| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/09/2009 03:16:02 PM · #51 |
| I think its time DPC increased it to 850px x 850px |
|
|
|
11/09/2009 03:27:14 PM · #52 |
| karmat kicks simms in the shin |
|
|
|
11/09/2009 03:34:55 PM · #53 |
850 would be nice. But 1024 would be better.
Originally posted by Simms:
I think its time DPC increased it to 850px x 850px |
|
|
|
|
11/09/2009 03:48:20 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by Bugzeye:
850 would be nice. But 1024 would be better.
Originally posted by Simms:
I think its time DPC increased it to 850px x 850px |
|
I'm pretty sure karmat is not limited to kicking shin-high ... |
|
|
|
11/09/2009 03:48:59 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by karmat:
karmat kicks simms in the shin |
 |
|
|
|
11/09/2009 03:50:47 PM · #56 |
Nothing is ever good enough....more, more, more they scream!
Hey Karmat...wear pointy toed shoes!! :P
Message edited by author 2009-11-09 15:51:06. |
|
|
|
11/09/2009 04:54:02 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
With the exception of Jason's issue with the billboard in Australia,
|
How do you know that's an exception? |
|
|
|
11/09/2009 05:02:45 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by bergiekat:
Nothing is ever good enough....more, more, more they scream!
Hey Karmat...wear pointy toed shoes!! :P |
and call me a "naughty boy" as you do it please... |
|
|
|
11/09/2009 05:12:49 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by Simms:
Originally posted by bergiekat:
Nothing is ever good enough....more, more, more they scream!
Hey Karmat...wear pointy toed shoes!! :P |
and call me a "naughty boy" as you do it please... |
Cleats might be more effective. ;p |
|
|
|
11/09/2009 05:50:47 PM · #60 |
|
|
|
11/09/2009 07:12:50 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
With the exception of Jason's issue with the billboard in Australia,
|
Originally posted by eyewave:
How do you know that's an exception? |
Well, if you would have read and thought about what I wrote, and not excerpted half of it, instead of being pedantic:
With the exception of Jason's issue with the billboard in Australia, and a couple of isolated sites that steal the low res images, piracy just isn't an issue.
A reasonable reader would have been able to interpolate that it must not be that much of an problem since there aren't a bunch of people here with the same experience(s).
Look, I really don't care about this any more. You guys want to get all special and put shit on your images, go right ahead.....I see a watermark, I'll just move on, 'cause it's obviously too special for me to be able to view as a clean image.
It gets that way too often, I'll just wander off to some place where regular people can look at pictures without a bunch of crap and self-serving egotism.
This is an amateur, enthusiast site.......if it's going to try to be more, well, I know I certainly don't belong here.
Have fun with your own vision of how it should be.
|
|
|
|
11/09/2009 07:20:42 PM · #62 |
Oh......thanks, Langdon, for the size increase.
|
|
|
|
11/09/2009 07:25:56 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by Simms:
I think its time DPC increased it to 850px x 850px |
ba-hahahahahaha! Nice.
|
|
|
|
11/10/2009 07:14:00 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by ThingFish:
About the watermarks. There is another way I believe. I came across a site some time ago where there is some sort of protection in place so that you cannot drag an image to your desktop. When you try you just get a tiny little patch on your desktop that says something like "thief proof" Not sure how it works. Must be something to do with the software the site uses. |
There are a couple ways of going about doing that, one is using something like Flash or Java and embedding the non-graphical object in the page (which would be a huge hit against usability); the other is by using DHTML, either messing with z-ordering to put an item on top of the image or by using javascript to capture mouse events (both of which are easily bypassed by any number of ways). Basically, it doesn't work against anyone who cares. |
|
|
|
11/10/2009 07:17:04 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by totaldis:
hear hear! or is it hear hear! |
there, there |
|
|
|
11/10/2009 07:20:41 PM · #66 |
Jeb, you belong here.
I haven't voted because I can't see the 'don't really care' option.
Couldn't there be an optional watermark? |
|
|
|
11/10/2009 07:30:47 PM · #67 |
First ... let me reiterate my thanks for the size increase!!!!!
And thanks to Langdon (is Drew still around?) for being thoughtful about changes to the site !!!!!!
We saw years of overwhelming support for the size increase ... and then we got it. Yea!!!
My current recommendation is that Langdon be at least as thoughtful about watermarking. Lets all check back sometime in 2012. |
|
|
|
11/10/2009 09:24:17 PM · #68 |
| Wow, just took a break from ice skating here in Hell and saw this new change. Great news! |
|
|
|
11/11/2009 12:05:55 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
[quote=pamelasue] fantastic news! Let's move towards watermarking after a challenge has ended also ... |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Do you watermark your portfolio images now???
Let's NOT ruin the viewing experience. |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
She said "after a challenge has ended" - I agree.
ETA -
If you're worried, don't post and/or enter.
It's not this site's responsibility to be paranoid about your entries, |
YES, good post NikonJeb, hit the ol' nail right on the head. LOTS of paranoid people who think their shots are worth a million dollars!
EASY to fix, just like you said: Do NOT post! Watermarking? For what? They can look at your name below or above or beside the photo.
YES, I understand what they are trying to do. ie RUIN the photo so it can't be looked at under the idea they are "protecting" their work. I did that years ago when I was stupid. Now I really try to leave my name off of my photos, let alone a watermark.
Yeah, let's get the size raised a little bit, my small screen next to the bed on the have a computer handy to check the mail on @ 02:17am is 1920x1200 and the one in the office is 2560x1600 I think. 800x is pretty small to look at in 2009, SOON to be 2010. People need to quit using those CGA monitors. LOL Even my notebook is 1280x1024.
YES, I come to DPC to ENJOY looking at the photo, NOT someone's name or watermark. Leave those for the sites where they SELL their work. This site is SUPPOSED to be a FUN site.
Rant off.
Yeah, I have to pay my $25 again. Paid it last year, been a member for years, haven't entered my FIRST entry yet in the 3 plus years. (10/29/2006 joined) :( And YES, thanks for the size increase for my old, tired eyes!
Message edited by author 2009-11-11 12:07:41. |
|
|
|
11/11/2009 12:51:34 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by MrChevy:
LOTS of paranoid people who think their shots are worth a million dollars! |
Not necessarily a million, but since I started watermarking, I've licensed enough of my photographs to pay for a Canon 70-200 f2.8L IS lens, the Canon Ultrawide 10-22 lens, a Manfrotto tripod and ballhead, a battery grip, etc.
So, yeah, watermarking has successfully been proven to work for me.
I VOTE FOR WATERMARKING!
:-D
|
|
|
|
11/11/2009 12:56:14 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by MrChevy:
... And YES, thanks for the size increase for my old, tired eyes! |
Well, if your eyes are that tired, it's easy enough to change the resolution of your monitor to 1024x768 or even 800x600 - then you'd certainly have no problem seeing things. :-D |
|
|
|
11/12/2009 07:12:46 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by Photologist:
Originally posted by MrChevy:
LOTS of paranoid people who think their shots are worth a million dollars! |
Not necessarily a million, but since I started watermarking, I've licensed enough of my photographs to pay for a Canon 70-200 f2.8L IS lens, the Canon Ultrawide 10-22 lens, a Manfrotto tripod and ballhead, a battery grip, etc.
So, yeah, watermarking has successfully been proven to work for me.
I VOTE FOR WATERMARKING!
:-D |
Ah! Before you started watermarking you never licensed anything! How interesting. I guess I need to start watermarking my photos so people will start licensing them and buying them...
Even though I don't sell any photos, people will want to buy them all of the sudden. WOW! I never knew that! THANKS for telling me that.
How stupid of me. I never realized DPC was a place to sell photos. Look how stupid I am, all of these years I thought it was a photo contest place.
It is sort of like you going to work in a really hi class restaurant as a waiter and as you hand the customers their menu's you tell them;"Here is MY business card, I DO photography on the side and would be glad to give you my rates and etc..."
I would just wager that the first manager who seen you do that would ask what you thought you were doing and then would hand you your paycheck and show you the door.
I see nothing wrong with watermarking on your own website, that is up to you. I know that when I go to websites to look at photos, that if they have big watermarks on them or names than I just click close on that browser window.
I just don't think they are appropriate for a contest website like this or any contest website UNLESS it is a watermark contest website. I've only been shooting photos for a short time, I think the first time I took photos, developed the film and enlarged some photos for the paper was in 1965. Once I get to taken photos for a while longer, maybe I will see the need to watermark, but NOT on a contest website.
But, hey. You can do whatever you want. More power to you! LOL I don't like watermarks so I guess I'll just keep my $25 in my pocket and see which way it goes. :)
Have a great day! |
|
|
|
11/12/2009 07:32:20 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by MrChevy:
... And YES, thanks for the size increase for my old, tired eyes! |
Well, if your eyes are that tired, it's easy enough to change the resolution of your monitor to 1024x768 or even 800x600 - then you'd certainly have no problem seeing things. :-D |
Well, IF that would work, then the res on HERE should be 240x160, right? People could just change the res on THEIR monitor. What a great idea... I guess. It sounds like a stupid idea to me to run ANY monitor in NONnative resolution. That is where they look and display the best, that is why it is used on all of my monitors.
I'll admit I have cheap monitors, the 30" only cost $1369.00 but I only make $15 an hour so can't afford the expensive stuff like a lot of you must be able to.
It is so much easier to post larger photos with MORE DETAIL in them. I LOVE detail. Let's take a little survey here, how many users on here do you think shoot 800x600 res? And how many shoot in RAW? AH, a LOT shoot in RAW I would bet! LOL
Yes, YOU can change the res on YOUR monitor, but please, give ME LARGER photos to look at! LOL
It is ALL about having fun any how, right? |
|
|
|
11/12/2009 07:53:38 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by MrChevy:
Originally posted by Photologist:
Originally posted by MrChevy:
LOTS of paranoid people who think their shots are worth a million dollars! |
Not necessarily a million, but since I started watermarking, I've licensed enough of my photographs to pay for a Canon 70-200 f2.8L IS lens, the Canon Ultrawide 10-22 lens, a Manfrotto tripod and ballhead, a battery grip, etc.
So, yeah, watermarking has successfully been proven to work for me.
I VOTE FOR WATERMARKING!
:-D |
Ah! Before you started watermarking you never licensed anything! How interesting. I guess I need to start watermarking my photos so people will start licensing them and buying them... |
I highly recommend watermarking if you want to protect your images. I didn't start watermarking to make money, I watermarked so that people wouldn't use my photographs at-will, and to at least get some sort of attribution. At Flickr, I had some of my images "lifted" (Flickr is well-known as a place where folks can "lift" photos freely).
As a surprise side-effect of my watermarking deterrent, I started getting inquiries for purchasing of said photos.
So, all my transactions happened over at Flickr, not here at DPC. Most of my better work is on Flickr, not here. Nonetheless, it does not imply that none of my photographs were illegally taken from here (DPC).
|
|
|
|
11/12/2009 10:51:20 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by MrChevy:
... Yes, YOU can change the res on YOUR monitor, but please, give ME LARGER photos to look at! LOL |
Well, I don't quite have the luxury you do with a 30" monitor, and I doubt many here on DPC do. Given that, I'm not surprised you want to see larger photos.
Personally, I have a decent 19" monitor that's a few years old, and I have the resolution at the highest setting (1280x1024). An image at 800px vertical is very large, almost too large to view comfortably IMO.
Originally posted by MrChevy:
... I guess I need to start watermarking my photos so people will start licensing them and buying them... |
Ummm...first you actually need to TAKE some photos to worry about watermarking them, don't you?  It is good to see you actively (kind of) participating here now at DPC. Have fun!
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/04/2025 07:54:39 AM EDT.
It is good to see you actively (kind of) participating here now at DPC. Have fun!