Selling graphics online?

A7
Posted By
aka 717
Mar 18, 2005
Views
1045
Replies
26
Status
Closed
For those of you that are selling any of your graphics or photos online, how are you protecting them from free loaders? In other words, keeping people from right clicking and downloading (more of a javascript issue I suppose). Or how are you water marking a few thousand graphics/photos and compressing for thumbnail and regular viewing?

Thanks,
Brett

Master Retouching Hair

Learn how to rescue details, remove flyaways, add volume, and enhance the definition of hair in any photo. We break down every tool and technique in Photoshop to get picture-perfect hair, every time.

WO
Wizard of Draws
Mar 18, 2005
On 3/17/05 8:02 PM, in article , "Brett"
spewed:

For those of you that are selling any of your graphics or photos online, how are you protecting them from free loaders? In other words, keeping people from right clicking and downloading (more of a javascript issue I suppose). Or how are you water marking a few thousand graphics/photos and compressing for thumbnail and regular viewing?

Thanks,
Brett
Freeloading is not a real problem if you only put low resolution images online. As for watermarking, etc., running an action will do the job automatically for you.

Jeff ‘The Wizard of Draws’ Bucchino

Cartoons with a Touch of Magic
http://www.wizardofdraws.com

More Cartoons with a Touch of Magic
http://www.cartoonclipart.com
A7
aka 717
Mar 18, 2005
"Wizard of Draws" wrote in
message
On 3/17/05 8:02 PM, in article , "Brett"
spewed:

For those of you that are selling any of your graphics or photos online, how
are you protecting them from free loaders? In other words, keeping people
from right clicking and downloading (more of a javascript issue I suppose).
Or how are you water marking a few thousand graphics/photos and compressing
for thumbnail and regular viewing?

Thanks,
Brett
Freeloading is not a real problem if you only put low resolution images online. As for watermarking, etc., running an action will do the job automatically for you.

Jeff ‘The Wizard of Draws’ Bucchino

Cartoons with a Touch of Magic
WO
Wizard of Draws
Mar 19, 2005
On 3/17/05 8:37 PM, in article , "Brett"
spewed:


If the images from my digital camera for example, are 900X600 or so, how can I compress them automatically? Say if I have 2000.

Also, will the action watermark many photos at one time?
Thanks,
Brett
From http://photoshop911.typepad.com/help/2004/04/watermarking_ph .html

The Watermark

Start with a pencil and a note pad. Make a note of any settings as you go along. This will be a big help once we generate the action and droplette.

Next, open a typical photo image you’ll be watermarking.

If you haven’t already set up a logo or symbol for watermarking that’s okay, we’ll simply use type. If you have a logo for watermarking, then use it instead of the type. For most photos you will want the watermark to work in both light and dark situations, yet still have an amount of transparency so it allows the photo to be viewed clearly. So, we’ll have to introduce some white and some black. Additionally, we recommend a sans serif font to reduce the visual complexity of the mark.

Click new layer
Type in the watermark info as you wish it to appear.
Rasterize the type
Run the Emboss Filter, adjust settings to suite
Set the layer blending mode to "Hard Light" to let the image show through

This sets up the file and its attributes.

Choose: File > File Info

Key in the information you want attached to the file. Enter author’s name, business name and insert your URL if you have one. For the sake of automation, don’t insert any information that is pertinent to this specific file — you want generic, company information only.

Be sure to enter the copyright notice (c) 2004 and your business name. Use the Copyright symbol key. Make sure you select the Copyright Status and set "Copyrighted Work"

Click Okay and the info is added to the file.

Flatten the file.

Recording the Action

Next we’ll record the action. Of course you kept notes of all the settings for the file, right?

Move that file window to the side and open the next file.

Open the Actions Palette (Window > Actions)
Click the "New Action" button (next to the trash can.) Name the action and select the Function key you want to activate the action. (In lieu of this, you can simply run the action from the Actions Palette, but the F-key will be much more convenient.)

Now, are you ready? Click the "Record" button and it will glow red. This means you are in record mode.

Now, walk through each step you took before. (Got notes?) Be sure to select the font, size, leading, etc., exactly as before.

When done, click the STOP button. (Black Square)

Open a new photo and test the action by clicking on the "Run" button. Did it work? What did you leave out?

