The Gallery is Open

We need some sort of declaration that all photographers copyright and retain copyright of their photos. Don't you agree?
 
dont watermark the pictures, if someone doesnt want to share their photos they shouldnt put them on a public site like this anyway. Sometimes I like to use people photos as desktop background and such.
 
What is watermarking the picture? sorry I should know I guess it's a faint logo over the pictures?
 
yes, that's the general description of a watermark, as well as a digitally inserted number performed through Photoshop. In my Photoshop 6 version (I know, antiquated already), there's a function called "Watermark". But you need an additional program from the company called Digimarc in order to use it. I believe the Digimarc watermark program enables the user to find the image anywhere on the Internet and also any computer that has downloaded the watermarked photograph. You don't get the owner's name, just their internet IP address. If I'm wrong someone please correct me, but I believe this is one function of it. Designed so photographers can keep track of who is copying their images, or posting them without their permission (or any payments), such as National Geographic, Vogue, Time, etc etc etc.

I have a friend who worked at a small Fashion and Graphic design college who told me students there on a regular basis "sample" photographs posted on the internet in order to create their classroom-graded projects. Freaked me out, to be sure. Instead of going out and shooting their own work, they "sample" someone else's, incorprate it into a "new" work, and say, "Look what I made, Mr. Teacher! Give me an A!"

But hey, welcome to the "free" Internet.....

chris
canonetc
 
One more thing: although it might look bad or affect the photo, I sometimes put my name on the photo so that no matter who downloads it, they'll know (and their friends will too) who shot it. It discourages "sampling" as well. Theives tend to be lazy, and won't want to spend the time to remove the inserted text, unless they simply crop it out of the photo.

chris
canonetc
 
Does anybody notice this? I found photos quality have been degraded very much in our normal view unless you have click to see the actual original image by the sender. Even only slight different in the sizes, all the details and sharpness are dropped seriously. You can see in the following samples.

Example 1
600px X 408px in the following link
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=10031&cat=4903
636px X 432px in the original photo (click on image to view larger image)

Example 2
600px X 480px in the following link
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=10300
640px X 512px in the original photo (click on image to view larger image)

I am really doubt that is it necessary to have the gallary renovation?

Or, please simply tell us which size is the optimal so that we can follow and preserve our photo quality. Nobody wants to see their own pics degraded and no viewer wants to make double actions to see a picture or triple actions when start from preview.
 
Last edited:
Anything over 600 pixels wide will be shrunk down for display purpose. Hence you see the link below saying "CLick here for larger image". Once you click on the link you see the original image with its full resolution.

Thisi s done to keep a consisten look on the site and keep you from having to scroll all over the place for full viewing.

The max width and height allowed is 1000 pixels which will be displayed as 600 then 1000 when clicked on.
 
Dominic Le Fave said:
We need some sort of declaration that all photographers copyright and retain copyright of their photos. Don't you agree?
Click to expand...
I think such a declaration would be very useful. It certainly serves as a warning and can be held up in most courts as "fair warning." Without such a declaration you are essentially telling the world it's ok. It won't prevent the casual (read lazy) user or student from "copping" your work. But, if your image shows up in commercial use you can always point to the warning for starters. If your work is being used commercially you deserve compensation and the right to allow or disallow use.

I would like to watermark my own images as well, I worry about the effect on the final link in the chain, the viewer. Ultimately I think most users don't care.
 
Last edited:
Well,

I could watermark the pictures. Something like:

Photo hosted at rangefinderforum.com. Photos owned by the posting photographer. All copyright laws apply.
 
Jorge, your reply still didn't get my point.

Does the users here like to put large images in the gallery? (You should have such data!) The tendency would be obvious if this is a gallery for digital photos because people simply upload their images from their powerful DC. Here are people who are using film; all of us will adjust the right pixels before upload to the gallery. I doubt any user would like to submit a 1000px image whereas presenting a degraded shrunk image to the public. I also doubt the viewer will have one more click for a 1000px enlargement when there is a 600px image already.
 
jlw said:
Yo, dawgs, wazzup dat spizzle? Natz bein down wit ma homes cuz the spin ain't on my 411. Gotta fro my tude, else blinchickie's wanna wap what it's all about. Ja gitted? Way!
Click to expand...


true that! word!
 
Jorge Torralba said:
I really like the new gallery and how it is integrated into the forum. I hope you guys enjoy it.

One thing. Should I watermark the pictures? Once its done it cannot be undone.
Click to expand...

some people might be concerned with Copyright and Intellectual Property theft.... watermarking could solve that issue and is more reliable than the other methods of attempting to prevent image theft...

just my $0.02
 
the idea of the digital watermark is that it is inserted (or rather distributed) inside the digital image. special software inserts the image and special software recovers it. if you watermark your images and then there is an issue of ownership and copyright, the digital watermark will stand up in a court of law as proving ultimate ownership. the key issue here is that a good digital watermark is well hidden within the context of the image and can only be discovered by the software (and algorithm) that originally embedded it. theoretically you can derive the watermark using statistical methods.. but not on a PC and not in this lifetime.
 
i shoot film.

i scan the neg.

i post it here.

you steal my pic and i still have the neg.

that watermark may be digital but my film isn't.

joe
 
jlw said:
Yo, dawgs, wazzup dat spizzle? Natz bein down wit ma homes cuz the spin ain't on my 411. Gotta fro my tude, else blinchickie's wanna wap what it's all about. Ja gitted? Way!
Click to expand...

有種就講英文，吾好講鬼話！
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom