Your Digital Photos Are Too Professional

ScentCone writes "AP's technology writer Brian Bergstein reports that your 8 megapixel camera, and lukewarm+ lens/Photoshop skills may keep you from getting over the counter image printing services. Professional photographers have successfully sued processors (like Wal-Mart) for reproducing their digital works without permission. Clerks are now being told to deny print orders for some work that looks too good. Talented amateurs are having to jump through hoops, present documents, and otherwise cajole teenage cashiers into taking their orders. No doubt one successful suit costs more than a thousand denied amateurs' orders, but sheesh. On the other hand, pro wedding photographers depend mightily on the income derived from reproducing their work, and it will take time for things to evolve to the point where clients are willing to pay a lot more up front in exchange for wider image rights after the fact. There's no well-supported digital equivalent to a negative (as reasonable proof of ownership), so retailers are defensively resorting to near paranoia to stay out of court."

what's all the fuss?

[yagu (721525)]

I don't know what all of the fuss is about.... I've been having my pictures printed at WalMart for years, and never had any problems....

That leads to some awkward moments at photo desks when customers' images get barred for essentially looking too good.

..., ahem, ...., uh, ...., never mind.

Re:what's all the fuss?

[noidentity (188756)]

Luck you! I had them rejecting freakin' accidental shots of the wall, claiming I must be trying to reproduce some expensive abstract modern art.

Re:Sillyness

[mOdQuArK! (87332)]

Then think up a new term than "intellectual property," but the concept is solid.

No it's not. It's just a way of forcing people to pay more for a service/product than they are willing to pay in a free market.

Anything that requires substantial investment to develop and has value to people should have a system whereby that investment can be recouped.

A lot of the crap being passed as "intellectual property" nowadays didn't require much of an investment - however, even if something DOES require a substantial investment to develop, the value of that "thing" is NOT set by the seller - it is set by what people are willing to pay to get it in a free market. If you can't get people to pay a certain amount to get something in a free market, then it isn't worth that amount.

And I don't think it's a coincidence that the countries that allow invention to be rewarded in this manner are the ones that tend to do better.

Really? You got some studies to back this up? All of the historical studies that I've read indicate that the U.S. became as economically successful as it is today by riding roughshod over European "intellectual property" concerns. China is getting rich & still growing during tough times by pretty much ignoring "intellectual property" laws (except for some lip service).

It seems more like developed countries try to encumber competitor countries by getting to them to go along with "intellectual property" laws (either by bribing or threatening them). Developing countries which ignore those intellectual property laws often end up with economies which go like gangbusters (except for economy-destroying scenarios like massive corruption).

So give me a few examples of countries that have benefited by passing laws which restrict the ability of their citizens to innovate (which is exactly what "intellectual property" laws do).

Don't let your wedding photographer bully you!

[Skyshadow (508)]

On the other hand, pro wedding photographers depend mightily on the income derived from reproducing their work

I always cringe when I read something like this. To anyone who is planning a wedding out there: Don't be fooled into this!

It's a little off-topic, but I want to point out that this practice - once "just the way it was" when it came to wedding photography - is becoming less and less common. When we got married (a year ago next Sunday), the #1 thing we looked for was a photographer who wouldn't insist on maintaining the copyrights to the photos.

This turned out not to be a problem; the few photographers we looked at who still wanted to maintain copyrights were all old-school (in a negative sense) in other ways, too. One guy even wanted to tell us that our relatives wouldn't be allowed to take pictures at our own fucking wedding! I can't imagine how someone would hire this guy; what kind of asshole is actually going to tell their guests they can't take pictures?

Anyhow, the photographer we ended up with used film rather than digital. I actually looked for this; it added a little bit of work on our part on the back end of the wedding, but as a hobbyist myself I feel there's a real advantage to film specifically in terms of the quality of black and white photos. She did a great job, too.

Once the pictures were developed, we got all the negatives. We scanned the pictures using a kick-ass negative scanner from Nikon that we bought refurbed (and then sold on eBay for a profit) and stuck the pictures out on Ofoto so our friends and relatives could order right from there. Compare this to my Best Man's wedding a year earlier where he went with a "traditional" photog who kept the copyrights from the photos and wanted to charge us $20 per shot... Well, let's just say I don't have any of the pro shots from that wedding.

Now, back on topic: If your photos look too good, why hassle with the local Walmart just to get yourself what's going to be, at best, an 'okay' print? Unless you need the prints Right Now, go online! When I'm trying to get my own "good" photos printed, I've had great luck with Adorama's printing service. Plus, they're used to seeing shots that are far better than what I can produce. Ofoto (or whatever they're calling themselves these days) generally kicks out satisfactory results as well.

Re:Don't let your wedding photographer bully you!

[lupine (100665)]

I went digital for my wedding, but the agreement with the photographer stipulated that I was the copyright holder and that the digital copies would be turned over to me. He was allowed to keep & make copies to promote his business, but he was not allowed to sell them.

I agree absolutely there is no reason to give up control of copyright to the pictures of your own wedding. We were able to turn around and make good quality prints for friends and relatives for pennies. Our total printing costs came to just over a hunderd dollars and we were able to send out prints along with every thank-you card.

Photographers deserve to be paid as a professional at a fair wage for their time and effort, but they dont deserve to 0wnZ3r your wedding.

Re:Don't let your wedding photographer bully you!

[Rob the Bold (788862)]

My sister ran into a similar problem getting reproductions of old photos of us as kids.

You go to a professional photographer, and the studio claims to own the copyright, cause you just paid them to shoot the photos (a service) -- prints are extra and they still own the image.

Now, if you're a photographer working at the studio, you shoot the photos, but the studio owns the copyright, cause it's "work-for-hire".

Seems to me a contradiction, unless you realize that the actual rule is "It's always owned by the Man." Then it all makes sense.

To add insult to injury, some of the studios that shot the old photos don't even exist anymore to provide prints or permission.

Re:Don't let your wedding photographer bully you!

[Jason1729 (561790)]

if you feel that $20 a print (or whatever is being charged) is to steep, have your friend take the photos at your wedding. but remember that these are the pictures that will be on your wall in 50 years, when you celebrate your anniversary. Exactly...but the point of this article is that if those pictures your friend takes actually look decent, you won't be able to get the printed to hang on your wall at all because "surely, some pro photographer took them since they look good, so if you print them, you're ripping him off.

Re:Don't let your wedding photographer bully you!

[csimpkin (808625)]

I had the same experience. I started by going to the "best" wedding photographer in town. He maintained full ownership of the photos and no one else could take pictures. I told my wife, "I don't think so."

I found another photographer that only charged 50 dollars extra for me to keep complete rights to the photos if I didn't buy one of his wedding packages and anybody could take pictures. If I bought one of his wedding packages then the rights were included.

One of the best things that we did is put little disposable cameras on the tables at the reception. We collected them at the end of the night and had them developed. There were some great shots (and a few disturbing ones) on the disposables that the pro missed.

One thing that I worry about with a pro that keeps the rights is they may only give you the photos that they liked. If any were really bad you will never see them. We had a few photos that were not very good, but captured a particularly important event.

Re:Don't let your wedding photographer bully you!

[Grishnakh (216268)]

We had a few photos that were not very good, but captured a particularly important event.

Your wife getting boned by the best man?

Re:Don't let your wedding photographer bully you!

[anaesthetica (596507)]

One guy even wanted to tell us that our relatives wouldn't be allowed to take pictures at our own fucking wedding! I can't imagine how someone would hire this guy; what kind of asshole is actually going to tell their guests they can't take pictures?

Well, I'm not a professional photographer, but I have been the official wedding photographer twice now for family friends. My experience with "rival" photographers is uniformly negative. Since I myself am an amateur photographer, I don't really have any problem with random people taking their own pictures. But certain family members can really make your job impossible.

For instance, the first wedding I shot, the groom's step-mother came with a camera of her own, and acted as if she were the wedding photographer. Nevermind that the family had paid for me to shoot all the official photos of the wedding and celebration. She was constantly getting in my shots, getting in between me and bride during procession, etc. Infuriating. When taking group photos, I would give directions (stand closer, turn this way, etc), and she would start giving her own directions. Unbelievable.

If I were a professional photographer, I would certainly have a clause in my contract saying something very similar. If you hire me to be the photographer for the wedding, make sure that I am the photographer for the wedding. Having to deal with obnoxious relatives on a regular basis would be impossible.

Re:Don't let your wedding photographer bully you!

[Skyshadow (508)]

I'm in the Bay Area, too. We got married in Livermore and ended up hiring a photographer from Sonoma.

Anyhow, I wouldn't be happy with anything short of owning full rights to all photos, negatives and prints. If you don't get that in writing, you're leaving open the possibility of getting screwed.

Our photographer had to ask *us* for permission to use shots from our wedding in her portfolio.

Re:You've got to be kidding!

[AndyChrist (161262)]

My question is this; who is printing their digital photos at Walmart anyhow? With ink jet printers being the cheapest they've ever been (and with the average consumer knowing little about fading inks and the like)wouldn't a printer purchase quickly pay for itself?

No, they won't. Unless you're buying in bulk (and even then prints at a shop often go down in price as the quantity goes up), you're still probably paying 1 1/2 times as much to print at home. And that's before you find out that the print is le

Re:Don't let your wedding photographer bully you!

[blurfus (606535)]

That may be so (the way I explained it in my brief post)

However, the principle is there. Photographers are no more the 'creators' of the products than NBC airing a game on their network. NBC *purchases* the rights to broadcast the game (and make money by selling ads). NBC owns the rights to their broadcast (because they paid for it) but does not own the game itself (the product). The league owns the products.

I figured is about the same here. I own everything I create (including my wedding, which I pay for and participate it, and create). The photographer does not 'own' the broadcast of this product (because he has not paid for its rights). I am paying him to document it, but it's not his creation.

A developer gets hired to do a piece of code. Most of the companies have a 'contract' indicating everything I create while under their salary belongs to them. I sign the contract, I get paid, they get to 'own' everything they contracted me to create for them. This is not to say I cannot use my professional experience while with them and use it to my advantage to find another contract, but I cannot take the product itself. That belongs to the client who paid for it.

Maybe you can clarify where my logic fails (and maybe I will understand the laws better)

Regards,

Re:Don't let your wedding photographer bully you!

[RFINN (18178)]

I work in the photography field, so I might be able to offer a different perspective.

Did you know that photographers who work for National Geogrpahic own their images, even if they appear in the magazine? They fought for that right in court and the Supreme Court sided with the little guy on this one - that being the photographer.

Your contract as a programmer states explicitly that what you create on the job is owned by the company. But if you did not agree to that upfront, then anything you invented/created on the job would actually belong to you.

You see - the NFL owns the game, but NBC owns the broadcast. You own the content of your wedding, but the photographer owns the images they created. Now, the NFL and NBC have certainly negociated something that is beneficial to both, otherwise the NFL takes its games to another network (which happens all the time). And likewise, you have the ability to negociate with your photographer over rights and find another one if the terms are not to your liking.

What I do is offer prints as part of the package, and additional prints online at a reasonable charge, and at the same time the couple may purchase the "negatives" (a CD of the RAW images and full resolution processed JPEGs) along with the rights to do whatever. My charge for taking the photos + handing over the rights is still under the market price, however.

Copyright law goes back decades protects the photographer to same way it protects freelance programmers and journalists. Organizations like AMPS and PPA have spent a lot of time, money, and effort defending the rights of photographers and other creators/inventors againsts the interests of large corporations. And if the average person could stick it to the photographer, then the large corporation can too as well as the creative programer.

Re:Don't let your wedding photographer bully you!

[LetterJ (3524)]

The problem people buying wedding photography don't usually get is that, for most photographers, there's only 1-2 weddings per week they can shoot. That's because almost everyone gets married on Saturday afternoon. That'd be OK, except that a wedding's worth of photos need to be gone through, touched up, organized, proofs or other comparison method made up, sent out, process the incoming order and otherwise take up much more time afterward, all tied to the wedding on Saturday. Not to mention spending time at bridal shows, meeting with potential customers that don't sign, working on marketing and the rest of the non-billable portions of running a business. Combine that with couples that want the photographer to shoot the rehersal dinner and rehersal itself the night before and want that included in the package and you're left having to charge an entire week's worth of labor and materials to a single customer.

Then, as a self-employed person, they need to effectively double the money they want to pay themselves to cover their own payroll taxes, unemployment insurance (mandatory in my state), etc. you have to charge the equivalent of $40/hour, just to make $40,000. But, almost no one gets married in Nov-March, so you have to compress it further if you want to make your living doing just weddings. Throw in another couple of weeks here and there where the couple breaks up and cancels and you don't get another booking and you're left only able to get billable clients for about 26 weeks per year.

