Stock photos with water marking

[bejamshi]

Hi, more and more designers are using affordable stock photos, all of them have water marking on them and they provide a down loadable comp.

I use these images for doing comps for my clients but the problem is many see the name of the company on the watermark and head over to the website to find out the real price for them.

Is there a way to avoid this? I surely can not purchase a bunch of images to use for my comps and hope that the client will like them?

[mac.FINN]

Why shouldn't the client know the cost of the images? They're paying for them aren't they? Or are you saying that you're charging them more than what you payed for the images in the first place and are try to justify ripping them off?

[morea]

I see no problem with showing the actual cost of the images on your invoice. The time it takes to do the research and locate the images you need, etc. would be under labor costs, no?

[mattbing]

I really don't like those cheapy units, some of the photography is ok, but the userability of the sites suck. The comp images are crap ( I assume you're talking about the ($1 a photo sites).

If you're using the cheapy sites why not just buy the low res photo and bill the client?

The best site I've found and use all the time is veer.com, they have excellent comp images (no watermarks), and also you can buy images and if you don't use them they will actually rebate you. The customer service is great and the images are also great and modern.

[bejamshi]

No, my idea was not to rip them off by charging higher prices. It just looks bad on the designer finding photos for cheap. Also a lot more work goes into finding the right picture and all the other work (like morea) said.

I include everything into my fees, I do not charge separate amount for pictures and such.

[mac.FINN]

I still don't see a problem.

If you're not billing them directly for the photos then why does it matter if they know the costs. They'll probably be happy to see you got pictures that they like for cheap.

I don't think it looks bad on the designer to find photos for cheap, in fact, if the pics are a good enough quality and suit the purpose, finding them for cheap would be a good thing.

[bejamshi]

good point, I guess I worry for nothing.

[Broacher]

Just imagine if fonts were watermarked.

But I agree with everyone else-- if your client is cheap and untrusting enough to try and end-run you around some photo purchases, do you really want to keep working with them?

[bejamshi]

Just imagine if fonts were watermarked.

But I agree with everyone else-- if your client is cheap and untrusting enough to try and end-run you around some photo purchases, do you really want to keep working with them? No, I hate cheap clients.
They suck.

[PrintDriver]

All comp photos have watermarks, even the high end ones.
If you are going to 'pass-through' the cost of an image remember to charge accordingly for search time as Morea said. Technically, you could mark up an image and call it overhead. The client didn't provide the image for you. Just be aware that they can determine how much you charged over cost. Note I didn't say 'over charged' there.

And if the client does point you to images they want, there is still time involved in processing the rights and downloading. Don't forget that time is money.

As far as image sources go, high-end or low-end, as long as you can be sure you have the actual photographer's and model's permission to use it, it really doesn't matter where you get the image or how much you paid for it as long as A) the image does the job it's needed for B) the image has the right resolution for the print process you are using, and C) the image is within the client's budget.

[bejamshi]

Thanks a million carrots. Your full of ideas. ;)

[balou]

One workaround is to subscribe to stock photo sites like photos.com & ablestock.com

They are a bit on the pricey side but you can download full size images for your comps.

[bejamshi]

NICE, i like your avatar, I use a cpap machine just like that.
:rolleyes:

[DesignStudio]

I'm gonna agree with most everyone here. I use watermarked photos for my comps and never have had a problem. I also don't bill my client's seperately for photos, I just know it's an overhead cost that occurs designing websites. I do make sure my client's know that the tradeoff for less expensive photos is that they could also appear on anyone else's site, as we're not buying total copyright ownership for 3 dollars. But never underestimate the cheapness of consumers, even (and espeicially) wealthy consumers. I've had clients plunking down thousands for a website and their still glad that i'm keeping my overhead low with things like affordable stock photography since they know they ultimately pay for the overhead in their final cost somewhere.

personally i'd try mattbing's suggestion, that site sounds great. i can't believe you can buy a photo and then return it- that seems way trusting on the part of the site, but i'd love to be able to buy photos for comps and return them if they aren't used. i suppose it isn't even neccesary if the proof photos aren't watermarked.

Another good route to consider if you are really concerned or have high end clients who you feel you really need to impress (although again, even national chain clients i've worked with are happy with stock photos usually), is to consider partnering with a freelance photographer. there are alot of good ones out there, and most do really nice work for a pretty fair wage.

or you could just use the "remove watermark and increase resolution" filter in photoshop. thats usually what i do.

[budafist]

I use watermarked images for mock ups too. I think it is good because then they can see later why they are billed for the images. Some people will assume that images come from your personal libary (I've had it happen) and they don't know why they are being billed for images - even if it is a few dollars.

You charge for your time of course as you do with any aspect of design.