| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/08/2007 03:36:03 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by Brad:
Well the day you see your daughter's face on an x-rated image on the web, then come back and tell me about books. . |
The lesson to be learned here is don't put pictures of your kids on the web.
That is an extreme example, but I know it has happened, however, I have found many of my images on other websites (not my kids though) and as long as no money is being made, I am happy for the exposure.. As I mentioned before, I usually contact the person first asking them to credit me and maybe even link to my DPC profile, and even go as far as making an open offer to use any of my other images.
Anyway, back to normal programming..
720 pixels please!!!
|
|
|
|
05/08/2007 03:43:32 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by Simms:
The lesson to be learned here is don't put pictures of your kids on the web. |
Or friends, or family, or someone you work with, or someone you know, or someone that knows someone that you know, or or or...
:( |
|
|
|
05/08/2007 03:46:30 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by Brad:
Originally posted by Simms:
The lesson to be learned here is don't put pictures of your kids on the web. |
Or friends, or family, or someone you work with, or someone you know, or someone that knows someone that you know, or or or...
:( |
I disagree, there are plenty of people I work with whose images I would like to see defaced in such a manner.
See, every cloud has it silver lining. :)
- some family members as well come to think of it.
Message edited by author 2007-05-08 15:46:57. |
|
|
|
05/08/2007 03:47:44 PM · #54 |
|
|
|
05/08/2007 03:51:12 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by langdon:
We could certainly run a poll again, I suppose (#1, #2). Google Analytics data for the month of April would suggest that this might be a bad idea:
1. 1024x768 36.59%
2. 1280x1024 21.51%
3. 1280x800 9.15%
4. 1680x1050 6.37%
5. 1440x900 4.98%
6. 1400x1050 4.98%
7. 1152x864 3.35%
8. 800x600 2.77%
9. 1920x1200 2.50%
10. 1600x1200 2.27
56.84% of viewers wouldn't be able to see portrait-styled images @ a full 720px. |
43.16% of viewers don't agree :) |
|
|
|
05/08/2007 03:59:04 PM · #56 |
I'm sure this was already mentioned but why not just keep the size at 640x and make the photos clickable to view at a larger size? Both the voter and the submitter can choose to utilize the larger size without it being forced down your throat. You could also make it a preference as to which version you would see as the default size when voting/viewing.
Btw, I can go up to 2048x1536 resolution so the larger the better for me but it needs to be treated as the luxury item that it is.
Message edited by author 2007-05-08 15:59:34. |
|
|
|
05/08/2007 04:13:17 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by yanko:
I'm sure this was already mentioned but why not just keep the size at 640x and make the photos clickable to view at a larger size? Both the voter and the submitter can choose to utilize the larger size without it being forced down your throat. You could also make it a preference as to which version you would see as the default size when voting/viewing.
Btw, I can go up to 2048x1536 resolution so the larger the better for me but it needs to be treated as the luxury item that it is. |
This also came up before, for best results it would be incumbent upon the submitter to resize and upload two images then, if they did not it might hurt them in the voting with the 43% or the 56% on the other side depending on the one they uploaded.
If you have the web servers down-res, you can't really control the sharpness and ensure no artifacting takes place so that's not really a great option either.
Message edited by author 2007-05-08 16:14:48. |
|
|
|
05/08/2007 05:18:07 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by yanko:
I'm sure this was already mentioned but why not just keep the size at 640x and make the photos clickable to view at a larger size? Both the voter and the submitter can choose to utilize the larger size without it being forced down your throat. You could also make it a preference as to which version you would see as the default size when voting/viewing.
Btw, I can go up to 2048x1536 resolution so the larger the better for me but it needs to be treated as the luxury item that it is. |
Because, and its great you bought this up, some images only look good at 720 (or higher), I entered one for the current Cultural Events challenge, but have just withdrawn it becuase at 640 it just loses all the magic of the shot and becomes a very standard snapshot. At the larger resolution it changed into something different. I would need to know EVERYONE is seeing it as it was intended.
To be honest thats why I posted this thread earlier today because I was so fraustrated. Here, lets go back a few hours and see what happened after I submitted my image..
(imagine a scooby doo style fade to earlier event....)
Originally posted by Simms:
I want 720 pixels on all challenges now.. It obviously works so why delay!!!
Arrrrgghhhhhhhhh! |
(FADE BACK TO CURRENT TIME)
And thats why the thread title of DAMN YOU DPC!!!!.
Message edited by author 2007-05-08 17:19:58. |
|
|
|
05/08/2007 05:26:37 PM · #59 |
| You're right. I didn't think about that. I should have as I've run into problems myself trying to avoid the jaggies when downsizing to 640. |
|
|
|
05/08/2007 05:27:22 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by Simms:
I cant see what all the fuss is about regarding stolen images..
"Stolen" to the majority here means someone has liked their image and put it on Flickr.
If you think you're image is worth big bucks, dont post it on here anyway.
Simple as. |
End of.
|
|
|
|
05/08/2007 05:37:26 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by Simms:
I cant see what all the fuss is about regarding stolen images..
"Stolen" to the majority here means someone has liked their image and put it on Flickr.
If you think you're image is worth big bucks, dont post it on here anyway.
Simple as. |
End of. |
Nuff said. |
|
|
|
05/08/2007 05:52:42 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by Brad:
Originally posted by Simms:
The lesson to be learned here is don't put pictures of your kids on the web. |
Or friends, or family, or someone you work with, or someone you know, or someone that knows someone that you know, or or or...
:( |
What you don't seem to understand is that there is NO WAY for DPC to protect your photos from being stolen. If by simple fact that if a person can see a photo on their screen, they can get it. It's called PRTSCN. There is also an abundance of 3rd party screen capture software that can get around just about any "block" that can be put up for screen captures.
If a person wants your photo, for whatever purpose, they'll get it.
However, I, for one, refuse to live in fear of this happening, and when/if it does, there are legal avenues you can take to get the people doing it. It just happens to be part of the internet lives that we lead these days. Putting the onus on DPC to protect your photos isn't very fair, or realistic. Sure, they can work on measures to make it more difficult, but the people using photos of children/teenagers to put faces onto x-rated images aren't the kind of people that will balk at simple protection schemes anyway.
So what I'd like to know is.. what solutions do/did you have in mind that can stop this kind of thing completely? |
|
|
|
05/08/2007 06:19:18 PM · #63 |
Well Glen, you must think I'm a fucking moron if you think that I believe there is a foolproof method to protect images - sheesh.
Even hiding behind a clear gif (java-based shrink-wrapping) can be bypassed very easily, and yes, I do know all about printscreen, as I've maybe been using a PC and dabbled with 3rd party software for, oh maybe probably more than half of your lifetime??
What I was getting at was two-fold:
1) Increasing the image size will only add to the desire of eye candy "borrowing" from the site.
2) Watermarking the images is a deterrent, but by no means a lock. Whatever someone wants, they will get, plain & simple. To the casual "I want glory and can't take my own good pictures" kind of image "borrower", a watermark will probably be more than they would be able to remove cleanly.
Maybe I should re-phrase my words:
Until DPC can find a way to protect our images, apply some form of watermarking to deter the casual image borrower, I think the 640 x 150K is safer than going larger. |
|
|
|
05/08/2007 06:21:35 PM · #64 |
| Let's keep it civil in here peeps... |
|
|
|
05/08/2007 06:23:43 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by Brad:
Well Glen, you must think I'm a fucking moron if you think that I believe there is a foolproof method to protect images - sheesh.
Even hiding behind a clear gif (java-based shrink-wrapping) can be bypassed very easily, and yes, I do know all about printscreen, as I've maybe been using a PC and dabbled with 3rd party software for, oh maybe probably more than half of your lifetime??
What I was getting at was two-fold:
1) Increasing the image size will only add to the desire of eye candy "borrowing" from the site.
2) Watermarking the images is a deterrent, but by no means a lock. Whatever someone wants, they will get, plain & simple. To the casual "I want glory and can't take my own good pictures" kind of image "borrower", a watermark will probably be more than they would be able to remove cleanly.