The end result is that you'd have to charge $3200 a wedding just to break even on the LABOR and still only make $40,000/yr, working weekends in addition to weekdays, dealing with people on one of the most stressful days possible, working without a safety net (just waiting to get sued because you "ruined" their once-in-a-lifetime-day and caused them major emotional distress).

I started down this road a couple of years ago and, after running the numbers and doing about 4 weddings, I decided that to be worth the hassle, the expense in redundant equipment (the bride doesn't want to hear that your *only* 135mm portrait lens cracked on HER SPECIAL DAY) and extra crap like multiple tuxedos in your closet because couples insist that the photographer wear one too, I'd have to charge well over $5000 a wedding to do it. And, since "anyone can take pictures" and "you're only working 3 hours a week", no one except the really high end clients wants to pay $5000-$7500 for a basic wedding photo package. If it were in that price range, work for hire would be fine.

However, quote $5000-$7500 for a wedding on a work-for hire basis, and you'll hear the whole working for 2-6 hours thing and they'll quickly do their own math and say, "No one's worth $2500/hr".

So, photographers have relied on print purchases to spread that cost around a big. After all, if the album's "worth" $1400, if the proofs are $400, if the digital photos on DVD are $250 etc. then the remaining money doesn't seem as bad.

Re:Don't let your wedding photographer bully you!

[Surt (22457)]

All of this seems to describe why you shouldn't build a business purely out of taking wedding pictures, rather than any sort of motivation actually to pay people foolish enough to try such large sums of money.

Example of a Rejected Photo

[TPIRman (142895)]

Adding insult to injury, the photofinishers refuse to give explicit guidelines as to what qualifies as "professional-looking" (in all likelihood there are no guidelines, of course). But an article in the San Diego Union-Tribune on this topic shows one customer's example of a photo rejected by Wal-Mart [signonsandiego.com], alongside an equally good-looking photo that Wal-Mart, in its infinite wisdom, deemed amateurish enough to print.

I wrote about this yesterday

[cens0r (655208)]

If the wedding photographer is giving out the 8 megapixel versions of the images on CD, then they're just stupid. If a person has a CD that has 8 megapixel pictures on it, chances are good that they took them themselves.

Re:I wrote about this yesterday

[timeOday (582209)]

Not hard to make an 8 megapixel scan from an 8x10 print though.

I admit, I scan my kids' portraits and team photos into my personal digital photo library.

Scanning a copyrighted photo

[tepples (727027)]

If a person has a CD that has 8 megapixel pictures on it, chances are good that they took them themselves.

How would they know it's not an unauthorized 8 Mpixel scan of a copyrighted photo? Let's see... (touches buttons on wristwatch calculator) a scan of a 4x6 print at 600 dpi will be about 8 Mpixels.

I Know

[sammykrupa (828537)]

"Your Digital Photos Are Too Professional"

Yes, I know. Thank you.

Paiin

[COMON$ (806135)]

My dad takes photos for Seniors in High school who cannot afford a professional photographer. He started getting better than the Professionals and when he went to get his photos developed he had to jump through a lot of hoops convincing the store clerks that he was legit.

So are we trying to squash small business here or what? if you are a professional and dont digitally sign your photos then that is your fault.

Hrmm

[axonal (732578)]

All the Walmarts I've been to denied the pictures from my honeymoon. I guess they must be some really good professional pictures.

Re:Hrmm

[MyLongNickName (822545)]

I think it had more to do with the midgets, the trapeze and the leather restraining harness.
Not all employees want to see your "personal preferences".

safety.

[ShaniaTwain (197446)]

..and yet you can still buy knives, hammers, pillows and other dangerous object that could be used to KILL someone. I guess full and complete protection of 'intellectual property' is more important than full and complete protection of human life.

Or maybe, just maybe we dont need everything to be protected?

Re:safety.

[Nogami_Saeko (466595)]

Ah, but you see - after a knife, hammer, pillow, or other dangerous objects are utilized, there are less people around to file lawsuits.

Which means it's OK!

N.

Why is it the printer's responsibility?

[bwalling (195998)]

If I sign something claiming ownership of the image, why are they liable? They have no way of actually knowing, and couldn't reasonbly be expected to do so. To expect the printer to be the enforcer is only creating a point of friction between the printer and their customers. This just seems so black and white obvious to me.

Re:Why is it the printer's responsibility?

[donutello (88309)]

Because the current US tort system allows you to sue the person with the biggest pockets regardless of who holds the biggest responsibility for damages. Homeowner shoots burglar? Sue the gun company.

Re:Why is it the printer's responsibility?

[spiritraveller (641174)]

If I sign something claiming ownership of the image, why are they liable?

Because that's what the copyright code says.

It's strict liability. As long as you are copying copyrighted material, Congress doesn't care whether you knew it was copyrighted or not.

Maybe this will spur Congress to reform the copyright code... NOT!

Re:Why is it the printer's responsibility?

[bwalling (195998)]

What's right and what's fair isn't what we're discussing - this is strictly an issue of practicality in modern courts. Obviously someone at Walmart thinks that putting these restrictions in place is a lot cheaper in the long run than the alternative.

I keep forgetting that capitalism was redefined to mean screw people over to get their money.

Let's all time travel back...

[neonfrog (442362)]

... to the invention of the photocopier.

Remember when you went to a Staples or Kinkos and they wouldn't let you photocopy lots of things because they *might* be copyrighted works? Remember when you had to jump through hoops to prove that you were photocopying a book segment for a school book report?

Fast forward to today. No problem anymore. They just refer you to the Self Serve copiers with the "Don't Copy Illegally" signs and look the other way while you make your own Oxford Englsh Dictionary at 5 cents a page.

This will be a ridiculously short-lived phenomenon for two single word reasons:

* Kiosks

* O-foto (that's not really a word...)

Proof of Ownership

[dos4who (564592)]

RE:"There's no well-supported digital equivalent to a negative"

While it's not absolute proof of ownership, most digital formats these days include a specification called EXIF. (Google for "EXIF" or see http://www.exif.org/ [exif.org] for more info).
The extraneous information in a digital photo containg EXIF data includes such information as Make & model of camera, etc. While such information is not absolute, it can, in a pinch, providde reasonable proof of ownership, as long as you can show you own the equipment specified, and that all the images point to your equipment.

Re:Proof of Ownership

[ewhac (5844)]

You do realize there are tools out there that can completely replace the EXIF block, yes? (Granted, most people wouldn't know how to drive them, but still...)

I wrote an EXIF thumbnail extractor about a year ago. EXIF is just a TIFF-formatted collection of data used to describe the photo. As you might imagine, some cameras get the EXIF data wrong, or leave out bits people consider important, so there are tools available to modify it. There's nothing special about it; if you know TIFF format well enoug

DRM

[RickPartin (892479)]

I can't wait till they start DRM'ing film. You have developed this film more than one time. Please call this activation hotline you god damn pirate. Thank you

Heh

[British (51765)]

Maybe it's time to start up a photo business that doesn't care about copyrights.

Honestly, why would a photographer want copyrights on Ma & Pa Kettle's wedding photos? Is there a release form the couple has to sign off to the photographer for all images of THEM?

Maybe the photographer should be paying them for modeling, with a clause that they(wedding couple) get a copy for framing.

Or pony up the $ and just do it all yourself, have a neighbor kid take the photos and pay them an agreed-upon fee.

Re:Heh

[jfengel (409917)]

The photographer doesn't want the copyrights per se. He just wants to be the guy to print them, and charge for the printing. He makes money, and he (or she, of course) guarantees that the prints are to his specifications. He'd hate to have his rep ruined by a bad print job.

There really is a difference in quality between a pro photographer and the neighbor kid with a camera. Maybe the kid's a photo nut who knows the right lenses to use, the right lighting (especially for formals rather than candids), how

On the other foot

[Boing (111813)]

I'm afraid I can no longer purchase movies or cds from Wal-mart, because for all I know they're just well done bootlegs. I've got to "err on the side of protecting copyrights", after all.

Same thing with other Wal-mart products, I'm afraid... I can't be sure that they're not violating the trademark protections of Coca-cola by packaging a knockoff as The Real Thing (tm).

Digital is killing Professionals

[bahwi (43111)]

Except in extreme circumstances, digital is going to kill off a lot of "professional" picture takers.

With more and more megapixels, you can take bad pictures, incredibly off-center, etc.. crop, and voila, the subject is now perfect center(you can even measure it with photoshop to be sure!).

Sure, there'll always be call for professionals, but it's getting to where you can have just about anyone with a 45-minute course and a big-megapixel camera can do some pretty good shots.

My favorite is my cheap kodak digital can take pictures from far away, with its little bit of zoom, and I can get home, zoom in on the picture in photoshop(reduces maximize size of final print though, not that I really print much) and it looks like I either had a very professional camera with a huge zoom, or I was much closer when I took my picture, even if that isn't a possibility.

Dear Wal*Mart

[IvyMike (178408)]

You're a behemoth corporation with more money than I can imagine. Why don't you throw some of that weight and money around and take a stand against these bullshit laws? Fight the lawsuits in court to establsh a set of sane legal precidents, and promote a new "common-carrier printer status" law.

Not only because it's the right thing to do, but because by being sissies, you're undercutting your future sales.

Signed,
Everybody

The basic problem

[lheal (86013)]

Professional photographers have successfully sued processors (like Wal-Mart) for reproducing their digital works without permission.

That's a bad precedent. Service vendors should not be put in the position of monitoring content or judging it, any more than an ISP should monitor its customers' activity (except in a general way). Whether a customer has copyright or permission on a file or photo is not their call, unless they see something obviously illegal happening.

This isn't Big Brother, really, it's worse: enforced imitation bureaucracy.

"No professional cameras allowed"

[erroneus (253617)]

I know this is not exactly on topic, but I have attended events where cameras were permitted but not "professional" cameras. I've got an Olympus C-730. Not a "cheap" camera, but not what I'd call professional either. In any case, I have had to talk people into allowing me to bring my camera. Ridiculous.

Okay, so technology in the hands of the average/casual user is getting better and better. The results from these devices are better and better. That's what people want. Now we can't use them for fear of being sued? It's getting ridiculous.

I haven't run into that problem yet but then again, I don't see the point in getting pictures printed anyway... and if I did, it would give me the perfect reason to go out and buy me that awesome dyesub printer or really nice color laser printer. (Inkjet just sucks and as often as I print color things, I'm lucky to get a few pages printed before the ink goes bad.)

I recall a run-in I had with a wedding photographer... he did everything he could to get in my way. Those attitudes are definitely out of control as well. It was good to read that these professionals are gradually shifting to getting paid by the time spent taking the pictures rather than by the print.

And finally, this "PPA" group? I think they need an extra "A" in there to be the PPAA. Then it'd fit in nicely with all the other **AA groups that we can collectively hate for stifling our freedoms.

Make your own copyright release form

[loggia (309962)]

You have to remember: these rules like so many exist to somehow make people feel like the problem is being addressed without actually addressing it.

The employees have been told they need a copyright release form, but obviously wouldn't know a legitimate release from their own ass.

If they're your photos, find out what a copyright release form looks like, make one and sign it. Make sure it is signed and printed with a different name from your own as that is probably the spectacularly brilliant method of determining legitimacy. So make up a pseudonym for your photo work and make your own release form.

Remember - these are your photos, you are doing nothing wrong. You are just giving retail employees what they want.

What this needs is a good, old-fashioned, contract

[urlgrey (798089)]

No, really, I'm not joking.

All this can be avoided with these three sentences:

By using our processing service, you agree that all photographs are images being processed and/or printed are your own or that you have all legal rights to process and/or print the images.

If you are not certain you do, you may be held legally liable for fines up to $100,000 for copyright infringement.

By using our services you agree to be bound by these terms and to assume all risk.

DONE! That's it. DONE. But instead bureaucracy gets in the way of good judgement. Again.

Solution to this very problem

[Giant Killer (33130)]

My brother-in-law had this very problem recently at Costco. After arguing with the person, he eventually had to fill out all sorts of silly paperwork to get them to let him print his own damn work. Just because he's got a good eye and a decent camera (Digital Rebel rocks with the kit lens, folks) they told him the images must have been done by a professional. A compliment of sorts, but quite an annoying one.

Like others have said, PRINT ONLINE. There are some great services out there, and if you know exactly what you're looking for you can get a good deal. My favorite for amateur photos is currently Mpix.com [mpix.com]. They have a great turnaround time, but more importantly, they have metallic paper [mpix.com]. If any of you have noticed those crazy cool silver gelatin prints in museums, this gives that same sort of effect. Looks great for black and whites, but especially amazing with reds, blues, and yellows. They also have this cool continuous tone black and white paper [mpix.com] (regular digital prints won't give this). Their prices are good, too.

If you're looking to do real work somewhere in the semi-pro realm, there's really only one choice: White House Custom Color [whcc.com]. This place is for real. You don't just open up an account and upload photos. This place has you fill out a client questionnaire and then they send you samples of their stuff. The coolest thing they have, which I've not seen anywhere else, is linen textured paper [whcc.com] (you'll have to read through one of the PDF's).

If you need something local and same day, Walgreens is great. They almost always have some sort of a special each week, and I ended up paying $.19 for each 4x6 the last time I was there. The color might not be spot on, but it is same day service. Shipping and tax end up balancing out in the end. Not bad at all.

I work in a Wal-Mart photo lab.

[apathyruiner (222745)]

We have plenty of pro photographers use our services for both proofs and a few for their final products. Others just get us to make a CD from their film. We also have a number of amateurs that use us. (and for those of you snickering at the idea of pros using Wally World, we have Fuji Frontiers, look them up, and I at least know how to use it)
All I have to do to determine the authenticity is have a look at their source. After a little practice you can determine most scanned images from an original digital file. There's also EXIF in the originals. Most pros and amateurs just bring in their CF card and most of the happy snappy crowd doesn't know how to use a card reader. And if you are a pro and give your customers non-watermarked hi-res CDs I take that to mean you give them full release. Many photographers do just that.

Sorry for the rather disjointed comment, I'm home on lunch and time is limited! ;)

If you're in Taylors SC and need inexpensive quality prints, just come see William. :)

Skip WalMart, use Costco

[neile (139369)]

Costco is more than happy to take your semi-pro or pro shots and print them. In fact, they specifically do things to cater to pro-sumers and independent professional photographers: each and every one of Costco's digital printers are profiled every six months. The profiles are made available on the web at Dry Creek Photo [drycreekphoto.com] so you can have a completely colour-managed workflow.

The best part is the price :) Costco's largest size, 12"x18", is only $2.99 a copy, and they look stunning. I have six hanging in my office right now and people are shocked when I tell them where they were printed.

Neil

Re:Piracy

[OhPlz (168413)]

I had something like that happen at a Quebec to Vermont border crossing. I was in my early 20's driving a brand new (gasp) SUV. The US BP agent was certain I couldn't own such a vehicle. She even hesitated to accept the temporary registration and title application as proof (I hadn't registered it yet).

There's too many busy-bodies and not enough MYOB sense.

Why would Martmart even be the victim of a lawsuit? They acted on a request of a customer, if the customer ordered a reprint of a copywritten work T

Re:Stipulations?

[VidEdit (703021)]

A stipulation where? Not in copyright law. Copyright does not allow you rights to reproduce "orphan" works such as wedding photographers--at least in the US. This problem is much bigger than Walmart. Ironically copyright law *presumes* that the person who commissioned the work owns the copyright, therefore if you or your relatives are in the photos it is reasonable to assume that the copyright belongs to you regardless of who took the pictures. Professional photographers try to turn copyright law on its head and make clients sign contracts saying that the work for hire is not work for hire and that the photographer owns all rights to your photographs. The first thing is to never agree to give up copyright to a photographer. Remember, if there is no written contract to the contrary, any photography you commission is copyright by *you*, regardless of whether the photographer tries to write "proof" or copyright by so and so. If this wasn't' the case, those pictures you ask strangers to take of you on vacation wouldn't belong to you either. At least one European country has a law saying that you have a right to reproduce pictures of yourself or of dead relatives. We need such a law to make sure that our heritage isn't locked up by silly copyrights.

Re:Stipulations?

[Jherek Carnelian (831679)]

How can you possibly think that the photographer does not own the copyright to work HE/SHE created?

How can you possibly think that the buyer does not own the copyright to work HE/SHE paid for?

You really need to learn what "work for hire" means.

Re:Who cares?

[Blue-Footed Boobie (799209)]

Good quality photo printers are just too innexpensive to justify using a retail service.

Um, Walmart's photo printing service uses Dye-Sub printers - and a 4x6 print only costs $.19. I'm sorry, but the quality is excellent and the price is far cheapers than a "consumer" dye-sub's (Kodak, Hi-Ti, et al) cost-per-print.