DSLRUsers.com

check this out.. i'm going to take all my flickr pics down...

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6665723.stm

Thats quite dissapointing

could happen anywhere it just so happened to be flickr, put a damn watermark across the middle of your images thats what i do now

michael_ wrote:could happen anywhere it just so happened to be flickr, put a damn watermark across the middle of your images thats what i do now

i understand it could happen anywhere, it's the reaction of flickr and censoring that lets them down.

i think this begs the question, why would you post high res images on the net, that can be used to make a print out of?

i can understand people ripping off peoples photos and posting them up on the net, so obviously using a watermark of some sort is a good way to avoid that type of piracy/plagerism...

but you cannot seriously interpolate a 100-200k jpeg to something that will come out reasonable (... or moreso, sell-able) in print... or can you?

i think the photographer in question was a bit of a dill to start with...

It's bad, and I'm surprising at his informal use of language really.

From what I've read on various blogs this past week, _rebekka is one of the most popular photographers on flickr. A single mum who can't afford to take these guys to court.

As jamesw mentioned, I'm still wondering how they could produce a large high quality print from an image with a resolution of 1600 pixels on the long side.

Ben

Grev wrote:It's bad, and I'm surprising at his informal use of language really.

am i missing something?

Vodka wrote:As jamesw mentioned, I'm still wondering how they could produce a large high quality print from an image with a resolution of 1600 pixels on the long side.

Ben

Have to agree.

I don't post any high res copies of my pict's unless I am not worried about someone else using it.

Personally, I would be flattered if anybody stole my pics thinking that they were good. Seriously, there has to be a little program somewhere that allow us to protect our beautiful images (now I am being serious) so they appear ok on line, but they are ruined somehow when printed either with a huge watermark or a cross and if there not such a thing one of you clever programmers chaps should write it and sell it to the rest of us. Now there is a business opportunity.

jamesw wrote:am i missing something?

I was just referring to the owner/founder on his colloquial use of language when addressing this type of issue. No big deal.

Although I am wondering why people are submitting their good images at those sizes. But I do think flickr isn't as quality orientated compared to other sites.

Vodka wrote:As jamesw mentioned, I'm still wondering how they could produce a large high quality print from an image with a resolution of 1600 pixels on the long side.

Through interpolation and grain usage, I've been able to push several 2 megapixel images -- that's 1600 width -- to 24 x 30 inches. Big enough?

zafra52 wrote:Personally, I would be flattered if anybody stole my pics thinking that they were good. .

i can understand your point of view / thought process / way of thinking, in saying that...

but, as with most things i comment on, there is a big buuuuuuuuuut!

along with many other users on these forums, i am not a professional photographer, although i do make income (which is sometimes quite decent) from my photography.

i should also say that i am lucky enough to have a number of other income generating activities (including a full time job) that cover my everday expenses, that i do not have rely on this income from photography.

however, i definitely understand the anger that many photographers feel when they are ripped off. i am having trouble articulating exactly why - but its something along the lines of: putting in time and effort into something, not getting paid, and seeing someone else getting paid for your time.

Nnnnsic wrote:

Vodka wrote:As jamesw mentioned, I'm still wondering how they could produce a large high quality print from an image with a resolution of 1600 pixels on the long side.

Through interpolation and grain usage, I've been able to push several 2 megapixel images -- that's 1600 width -- to 24 x 30 inches. Big enough?

i am still not convinced. a few details missing...

i am guessing the 2mp images you were using were straight out of camera, right? even if they were jpgs out of camera (which they probably were), we are talking some pretty high quality 2mp images... or at least in the top echelons of jpeg quality.


so if your putting images up, straight out of camera, at 2mp / 1600 on the long side, well yeah, i guess you are asking for trouble.

but i assume, the person in question hasn't put up 2mp straight out of camera. they are likely to recieve at least some jpeg compression, and most likely, they have lost a reasonable amount of detail and contain at least some artifacts...



but back to my initial point (im not sure where the 1600px on the long side came from, maybe that is what _rebekka used...)

if you are posting up images between 100-200k, there should be no way that these can be used for anything other than web. if they get blown up, they will look disgusting, full of jpeg artifacts...



but i guess this whole thing is seriously an exercise in common sense. if you have a photo that you think is worth $, then dont post up high res images with little compression. its common sense...

jamesw wrote: (im not sure where the 1600px on the long side came from, maybe that is what _rebekka used...)

Just revisited a few of the blogs... it was actually 1200x800. Third comment on this page:
http://thomashawk.com/2007/05/only-dree ... ieves.html

Ben

I think James you'd be surprised about how much the JPEG artifact myth is stretched.

One of the images I took that level was 298kb... straight out of the camera. I'd accidentally set my point & shoot to a lower setting while in a massive crowd and had no idea I was shooting on a lower setting.

Still, was fine.

And she could've put the images up in full quality. Most people don't own Photoshop, or most consumers don't anyway. They download their images and then they upload them.

I guess the problem in this sort of quick and nasty development world of photography is the lack of edumacation.

Hard to imagine 2mp images prints to so large though.

When I wrote those comments I have had a few glasses of wine, so I am sorry if I did not appear to take the issue seriously. Believe me I do and I totally agree with you on the need to protect our intellectual rights and work, but I would like it to see it done in a way that it does not disfigure the image and it still allows its full appreciation.

I think that picture protection should disable the right click the copy facility and should prevent its printing. I read somewhere long time ago of a technique that uses a kind of see through gift/jpg file on top of the original jpg picture so people using the right click button always ended with the see trough file and not the actual picture. This could be a solution if the image is displayed on a web page, but if the web site is not well constructed or protected its images could still be stolen.

Another solution is, as I mentioned before, to use some kind of software program to alter the picture file in such a way that it can only be seen on a computer, but not printed.