Maybe I should re-phrase my words:
Until DPC can find a way to protect our images, apply some form of watermarking to deter the casual image borrower, I think the 640 x 150K is safer than going larger. |
Woah.. slow down the anger dude.
I'm honestly curious. You say that you want to deter the casual image borrower, but then you say that your main concern is photos of your daughter ending up on bad websites. Seriously, I'm just trying to discover what it really is you're fighting against here?
*EDIT*, and you've helped by clarifying those points.. thank you. Unfortunate that you felt that I was being facetious in any way, entirely not the case.
Message edited by author 2007-05-08 18:24:57. |
|
|
|
05/08/2007 06:32:59 PM · #66 |
DAMN YOU DPC!
Just thought that needed to be said again :-)
|
|
|
|
05/08/2007 06:39:35 PM · #67 |
| Many of us are using 20" wide screens so we do it to ourself. If I viewed portrait on my dual 20" normal proportion it's no problem. I think that thoughs the statistic off some. |
|
|
|
05/08/2007 06:41:25 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by Artyste:
Woah.. slow down the anger dude.
I'm honestly curious. You say that you want to deter the casual image borrower, but then you say that your main concern is photos of your daughter ending up on bad websites. Seriously, I'm just trying to discover what it really is you're fighting against here?
*EDIT*, and you've helped by clarifying those points.. thank you. Unfortunate that you felt that I was being facetious in any way, entirely not the case. |
I just don't like being baited and / or talked down to by anyone that reads into what I have written.
1) I am not a self-righteous, money-grubbing individual that thinks his images are worthy of large sums of money - if anything I know they are mostly all snapshots and worth only their weight in pixels, which ain't much.
2) I gladly give my images away to organizations, with photo credit or course, to individuals for their own private use / wallpapers (DPC members) for nothing more than a thank you.
3) What happened with my daughter's image was a personal thing and something I hope no parent has to see and / or run across.
4) I have found a few of my images on MySPace as well as a few on Flickr and were represented (by omission if anything) that they were their own, and THAT pissed me off.
5) I don't take theft lightly - be it an image or a paper clip - just ask - amazing things happen.
I'm at a loss.
So many have screamed bloody murder on this site that their images had been stolen, or complain that theirs had not been taken (though I think the latter was a tongue-in-cheek humorous rebuttal). I have brought up issues with it and always seems to fall on deaf ears. Threads die out after the subject is brought up. Now many want bigger images - more eye candy in my opinion, that is until a vessel is in place that can watermark them. I have watermarked ALL of my portfolio images, but cannot do the challenges. Challenges I feel are often the highest prized targets, as they are the cream of the crop (pun intended) for the most part.
Oh and Kirbic - trust me - I was being civil.
Message edited by author 2007-05-08 18:44:51. |
|
|
|
05/08/2007 06:45:01 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by langdon:
... 56.84% of viewers wouldn't be able to see portrait-styled images @ a full 720px. |
Thanks for keeping it real Langdon with the use of current statistics.
I actually mentioned on a couple of portrait images in the Free Study that it was a bummer I had to scroll to see the entire image. |
Unless your on a 12 inch laptop im gonna shell out 99 bucks and send u a 17 inch CRT Moniter that handles 1280x1024! J/K....
Unfortunatly many people are only comfortable with 1024x768 However the majority of CRT moniters can support 1280x960 or 1280x1024. ALot of people can turn their res up and dont even know how. And then theres the people on laptop displays tha are wide but not talle nough and then older laptops that are just small.... or small laptops like the smalelr vaio's. |
|
|
|
05/08/2007 06:45:06 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by Brad:
1) Increasing the image size will only add to the desire of eye candy "borrowing" from the site. |
This is the point I was wondering if you were trying to make. But I just don't see how you can quantify or qualify it. That is pure conjecture, and I would reasonably guess, that is not the case at all. How would you ever know that 80 pixels more would have an "x effect" on said image stealing?
I say let the beautiful images be seen and appreciated by us DPC'ers and if others want to thieve, then so be it. Let's not let it affect our enjoyment level. And I feel 720px helps achieve it. |
|
|
|
05/08/2007 06:51:04 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by Brad:
Originally posted by Artyste:
Woah.. slow down the anger dude.
