Digital imaging articles:

Preparing web proofs for your customer: A suggestion

This is a discussion that arises on forums from time to time. My method is by no means the only method, and it's certainly not a very fancy method, but it works very well for me.

So, you've taken photos for your client. Now you're preparing stunning proofs which (you hope) will blow their minds, and prompt them to order dozens of prints - earning you a tidy profit.

Of course, you know there's two important things to remember:

1. Convert the proofs to sRGB for best web viewing; and

2. Place your watermark prominently on the images as a basic safeguard against theft.

The third aspect to consider is size. You want the images large enough to be clear and striking, but not too large for people's screens. There's nothing worse than "Look, here's a lovely photo of Grandma! And if we scroll across ... here's Grandpa!"

I've found that 700-800 pixels on the longest edge is a good size. (Don't forget to sharpen after resizing for best impact.) Let's say 750 pixels, for argument's sake.

Ok, so your camera captures in 2:3 format, so your web proofs will be 500x750 pixels, right? Simple.

Alas, not quite so simple.

2:3 format proofs are great if your customers order 2:3 prints - ie 6x4s, 8x12s, etc. The prints they get are exactly the same as the proofs they saw.

But if they order 5x7s, or worse, 8x10s, the shape is considerably different - up to one sixth gets chopped off for print.

Here's the 2:3 proof that your customer sees.		If they order a 2:3 print (eg 6x4"), there's no surprises.		But if they order an 8x10, here's what they get.

Um ... ok, should you make your proofs 4:5 shape then, to match 8x10 prints? Well, no, because then you'll have the same problem, but in reverse, if your customer orders 2:3 prints.

You may be thinking "So what? My clients aren't too observant or picky, they'll be happy with whatever I give them."

To be honest, you're probably right, and that makes things easy. Thanks for reading this far.

But if you're a nerd like me, you might be thinking about ways around this inconvenience.

There are two ways you could truly overcome this issue:

1. Provide several proofs of each image, at different shapes. This would remove any surprises, but it sure would be unwieldy! To be honest, the average customer wouldn't know why you'd done it, and would just think you'd messed up.

2. Only offer print sizes that match the shape of the proofs. This might work - "You can buy prints at these sizes: 6x4, 6x9, 8x12, 12x18". But it's a bit restrictive, especially if the customer already has a 5x7 frame they want to use.

My simplistic solution has been to crop my proofs at 11:15 shape.

Why 11:15? Well, it's the exact midpoint between the longest standard print ratio (2:3) and the shortest (4:5).

My reasoning is straightforward: Find the middle ground.

No prints will look exactly like the proof, but none will be wildly different, either. If you think people won't notice a 2:3 turned into a 4:5, then they definitely won't notice this.

Therefore, if I want my proofs to be 800 pixels on the longest side, I crop them to 800x587 pixels. Yeah, I know, I know, it's a strange number.

Needless to say, I don't crop my master files to this odd shape. In fact, I'm obsessive about not cropping them at all - every pixel is sacred. It's just the proofs that I crop.

I generally crop in a little bit from the edge of the master file, even on a tightly-composed image. This allows me even more flexibility when I come to prepare the print files.

Well, you've read the masthead at the top of this page, so you knew what to expect ... I'm a nerd!

Most people will say I've thought about this way too much, and maybe I have. But it's a system that works for me.

I don't often give high-res images to clients on disk, but I think this 11:15 approach is a good idea for that, too. It minimises the risk of unexpected cropping when they print.

All content © Damien Symonds 2010