Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,914   Posts: 1,521,754   Online: 1066
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 24
  1. #11
    gr82bart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Culver City, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,224
    Images
    37
    I would normally debate points made here, but there are digital sites for that. I stand by my assertions. This is a film site.

    Regards, Art.
    Visit my website at www.ArtLiem.com
    or my online portfolios at APUG and ModelMayhem

  2. #12
    gr82bart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Culver City, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,224
    Images
    37
    Oops, I forgot to attached the results as examples. Note this method reduces the pixel real estate, replaces valuable real estate with unwated pixels in a watermark, reduces the quality in each pixel and gives a very poor print.

    This won't stop anyone from copying the image, but at least it will have your copyright on it. If they want to spend that much time getting rid of a watermark - go ahead - it would be quite flattering!

    Regards, Art.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Kinga-1a.jpg   Rosanna-21a.jpg  
    Last edited by gr82bart; 02-05-2006 at 07:33 AM. Click to view previous post history.
    Visit my website at www.ArtLiem.com
    or my online portfolios at APUG and ModelMayhem

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Shooter
    Holga
    Posts
    121
    While that definately does make it more annoying to restore than usual, it also very distracting and destroys the enjoyment of the image.

    I guess if your point of putting images on the net is to say "look what I can do with a camera", then your method works. If instead the web is a way to present your work to a lot of people (a sort of gallery accessible to the internet) then your solution isn't very good.

    I'd find it hard to admire these images for any length of time. Though I do see they are nice images.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Shooter
    Holga
    Posts
    121
    Quote Originally Posted by jnanian
    this company

    http://www.digimarc.com/
    http://www.digimarc.com/mypicturemarc/

    allows one to imbed a digital watermark that tracks your images. . . .
    Here's a link to an interesting (and trivial) attack on the digimarc protection scheme:

    http://www.petitcolas.net/fabien/wat...osaic/#2MOSAIC

  5. #15
    Dave Parker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,049
    Where there is a will there is a way to take your image and display it, rendering low resolution images that don't print well is one of the best courses of action, your not going to be able to stop the determined theif, but making it inconvienent seems to be the best right now. In our day and age, people do and will continue to steal images...

    Dave

  6. #16
    wildbill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Grand Rapids
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,376
    Images
    140
    In the past month i've heard 3 different tv directors talking about stealing images from google. "They aren't copyrighted" or "you just open the file in another program if the photographer has tried to protect it"
    It's hard to keep my mouth shut when people bring up the subject.
    www.vinnywalsh.com

    I know what I want but I just don't know how to go about gettin' it.-Hendrix

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Shooter
    Holga
    Posts
    121
    I guess a question that we haven't addressed is: what kinda of theft are people looking to prevent?

    Are we talking being able to print a crappy 4x5 glicine to stick on their refrigerator?
    Using the image as a background on their desktop?
    Hosting the image on their own website w/o permission (or reference)?
    Taking the image and implying / stating that they are the author of it?

    As a silver printer, I couldn't much care about the glicine. And would enjoy if someone made my image their desktop background. Perhaps the only thing I'd really be concerned about is that if someone saw an anonymous image they'd know who the photographer was.

    I guess plastering graffiti on your own image is one way of doing it. Just looks like crap to me.

    Would be nice if there were a way to sign photo that viewers would look to for a signature on the work. Maybe stegonography is the solution? Too bad it's not widely used.

  8. #18
    gr82bart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Culver City, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,224
    Images
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by jvarsoke
    While that definately does make it more annoying to restore than usual, it also very distracting and destroys the enjoyment of the image.
    You are taking my EXAMPLES too literally.

    I guess if your point of putting images on the net is to say "look what I can do with a camera", then your method works. If instead the web is a way to present your work to a lot of people (a sort of gallery accessible to the internet) then your solution isn't very good.
    I am answering a question posed by the original poster. He asked a question about protecting an image, not making a gallery, not about "look at what I can do with my camera". Do you have a answer? Or just critiques?

    I'd find it hard to admire these images for any length of time. Though I do see they are nice images.
    Thanks for the unsolicited critique of my images that are EXAMPLES of a way to protect images on the internet. This thread is not about my images but about methods to protect ones images.

    Art.
    Visit my website at www.ArtLiem.com
    or my online portfolios at APUG and ModelMayhem

  9. #19
    gr82bart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Culver City, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,224
    Images
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by jvarsoke
    ^ that is part of the amateur hour efforts. Watermarks are easy to remove with photoshop, and just reflect poorly on the artist.
    Really? Tell that to Corbis & Magnum, to name a couple organizations full of poorly reflected amateurs.

    Regards, Art.
    Visit my website at www.ArtLiem.com
    or my online portfolios at APUG and ModelMayhem

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Shooter
    Holga
    Posts
    121
    Yes, the Magnum photos do seem amateurish -- from the computer culture side, not from the photography side. The photos are of course excellent. Great photos with on a website with blink tags, and obnoxious colors etc, still looks amateurish.

    Sorta like if HCB put up a gallery of pictures with lots of dust spects, crooked framing, and mis-cut mats.

    Sorry for misinterpreting your examples: i thought they were suggestions of how images should/could be displayed on the net.

    As for an answer, mine is not to worry about it. I haven't found a good technical solution.

    -jason

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin