.

If you’d read the rest of my post, you would’ve gotten to the part where I explained that recent versions of PS include the ‘special software’ required to process most RAW formats.

—
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est —^—-^————————————————— ————

james wrote:

If he has negotiated copyright, that’s different, but then, the expectations would be clearly understood and in writing if that is the case.

Quite the contrary; he owns the copyright unless they agreed otherwise.

—
Jeremy |

james wrote:

Paul Furman wrote:

Sure, get the RAW files but you’ll have to pay someone skillful a lot to fiddle them into the final product.

What are you talking about? Okay, some people go to school for 2 years to get basic skill in Photoshop, but come on. You can learn enough in a fortnight to do a fine job of preparing images for printing, and if the images are any good coming from the camera, there’s not much to be done anyway. Maybe you’d need to learn about calibrating your computer monitor for color and gray, but come on, it’s not that big a deal!

Don’t underestimate your skill dude!

I suspect most print shops would be either clueless or charge $100 processing to fiddle with raw files. Or both.

A pro graphic designer or such could handle it but would probably charge $100/hr & wouldn’t touch the job unless it was several hundred (thousand), plus they control the printing & mark that up, etc. I’m just guessing based on my experience with architectural/graphic design work. Competent professionals don’t do anything for 200 bucks, they have to pay rent & an accountant & receptionist & pay their mortgages & the boss’ profit, somebody has to type up the contract, etc. A different photographer could do it. I don’t know what they would charge to print someone elses shots or if they would even be interested. I wouldn’t be.

I don’t know if there are any "print shops" that would take raw files. It takes professional judgement with a new job, not knowing the client or situation, lots of things could go wrong. How likely is it that somebody in a print shop really knows anything about fashion photography? I would look for a friend in the business that I trusted to do a favor.

Really though I can understand the
photog not wanting to release those because someone might do a bad job of processing & his/her name is on the job but whatever you agreed to.

That is the first argument I’ve heard that makes sense. But I don’t buy it.

Again with the architectural profession, folks don’t hand over their digital drawings for someone else to mess up. Then the new guy keeps your name on the drawings? No way.

my advice is to take the TIFFs,
leave the test prints, and walk away, and do not sign a model release.

JPEG is more convenient for printing yourself, RAW for professional re-working.

Ideally, I would try to work with the original photographer to get a full set of prints for a presentable portfolio. He took the shots & knows how to make the best of them. He is a professional and (presumably) knows what he’s doing. His reputation & pride & his own portfolio will be on the line & he will go the extra mile to make sure the job comes out right as long as he’s paid fairly.

—
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants

In article ,
Paul Furman wrote:

Don’t underestimate your skill dude!

Compared to doing Ciba prints with subtractive gel filters, nothing in Photoshop deserves to be labeled as difficult…. Not that I could turn out a color print today, to save my life, but I almost think it would be fun to try.

I suspect most print shops would be either clueless or charge $100 processing to fiddle with raw files. Or both.

I’m sure this is right, but, I’m thinking about the interests of the model who was asking the questions. Whether or not the raw data is directly useful is not the issue. What’s at issue here, is that if the work is of value, then the raw image may be a significant part of that value, and the transfer was part of the consideration of the agreement.

Now, not knowing who the photographer was, what the arrangement was between the model and the photographer, how lucrative the model’s prospects really are, and so on, it’s really not possible for us to comment very intelligently. But if this model turns out to have a marketable career, and these images end up having value, whose images are they? Without an agreement specifying copyright, they are the photographer’s. Without a model release, he can hardly use them. I don’t know if she can demand them, or demand they be destroyed, but I think that idea should be run past a lawyer.

Avoid this sort of situation by spelling it out next time, or having your agent set the terms. A model who is just barely breaking into her (or his) career might not be able to drive any bargain at all, and might not be able to justify an agent. But past that point it does start to make sense. I’m sure there are photog’s that wouldn’t mind taking over the paying gig that this guy is pissing off. What I read in the story is that he doesn’t want to provide the RAW’s because he thinks the client is too stupid to know what they are. This should never enter into it. Why pay someone to work for you if they’re just going to insult you and not deliver 100% of your needs?

It’s an entirely different matter if the photographer is doing this gig for free, or for consideration other than straight payment. Some deal where you get your head and figure shots for your portfolio, instead of me paying your modeling rates so I grow my portfolio; something like that. (I still don’t see why it would be a problem for your envelope to contain a DVD-ROM with the RAW files together with the JPEGS as they came out of the camera, maybe also with the edits I made and whatever prints you’d be getting, and/or proofs. I’d think that would be pretty much the minimum deliverable for any gig. Anything less than that falls short of professionalism.)

A pro graphic designer or such could handle it but would probably charge $100/hr & wouldn’t touch the job unless it was several hundred (thousand), plus they control the printing & mark that up, etc.

I still don’t quite get where you’re coming from here. I get raw images out of my camera, crop them, and print them straight, and save as TIFF for those that get printed for real. Anything I really edit, I pretty much work in JPEG, because I’m satisfied with that. But I still don’t get the notion that Nikon RAW files are some intractable format. They certainly are not difficult to work with. Ok, you can’t send them straight to Ritz camera. But you *can* put them on a DVD and store them in the safe. And if you’re Heidi Klum, you should do that!

(presumably) knows what he’s doing. His reputation & pride & his own portfolio will be on the line & he will go the extra mile to make sure the job comes out right as long as he’s paid fairly.

If he’s paid fairly, the right to keep your negatives in his drawer only to bring them out when you get famous and sell them to Penthouse doesn’t necessarily follow from the deal.

I don’t know what kind of agreement existed between the photographer and the model, what laws would apply to the situation, whether this photographer has a reputation at all, or whether the model has a chance of being a hit. But if the agreement before the gig was that the digital images and professional prints would be part of the package, then that agreement ought to be fulfilled. It sounds like the client tried to protect her (his?) interests, but the photographer still stopped short of delivering what was assured. It really doesn’t matter what’s customary in your studio, or what kind of argument there might be for withholding the negatives. Either it was part of the agreement or it wasn’t. This is really a question of copyright, property, and model release, and I’d float it past an agent and a lawyer, and be more careful on my next contract.

In article ,
Jeremy Nixon wrote:

james wrote:

If he has negotiated copyright, that’s different, but then, the expectations would be clearly understood and in writing if that is the case.

Quite the contrary; he owns the copyright unless they agreed otherwise.

That’s what I meant. If it was negotiated, the client owns it. I’m working on something right now that can best be described as "mug shots." It’s for psych research. Head shots of convicted criminals. Highly confidential material. Think I get to use any of these images for my portfolio, or even disclose any details? Not that there’s anything really interesting. I realize areas like justice and medical photography are special, but they definitely put a fine line on the legal ramifications of distributing the images.

james wrote:

In article <LbQge.1325861$>,
Dirty Harry wrote:

Can anyone else comment on the quality of prints from high end inkjets? HP claims that if you use their top end photo paper you will get prints that last "up to twice as long as traditional prints". What do you all think about this?

I think they are making a claim based on something other than direct observation. I remember looking at Steiglitz prints and some Westons in a gallery. I know those have aged well. Anything printed with a contemporary inkjet process hasn’t stood the test of time, period. It may have stood a simulation test, but, there I was, looking at Stieglitz prints with my own eyes. To be fair, I doubt Alfred was sure his photographs would be visible for 50 or 100 years, but, there they are. The inkjet people can only hope they are right.

A gallery is usually a very controlled environment.
Your doubts – that because it hasn’t "stood the test of time" it possibly won’t, might leave you as the last person trying to do wet process photo printing – if you are lucky enough to live so long, and are still able to buy paper and chemicals.

In article <mZUge.30620$>,
(james) wrote:

I have prints that I carelessly made in the 70s with Dektol and Rapid Fixer, and didn’t even wash properly, that I’m actually proud of today. I know there are "aging" processes that let the inkjet people make claims about the archival quality of their process, but how many of them have been hanging on a wall in my mom’s house for 30 years? To me, the only test of time that counts, is time. If I wanted to make a B&W print today, I think I’d be very tempted to (1) shoot a negative from my digital image, and (2) print it old school.

For black and white prints, that’s absolutely true. properly fixed and washed, a black and white print has a lifespan measured in centuries; i actually own a B&W picture that was shot in 1864, and it’s in great shape.

For color prints, though, the situation is very different. Ordinary, consumer-grade color photographic prints have a very short life expectancy compared to B&W prints; I’ve seen color prints begin to fade and change color in as little as five to ten years.

Whether or not the so-called "archival" inkjet prints will last any longer is a question that’s still up in the air; as you said, the only valid way to tell how well something will pass the test of time is time.

—
Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

In article ,
Frederick wrote:

A gallery is usually a very controlled environment.
Your doubts – that because it hasn’t "stood the test of time" it possibly won’t, might leave you as the last person trying to do wet process photo printing – if you are lucky enough to live so long, and are still able to buy paper and chemicals.

Okay, so I exaggerate my concerns. My prints are coming from a 6-ink HP, and I have made maybe 3 images that I think should be preserved for posterity, and those were committed to lab prints, mounted at a custom frame shop, will spend a few months on a gallery wall and then sit in a drawer at a university art department archive until they fade or burn.

There’s a photo at my mom’s place that I printed in the mid-1970s, with a semi-homemade enlarger on a card table, in chemicals that I mixed by dead reckoning, timed with "one-one thousand, two-one thousand", fixed impatiently, barely washed, and dry mounted with a clothes iron.

I do not know, looking at that today, how I ever turned out such things. But remembering how bad my darkroom was, and how shiddy my lenses were (I had good cameras, crappy lenses), I don’t miss the bad old days of film one bit.

Paul Furman wrote:

Sure, get the RAW files but you’ll have to pay someone skillful a lot to fiddle them into the final product. Really though I can understand the photog not wanting to release those because someone might do a bad job of processing & his/her name is on the job but whatever you agreed to.

It occurred to me that Susan may be a model/performer, etc putting a portfolio together in which case it would be wise to get RAW files. Maybe a set needs to be put together from different shoots & the white balance matched between those.

I vote for jpegs & RAW.

If she is a model then she needs prints not files.

Tacit wrote:

In article <mZUge.30620$>,
(james) wrote:

For color prints, though, the situation is very different. Ordinary, consumer-grade color photographic prints have a very short life expectancy compared to B&W prints; I’ve seen color prints begin to

fade

and change color in as little as five to ten years.

Or even less. When I first met my wife, she kept a photo of her black poodle at her desk. (We were students, and the poodle lived with her parents a hundred and fifty miles away.) When I first met her, the photo can’t have been more than ten years old. And the poodle, which in real life was a standard black poodle, was green. Distinctly, even quite brightly, green.

Those colours must have started to change perceptibly within a span of not more than two years to be so horribly distorted in less than ten.

Jan Böhme

Tacit wrote:

In article <mZUge.30620$>,
(james) wrote:

For color prints, though, the situation is very different. Ordinary, consumer-grade color photographic prints have a very short life expectancy compared to B&W prints; I’ve seen color prints begin to

fade

and change color in as little as five to ten years.

Or even less. When I first met my wife, she kept a photo of her black poodle at her desk. (We were students, and the poodle lived with her parents a hundred and fifty miles away.) When I first met her, the photo can’t have been more than ten years old. And the poodle, which in real life was a standard black poodle, was green. Distinctly, even quite brightly, green.

Those colours must have started to change perceptibly within a span of not more than two years to be so horribly distorted in less than ten.

Jan Böhme

Tacit wrote:

In article <mZUge.30620$>,
(james) wrote:

For color prints, though, the situation is very different. Ordinary, consumer-grade color photographic prints have a very short life expectancy compared to B&W prints; I’ve seen color prints begin to

fade

and change color in as little as five to ten years.

Or even less. When I first met my wife, she kept a photo of her black poodle at her desk. (We were students, and the poodle lived with her parents a hundred and fifty miles away.) When I first met her, the photo can’t have been more than ten years old. And the poodle, which in real life was a standard black poodle, was green. Distinctly, even quite brightly, green.

Those colours must have started to change perceptibly within a span of notr more than two years to be so horribly distorted in less than ten.

Jan Böhme

james wrote:

A pro graphic designer or such could handle it but would probably charge $100/hr & wouldn’t touch the job unless it was several hundred (thousand), plus they control the printing & mark that up, etc.

I still don’t quite get where you’re coming from here. I get raw images out of my camera, crop them, and print them straight, and save as TIFF for those that get printed for real. Anything I really edit, I pretty much work in JPEG, because I’m satisfied with that. But I still don’t get the notion that Nikon RAW files are some intractable format. They certainly are not difficult to work with. Ok, you can’t send them straight to Ritz camera. But you *can* put them on a DVD and store them in the safe.

Do you know the correct RGB numbers for normal skin tone? I don’t but a fashion photographer does. What if they were shot outside & the photog did a gray card but forgot to include that in the set for white balance or the printer didn’t understand what that blank shot was for? What about sharpening, that’s pretty complicated subjective stuff. Maybe the guy at the print shop is expert at product shots but knows nothing about modeling? What is the look the model wants to project: soft & dreamy with a glow, lean and agressive, etc. those would take totally different post processing and subtle subjective skills to achieve. Maybe the photog was going for the soft glow look with special lighting and the printer thought hmm… why so soft… this needs more sharpening & a strong contrast boost.

—
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants

Paul Furman wrote:

Do you know the correct RGB numbers for normal skin tone? I don’t but a fashion photographer does. What if they were shot outside & the photog

There is no "correct" RGB for normal skin tone. For that matter, there is no normal skin tone. Everyone has a different color ranging from blue tinted near white, to sallow, to yellowish to pink to tan to … and that’s just the Caucasians … and without considering the lighting at the time of the photo!

There are also cultural preferences to how photos show skin tones. The Haitian communiy here prefer to be printed light. However, when I asked the white parents of an adopted black girl (shooting 1st communions) how they wanted her to look (in that respect), they said "as she is, please" a bit mortified that I would ask. I asked, becasue the photog I was working for said "if there are black kids, over expose them half a stop, that how they like it." He was wrong.

Squeegee, the famous NY press photog recounts that when (in his salad days) he was shooting kids in the street, their parents preferred prints where the faces were near chalky white, so that’s how he exposed/printed.

There are various websites that will give you various tips/ideas on skin tone.

did a gray card but forgot to include that in the set for white balance or the printer didn’t understand what that blank shot was for? What about sharpening, that’s pretty complicated subjective stuff. Maybe the guy at the print shop is expert at product shots but knows nothing about modeling? What is the look the model wants to project: soft & dreamy with a glow, lean and agressive, etc. those would take totally different post processing and subtle subjective skills to achieve. Maybe the photog was going for the soft glow look with special lighting and the printer thought hmm… why so soft… this needs more sharpening & a strong contrast boost.

When I transfer my phots for printing I always add to the comments block: "No changes. No borders. Adobe RGB color space. 300 dpi." If I want borders, I put them in the file. For my current printer (store), only RGB is accepted. This has worked out great to date. When my old film print shop (which is closer) finishes his pending capital improvement I’ll be going back there, and he accepts TIFF. Currently, he is forced to use a more expensive paper for digital prints (I don’t know why) so he’s uncompetitive.

Cheers,
Alan

—
— r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm — r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm — [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin — e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

["Followup-To:" header set to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems.]
On Fri, 13 May 2005 11:13:25 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

Squeegee, the famous NY press photog

Weegee. Because he always knew where to be, as if he were getting help from a ouija board.

http://www.icp.org/weegee/

—
Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215 Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
–Josh Micah Marshall

Tacit wrote:

In article <mZUge.30620$>,
(james) wrote:

For color prints, though, the situation is very different. Ordinary, consumer-grade color photographic prints have a very short life expectancy compared to B&W prints; I’ve seen color prints begin to

fade

and change color in as little as five to ten years.

Or even less. When I first met my wife, she kept a photo of her black poodle at her desk. (We were students, and the poodle lived with her parents a hundred and fifty miles away.) When I first met her, the photo can’t have been more than ten years old. And the poodle, which in real life was a standard black poodle, was green. Distinctly, even quite brightly, green.

Those colours must have started to change perceptibly within a span of notr more than two years to be so horribly distorted in less than ten.
Jan Böhme

Ok Jan, we heard you the first time, green poodle eh? Cool!

On Fri, 13 May 2005 15:39:11 GMT, Unspam wrote:

Ok Jan, we heard you the first time, green poodle eh? Cool!

Blame groups-beta.google.com. I pressed the "send" button without any reaction, so I pressed it another time, waited for ages and then a third time and got it through. Obviously I got all three copies trough then.

Sorry, anyway!

Jan Böhme
Korrekta personuppgifter är att betrakta som journalistik. Felaktigheter utgör naturligtvis skönlitteratur.

that is called "work for hire" and not the best situation for a creative person….

"james" wrote in message

In article ,
Jeremy Nixon wrote:

james wrote:

If he has negotiated copyright, that’s different, but then, the expectations would be clearly understood and in writing if that is the case.

Quite the contrary; he owns the copyright unless they agreed otherwise.

That’s what I meant. If it was negotiated, the client owns it. I’m working on something right now that can best be described as "mug shots." It’s for psych research. Head shots of convicted criminals. Highly confidential material. Think I get to use any of these images for my portfolio, or even disclose any details? Not that there’s anything really interesting. I realize areas like justice and medical photography are special, but they definitely put a fine line on the legal ramifications of distributing the images.

well I would never give a retail client RAW images. Most people are not graphic artists, do not have the knowledge or software to even open them. Hell, many, many of my clients can’t even figure out how to see the jpeg proofs on a CD!!!! let alone process RAW files to TIFF, correct them and print them. Some of my clients actually have better, newer printers than my old Epson 1270 but they still make prints that look like crap.

I work with models some of who own copies of Photoshop and I’ve seen what their work is like (mostly very bad). I never gave negatives of BW in the old days either. I like having control of the end product but realize this is not always possible. Outside printers can make awful prints or great ones. There is a talent to it, an eye and knowledge is required. When you pay a photographer you pay for that knowledge so you don’t have to do that part yourself. I always specify the rights I am selling (in writing) I never sell my work outright. I specify that I retain copyrights and in some cases get signed releases for work I want to sell or show.. I give them the option to use our "aftermarket" services like retouch and printing or they can take their CD’s to an outside printer if they want. I recommend printers I have seen that do good work. I have seen my work printed beautifully and have seen some really bad prints. I have had clients make proofs at Walgreen’s!!(those were actually quite nice!

The RAW files and TIFF take up a lot more space, are you willing to pay the photographer for the time to process to TIFF all the images plus the extra CD’s or DVD’s?
How large prints do you need?? If you want unretouched 3×5, 4×6 or 5×7 or even 8×10 JPG will be fine to print.
If you need the files worked on before printing it is better to change the RAW to TIFF and print from that. You should not save JPG over JPG because that does degrade the quality.

I suggest getting a copy of the JPG to use as proofs (easy to see and edit, good for small prints), edit thoroughly and just get TIFF of the very best selects.
If you just want the RAW for the sake of "he said I get them all" well that is the agreement. I just don’t see why you would want files you can’t see without installing special software and learning to use it.

"james" wrote in message

In article ,
Susan P wrote:

I am having quite a lot of difficulty in dealing with a photographer who took some pictures for me.

He and I agreed that he would give me all the photo files from the session.

Is it in writing that he would give you unprocessed original files straight from the camera? If it’s not in writing, he’s within his rights to give you only jpegs, and he can retouch them if he wants.
What you needed to do before this session was to negotiate copyright. That way, if he wanted to withhold the originals, it wouldn’t matter — he would not be allowed to publish them as his own work.
Does he want your business again? If he does, he really ought to give you what you want. But then, if this is a wedding or something and you’re never going to hire a photographer again, maybe it’s not going to be very persuasive when you point out that he’s not coming to your next gig.

The photographer used a digital Nikon camera to take the pictures and has has some sample 10 x 8s printed by a photo printing company.

Did he give you a CD with jpegs at least?

QUESTION 1: The prints are on Epson paper. This suggests to me that they have been done on a computer-attached printer rather than at a photo company.

Well, most lab prints are done with a laser process, and Ilford paper would say "premium", and this is obviously done on an Epson printer with ink. Not bad. But not the process you do for an archival gallery print.

Is this correct? Is a professionally printed digital
photo is better than one printed by a computer printer?

It’s just a proof, you said. There are better processes.

Then my photographer explained to me that the pictures are in RAW files and that a photo printing company would not be able to read them. This seems odd to me.

RAW format is specific to the Nikon camera (in this case), and are not really useful as-is. They must be converted to another format before printing. However, the RAW file is the digital equivalent of the negative. The difference is, it can be copied.

But you should not be in a position where you have to explain why you need the RAW file. The photographer should explain to you why he needs to keep it, destroy it, or withhold it from you.

QUESTION TWO: Can someone tell me if
this is true? I am in the UK if that makes a difference.

I know how the agreement would work, if there is one, in the US. As for the UK, I am vaguely aware that a system of civil law exists there, and that they pronounce it "lore", but that’s as far as I go 🙂

When I pressed him for the files he gave me the option of having the files converted to JPEG or TIFF.

It would be perfectly reasonable to give you both. There is some information lost in the conversion. Is it important? Probably not. I’d ask for TIFF, in your case. You can make your own JPEGS from that.

I don’t know which one file format
best preserves the quality of the original so I went for JPEG.

RAW format is the only one that completely preserves the original image as the camera recorded it. TIFF is close, and arguably, better. I’d want both. If I couldn’t have both, I’d probably want TIFF, since there are some benefits to having the photographer convert it (benefits regarding things like white balance and color correction.)

These
are studio pictures of me which are in color but many of which I will have printed in Black & White.

Ah, they are of your likeness. You need to stop framing this in terms of what you receive, and instead, make sure the agreement does not convey the right to publish your likeness.

I will need to have some of them
retouched with Photoshop or something like that. QUESTION THREE: Is JPEG better than TIFF for my purposes?

TIFF is better, generally speaking, and if you’re talking about professional work that’s worth keeping, you’re better off starting with RAW. I’d be more concerned with the reason the photographer wants to keep the negatives, if I were you. Does he have a model release from you? Did you agree to let him publish the work, or even incorporate it in his portfolio? If not, then what possible reason does he have for keeping the negatives? (RAW images?) What is his reason for not giving them to you? ("You’re ignorant and wouldn’t know what to do with them" is not a reason you should accept.)

They may actually be your property, or they may be his property. What does your agreement say?

On Fri, 13 May 2005 03:20:43 GMT, (james)
wrote:

In article <LbQge.1325861$>,
Dirty Harry wrote:

Can anyone else comment on the quality of prints from high end inkjets? HP claims that if you use their top end photo paper you will get prints that last "up to twice as long as traditional prints". What do you all think about this?

I think they are making a claim based on something other than direct observation. I remember looking at Steiglitz prints and some Westons in a gallery. I know those have aged well. Anything printed with a contemporary inkjet process hasn’t stood the test of time, period. It may have stood a simulation test, but, there I was, looking at Stieglitz prints with my own eyes. To be fair, I doubt Alfred was sure his photographs would be visible for 50 or 100 years, but, there they are. The inkjet people can only hope they are right.

Note that B&W will always last longer than any colour process presently available if you prepare it archivally and, for example, use gold or selenium toning. I’ve seen B&W longevity estimates at 400 years plus.

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

On Fri, 13 May 2005 04:15:41 -0000, Jeremy Nixon
wrote:

james wrote:

If he has negotiated copyright, that’s different, but then, the expectations would be clearly understood and in writing if that is the case.

Quite the contrary; he owns the copyright unless they agreed otherwise.

Thìs, is in a way worrisome. Not that the photographer owns the copyright of course, but it do bring my thoughts back to something else I’m thinking of sometimes:
I am a wildlife photographer. Wild life and Sea life. Not only animals, but often. And I am a amateur photographer in the sense that I started it as a hobby, and my real income is not there from. When doing prints, I’m having A2’s done wherefore a professional printer is necessary. There is now way for me to know that they do not sell my photos. specially in other towns where branches are owned as well.

Co-incidentally the printer doing my work have asked me to take photos for his studio to introduce Durban to the tourists, but I never went into a agreement with him.

Dave
http://home.intekom.com/davesplace/
http://home.intekom.com/davesplace/2/index.htm

http://home.intekom.com/davesplace/framed/harbour.jpg

http://home.intekom.com/davesplace/framed/tigerwoman.jpg

http://home.intekom.com/davesplace/framed/tigerwoman+shade.j pg

In article ,
DD wrote:

When doing prints, I’m having A2’s done wherefore a professional printer is necessary. There is now way for me to know that they do not sell my photos. specially in other towns where branches are owned as well.

Do you know how to assert copyright in the country you live in? You can’t know what they are doing until you discover it, but you *can* know in advance what you’d do if you discovered them doing it.

In the US, once you assert a copyright, it really can’t be taken from you without a court order. It’s important to assert that copyright, though. One thing I like to do, is put a dated copyright on things and then expressly state that it’s permitted to copy and distribute this work as long as the author is credited. That’s one way to keep your copyright and at the same time be human about letting your art live. Other things I explicitly convey to the public domain (such as work I do for purely academic purposes, for the University for example, or for one-off musical things that I really don’t care about, but might be intersting.)

I’ve done a few photos that may have a public interest, and those, I matted and framed and gave to the university gallery to do with as they pleased, after putting language on the back of the print that it was released to the public domain. If I didn’t do that expressly, it wouldn’t be public.

So there are three things I’ll do with my art: 1. copyrighted and not distributed, 2. copyrighted but licensed for distribution under certain constraints, and 3. expressly released to the public domain, copyright forever surrendered.

On Sat, 14 May 2005 09:03:55 GMT, (james)
wrote:

So there are three things I’ll do with my art: 1. copyrighted and not distributed, 2. copyrighted but licensed for distribution under certain constraints, and 3. expressly released to the public domain, copyright forever surrendered.

Thanks for your reaction, James.
I’m not really worries about web pics,
but all the files taken to the printer for printing
is 6mp pix. It could thus been printed and sold
over a counter. But, like you said:

You can’t know what they are doing until you discover it, but you *can* know in advance what you’d do if you discovered them doing it.

nevermaaind, this was only mentioned as matter of fact.

I like what you said about three things you’ll do with your art.

till later

Dave

In article <%9jhe.32351$>,
james wrote:

In article ,
DD wrote:

When doing prints, I’m having A2’s done wherefore a professional printer is necessary. There is now way for me to know that they do not sell my photos. specially in other towns where branches are owned as well.

Do you know how to assert copyright in the country you live in? You can’t know what they are doing until you discover it, but you *can* know in advance what you’d do if you discovered them doing it.
In the US, once you assert a copyright, it really can’t be taken from you without a court order. It’s important to assert that copyright, though. . . .

Yet again, this myth rears its head.

Copyright is yours, irrespective of whether or not you assert it.

In general it makes very little difference to you, the copyright holder (although in some, but not all, cases you could also receive punitive damages, rather than being limited to actual damages. But that’s unlikely to happen in a small claims court, which is where almost all such copyright cases would end up).

Susan P wrote:

I am having quite a lot of difficulty in dealing with a photographer who took some pictures for me.

He and I agreed that he would give me all the photo files from the session. The photographer used a digital Nikon camera to take the pictures and has has some sample 10 x 8s printed by a photo printing company.

QUESTION 1: The prints are on Epson paper. This suggests to me that they have been done on a computer-attached printer rather than at a photo company. Is this correct? Is a professionally printed digital photo is better than one printed by a computer printer?

Depends on particulars. A digital print run through a Noritsi 3130 printer onto Fuji Crystal Archive II paper will beat ANY inkjet printer yet devised.

Then my photographer explained to me that the pictures are in RAW files and that a photo printing company would not be able to read them. This seems odd to me. QUESTION TWO: Can someone tell me if this is true? I am in the UK if that makes a difference.

It’s true, unless someone at the printing company is also a digital photographer and has the software necessary to do the conversion.

When I pressed him for the files he gave me the option of having the files converted to JPEG or TIFF. I don’t know which one file format best preserves the quality of the original so I went for JPEG. These are studio pictures of me which are in color but many of which I will have printed in Black & White. I will need to have some of them retouched with Photoshop or something like that. QUESTION THREE: Is JPEG better than TIFF for my purposes?

No. If they’re going to be worked on in Photoshop, request 16 bit TIF files.

Paul Furman wrote:

james wrote:

A pro graphic designer or such could handle it but would probably charge $100/hr & wouldn’t touch the job unless it was several hundred (thousand), plus they control the printing & mark that up, etc.

I still don’t quite get where you’re coming from here. I get raw images out of my camera, crop them, and print them straight, and save as TIFF for those that get printed for real. Anything I really edit, I pretty much work in JPEG, because I’m satisfied with that. But I still don’t get the notion that Nikon RAW files are some intractable format. They certainly are not difficult to work with. Ok, you can’t send them straight to Ritz camera. But you *can* put them on a DVD and store them in the safe.

Do you know the correct RGB numbers for normal skin tone? I don’t but a fashion photographer does. What if they were shot outside & the photog did a gray card but forgot to include that in the set for white balance or the printer didn’t understand what that blank shot was for? What about sharpening, that’s pretty complicated subjective stuff. Maybe the guy at the print shop is expert at product shots but knows nothing about modeling? What is the look the model wants to project: soft & dreamy with a glow, lean and agressive, etc. those would take totally different post processing and subtle subjective skills to achieve. Maybe the photog was going for the soft glow look with special lighting and the printer thought hmm… why so soft… this needs more sharpening & a strong contrast boost.

Absolutely.

I’ve used Photoshop for my photographs every day for the last seven years and I still learn new things every day that make my next day’s work look better. If one is content with what one can learn in two weeks, his/her esthetic standards are pretty low.

Alan Browne wrote:

….

There are also cultural preferences to how photos show skin tones. The Haitian communiy here prefer to be printed light. However, when I asked the white parents of an adopted black girl (shooting 1st communions) how they wanted her to look (in that respect), they said "as she is, please" a bit mortified that I would ask. I asked, becasue the photog I was working for said "if there are black kids, over expose them half a stop, that how they like it." He was wrong.

He was right, in respect to negative film, at least. You overexpose black skin in order to catch the detail. You print it to whatever darkness you find acceptable. You need to have that ‘shadow’ detail on the negative, though.

Squeegee, the famous NY press photog recounts that when (in his salad days) he was shooting kids in the street, their parents preferred prints where the faces were near chalky white, so that’s how he exposed/printed.

Please. That was Weegee (Arthur Fellig). Squeegee is the guy that cleans your windshield without asking at the stoplight and then spits on your car if you don’t pay him.

In the USA putting

On Sat, 14 May 2005 14:56:35 -0400, "KatWoman" wrote:

In the USA putting ©photographer.name.2005 protects you with "intention to copyright" and the court has decided this means the most damages you can recover is $1500.00 per image. (small claims)
If however you go to the trouble to actually register the materials, you can sue for the actual damages amount. My stock agency has just asked us to do this as added protection, the internet and sharing of digital files has made stealing of intellectual property rampant. There is also some way to embed watermarks and copy protection into the image files.

Yes. However, I think that, having just been discussing this with someone, that the international treaty signed by the US, i.e. the Berne Convention, which has the same effect in the US as national law, would override the need to "register" your copyright. I don’t know of any case where this has been tested, however, and IANAL, so…

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

Bubbabob wrote:

Alan Browne wrote:

…

There are also cultural preferences to how photos show skin tones. The Haitian communiy here prefer to be printed light. However, when
I asked the white parents of an adopted black girl (shooting 1st communions) how they wanted her to look (in that respect), they said
"as she is, please" a bit mortified that I would ask. I asked, becasue the photog I was working for said "if there are black kids, over expose them half a stop, that how they like it." He was wrong.

He was right, in respect to negative film, at least. You overexpose black skin in order to catch the detail. You print it to whatever darkness you find acceptable. You need to have that ‘shadow’ detail on the negative, though.

Squeegee, the famous NY press photog recounts that when (in his salad
days) he was shooting kids in the street, their parents preferred prints where the faces were near chalky white, so that’s how he exposed/printed.

Please. That was Weegee (Arthur Fellig). Squeegee is the guy that cleans your windshield without asking at the stoplight and then spits
on your car if you don’t pay him.

Usher.

Bubbabob wrote:

Alan Browne wrote:

…

There are also cultural preferences to how photos show skin tones. The Haitian communiy here prefer to be printed light. However, when I asked the white parents of an adopted black girl (shooting 1st communions) how they wanted her to look (in that respect), they said "as she is, please" a bit mortified that I would ask. I asked, becasue the photog I was working for said "if there are black kids, over expose them half a stop, that how they like it." He was wrong.

He was right, in respect to negative film, at least. You overexpose black skin in order to catch the detail. You print it to whatever darkness you find acceptable. You need to have that ‘shadow’ detail on the negative, though.

Disagree. Using Portra 160 at 100 in any case, the detail is finely recorded. But that’s the same exposure for caucasians. No difference. He was really referring to a specific cultural preference over the color of the skin in the photo. Since the adopted parents of the girl were white, they wanted her to look natural in the photo. Same exposure for her as for everyone else. The prints were fine. Hell, they were great.

—
— r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm — r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm — [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin — e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

In article <4Lrhe.26099$>,
KatWoman wrote:

In the USA putting

Hecate wrote:

On Sat, 14 May 2005 14:56:35 -0400, "KatWoman" wrote:

In the USA putting ©photographer.name.2005 protects you with "intention to copyright" and the court has decided this means the most damages you can recover is $1500.00 per image. (small claims) If however you go to the trouble to actually register the materials,
you can sue for the actual damages amount. My stock agency has just asked us to do this as added protection, the internet and sharing of
digital files has made stealing of intellectual property rampant. There is also some way to embed watermarks and copy protection into the image files.

Yes. However, I think that, having just been discussing this with someone, that the international treaty signed by the US, i.e. the Berne Convention, which has the same effect in the US as national law,
would override the need to "register" your copyright. I don’t know of
any case where this has been tested, however, and IANAL, so…

Way I understand it, if your images are copyright registered, a US Federal law applies, allowing a court to award punitive damages, potentially very large. Otherwise, the modern world makes © pretty much a gesture. Something for your IP attorney to wave at transgressors.

The copyright office makes it relatively easy to do registrations, with a "batch" procedure involving one submission of multiple images (e.g. a CD-ROM of "2005 photos Jan-May") all "protected" for one (? $35US) fee. My case, two or three of those a year is all I need to © the valuable, or valued ones.

Lots of good information accessible from the Editorial Photographers’ web site.
http://editorialphotographers.com/

—
Frank S

"Never give a sucker an even break, or smarten-up a chump." -William Claude Dukenfeld

Susan P wrote:

I am having quite a lot of difficulty in dealing with a photographer who took some pictures for me.

He and I agreed that he would give me all the photo files from the session.

Under the terms of that agreement you should have received the RAW as well as any other edited/converted files regardless of their immediate use to you or your application.

Ken..

The photographer used a digital Nikon camera to take the

pictures and has has some sample 10 x 8s printed by a photo printing company.

QUESTION 1: The prints are on Epson paper. This suggests to me that they have been done on a computer-attached printer rather than at a photo company. Is this correct? Is a professionally printed digital photo is better than one printed by a computer printer?

Then my photographer explained to me that the pictures are in RAW files and that a photo printing company would not be able to read them. This seems odd to me. QUESTION TWO: Can someone tell me if this is true? I am in the UK if that makes a difference.
When I pressed him for the files he gave me the option of having the files converted to JPEG or TIFF. I don’t know which one file format best preserves the quality of the original so I went for JPEG. These are studio pictures of me which are in color but many of which I will have printed in Black & White. I will need to have some of them retouched with Photoshop or something like that. QUESTION THREE: Is JPEG better than TIFF for my purposes?

In article <d65a93$1bd$>,
John Francis wrote:

In the US, once you assert a copyright, it really can’t be taken from you without a court order. It’s important to assert that copyright, though. . . .

Yet again, this myth rears its head.

Copyright is yours, irrespective of whether or not you assert it.

It is much better advice to encourage people to claim their copyrights explicitly, than to let them rely on common law default copyright. I know that no action need be taken to secure a copyright, but it’s an easier row to hoe if you bother to put "Copyright (c) 2005 James Mcgill All Rights Reserved" on the work somewhere.

Are you saying it’s inaccurate that the copyright cannot be taken away without a court order? Because I’m quite sure of that part.

In article <Pqvhe.32432$>,
james wrote:

In article <d65a93$1bd$>,
John Francis wrote:

In the US, once you assert a copyright, it really can’t be taken from you without a court order. It’s important to assert that copyright, though. . . .

Yet again, this myth rears its head.

Copyright is yours, irrespective of whether or not you assert it.

It is much better advice to encourage people to claim their copyrights explicitly, than to let them rely on common law default copyright.

Not common law – statute law. To be precise, the Berne International Convention on copyrights, to which the USA is a signatory.

I know that no action need be taken to secure a copyright, but it’s an easier row to hoe if you bother to put "Copyright (c) 2005 James Mcgill All Rights Reserved" on the work somewhere.

It doesn’t make it any easier for you to establish copyright on the work; it does, however, make it slightly harder for anyone else to attempt to claim the copyright. There’s also case law to suggest that "(c)" carries no legal meaning, and is certainly not equivalent to a true copyright symbol.

Are you saying it’s inaccurate that the copyright cannot be taken away without a court order? Because I’m quite sure of that part.

Copyright is just like any other property. You can dispose of it as you wish, but apart from that it cannot be taken from you against your will by means of a court order or similar instrument. But that’s only true if you actually own the copyright in the first place – your assertion that you own the copyright carries no evidential standing.

Note, also, that copyright is a necessary pre-condition to being able to publish or reproduce an image, but it isn’t sufficient. There are many other conditions that need to be met.

In article <d668p1$7br$>,
John Francis wrote:

Copyright is just like any other property. You can dispose of it as you wish, but apart from that it cannot be taken from you against your will by means of a court order or similar instrument.

Rather drastic omission there – or course I meant to say

"… cannot be taken from you against your will *except* by means of …"

On Sun, 15 May 2005 01:39:30 +0000 (UTC), (John
Francis) wrote:

In article <d668p1$7br$>,
John Francis wrote:

Copyright is just like any other property. You can dispose of it as you wish, but apart from that it cannot be taken from you against your will by means of a court order or similar instrument.

Rather drastic omission there – or course I meant to say
"… cannot be taken from you against your will *except* by means of …"

(For a single moment I wondered whenever this can happen, and then I realised there is a case like this making headlines here right now.)

We have got a case like this right now in the country, James, and actually it is off the subject, but I asume it gets published worldwide. This is the case of Nelson Mandela’s old friend – the Indian attorney, Ismael Ayob, who claims copyright on the Mandela Art.

A gallery selling Mandela’s art, is located some 200 yards from where I live, and looking at it yesterdayand asking them whether they are still selling it, they said they stopped all sales (of Mandela Art) untill the case is completed.

Sorry for changing the subject but I thought this is going with what we are talking about. (and it is not really changing the subject at all:-)

Dave

On Sun, 15 May 2005 08:36:04 +0200, Dave wrote:

We have got a case like this right now in the country, James, and actually it is off the subject, but I asume it gets published worldwide. This is the case of Nelson Mandela’s old friend – the Indian attorney, Ismael Ayob, who claims copyright on the Mandela Art.

I should have added:
‘and Mandela is going to court now to get his copyright back.’

Dave

Alan Browne wrote:

Disagree. Using Portra 160 at 100 in any case, the detail is finely recorded. But that’s the same exposure for caucasians. No difference.
He was really referring to a specific cultural preference over the color of the skin in the photo. Since the adopted parents of the girl were white, they wanted her to look natural in the photo. Same exposure for her as for everyone else. The prints were fine. Hell, they were great.

If it weren’t for the white communion dress causing highlight problems, I’d still open up 1/2-2/3 stop and deal with the cultural preferences in the print. No way you’re going to get the same shadow detail at normal exposure that you would get by opening up a bit. Black people wearing white clothes don’t give you much exposure wiggle-room, though.

At any rate, we’re all digital now, aren’t we? We have to expose for the highlights and deal with the shadows in ‘the lab’. Exactly the opposite of the way we learned with film.

"Frank ess" wrote:

Usher.

????

Bubbabob wrote:

"Frank ess" wrote:

Usher.

????

"WeeGee"’s name: Usher Fellig.

You wrote "Arthur".

You could look it up.

No biggie, except I wouldn’t pay as much for a provenance-ized Arthur Fellig print.

I had for one stretch of five years or so a quote from WeeGee framed on my wall. I didn’t memorize it and can’t find it now, but it went something like this:

"Just living from day to day is a real challenge, and everyone who does it is a hero in my book."

Resp’y,

—
Frank ess

Bubbabob wrote:

If it weren’t for the white communion dress causing highlight problems, I’d still open up 1/2-2/3 stop and deal with the cultural preferences in the print. No way you’re going to get the same shadow detail at normal exposure that you would get by opening up a bit. Black people wearing white clothes don’t give you much exposure wiggle-room, though.

1. I shot that with studio strobes set up for the occasion in a side room at the church. So the exposure, frame to frame was always the same regardless of subject.

2. I shoot P160 at +2/3. Whites remain detailed. Black fabrics are detailed where the light gets at them, shaddows on black fabrics do go dead black. Dark hair is particularly sharp looking. Scans cover it all.

3. The remaining problem at that point is printing which cannot match the latitude of the film.

Conculsion: expose the same regardless of the subject reflectivity and print for area of detail interest. As these parents wanted the skin tones ‘correct’ that is how it was printed. The prints were superb and sold.

Cheers,
Alan

—
— r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm — r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm — [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin — e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

On Sat, 14 May 2005 14:07:38 -0700, "Frank ess" wrote:

Hecate wrote:

On Sat, 14 May 2005 14:56:35 -0400, "KatWoman" wrote:

In the USA putting ©photographer.name.2005 protects you with "intention to copyright" and the court has decided this means the most damages you can recover is $1500.00 per image. (small claims) If however you go to the trouble to actually register the materials,
you can sue for the actual damages amount. My stock agency has just asked us to do this as added protection, the internet and sharing of
digital files has made stealing of intellectual property rampant. There is also some way to embed watermarks and copy protection into the image files.

Yes. However, I think that, having just been discussing this with someone, that the international treaty signed by the US, i.e. the Berne Convention, which has the same effect in the US as national law,
would override the need to "register" your copyright. I don’t know of
any case where this has been tested, however, and IANAL, so…

Way I understand it, if your images are copyright registered, a US Federal law applies, allowing a court to award punitive damages, potentially very large. Otherwise, the modern world makes © pretty much a gesture. Something for your IP attorney to wave at transgressors.

No, that’s what we have the Berne Convention for – not everyone lives in the US 😉

Nowhere else do people have to "register" to assert their copyright – and that’s the conflict I was pointing out as the US is a Berne Convention signatory.

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

On Sat, 14 May 2005 23:01:03 GMT, (james)
wrote:

In article <d65a93$1bd$>,
John Francis wrote:

In the US, once you assert a copyright, it really can’t be taken from you without a court order. It’s important to assert that copyright, though. . . .

Yet again, this myth rears its head.

Copyright is yours, irrespective of whether or not you assert it.

It is much better advice to encourage people to claim their copyrights explicitly, than to let them rely on common law default copyright. I know that no action need be taken to secure a copyright, but it’s an easier row to hoe if you bother to put "Copyright (c) 2005 James Mcgill All Rights Reserved" on the work somewhere.

No. It’s not common law. At least not in countries which have signed the Berne Convention. Signing the Berne Convention means that the copyright laws contained in that instrument become part of national law of the signatory.

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

Hecate wrote:

On Sat, 14 May 2005 14:07:38 -0700, "Frank ess" wrote:

<snippage has occurred>

Way I understand it, if your images are copyright registered, a US Federal law applies, allowing a court to award punitive damages, potentially very large. Otherwise, the modern world makes © pretty much a gesture. Something for your IP attorney to wave at transgressors.

No, that’s what we have the Berne Convention for – not everyone lives
in the US 😉

Nowhere else do people have to "register" to assert their copyright –
and that’s the conflict I was pointing out as the US is a Berne Convention signatory.

The way I intended to convey it was: You _don’t_ have to register to "assert" your copyright, but if you intend collecting serious amounts of money from transgressors, you’ll need to register your images with the US Copyright Office.

As in any frictional conjunction, the more grease you apply in advance, the slicker the machine’s operation.

I don’t mean to be unnecessarily obtuse; neither do I expect everyone to read carefully for meaning and be uninfluenced by the background noise of their thought and memory processes. Which processes must include the underlying assumption that most subjects in these forums warrant books and journals and career-long study, and are very difficult to discuss comprehensively in the limited confines of a Usenet message thread.

—
Frank S

"Never give a sucker an even break, or smarten-up a chump." -William Claude Dukenfeld

"Frank ess" wrote:

Bubbabob wrote:

"Frank ess" wrote:

Usher.

????

"WeeGee"’s name: Usher Fellig.

You wrote "Arthur".

You could look it up.

No biggie, except I wouldn’t pay as much for a provenance-ized Arthur Fellig print.

I had for one stretch of five years or so a quote from WeeGee framed on my wall. I didn’t memorize it and can’t find it now, but it went something like this:

"Just living from day to day is a real challenge, and everyone who does it is a hero in my book."

Resp’y,

Well, he was born Usher but he used the name Arthur for most of his life after emigrating to NY.

Bubbabob wrote:

"Frank ess" wrote:

Bubbabob wrote:

"Frank ess" wrote:

Usher.

????

"WeeGee"’s name: Usher Fellig.

You wrote "Arthur".

You could look it up.

No biggie, except I wouldn’t pay as much for a provenance-ized Arthur
Fellig print.

I had for one stretch of five years or so a quote from WeeGee framed
on my wall. I didn’t memorize it and can’t find it now, but it went something like this:

"Just living from day to day is a real challenge, and everyone who does it is a hero in my book."

Resp’y,

Well, he was born Usher but he used the name Arthur for most of his life after emigrating to NY.

Happy to have been of assistance.

Hi everyone.

I have replied to myself because I want to thank all of you who have written back with advice to my original post (below) about 10 days ago. Thank you very much.

In this posting I would like to ask anyone here for info about my photographer and, secondly, to ask for some info about Epson paper.

——–

In the time since I first posted here I have had no joy from my photographer because although he keeps promising to ring me back and he keep promising to send me my CD in the post, it never happens. I was hoping to add some info by posting to this thread but I never got any more info from my elusive photographer.

Has anyone come across my photographer before? His name is Christopher Thomas. He is tall and of rather slim build and seems to be ethnically of south-Asian origin. He works and lives in the Hoxton Clerkenwell part of London. He also likes to do some movie film work and that has often been his reason for not getting back to my messages for days on end since he took my pictures over two months ago.

I would love to be able to speak to him on the phone but I can never find him in. He says he has no mobile! His landline is usually answered by a message machine. His other landline is ex-directory. Very frustrating.

This is his advert http://www.thestage.co.uk/classified/?cat=175 ::::::::: START QUOTE ::::::::::
Award winning photographer with Central London studio and 8 years experience in fashion photography and film/tv. I know what casting directors and agencies look for in actors’ and models’ pictures. Friendly, affordable and responsive to your needs (prices inclusive of prints and negs/cd).
020 7729 0440.
::::::::: END QUOTE ::::::::::

Google only locates a different photographer who is also called Christopher Thomas. http://www.bytecamera.com/content/view/418/2/

Well, if you guys can help me find him then it would be very helpful. He would then find it hard to give me reasons for delay and then make himself almost completely unobtainable when he misses even his new "delayed deadline". Thank you for any help.

———

The other thing I would like to ask of you people is a technical question. So far I have only received 12 prints and a CD with the jpegs for those 12 prints. That is out of a an afternoon’s studio session where very approximately 50 or 80 shots were taken. We agreed that the images are all owned by me and I did not sign any release form. He does not dispute this.

However one reason for a last minute delay in giving me those prints was that he "wanted to get a lab to print them properly". The prints he gave me are on Epson paper. I somehow tend to feel that he used the delay to print them up on a Epson inkjet printer and that there was no lab involved.

Can anyone tell me if a lab would use Epson paper? If it helps, he used a handheld professional digital Nikon camera with, I think he said, a 1 GB memory card.

Thank you once again for any info you can help me with.

Susan

====================== ORIGINAL POSTING ======================

Subject: RAW files and photo software to read them
Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 22:02:33 +0100
Message-ID:
From: Susan P
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,
alt.photography, alt.graphics.photoshop

On Thu 12 May 2005 22:02:33, Susan P wrote:

I am having quite a lot of difficulty in dealing with a
photographer who took some pictures for me.

He and I agreed that he would give me all the photo files from the session. The photographer used a digital Nikon camera to take the pictures and has has some sample 10 x 8s printed by a photo printing company.

QUESTION 1: The prints are on Epson paper. This suggests to me that they have been done on a computer-attached printer rather than at a photo company. Is this correct? Is a professionally printed digital photo is better than one printed by a computer printer?

Then my photographer explained to me that the pictures are in RAW files and that a photo printing company would not be able to read them. This seems odd to me.

QUESTION TWO: Can someone
tell me if this is true? I am in the UK if that makes a difference.

When I pressed him for the files he gave me the option of having the files converted to JPEG or TIFF. I don’t know which one file format best preserves the quality of the original so I went for JPEG. These are studio pictures of me which are in color but many of which I will have printed in Black & White. I will need to have some of them retouched with Photoshop or something like that.

QUESTION THREE: Is JPEG better than TIFF for my
purposes?

—

Original crosspost widened slightly.
Four relevant groups:
rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
alt.photography
alt.graphics.photoshop
rec.photo.equipment.35mm

Susan P wrote in news:965D8B1241F6472A58@
204.153.244.156:

http://www.thestage.co.uk/classified/?cat=175

Tiff saves everything so more information is saved of the image than jpeg, jpeg is a compression format designed to reduce file size and can be set as a compression percentage ie 75%

—
The problem with the world is that everyone is a few drinks behind.

"Susan P" wrote in message

Hi everyone.

proper labs print on proper photographic paper. This guy you dealt with is clearly an amateur. Its time to find the biggest bloke you can find and wait for him at his premises.

