| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/06/2009 08:39:24 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by Citadel:
One small thing I'd like to point out: On my wife's Mac Book Pro I can't see the whole image with 720 px challenge pics. That being said, A 15" display isn't exactly the norm either. |
Well, DUH!!!!
Get a PC!
(Grinnin' & Duckin')
|
|
|
|
05/06/2009 08:48:51 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Citadel:
One small thing I'd like to point out: On my wife's Mac Book Pro I can't see the whole image with 720 px challenge pics. That being said, A 15" display isn't exactly the norm either. |
Well, DUH!!!!
Get a PC!
(Grinnin' & Duckin') |
Actually I'd love to get a 24" Apple Cinema display. Of course then I'd have to get a Mac for myself. (The Mac Book is my wife's work computer). Then I'd have to buy software for it. I can see a rather large chunk of change being spent very quickly...
I guess my original thought was: How many people use laptops to view the site? Laptops tend to have smaller displays.
|
|
|
|
05/06/2009 08:49:13 PM · #28 |
| I have a smaller screen, and I'm not exactly clambering for larger than 800, but I'd like to get rid of the 630. |
|
|
|
05/07/2009 10:33:22 AM · #29 |
| The vertical shots can be an issue. 1x handles it by allowing a larger size horizontally than vertically. It's a thought. Laptops are an issue as well - I realize that. I still want bigger pictures! |
|
|
|
05/07/2009 10:55:46 AM · #30 |
| I want bigger pictures, both in pixels and in size. 800X800 seams reasonable, and I would love to go up to 250kb (or 300kb) |
|
|
|
05/07/2009 11:15:31 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
The vertical shots can be an issue. 1x handles it by allowing a larger size horizontally than vertically. It's a thought. Laptops are an issue as well - I realize that. I still want bigger pictures! |
1x isn't a contest. Having different sizes for different orientations is just going to be seen as, or BE, an unfair advantage.
Whether or not it IS, that'll be the perception, and I can't really see it as something that will be implemented. |
|
|
|
05/07/2009 11:21:17 AM · #32 |
As much as I like to see the entries getting bigger as much as it scares me.
I've done an event shooting 3 months ago, took some group pictures and family portraits in there, a man got really interested in having his family portrait taken at home, asked for business card etc etc,
I sent him couple of picture that I took that day, the size was around 250K.
My mistake I forgot to watermark them/I didn't think the guy was that cheap to steal my work. '' I mentioned in the E-mail that if you are interested in buying prints pls check price list bla bla bla .. so he is aware they are not for free''
Anyhow, The guy was able to print those two pictures 5x7 in high quality. I couldn't care less about some cheapA$$ client who stole couple of pictures of his family, but on the long run, it is business loss. Or for non photographers, it is opportunity that̢۪s lost to make some money.
I've learned the lesson!! Now whatever leaves my computer is watermarked, except pictures uploaded to DPC.
The point here is, how to protect our work at DPC?! There is no watermarks, I can pretty much right click save any picture I want, I can even include these pictures in any advertisement CD or communication E-mails claiming they are mine and no one would know about it. Not saying people here at DPC will do that, but sometimes you come up across profiles that only favouring pictures and photographers without even posting a single word or picture .. this makes me wonder .. like this guy  danty, I am not saying he is a bad person or stealing .. but what are the guarantees?!!
I am against upsizing, unless we watermark, watermark will makes pictures looks ugly .. maybe using flash?!!!! Flash gallery and flash display?! asking for that is giving the CC permission to ask for my head :)
Any way, my 2 cents,
Sorry for the long post.
|
|
|
|
05/07/2009 11:28:11 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by AmeedEl-Ghoul:
Anyhow, The guy was able to print those two pictures 5x7 in high quality. |
Wouldn't that be the rough equivalent of a 1500x2100 file?
Message edited by author 2009-05-07 11:28:22. |
|
|
|
05/07/2009 11:37:23 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by AmeedEl-Ghoul:
Anyhow, The guy was able to print those two pictures 5x7 in high quality. |
Wouldn't that be the rough equivalent of a 1500x2100 file? |
Roughly yes. But, If you googles picture upsizing, you'll find tons of software that can boost up your pictures size to a prinable size, I've tried a software called PhotoZoom, and I was able to get some '' Acceptable '' results. Upsizing a shot that I took roughly 7 years ago with 2MP camera to 3MB and being able to print it wasn't a problem at all.
Not every one stealing pictures are doing that for the purpose of printing 20x30. Not every one has the knowledge to do it, Not every one is welling to do it, but the point is .. they can!! |
|
|
|
05/07/2009 11:46:35 AM · #35 |
Originally posted by AmeedEl-Ghoul:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by AmeedEl-Ghoul:
Anyhow, The guy was able to print those two pictures 5x7 in high quality. |
Wouldn't that be the rough equivalent of a 1500x2100 file? |
Roughly yes. But, If you googles picture upsizing, you'll find tons of software that can boost up your pictures size to a prinable size, I've tried a software called PhotoZoom, and I was able to get some '' Acceptable '' results. Upsizing a shot that I took roughly 7 years ago with 2MP camera to 3MB and being able to print it wasn't a problem at all.
Not every one stealing pictures are doing that for the purpose of printing 20x30. Not every one has the knowledge to do it, Not every one is welling to do it, but the point is .. they can!! |
Maybe I was just speculating that the "high quality" print wasn't so high quality after all. I don't doubt it could have been an "acceptable" print. |
|
|
|
05/07/2009 11:54:45 AM · #36 |
I agree with you,
If you'd give me the permission, I wan't to try stealing one of your pictures :) '' From your portfolio here in DPC
E-mail you the result, Wan't to give it a go? :) |
|
|
|
05/07/2009 12:00:03 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by AmeedEl-Ghoul:
I agree with you,
If you'd give me the permission, I wan't to try stealing one of your pictures :) '' From your portfolio here in DPC
E-mail you the result, Wan't to give it a go? :) |
Have at this one and see how well it works — permission granted...
R. |
|
|
|
05/07/2009 12:00:45 PM · #38 |
|
|
|
05/07/2009 12:01:52 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by AmeedEl-Ghoul:
I agree with you,
If you'd give me the permission, I wan't to try stealing one of your pictures :) '' From your portfolio here in DPC
E-mail you the result, Wan't to give it a go? :) |
Have at this one and see how well it works — permission granted...
R. |
Thanks Robert, I am on it now, 5 Minutes and check your E-mail thats in your portfolio's page, |
|
|
|
05/07/2009 12:08:43 PM · #40 |
At the end of the day if someone REALLY wants to steal an image, the 80px difference we are talking about from current basic to proposed basic sizes will make hardly no difference at all in improved print quality and as I said if they REALLY want that image they will take it even at the 640 pixels that we currently display at anyway.
An increase to 720px longest edge for basic even if not increasing the advanced ruleset size seems like the perfect move to me.
My 0.02c
|
|
|
|
05/07/2009 12:09:40 PM · #41 |
Done, actually took 2 minutes to download, resize, and E-mail, wowww, easier than I thought,
Robert, I've E-mailed you the picture,
Original Size: 90K 481x640
New Size: 2.32 MB 781x1039 100DPI new print size 7.81x10.39
Please note I can upsize it to 300DPI
Now as you are the only one can judge the quality as you are the one has the original,
Please judge the quality and evaluate it, I'd say it is arround 80% acceptable, noting that the original size that I worked on was 90K and not 200 or 300K.
Awaiting your post,
Thanks Robert for the permission, |
|
|
|
05/07/2009 12:10:25 PM · #42 |
720x720 on all challenges would be fine by me. Don't really see a need to go any larger.
Some prior discussions on this subject can be found in the Administrator Announcements forum area.
A couple specifically as listed below (see the opening post in both threads for comments by  Langdon):
720x720 Final Statement
640x640 Restriction Poll Results |
|
|
|
05/07/2009 12:15:35 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by AmeedEl-Ghoul:
Roughly yes. But, If you googles picture upsizing, you'll find tons of software that can boost up your pictures size to a prinable size, I've tried a software called PhotoZoom, and I was able to get some '' Acceptable '' results. Upsizing a shot that I took roughly 7 years ago with 2MP camera to 3MB and being able to print it wasn't a problem at all.
Not every one stealing pictures are doing that for the purpose of printing 20x30. Not every one has the knowledge to do it, Not every one is welling to do it, but the point is .. they can!! |
Truly, you're back to deciding whether or not you're really that concerned. If I have anything I *REALLY* wouldn't want someone to steal, I wouldn't post it on the Web. Period.
I have yet to take that picture, nor do I lose any sleep worrying about it.
All you're doing is creating grief for yourself by worrying.
If someone wants to go to the trouble and expense of software, and the time to rework the images to get them printable.....well, that just seems stupid to me.....why not just shoot the image yourself if you can successfully recreate it from a webshot?
I dunno.....I think it's just not that big an issue. If you have a case where you know someone is stealing your images and charging people that's one thing, but why worry about what-ifs?
|
|
|
|
05/07/2009 12:27:34 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I dunno.....I think it's just not that big an issue. If you have a case where you know someone is stealing your images and charging people that's one thing, but why worry about what-ifs? |
Actually it happend to one of our DPC members recently, not sure if it was stolen from DPC, but it happend, check this thread '' YAPT (Yet Another Photo Thief) ''
People who are welling to steal pictures, I am sure they are welling to steal software, pirated software. It took me only 2 minutes to upsize one picture!!
I'd say 90% of my advertisement is done through the net, no one has the time to take a printed album and go to each and every client.
People are using online communities like Flickr, DPC and so on, I wouldn't close that door.
I am not against uploading here, or upsizing the challenges entries, but I am just asking how is our work is protected in here?
Regards,
Message edited by author 2009-05-07 12:32:15. |
|
|
|
05/07/2009 12:30:21 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by AmeedEl-Ghoul:
Done, actually took 2 minutes to download, resize, and E-mail, wowww, easier than I thought,
Robert, I've E-mailed you the picture,
Original Size: 90K 481x640
New Size: 2.32 MB 781x1039 100DPI new print size 7.81x10.39
Please note I can upsize it to 300DPI
Now as you are the only one can judge the quality as you are the one has the original,
Please judge the quality and evaluate it, I'd say it is arround 80% acceptable, noting that the original size that I worked on was 90K and not 200 or 300K.
Awaiting your post,
Thanks Robert for the permission, |
OK: the question is, how much does your resize algorithm increase quality on an upsampled image from a small original. I have quickly compared the two by loading yours into PS as-is, and then taking my uploaded image (640px) and resampled it up to match yours in size, using straight PS resampling. Your image shows a *slight* improvement in tonal range but no improvement in resolution, to my eye, even when blown up to compare close details.
Feel free to post up your own versions and show us what you see, friend. Maybe my eye isn't critical enough? But as far as I can see, it's not making a measurable improvement beyond what I could accomplish if I took my PS-resampled-from-640 image and did some minor tweaking to expand the tonal range a tad...
R.
ETA: neither of these is anywhere near as good as the full-size original, which I have printed, but that file's on the other machine and I'm not able to access it at the moment.
Message edited by author 2009-05-07 12:31:46. |
|
|
|
05/07/2009 12:33:32 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I dunno.....I think it's just not that big an issue. If you have a case where you know someone is stealing your images and charging people that's one thing, but why worry about what-ifs? |
Originally posted by AmeedEl-Ghoul:
Actually it happend to one of our DPC members recently, not sure if it was stolen from DPC, but it happend, check this thread '' [url=//www.dpchallenge.com/forum.php?action=read&FORUM_THREAD_ID=897002&highlight=yet another]YAPT (Yet Another Photo Thief)[/url] ''
People who are welling to steal pictures, I am sure they are welling to steal software, pirated software. It took me only 2 minutes to upsize one picture!!
I'd say 90% of my advertisement is done through the net, no one has the time to take a printed album and go to each and every client.
People are using online communities like Flickr, DPC and so on, I wouldn't close that door.
I am not against uploading here, or upsizing the challenges entries, but I am just asking how is our work is protected in here?
Regards, |
There have been many images stolen from DPC.....I had one stolen, too.
Point is, I had no recourse, nor could I have proven lost revenue in a court of law. I decided to be flattered that someone thought it was nice enough to steal.....it was put up on a European site dedicaed to really nice landscapes.....I really cannot be all that mad about that.
Protecting the images posted up here are the responsibility of the image owner.....if you're THAT concerned, register your copyright, and be prepared to go after the thieves. What do you think you're entitled to in the way of protection and enforcement against image theft for your $25 a year at a recreational photography site?
|
|
|
|
05/07/2009 12:35:40 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by AmeedEl-Ghoul:
I am not against uploading here, or upsizing the challenges entries, but I am just asking how is our work is protected in here?
Regards, |
It's not protected here anymore than it is on your website, on flickr or anywhere else for that matter, as has been mentioned if it's an image that you are not willing for others to download (steal) then simply use another image and do not upload said image anywhere on the net - that's the only sure fire way of not having it stolen online. |
|
|
|
05/07/2009 12:58:09 PM · #48 |
 NikonJeb: Not sure why the attitude in here!! I am just saying my opinion, and yes .. I think there should be a way of protection and enforcement against image theft on DPC, not because of the $25 which I paid out of good well to see DPC running for a long time. But to protect the credibility of DPC on the long run. Keep seeing threads about image thefts gives me concerns for sure.
Mark-A: My website gallery is done in flash, not sure how to steal that, Flickr and other sites, allow you to post small size images and add a watermark, try doing that in a challenge in here and see the result. Either a DQ or extremely low score, which is against why we are all in here. These things might not stop image theft 100% for sure, but it will make it harder, that whoever might want to take your pictures would reconsider and think if it worth the effort or if it is doable.
Bear_Music: I am not expert in upsizing, I just wanted to share a point and explain why I am against increasing the entry size limits. I am sure people who make money out of stealing images knows how to do it better than me.
Thank you all for your time and sorry if I bothered any one with my posts.
All due respect,
Regards,
|
|
|
|
05/07/2009 01:04:30 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by AmeedEl-Ghoul:
Mark-A: My website gallery is done in flash, not sure how to steal that, Flickr and other sites, allow you to post small size images and add a watermark, try doing that in a challenge in here and see the result. Either a DQ or extremely low score, which is against why we are all in here. These things might not stop image theft 100% for sure, but it will make it harder, that whoever might want to take your pictures would reconsider and think if it worth the effort or if it is doable. |
Not meaning to sound rude mate but send me your website URL and I will send you back one of your images ripped from the Flash in less than 1 minute. Flash is no more secure than html and the same with Flickrs 1x1px spaceball.gif - I know a guy that cloned out a watermark because he wanted to use an image (yes I did give him a piece of my mind - not much left for me now though :p ), so I can only repeat really that the only way to be sure your images are not being stolen is to not upload them - well other than putting such a large watermark over them that they are barely recognisible
Message edited by author 2009-05-07 13:04:49. |
|
|
|
05/07/2009 01:06:27 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by AmeedEl-Ghoul:
Bear_Music: I am not expert in upsizing, I just wanted to share a point and explain why I am against increasing the entry size limits. I am sure people who make money out of stealing images knows how to do it better than me.
Thank you all for your time and sorry if I bothered any one with my posts.
All due respect,
Regards, |
I didn't intend to put you on the spot, friend. You seem to know more about this than I do, and I'm genuinely curious... Your posts are appreciated, at least by me.
R. |
|