Once it’s perfect, it’s ready to go.

From this point on, any time you want a watermarked photo, just run this action.

Batch Watermarking

If you have a whole folder you want Watermarked, proceed to the File Menu and choose Automate > Batch.

In the resulting dialog is divided into four sections: Play, Source, Destination and Errors.

In the Play section pull down "Action" and select the Action you just created.

In the Source section, click the ‘Choose’ button and highlight the folder of files you want watermarked. (Hopefully you copied the folder, and will actually be watermarking copies of your files!)

In the Destination section choose "Save and Close" If you wish to move the newly copied files to a new folder, click Choose… and find the folder.

Are you ready? Click "OK" and sit back. Have coffee. When you get back, your files will be watermarked.
—end quote

Your files can be compressed with an action also. Just remember to always save your files to a separate directory/folder than the originals to avoid any possibility of overwriting the originals.

Jeff ‘The Wizard of Draws’ Bucchino

Cartoons with a Touch of Magic
http://www.wizardofdraws.com

More Cartoons with a Touch of Magic
http://www.cartoonclipart.com
D
Didi
Mar 19, 2005
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 20:14:22 -0500, Wizard of Draws
wrote:

On 3/17/05 8:02 PM, in article , "Brett"
spewed:

For those of you that are selling any of your graphics or photos online, how are you protecting them from free loaders? In other words, keeping people from right clicking and downloading (more of a javascript issue I suppose). Or how are you water marking a few thousand graphics/photos and compressing for thumbnail and regular viewing?

Thanks,
Brett
Freeloading is not a real problem if you only put low resolution images online. As for watermarking, etc., running an action will do the job automatically for you.

Same photo was originaly taken with a higher resolution. What prevents freeloaders using a image editor, increasing the resolution again?

Dave
FN
Flo Nelson
Mar 19, 2005
The fact that it will look terrible when they do do. Only the low-res picture info is available – at higher res will look pixelated or blurred.

Flo

"Didi" wrote in message
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 20:14:22 -0500, Wizard of Draws
wrote:

On 3/17/05 8:02 PM, in article , "Brett"
spewed:

For those of you that are selling any of your graphics or photos online, how
are you protecting them from free loaders? In other words, keeping people
from right clicking and downloading (more of a javascript issue I suppose).
Or how are you water marking a few thousand graphics/photos and compressing
for thumbnail and regular viewing?

Thanks,
Brett
Freeloading is not a real problem if you only put low resolution images online. As for watermarking, etc., running an action will do the job automatically for you.

Same photo was originaly taken with a higher resolution. What prevents freeloaders using a image editor, increasing the resolution again?

Dave

D
Didi
Mar 19, 2005
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 11:14:14 -0600, "Flo Nelson" wrote:

The fact that it will look terrible when they do do. Only the low-res picture info is available – at higher res will look pixelated or blurred.
Flo

"Didi" wrote in message
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 20:14:22 -0500, Wizard of Draws
wrote:

On 3/17/05 8:02 PM, in article , "Brett"
spewed:

For those of you that are selling any of your graphics or photos online, how
are you protecting them from free loaders? In other words, keeping people
from right clicking and downloading (more of a javascript issue I suppose).
Or how are you water marking a few thousand graphics/photos and compressing
for thumbnail and regular viewing?

Thanks,
Brett
Freeloading is not a real problem if you only put low resolution images online. As for watermarking, etc., running an action will do the job automatically for you.

Same photo was originaly taken with a higher resolution. What prevents freeloaders using a image editor, increasing the resolution again?

Dave

Flo. are you to stupid to know which side to quote?
Don’t you know to wait for me to complete talking before answering?

Back to your answer:
I doubt because (read my question and then your answer,
and sorry that your answer do no follow up on my question, but that was your stupid way of answering)
I have reduced the resolution in a image that I have taken on a high resolution for web sake, and lost the backup.
I increased the resolution via PS CS and are selling it now.

The fact that you do not even know how to quote,
raise serious doubts about your answer.

Dave
(not English speaking – that should be obvious)
B
Brian
Mar 19, 2005
Didi wrote:
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 11:14:14 -0600, "Flo Nelson" wrote:

The fact that it will look terrible when they do do. Only the low-res picture info is available – at higher res will look pixelated or blurred.
Flo

"Didi" wrote in message

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 20:14:22 -0500, Wizard of Draws
wrote:

On 3/17/05 8:02 PM, in article , "Brett"
spewed:

For those of you that are selling any of your graphics or photos online, how
are you protecting them from free loaders? In other words, keeping people
from right clicking and downloading (more of a javascript issue I suppose).
Or how are you water marking a few thousand graphics/photos and compressing
for thumbnail and regular viewing?

Thanks,
Brett

Freeloading is not a real problem if you only put low resolution images online. As for watermarking, etc., running an action will do the job automatically for you.

Same photo was originaly taken with a higher resolution. What prevents freeloaders using a image editor, increasing the resolution again?

Dave

Flo. are you to stupid to know which side to quote?
Don’t you know to wait for me to complete talking before answering?
Back to your answer:
I doubt because (read my question and then your answer,
and sorry that your answer do no follow up on my question, but that was your stupid way of answering)
I have reduced the resolution in a image that I have taken on a high resolution for web sake, and lost the backup.
I increased the resolution via PS CS and are selling it now.
The fact that you do not even know how to quote,
raise serious doubts about your answer.

Dave
(not English speaking – that should be obvious)
Actually Dave/Didi?,

With all due respect, Flo did answer your question. You asked what would stop freeloaders from resampling your images to a higher resolution. Flo correctly answered: because doing so would result in a crap image that was either blurred or pixellated (or both most likely).

Two comments here: 1. your statement about the original image being a higer resolution, what is to stop people in an image editor resampling back to that higher resolution – would suggest you know little about digital imaging. Reducing the resolution removes data…how do you propose they put that data back?
2. You stated that Flo should wait till you have finished talking? What on earth does that retarded statement mean? You asked a clear cut question and made no implication that you were about to post a follow up question. So what was she meant to wait for? What were you doing, talking to yourself and thought Flo could "hear" you?

Sorry to be so sarcastic, you asked an inexperienced question and were given a correct answer. If you don’t like accurate answers, bad luck!

Brian.
WO
Wizard of Draws
Mar 20, 2005
On 3/19/05 9:48 AM, in article ,
"Didi" spewed:

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 20:14:22 -0500, Wizard of Draws
wrote:

On 3/17/05 8:02 PM, in article , "Brett"
spewed:

For those of you that are selling any of your graphics or photos online, how are you protecting them from free loaders? In other words, keeping people from right clicking and downloading (more of a javascript issue I suppose). Or how are you water marking a few thousand graphics/photos and compressing for thumbnail and regular viewing?

Thanks,
Brett
Freeloading is not a real problem if you only put low resolution images online. As for watermarking, etc., running an action will do the job automatically for you.

Same photo was originaly taken with a higher resolution. What prevents freeloaders using a image editor, increasing the resolution again?

Dave
Once you’ve deleted information from an image (which is what you do when you take an image from say, 300 dpi down to 72 dpi), even the most sophisticated graphics program cannot replace that information. By merely increasing the resolution of the degraded image back to the original value, the image will be "high resolution", but a lower quality than the original. —
Jeff ‘The Wizard of Draws’ Bucchino

Cartoons with a Touch of Magic
http://www.wizardofdraws.com

More Cartoons with a Touch of Magic
http://www.cartoonclipart.com
H
Hecate
Mar 20, 2005
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 19:52:37 +0200, Didi wrote:

Same photo was originaly taken with a higher resolution. What prevents freeloaders using a image editor, increasing the resolution again?
Resolution is immaterial. The size of the image is what counts – i.e. how many pixels wide and deep.

It’s simple really – the resolution i.e dpi is only important for printing. If you are trying to stop people printing your image make it small. It’s very hard to print a decent image from a 400×200 jpg. It’s easier from a 1024×768 image. If you think the resolution does matter then go to Wayne Fulton’s site at www.scantips.com and see if you can tell the difference between the same sized images at 5 dpi and 300 dpi. You can’t because they’re on the monitor where dpi/resolution doesn’t matter.



Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…
B
Brian
Mar 20, 2005
Hecate wrote:

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 19:52:37 +0200, Didi wrote:

Same photo was originaly taken with a higher resolution. What prevents freeloaders using a image editor, increasing the resolution again?

Resolution is immaterial. The size of the image is what counts – i.e. how many pixels wide and deep.

It’s simple really – the resolution i.e dpi is only important for printing. If you are trying to stop people printing your image make it small. It’s very hard to print a decent image from a 400×200 jpg. It’s easier from a 1024×768 image. If you think the resolution does matter then go to Wayne Fulton’s site at www.scantips.com and see if you can tell the difference between the same sized images at 5 dpi and 300 dpi. You can’t because they’re on the monitor where dpi/resolution doesn’t matter.



Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

Hi Hecate,

as soon as I saw your name I wondered what you were going to say (LOL). Actually, the word resolution is often used "loosely" and does not always relate to dpi or ppi. The context I was using it in and I am sure David was….we are talking about size (and no rude comments please!). A higher resolution image is sometimes loosely used to mean a picture of more detail. As you know, in photography if a lens has a higher resolution, it has a higher resolving ability (it is capable of projecting more detail onto the film). More detail – higher resolution. Look, I was up until 7.30am this morning, so I am not making a lot of sense at the moment, I can barely understand my own sentence!! I think you know what I am saying though? You do, right?

If not, wait till I am more awake and I will explain myself better. All the best, Hecate!

Brian.
D
Dave
Mar 20, 2005
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 19:00:33 -0500, Wizard of Draws
wrote:

On 3/19/05 9:48 AM, in article ,
"Didi" spewed:

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 20:14:22 -0500, Wizard of Draws
wrote:

On 3/17/05 8:02 PM, in article , "Brett"
spewed:

For those of you that are selling any of your graphics or photos online, how are you protecting them from free loaders? In other words, keeping people from right clicking and downloading (more of a javascript issue I suppose). Or how are you water marking a few thousand graphics/photos and compressing for thumbnail and regular viewing?

Thanks,
Brett
Freeloading is not a real problem if you only put low resolution images online. As for watermarking, etc., running an action will do the job automatically for you.

Same photo was originaly taken with a higher resolution. What prevents freeloaders using a image editor, increasing the resolution again?

Dave
Once you’ve deleted information from an image (which is what you do when you take an image from say, 300 dpi down to 72 dpi), even the most sophisticated graphics program cannot replace that information. By merely increasing the resolution of the degraded image back to the original value, the image will be "high resolution", but a lower quality than the original.

hi Brian, Wizard & Hecate. And thanx for the replies and explanations. Reason for what I said (the decent part:-) was, as I said that the original photo was taken at a higher resolution. I realise what you’s said about deleted pixels which can not be added again makes sense, but it is still questionable to me.
http://davedup.bravehost.com/photos/Unpredictable.jpg
I have photographed my wife at a high resolution and downloaded a graphic from internet. I had this photo printed in A3 and it is on a well deserved place in my lounge:-) It came out beautifully.

The story about
http://davedup.bravehost.com/photos/DSCF0628.jpg
as wel as
http://davedup.bravehost.com/photos/DSCF0638.jpg
is that I have not realised that after replacing batteries in my new (quite recently bought) camera, the resolution went back to default which is the lowest setting.

I’ve got gigabytes of wildlife photos, mostly lions that I have photographed, but this was two of my favourites.
After changing image size and resolution via interpolation, I had both printed in A2 size (and quite expensive framed:-)

Peace Brian:-)))

Dave
B
Brian
Mar 20, 2005
Dave wrote:

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 19:00:33 -0500, Wizard of Draws
wrote:

On 3/19/05 9:48 AM, in article ,
"Didi" spewed:

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 20:14:22 -0500, Wizard of Draws
wrote:

On 3/17/05 8:02 PM, in article , "Brett"
spewed:

For those of you that are selling any of your graphics or photos online, how are you protecting them from free loaders? In other words, keeping people from right clicking and downloading (more of a javascript issue I suppose). Or how are you water marking a few thousand graphics/photos and compressing for thumbnail and regular viewing?

Thanks,
Brett

Freeloading is not a real problem if you only put low resolution images online. As for watermarking, etc., running an action will do the job automatically for you.

