Re: Photo Phinish
The situation was:
At the beach Wednesday, a newsphotographer for a tiny local paper goes around, taking a bunch of people shots, which are then offered for sale on the paper’s website (prints only). I contacted the photographer directly, asking could I buy any of her out takes, since I know she took more than the three of me which were posted on the site. No, she could only sell what the was up there, and there was no way to buy digital files, from the site or from her. I bought two of the three prints; the third picture was not even on a wave.
Under the circumstances, I do not feel wracked with guilt for converting the two prints to digital. I certainly can’t imagine her selling me any additional prints if somehow I weren’t able to scan. In fact, I can’t even see me buying the second print except for the fact that I could scan it. Nor, sadly, can I imagine many kayak surf aesthetes besides myself who would want one of these prints for their very own.
I went with the glossy. The list will undoubtedly have the opportunity to judge the results.
Benjamin D. Bloom wrote on 9/4/10 7:33 AM:
I'll leave any possible copyright issues alone (though recognize that they're there)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
SkiVt-L is brought to you by the University of Vermont.
Have you contacted the photog about buying the digital file? If you offer to buy the 8x10 and ask about buying a web resolution Ike for use online, you might be able to work something out. Most photogs don't sell the digital file because it cannibalizes print sales, but offering lower res files for online use is cool.
As long as you have a decent scanner, I think Marc is correct that glossy will be best for you. For looking at images on the wall, I prefer lustre.
To unsubscribe, visit http://list.uvm.edu/archives/skivt-l.html