I'm honestly curious. You say that you want to deter the casual image borrower, but then you say that your main concern is photos of your daughter ending up on bad websites. Seriously, I'm just trying to discover what it really is you're fighting against here?
*EDIT*, and you've helped by clarifying those points.. thank you. Unfortunate that you felt that I was being facetious in any way, entirely not the case. |
I just don't like being baited and / or talked down to by anyone that reads into what I have written.
1) I am not a self-righteous, money-grubbing individual that thinks his images are worthy of large sums of money - if anything I know they are mostly all snapshots and worth only their weight in pixels, which ain't much.
2) I gladly give my images away to organizations, with photo credit or course, to individuals for their own private use / wallpapers (DPC members) for nothing more than a thank you.
3) What happened with my daughter's image was a personal thing and something I hope no parent has to see and / or run across.
4) I have found a few of my images on MySPace as well as a few on FLickr and were represented (by omission if anything) that they were their own.
5) I don't take theft lightly - be it an image or a paper clip - just ask - amazing things happen.
I'm at a loss.
So many have screamed bloody murder on this site that their images had been stolen, or complain that theirs had not been taken (though I think the latter was a tongue-in-cheek humorous rebuttal). I have brought up issues with it and always seems to fall on deaf ears. Threads die out after the subject is brought up. Now many want bigger images - more eye candy in my opinion, that is until a vessel is in place that can watermark them. I have watermarked ALL of my portfolio images, but cannot do the challenges. Challenges I feel are often the highest prized targets, as they are the cream of the crop (pun intended) for the most part. |
Brad, I just think you're taking everything far more personally than anyone ever intended. People are just responding with their personal feelings to your posts.
As for "so many have screamed bloody murder", I remember a distinctly low number of very loud people doing that. The rest generally just thank whoever discovered it for them, then deal with the situation as they can.
I think you also have to consider the fact that if the subject continually dies out when it's brought up, it's maybe because enough people really don't consider it to be the problem that a select few do.
A problem, yes, but not one that requires any extreme measures to fix. That's the way I see it anyway.
In no way does that mean that solutions can't be considered, and I've stressed that. It's just that what *I* saw was a large gap between taking realistic steps to find and suggest such solutions, and pure and unfettered doom-crying.
Anyway, you obviously feel very strongly about this subject, whereas I'm more of a "take it as it comes and deal with it where I can" type.. so if anything was mistranslated in that, I apologize.
I do hope that things can eventually be worked out in the interests of all. |
|
|
|
05/08/2007 06:56:16 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by Artyste:
.. so if anything was mistranslated in that, I apologize. |
Accepted. Thank You.
Originally posted by Artyste:
I do hope that things can eventually be worked out in the interests of all. |
So do I. |
|
|
|
05/08/2007 06:58:23 PM · #73 |
Did someone say candy?!!!
This site is supposed to be fun. It's also a great way to escape all that negative energy in the real world, even if it's just for an hour or so. Just my two cents ...
Message edited by author 2007-05-08 18:59:54. |
|
|
|
05/08/2007 07:02:34 PM · #74 |
I can see why Brad feels so strongly about this subject, what with the situation regarding the photos of his kids.
HOWEVER.
The thought of putting a dirty great watermark over one of my images leaves me cold. The 80 pixel increase in image size wouldnt really increase the borrowing of images.
NOTHING is going to stop the casual image stealer from stealing our images, a lot of people here know my opinion on that anyway, it dont really bother me if no money is being made.. If someone is taking credit? Sure, that sucks, but I dont lose sleep over it, in fact, I get a little perverse pleasure knowing someone likes the image so much they wish they had taken it.
No the only REAL issue bought up here is the one with Brads kids being used in an unpleasent edit of his image. And the only way you will ever prevent that, is to not post pictures of your kids on a website that BILLIONS of people around the world have access to.
It needs to increase to 720 pixels at least. DPC really need to evolve from the crappy 640x640 max.
Message edited by author 2007-05-08 19:06:40. |
|
|
|
05/08/2007 07:10:43 PM · #75 |
| *chants* 720 pixels and 200 KB! *hides behind camera* :) |
|