Same photo was originaly taken with a higher resolution. What prevents freeloaders using a image editor, increasing the resolution again?

Dave

Once you’ve deleted information from an image (which is what you do when you take an image from say, 300 dpi down to 72 dpi), even the most sophisticated graphics program cannot replace that information. By merely increasing the resolution of the degraded image back to the original value, the image will be "high resolution", but a lower quality than the original.

hi Brian, Wizard & Hecate. And thanx for the replies and explanations. Reason for what I said (the decent part:-) was, as I said that the original photo was taken at a higher resolution. I realise what you’s said about deleted pixels which can not be added again makes sense, but it is still questionable to me.
http://davedup.bravehost.com/photos/Unpredictable.jpg
I have photographed my wife at a high resolution and downloaded a graphic from internet. I had this photo printed in A3 and it is on a well deserved place in my lounge:-) It came out beautifully.
The story about
http://davedup.bravehost.com/photos/DSCF0628.jpg
as wel as
http://davedup.bravehost.com/photos/DSCF0638.jpg
is that I have not realised that after replacing batteries in my new (quite recently bought) camera, the resolution went back to default which is the lowest setting.

I’ve got gigabytes of wildlife photos, mostly lions that I have photographed, but this was two of my favourites.
After changing image size and resolution via interpolation, I had both printed in A2 size (and quite expensive framed:-)
Peace Brian:-)))

Dave
Hi Dave,

Nice natural picture of your wife, for starters!

I think I see where the lack of agreement may be taking place here. Going back to the original posting, the first answer to your question was that you need to place "small" images on your site, so that they are unusable to anyone else. If so, 800×600 is hardly that. That is too big to be posted on a site – if you don’t want anyone to be able to use the image! I "assume" you mean someone else who might want to print them for commercial purposes, etc? That picture of your wife, as an example, is obviously usable to a certain extent and is clear enough to be enlarged a "small" amount and still be "acceptable". The pics of the lions would not be acceptable for commercial use at the resampled sizes you posted. There was very obvious pixellation and if anyone used those commerically, they would not come across as being professional at all. Looking at those images on the screen, they most definitely would not print well at A2 size, they would not even give a good A4 print. If you were happy with them at A2 size, you clearly hold different standards to what I do. Then again, maybe you are not a professional photographer?

No disrespect there Dave, they are nice photos of the lions, but at the resampled sizes they have lost too much quality to look professional.

Regards,
Brian.
D
Dave
Mar 20, 2005
Nice natural picture of your wife, for starters!

I think I see where the lack of agreement may be taking place here. Going back to the original posting, the first answer to your question was that you need to place "small" images on your site, so that they are unusable to anyone else. If so, 800×600 is hardly that. That is too big to be posted on a site – if you don’t want anyone to be able to use the image! I "assume" you mean someone else who might want to print them for commercial purposes, etc? That picture of your wife, as an example, is obviously usable to a certain extent and is clear enough to be enlarged a "small" amount and still be "acceptable". The pics of the lions would not be acceptable for commercial use at the resampled sizes you posted. There was very obvious pixellation and if anyone used those commerically, they would not come across as being professional at all. Looking at those images on the screen, they most definitely would not print well at A2 size, they would not even give a good A4 print. If you were happy with them at A2 size, you clearly hold different standards to what I do. Then again, maybe you are not a professional photographer?

No disrespect there Dave, they are nice photos of the lions, but at the resampled sizes they have lost too much quality to look professional.
Regards,
Brian.

Thanks for the complement regarding the photo of my wife, Brian:-)

The lions was resampled from 15mb & 9mb to 105,239 & 99,254. You don’t realy think I would have framed photos in that condition do you:-) Of course, they would have lost quality by reducing the resolution sò far..

And yes, I am not a professional photographer, but… there absolute nothing wrong with my taste. Photographing is a very new hobby, a year, 18 months? ‘cos I have got lots of spare time. And the printer want to sell my photo’s!

But I went serious for photography by buying a good camera and CS.

It is nearly midnight here, so… see you tommorrow.

Dave
D
Dave
Mar 20, 2005
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 23:28:34 +0200, Dave wrote:

It is nearly midnight here, so… see you tommorrow.

Dave

A nice one just befor egoing to bed, Brian.
http://davedup.bravehost.com/photos/jakkals0748.jpg

Now it is really Good Night.

DD
B
Brian
Mar 21, 2005
Dave wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 23:28:34 +0200, Dave wrote:

It is nearly midnight here, so… see you tommorrow.

Dave

A nice one just befor egoing to bed, Brian.
http://davedup.bravehost.com/photos/jakkals0748.jpg

Now it is really Good Night.

DD
Where have you been taking all of your animals pics, Dave? I am a great animal lover myself, I think I like them better than people sometimes. Have you been to Africa, or are were they taken at a safari park where you live? Actually, this is the internet, maybe you live in Africa? Keep up the good work!

Brian.
G
gus
Mar 21, 2005
"Brian" wrote in message
Dave wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 23:28:34 +0200, Dave wrote:

It is nearly midnight here, so… see you tommorrow.

Dave

A nice one just befor egoing to bed, Brian.
http://davedup.bravehost.com/photos/jakkals0748.jpg

Now it is really Good Night.

DD
Where have you been taking all of your animals pics, Dave? I am a great animal lover myself, I think I like them better than people sometimes. Have you been to Africa, or are were they taken at a safari park where you live? Actually, this is the internet, maybe you live in Africa? Keep up the good work!

Brian.

just stop people from right-clicking your site, and only post thumnails so no one can do a screenshot of the page and get it that way.
D
Dave
Mar 21, 2005
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 11:12:31 +1100, Brian
wrote:

Dave wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 23:28:34 +0200, Dave wrote:

It is nearly midnight here, so… see you tommorrow.

Dave

A nice one just befor egoing to bed, Brian.
http://davedup.bravehost.com/photos/jakkals0748.jpg

Now it is really Good Night.

DD
Where have you been taking all of your animals pics, Dave? I am a great animal lover myself, I think I like them better than people sometimes. Have you been to Africa, or are were they taken at a safari park where you live? Actually, this is the internet, maybe you live in Africa? Keep up the good work!

Brian.

LOL… I’m living on the beachfront in Durban, South Africa, Brian. On the 11th floor of a block of flats with seaview out of every window. Reason therefore is living on a peninsula, uShaka Island, with the sea at front and harbour in the rear.
The easiest way to describe this, is going to
http://www.ushakamarineworld.com/
and click on the top link Maps/Town
Left hand corner, Point, I am nearly on the corner
of Bell & Prince str.

I am lucky to live at a photographers dream.

http://davedup.bravehost.com/didisworld/base0.html

(Sorry for the big banner but I am still looking for a better place for an album.)

Most of this photos is either taken from being inside
my flat or two to three hundred yards therefrom.
The photo of the passengerboat (the Rhapsody)
for an example, was taken through the window.
So is the rest of the harbour photos.
The Rhapsody is laying right now behind my flat.

Photo’s of sealife is taken two hundred yards
from where I live in uShaka Marine World.
From my front windows I am looking on the beach
and down into the Marine World and Sea World.

Wild life photo’s is taken at Pretoria and some
at Pietermaritzburg.

Brian, the biggest aquarium in the southern hemisphere
is two hundred yards from where I live! While busy on my computer, I can hear the dolphins (shout? – making noises) while performing in a show. There’s sardines in the same tanks as large whites. No surprise I am spending hours with a camera:-)

True what you said when saying that I am probably not a professional photographer, but some of my photos get sold at
Gateway in Umhlanga Rocks. This happen to be the biggest shopping centre in the southern hemisphere:-)
http://www.gatewayworld.co.za/default.asp

Dave – with a
A looong answer on a short question
D
Dave
Mar 21, 2005
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 18:15:09 -0000, "gus" wrote:

"Brian" wrote in message
Dave wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 23:28:34 +0200, Dave wrote:

It is nearly midnight here, so… see you tommorrow.

Dave

A nice one just befor egoing to bed, Brian.
http://davedup.bravehost.com/photos/jakkals0748.jpg

Now it is really Good Night.

DD
Where have you been taking all of your animals pics, Dave? I am a great animal lover myself, I think I like them better than people sometimes. Have you been to Africa, or are were they taken at a safari park where you live? Actually, this is the internet, maybe you live in Africa? Keep up the good work!

Brian.

just stop people from right-clicking your site, and only post thumnails so no one can do a screenshot of the page and get it that way.

thanks gus, but it can still be emailed to one self. If pics on photoshop tutorials do not download, I email it to myself. Thanks for your input, and by thumbnail, I asume you mean, like Brian had also said, smaller pictures. Maybe that is the way to go, and Brian confirmed that I have made the resolution so low on the pictures, it can not be used outside the web.

What if somebody do copy my pictures? And enlarge and frame it? So what – I am still not losing anything, because they would not have bought it from me. As long as they do not sell it – same, I asume, as with a crack:-)

Dave
H
Hecate
Mar 21, 2005
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 18:15:09 -0000, "gus" wrote:

just stop people from right-clicking your site,

Ever heard of Print Screen?



Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…
H
Hecate
Mar 21, 2005
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 21:37:57 +0200, Dave wrote:

I am lucky to live at a photographers dream.
<green>



Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…
B
Brian
Mar 22, 2005
Hecate wrote:
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 21:37:57 +0200, Dave wrote:

I am lucky to live at a photographers dream.

<green>



Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

One other thing about refusing right-clicking….all one has to do is open Internet Explorer. Hover over an image without right-clicking anything and you are automatically offered a range of options in a pop-up dialog box – one of them being "Save Image As".

What sort of photos are you taking for personal use these days Hecate? (as distinct from professional/commerical ones).

Regards,
Brian.
G
gus
Mar 22, 2005
yeah but you would still only have the useless thumnail of the pic.
D
Dave
Mar 22, 2005
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 22:44:01 +0000, Hecate wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 21:37:57 +0200, Dave wrote:

I am lucky to live at a photographers dream.
<green>

I must have sòmething to brag about, Hecate:-)
Where about do you live? And you Brian?

Dave
H
Hecate
Mar 22, 2005
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 12:03:03 +1100, Brian
wrote:

What sort of photos are you taking for personal use these days Hecate? (as distinct from professional/commerical ones).
A couple of areas – macros of flowers and insects (yes, I do this for my work as well, but I enjoy it – and I can try and be a bit more creative for myself. And guess what, occasionally it works <g>) and I’m specifically looking for images I can use in Painter. I’m playing about with different materials – I’m trying out mixing photographic papers and natural fibres (cotton, silk and so forth) and I’m looking for a printer who can print to metal at the moment. You can get interesting prints from printing to heat transfer paper and then using heat to print to all sort of stuff (NOT t-shirts <g>).



Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…
H
Hecate
Mar 22, 2005
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 22:20:55 +0200, Dave wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 22:44:01 +0000, Hecate wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 21:37:57 +0200, Dave wrote:

I am lucky to live at a photographers dream.
<green>

I must have sòmething to brag about, Hecate:-)
Where about do you live? And you Brian?

Hampshire. Not too far from the New Forest or the coast. Great when it’s not raining 😉

(Actually, Hampshire has the most sunshine hours of the English counties).

It’s good for what I do – landscape/nature and also for the architecture which is my other main area.

But it’s not a beachfront in South Africa! Grrr! 😉



Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…
B
Brian
Mar 23, 2005
Hecate wrote:

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 22:20:55 +0200, Dave wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 22:44:01 +0000, Hecate wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 21:37:57 +0200, Dave wrote:

I am lucky to live at a photographers dream.

<green>

I must have sòmething to brag about, Hecate:-)
Where about do you live? And you Brian?

Hampshire. Not too far from the New Forest or the coast. Great when it’s not raining 😉

(Actually, Hampshire has the most sunshine hours of the English counties).

It’s good for what I do – landscape/nature and also for the architecture which is my other main area.

But it’s not a beachfront in South Africa! Grrr! 😉



Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

I am in Melbourne, Australia, Dave. We have a fairly diverse range of scenery from greenery to red bush. On the coast too, so beaches as well, but not Australia’s best by any stretch of the imagination 🙂

Brian.

Master Retouching Hair

Learn how to rescue details, remove flyaways, add volume, and enhance the definition of hair in any photo. We break down every tool and technique in Photoshop to get picture-perfect hair, every time.

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections