Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on March 10, 2017 at 2:11pm

Ah yes, the ratio and subsequent loss. But the originals were larger than 11x14? That should be an advantage, no? These image you just have received are printed from copy negatives or a scan? If it is a scan then I suggest that is where the problem started. For me, I'd stick to the original size and image contents rather than lose even a touch of quality or content/original intended composition.  

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rich on March 10, 2017 at 2:58pm

They're digital photos, as opposed to photos from negatives. You can usually get an idea of the physical size based on the file size (or, if shown, pixel resolution size). When you download a file, either from the internet or your own memory card, you can then open it and there should be an option to "view actual size" or something to that effect. Selecting that option will blow it up to the full proportions. I took some nice photos at Ottawa Blues Fest a couple years back with a new Nikon, and when I uploaded them to my computer, I was shocked that the actual size was enormous, big enough for a very large poster.

Many of these photo printing sites (Walgreens, Sharpprints, among others) will give you a warning for any size selections that exceed the actual image resolution. For images below or barely exceeding 11 x 14, I'd usually select 8 x 10. But many images can be printed in 11 x 14, 16 x 20, 20 x 30 and still look fantastic.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on March 10, 2017 at 3:09pm

You make me remember the time I did a book for a publisher in the UK. They insisted a 34 KB file (34 KB after I was done with it), which is all the owner of these unpublished color slides would offer for my restoration and this publication, would be more than sufficient for printing. I told them I would not be responsible for the results, as I told the author who is my friend. I bet you know the outcome. Oh well. ;)

That image with the teal background and matching eye-makeup is very attractive indeed!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rich on March 10, 2017 at 3:34pm

You might notice my preference on some these - lots of light, empty space. Conversely, you can also go with a lot of black, empty space. I like these types of images because they're perfect for signatures and anything else the artist might want to add (message, doodle, etc). As visually striking as some busier images might be, you can sometimes find your autograph "lost" in the photo, regardless of the pen selection.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on March 10, 2017 at 5:37pm

Absolutely agree, it shows in your choices. And I certainly agree with the "busy image" thing as well. Obviously, you will wind up with a lot of deliberate, tailor-made unique items, and that is admirable! :)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rich on May 12, 2017 at 2:39pm

Other than the little smudge on "support" this worked out pretty good again.

Permalink Reply by Rich on March 21, 2017 at 12:38am

Turned out pretty good! Turns out Bebe likes those photos too.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rich on May 8, 2017 at 4:44pm

Experimenting with Uprinting this week, a company who is absolutely fantastic for printed materials and low prices. I've had stickers and baseball cards printed though them before, and the quality was excellent. This is the first time I've tried anything larger - in this case, 18 x 22 posters.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mr. Steffman on May 8, 2017 at 4:50pm

I like Adorama because they generally serve professional photographers and therefore they maintain high quality standards, combined with very competitive pricing.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rich on May 8, 2017 at 4:59pm

I've heard good things about them as well. I'll probably finally give Mpix a go in the near future. 

Uprinting is great because they really have a fantastic range of custom sizes, and tons of products to choose from. The baseball cards I made actually looked darned close to the original I was mimicking.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Edward Lopez on May 22, 2017 at 6:46pm

Photographs not taken by you are NOT fair game to copying for any purpose until you have the photographers' permission to do so especially if they feature a copyright date and name or watermark. Sometimes I'll search for info on an item and I'll see a photograph that I recognize as mine and sure enough the website has my completed listing text and photos and it seems that when I joined ebay I unknowingly gave ebay the right to sell such info. And, of course, anyone can copy my photo. I just found a website honoring The Ventures bassist Bob Bogle and amongst the photos they feature was one of mine I took in 1981 in L.A. I wrote to the company and requested they remove my photo or, at least, credit me and if they didn't do either one they would hear from my attorney.

No one has the right to rip off the work of others.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rich on May 22, 2017 at 7:43pm

Pretty sure that just about none of the autograph collectors of the world even bother contacting photographers, just based on the sheer volume of what I see. I could be wrong, but it seems unlikely to near impossible given the volume they use.

I found the easiest thing to do for music related stuff is go to flickr and email the photographers of the subject needed. On the occasion I've done that, most photographers are happy to asked and maybe even thrilled you like their photos that much. Music and sports are probably a bit more complex, though with sports at least there are tons of ways to buy licensed items.

I've heard that copywrite issues with Instagram are as bas as (worse maybe) than Ebay.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page