DAMN YOU DPC!!!!! - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 28-135mm F/3.5-5.6 IS USM

05/08/2007 07:11:27 PM · #76

Oooooooooooo, I bet they are discussing this like Crazy in the Site Council Gentlemans Club tonight.

daboardergirl

Canon EOS-500D Rebel T1i

05/08/2007 07:12:18 PM · #77

Originally posted by Simms:

Oooooooooooo, I bet they are discussing this like Crazy in the Site Council Gentlemans Club tonight.

Just look what you have started Simms! :)

fotomann_forever

05/08/2007 07:13:11 PM · #78

Originally posted by Simms:

Oooooooooooo, I bet they are discussing this like Crazy in the Site Council Gentlemans Club tonight.

Wanna rephrase that before the Ladies of the SC (I want that calender) come and smite you?

05/08/2007 07:14:03 PM · #79

I just ordered 1900x1200 pixels of loveliness in anticipation of this rule change.

Come on DPC - don't let me down (you owe me this...).

05/08/2007 07:15:03 PM · #80

Originally posted by Matthew:

I just ordered 1900x1200 pixels of loveliness in anticipation of this rule change.

Come on DPC - don't let me down (you owe me this...).

Matthew had to sell me one of his kidneys to pay for that as well.

Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 PRO M.Zuiko

05/08/2007 07:18:45 PM · #81

Originally posted by Simms:

Originally posted by Matthew:
I just ordered 1900x1200 pixels of loveliness in anticipation of this rule change.

Come on DPC - don't let me down (you owe me this...).

Matthew had to sell me one of his kidneys to pay for that as well.

How did it taste?

Brad

Olympus OM-D E-M1

05/08/2007 07:19:10 PM · #82

Originally posted by Simms:

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.

Well lemme tell ya' about what can be done with a little 640px image.

One of my customers and long time friend has a printing business. He has a client that was looking fro a scenic shot of San Diego Harbor to put in the top of a brochure. In passing conversation, I told him about some of the pictures I had and when he saw this image, he knew that was what his client was looking for.

He used the right-click and save process (before I watermarked and increased to 700 px) with my permission of course, to put together a rough draft to show his client. Whatever the printing process was, that 700x533px 167Kb image was good enough for a professional brochure, with the upper half of my image in it. I was floored. I did give him a 300DPI version and did get paid for it in the end, but as small as our portfolio images are, they still can be commercially reproduced without our knowledge.

Message edited by author 2007-05-08 19:20:52.

05/08/2007 07:23:54 PM · #83

Originally posted by Brad:

Whatever the printing process was, that 700x533px 167Kb image was good enough for a professional brochure, with the upper half of my image in it. I was floored. I did give him a 300DPI version and did get paid for it in the end, but as small as our portfolio images are, they still can be commercially reproduced without our knowledge.

I don't think that that is proof of anything.

[ ; )]

But seriously - if it can be used at 640px, then that kind of blows your point out of the water that 720px somehow crosses a risk threshold. The additional risk is negligible: as you say, they can both be used.

05/08/2007 07:30:58 PM · #84

Originally posted by Brad:

...In passing conversation, I told him about some of the pictures I had and when he saw this image, he knew that was what his client was looking for.

He used the right-click and save process (before I watermarked and increased to 700 px) with my permission of course, to put together a rough draft to show his client. Whatever the printing process was, that 700x533px 167Kb image was good enough for a professional brochure, with the upper half of my image in it.

If I may add, a watermark has to be obstructive and destructive to the image in order to work:

05/08/2007 07:31:05 PM · #85

Originally posted by Brad:

Originally posted by Simms:

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.

Well lemme tell ya' about what can be done with a little 640px image.

One of my customers and long time friend has a printing business. He has a client that was looking fro a scenic shot of San Diego Harbor to put in the top of a brochure. In passing conversation, I told him about some of the pictures I had and when he saw this image, he knew that was what his client was looking for.

He used the right-click and save process (before I watermarked and increased to 700 px) with my permission of course, to put together a rough draft to show his client. Whatever the printing process was, that 700x533px 167Kb image was good enough for a professional brochure, with the upper half of my image in it. I was floored. I did give him a 300DPI version and did get paid for it in the end, but as small as our portfolio images are, they still can be commercially reproduced without our knowledge.

personally I think you are on a hiding to nowhere with the watermark idea. It will never happen on DPC. Never.

05/08/2007 07:31:31 PM · #86

Originally posted by Matthew:

Originally posted by Simms:

Originally posted by Matthew:
I just ordered 1900x1200 pixels of loveliness in anticipation of this rule change.

Come on DPC - don't let me down (you owe me this...).

Matthew had to sell me one of his kidneys to pay for that as well.

How did it taste?

Dunno, gave it to the kids.

05/08/2007 07:35:40 PM · #87

Originally posted by Simms:

Originally posted by Matthew:

Originally posted by Simms:

Matthew had to sell me one of his kidneys to pay for that as well.

How did it taste?

Dunno, gave it to the kids.

sick.

05/08/2007 07:37:23 PM · #88

At this point in time, I CHOOSE not share Brad's fear, but I do think he has a point.

I would imagine that watermarking of our images should be possible, and that it could hopefully be an on/off choice in our preferences, then everybody's happy, right?

05/08/2007 07:39:51 PM · #89

Originally posted by Beetle:

If that's possible, I don't see why not. I think it will be really ugly and an eyesore, so I dunno. Are you talking about challenge entries? I guarantee people will vote it down and backlash.

05/08/2007 07:42:10 PM · #90

Originally posted by Cutter:

If that's possible, I don't see why not. I think it will be really ugly and an eyesore, so I dunno. Are you talking about challenge entries? I guarantee people will vote it down and backlash.

Hopefully they won't do that, and perhaps we'd all get used to it in time. Some of it will depend on how good the watermark is.

However, backlash or not, Brad and others should be able to make that choice (re the risk) themselves.

05/08/2007 07:50:13 PM · #91

Originally posted by Beetle:

Originally posted by Cutter:

If that's possible, I don't see why not. I think it will be really ugly and an eyesore, so I dunno. Are you talking about challenge entries? I guarantee people will vote it down and backlash.

Hopefully they won't do that, and perhaps we'd all get used to it in time. Some of it will depend on how good the watermark is.

However, backlash or not, Brad and others should be able to make that choice (re the risk) themselves.

You can look at it twofold. They either have the option or not for watermark. Or they either have the option to put images on DPC or not. The latter option is equal across the board. The former invites nonconformity. So actually, the watermark option is one of preference not equality. That would be logical outworking of the watermark theory. So, it shouldn't happen.

Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 PRO M.Zuiko

05/08/2007 07:53:27 PM · #92

Originally posted by Cutter:

Huh?

I have the option to create a border. I generally dislike borders, therefore I don't use them. So now I'm a non-conformist and shouldn't enter? Or are the border people the problem?

I don't get your point.

Brad

Olympus OM-D E-M1

05/08/2007 07:55:15 PM · #93

I think after the challenge is over, a watermark could be placed over the image, but not during.

Then again, I think I read something in an Admin bulletin that addresses the real issue:

Note:Pay no attention to Brad, as he is nothing but a raving lunatic.

05/08/2007 07:55:50 PM · #94

Originally posted by Beetle:

The border doesn't affect the integrity of the image. That is not a good example.

05/08/2007 07:57:56 PM · #95

Aaaaawwwww poor Brad..... I wish I could give you huggles to cheer you up.

You've always been WAY up high on my favorite DPCers list, and you still haven't dropped down one little bit.

Perhaps they'll see the light some day :-)

05/08/2007 08:00:47 PM · #96

Originally posted by Cutter:

The border doesn't affect the integrity of the image. That is not a good example.

It is an example of choices, and possibly even of choices where the balance of who chooses what is very uneven.

Brad beat me to saying that it wouldn't even HAVE to be during a challenge (if that is SUCH a big deal to some), but at least AFTERWARDS people should have the choice to do what they can to protect their images.

05/08/2007 08:01:48 PM · #97

Originally posted by Brad:

I think after the challenge is over, a watermark could be placed over the image, but not during.

That's not too bad of an idea. But see here is my real problem. Let's take some of Brad's great images. I think we all like DPC, not only so we can learn and receive comments on our own images, but also to study and enjoy other's work. If all Brad's images, post-challenge are watermarked, quite frankly I would be too bothered by the look....to look. And I don't want that to happen, because, let's face it, we all want to look at Brad's entries....haha.

But you see my point? I don't feel I would be alone on this, and we shouldn't let the few (thieves and abusers) affect the many. Let's condemn their actions, but not go so far as to interrupt the continued good experience.

05/08/2007 08:04:51 PM · #98

A) you'd get used to it
B) tough luck if you don't want to look at it - it is HIS image, should be HIS choice how to protect it, even that would cost him views. You are free to leave your own untouched.
C) the way the watermark is done, might make a big difference to how badly bothered you feel by it.
D) you may not like the look of it, but it doesn't take away from the learning, the teaching, the sharing..... all those wonderful technicals and emotions are still there, even behind a watermark.