Might call from a friened’s house or better yet have a friend make an appoinment to discuss his doing work for the friend then show up unannounced. (nice if you can have vidio/audio tape of the meeting)

"Susan P" wrote in message
| Hi everyone.
|
| I have replied to myself because I want to thank all of you who have | written back with advice to my original post (below) about 10 days | ago. Thank you very much.
|
| In this posting I would like to ask anyone here for info about my | photographer and, secondly, to ask for some info about Epson paper. |
| ——–
|
| In the time since I first posted here I have had no joy from my | photographer because although he keeps promising to ring me back and | he keep promising to send me my CD in the post, it never happens. I | was hoping to add some info by posting to this thread but I never got | any more info from my elusive photographer.
|
| Has anyone come across my photographer before? His name is | Christopher Thomas. He is tall and of rather slim build and seems to | be ethnically of south-Asian origin. He works and lives in the | Hoxton Clerkenwell part of London. He also likes to do some movie | film work and that has often been his reason for not getting back to | my messages for days on end since he took my pictures over two months | ago.
|
| I would love to be able to speak to him on the phone but I can never | find him in. He says he has no mobile! His landline is usually | answered by a message machine. His other landline is ex-directory. | Very frustrating.
|
| This is his advert http://www.thestage.co.uk/classified/?cat=175 | ::::::::: START QUOTE ::::::::::
| Award winning photographer with Central London studio and 8 | years experience in fashion photography and film/tv. I know | what casting directors and agencies look for in actors’ and | models’ pictures. Friendly, affordable and responsive to | your needs (prices inclusive of prints and negs/cd). | 020 7729 0440.
| ::::::::: END QUOTE ::::::::::
|
| Google only locates a different photographer who is also called | Christopher Thomas. http://www.bytecamera.com/content/view/418/2/ |
| Well, if you guys can help me find him then it would be very helpful. | He would then find it hard to give me reasons for delay and then make | himself almost completely unobtainable when he misses even his new | "delayed deadline". Thank you for any help. |
| ———
|
| The other thing I would like to ask of you people is a technical | question. So far I have only received 12 prints and a CD with the | jpegs for those 12 prints. That is out of a an afternoon’s studio | session where very approximately 50 or 80 shots were taken. We | agreed that the images are all owned by me and I did not sign any | release form. He does not dispute this.
|
| However one reason for a last minute delay in giving me those prints | was that he "wanted to get a lab to print them properly". The prints | he gave me are on Epson paper. I somehow tend to feel that he used | the delay to print them up on a Epson inkjet printer and that there | was no lab involved.
|
| Can anyone tell me if a lab would use Epson paper? If it helps, he | used a handheld professional digital Nikon camera with, I think he | said, a 1 GB memory card.
|
| Thank you once again for any info you can help me with. |
| Susan
|
|
|
|
|
| ====================== ORIGINAL POSTING ====================== |
| Subject: RAW files and photo software to read them
| Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 22:02:33 +0100
| Message-ID:
| From: Susan P
| Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,
| alt.photography, alt.graphics.photoshop
|
| On Thu 12 May 2005 22:02:33, Susan P wrote:
| >
| > I am having quite a lot of difficulty in dealing with a | > photographer who took some pictures for me.
| >
| > He and I agreed that he would give me all the photo files from | > the session. The photographer used a digital Nikon camera to | > take the pictures and has has some sample 10 x 8s printed by a | > photo printing company.
| >
| > QUESTION 1: The prints are on Epson paper. This suggests to me | > that they have been done on a computer-attached printer rather | > than at a photo company. Is this correct? Is a professionally | > printed digital photo is better than one printed by a computer | > printer?
| >
| > Then my photographer explained to me that the pictures are in | > RAW files and that a photo printing company would not be able to | > read them. This seems odd to me.
| >
| > QUESTION TWO: Can someone
| > tell me if this is true? I am in the UK if that makes a | > difference.
| >
| > When I pressed him for the files he gave me the option of having | > the files converted to JPEG or TIFF. I don’t know which one | > file format best preserves the quality of the original so I went | > for JPEG. These are studio pictures of me which are in color | > but many of which I will have printed in Black & White. I will | > need to have some of them retouched with Photoshop or something | > like that.
| >
| > QUESTION THREE: Is JPEG better than TIFF for my
| > purposes?
|
| —
|
| Original crosspost widened slightly.
| Four relevant groups:
| rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
| alt.photography
| alt.graphics.photoshop
| rec.photo.equipment.35mm

Kingdom wrote:

Susan P wrote in news:965D8B1241F6472A58@
204.153.244.156:

http://www.thestage.co.uk/classified/?cat=175

Tiff saves everything so more information is saved of the image than jpeg, jpeg is a compression format designed to reduce file size and can be set as a compression percentage ie 75%

tiff’s also let you save transparency, whereas jpegs need 100% background.

Jan

On Sat, 21 May 2005 13:40:16 +0100, Susan P
wrote:

Hi everyone.

Hi Susan,

ISTM you have come across an amateur with big ideas. I would not have dealt with you in this way at all – it seems very unprofessional to me. I would suggest that your best course of action is to write him a letter (keep a copy) giving him a limited amount of time to fulfil the contract. I would say seven days from receipt of the letter. Point out that should the contract not be fulfilled in that time you will take out an action against him in the Small Claims Court for the whole of the money plus the costs (About £32 as IIRC). You can find out info about how to do it on Gov’t web sties. I can’t remember the URL, but if you Google for Small Claims Court and UK you should find it easily.

Finally, if you want your pictures taken by a professional please contact me by mail and I will show you how to find pone (not me <g> it’s not really my field – I rarely do portrait work.)

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

On Sat, 21 May 2005 13:40:16 +0100, Susan P
wrote:

Susan, forgot to mention, send the post by at least recorded delivery and probably registered. If he doesn’t produce the goods you can claim that cost against him as well.

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

Susan P wrote:

Hi everyone.

I have replied to myself because I want to thank all of you who have written back with advice to my original post (below) about 10 days ago. Thank you very much.

In this posting I would like to ask anyone here for info about my photographer and, secondly, to ask for some info about Epson paper.
——–

In the time since I first posted here I have had no joy from my photographer because although he keeps promising to ring me back and he keep promising to send me my CD in the post, it never happens. I was hoping to add some info by posting to this thread but I never got any more info from my elusive photographer.

<snip>

Susan,

Everything you say points to this guy being bad news, right down to his quoting RAW files. Nikon gear produces NEF files, they don’t call it RAW. Coupled with his unavailability, and the shots you do have being on Epson paper (meaning they were printed on an ink-jet printer – which can be ok if it was a high-end printer) I’d say he can’t, for some reason, deliver lab-printed photographs. Maybe credit problems with the lab?

If you didn’t part with too much cash to get them taken, I’d write him off, and demand that he erase all of your images, particularly if some of them may be of a nature that you wouldn’t want circulated. It’s probably impossible to actually check that he has erased all the images, so you might have to live with that.

Find another reputable photog, check his work closely, don’t pay too much up front, get a signed statement that you own the copyright AND the images. Some will tell you that you own the copyright but they own the image, forcing you to return to them for additional prints. This is an age-old stance of professional photographers, to protect their income sources. A more modern approach is to charge more for the job, in lieu of possible repeat print orders being lost.

If your photographs were to be a portfolio of shots for a modelling or fashion career, – sounds like that since he took a large number of images – you could try approaching a modelling agency and finding out who their photographers are, and choose one of them.

One more point – don’t let him take any shots that you don’t feel happy with, regarding poses, revealing clothing, degrees of nakedness, etc. even if he says it’s ok and everyone does it.- unless that’s what you actually want.

Colin

1. Yes, some labs use Epson printers and paper.

2. Yes it’s somewhat plausible that some labs couldn’t deal with NEF files. However, he should easily be able to convert them to JPG or TIFF for the lab to print from.

3. NEF files aren’t exactly the same thing as RAW files but the terms are sometimes used interchangeably. I wouldn’t get excited over the guy saying RAW when he meant NEF.

4. Yes he is being flaky.

5. If you don’t want to deal with him any more, the main thing I’d ask for at this point is for him to write all the NEF files that he shot to CD and send you the CD immediately, and not retain copies for himself. That lets you wash your hands of him (unless he retain copies anyway and does something improper with him). You can make your own arrangements for getting prints. The files being in NEF format will create a slight inconvenience but you can get them converted without much fuss. At absolute worst you can get a retail copy of Nikon Capture (89 USD on this side of the ocean) and convert them yourself.