low resolution vs high resolution images on your website

[Mare333]

Hello, Marianne here. I am at the point where I am creating my website for clients to access images for proofing. What I was wondering is do you INITIALLY upload low resolution images into your proofing galleries on your website, then the client selects which images they intend to buy and the sizes particularly the ones they intend to keep in DIGITAL form. Then AFTER they made their selections you provide a CD or a zip file for them with high resolution images or AFTER they made their initial selection of low resolution images you ONLY THEN upload on the website the high resolution images for them to download. Alternatively you could upload high resolution images TO BEGIN WITH allowing the client to select and download images RIGHT AWAY. Which practice would you recommend? Thank you very much for your help,
Marianne

[NorthernFocus]

I have limited experience but my practice is to upload only low resolution images. The only time I provide high resolution images is as a final product for digital sales. When selling prints the client never gets to see anything but a low rez proof. My reasons for doing so are, 1) no need to put a lot of processing into dozens/hundreds of images that may not get selected for final product. Low resolution images are pretty quick/easy to edit into a presentable form. 2) giving people the opportunity to "pixel peep" is generally not a good thing. Unless they are photographers they have no idea what they are looking at.

Just the way I do it.

[royent]

Low resolution images tend to stop people lifting them for their own use as well
Roy

[Manfred M]

Interesting question with no easy answer. This was a question posed to one of my college photography profs, who was a successful, (inter)nationally known photographer who was an early convert to a 100% digital portfolio. He would never post an image that was shorter than 1600 pixels on the longest side for his clients to review. I took his course about 6 years ago, so smaller computer screens tended to be the norm in those days.

His premise was simple; you wanted your clients to see the quality of your work and felt that a mediocre quality image would lose sales and would not protect your IP rights in any meaningful way. He would also apply a small, discrete logo on every one of his images so people would see that these images were his work. He insisted that his students to this too.

[Mare333]

I have limited experience but my practice is to upload only low resolution images. The only time I provide high resolution images is as a final product for digital sales. When selling prints the client never gets to see anything but a low rez proof. My reasons for doing so are, 1) no need to put a lot of processing into dozens/hundreds of images that may not get selected for final product. Low resolution images are pretty quick/easy to edit into a presentable form. 2) giving people the opportunity to "pixel peep" is generally not a good thing. Unless they are photographers they have no idea what they are looking at.

Just the way I do it.

Thank you very much for your reply. Will keep points you make in mind.

[Mare333]

Low resolution images tend to stop people lifting them for their own use as well
Roy

Make sense, thanks for replying.