I’m specifically looking for a host that will allow me to prevent people from copying my images 100%.
No such thing exists. If you want 100% protection, don’t put them on the web.
Bob
Well, I know that nothing is 100% on-line, I just meant more protection than posting my pics at a low res and hoping for the best.
Honestly, that’s about the best you’re going to get no matter what anyone promises you.
Bob
Alright, I found a host, betterphoto.com, and when you right click on a photo in a sample site it tells you the image is copyrighted. This is more along the lines of what I’m looking for, but I don’t like the template for their sites. So I started hunting around and was getting overwhelmed by the choices. I thought maybe someone in the adobe/photoshop community might have some suggestions. Thanks for your input, Bob. Beyond the copying issue, are there any sites you suggest for the amateur?
Hang around. Some of the regulars here are photographers and will be better able to guide you.
Bob
when you right click on a photo in a sample site it tells you the image is copyrighted.
These are easy things to do on your own, regardless of host. Although you should be aware that it is such a false sense of security that it’s almost laughable, no offense.
When you view an image on the net, it downloads to your computer (cache). So even if a person were not savy enough to turn off java script so as to enable right clicking, or disable whatever silly little mechanism there was, the photo is on the computer anyway. All you have to do is go to your cache and get it.
That doesn’t mean don’t lock your car doors, but I strongly suggest you re-think your strategy. And if you like the idea that right click is disabled you can go to ANY host, you just need to be able to program that into the page (which is quite simply, fwiw).
But if in the end, having that mechanism brings you peace of mind, then I guess, go for it. Just know that it gets you nothing in reality.
That’s my two cents
Peace,
Tony
when you right click on a photo in a sample site it tells you the image is copyrighted
….but then if they press the "Print Screen" button on their keyboard they can simply post the image into a file in (say) Photoshop.
OR:
They can simply trawl through their "Temporary Internet Files" folder and retrieve your picture from there.
The fact is: As soon as they view your picture on the screen, it is already saved as a file on their computer. That’s how it works.
SO:
Why not find a host – any host – who does a reasonably good web space deal. Expect to pay five to ten pounds/dollars a month for good fast web hosting and a domain name thrown in. (there is no need to settle for yourname.cheaphosting.com these days, when you can have yourname.com for not much more money)
Once you’ve got your web space, creat3 a "Web Gallery" using the wizard in Photoshop, and use the "security" setting to watermark the images with "© Jennifer Perry 2006"
This won’t stop people stealing them, but it’ll sure as hell remind them who the brilliant photographer was and at the same time make the image pretty much useless to them (commercially at least).
Go for it – and enjoy sharing your image. After all, that is why you want to post them on the Internet in the first place. 🙂
Chris.
P.S. Don’t forget to come back here and tell us your new web address 😉
🙂 So there you are…
almost identical advice from both sides of the pond (except they type faster in the USA 😉
LMAO. Great minds… or is it birds of a feather…
Hi Jennifer,
I use bluehost.com and have been satisified with them overall. They are a discount web host and have the the pretty standard set of featuers as provided through the CPanel package. When I signed up with them early this year after dropping a host that was comparatively overpriced for only 1/10 the storage space, I think I paid around $100 for a 1-year contract that included the domain name transfer and 10GB of storage space. Bluehost now cites 50GB of space for $6.95/month, but I suspect if you go through the sign-up process the will present that as an average price for a 1-year contract or else provide other longer-term pricing packages. If you go to them through my website, ambress.com and sign up, I think I get a referral credit of some sort, but you can also just go to them directly at bluehost.com.
Hope that helps,
Daryl
chris: re: "They can simply trawl through their "Temporary Internet Files" folder and retrieve your picture from there."
If you try doing that with a standard IE install, as soon as you access the folders and view them in Explorer, Windows Explorer will crash.
There are two ways around that, you have to either direct the "temporary internet files" to another partition or you can save the page to another directory or a folder on your desktop.
f you try doing that with a standard IE install, as soon as you access the folders and view them in Explorer, Windows Explorer will crash.
That’s never been true for me. It’s easy as pie. <shrug>
Ditto on no problem browsing Temporary Internet Files with Windows Explorer.
standard IE install here – three machines – no crash.
What’s IE?
….preferred by 79.45% of users according to my log file anyliser: 😉 ..
..
Doesn’t say much for your users then!
(BTW, IE 7 seems to be a bit better.)
Doesn’t say much for your users then!
Although we always test our web sites on other browsers, the fact remains that the overwhelming number of computer users (general public, not Photoshop folk) keep their browsers, settings, screen resolution etc., set to the out-of-the-box defaults.
My son installed FireFox (which I know is your preferred brower) on our family computer and I have to say I find it slower and less responsive than IE6 (on the same computer) <shrug>
Were I a big website-building guy, I wouldn’t do ANYTHING special to make sure stuff works for IE, statistics be damned. And it’s not because I have an undying hatred for Microsoft.
Proprietary coding for IE is just enabling and reinforcing bad browser behavior.
I’d build for a standards-compliant experience and be done with it.
But that’s just me.
🙂
Microsoft Firefox
Magic Bob, sheer Magic!
Yeah, it’s a good one. I just wonder how long it will last before the folks in Redmond get wind of it.
Bob
Screw Redmond.
It’s parody, and it’s immune from C&D orders.
Chris,
have to say I find it slower and less responsive than IE6
Then it’s a local issue. FF is an order of magnitude faster. But that’s not the reason to use FF. The biggest reason to use FF over IE6 is due to the fact that FF doesn’tuse Active X and is therefore inherently safer to use. We dont’ have to talk about the feature set at all; FF is fundamentally safter to surf with than IE.
<shrug>
Then it’s a local issue.
Maybe I should get my lad to check over that particular machine and give it another chance.
So how does IE7 square up then? Anybody using it exclusively? I didn’t think it was out of Beta yet?
I don’t like change for change’s sake, but the Active X aspect might tip the balance.
Once a Netscape die-hard, progress with IE came to find me favoring IE6 when it debuted and I’ve now upgraded to IE7 on a couple of PCs. I’ve never had any viruses or security problems so said issues of that ilk with IE6 haven’t affected me and I’m happy to continue using it. I don’t like how IE7 has scattered the various toolbar commands around; IE6 was much better organized in my opinion. And I HATE how MS has chosen to waste space with an Address window that cannot be resized; with IE6, the Menu Bar and Address bar can occupy the same toolbar row, so my 2nd row can be the Navigation toolbar and Google toolbar, followed by the Links tooblar as the third row. Tabbed browsing is OK, but I often still favor multiple windows. The toolbar that provides Home/Tools/Page/Help functionality and which to some extent replaces the conventional menu bar is a fixed toolbar that cannot be moved and merged with other toolbars…it remains part of the tab interface.
Netscape 8 provides a design I like fairly well, particularly with how the security control setting per site are conveniently available through the site tab. But, Netscape still suffers from wasted space issues. What I find most annoying is that the options palette has some items going outside of the palette where they can’t be reached, as if designed around small fonts when a large font setting is in place (but it isn’t).
If I want simplicity, then Firefox is the choice, and I like that I can pretty quickly enable/disable Javascript settings. But, Firefox also wastes the Menu toolbar by not allowing other toolbars to be merged onto it. As you might guess, that is just one feature of IE6 that I really like. Perhaps my biggest gripe with Firefox is just that fonts are rendered in it the same as they are in IE, and at least I can fix that same issue in Netscape by telling it to render with the IE engine rather than the Firefox engine.
For the the most part, when I want a "one-size fits all" browser, I’ll stick to IE6 or 7.
Daryl
"Firefox also wastes the Menu toolbar by not allowing other toolbars to be merged onto it."
Could you explain a little further what you mean by this, and what you’d like to be able to do? Annotated screenshots are welcomed if that’ll help you explain. 🙂
I know that in the Mac version you can customize the main "Back-Forward-Reload-Stop-URL Field-Search" bar to include as many of the other tools as you have room for, simply by dragging and dropping. And I just figured that ability was available on the Windows version as well. It must be! Or am I missing what you’re wanting to do?
The image below is just for illustrative purposes only, and not meant to show how I have Firefox’s main toolbar configured.
<
http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1VjcvqYczzkQgeLHcX NSvPBzxUtW1>
Hmm…
Why do you suppose my Pixentral thumbnail is properly sized, and yours isn’t WASN’T, Michael?
Curious…
IE 7 came out officially with the 14 Nov Windows update.
<snarky voice> who’s not doing their regular updates then?</snarky voice>
Phos, I dunno. I went back in and edited to get rid of the fullsize thumbnail. Maybe I missed a bracket or something.
John, MS is phasing it in — not everyone gets it at the same time. I went and got it, and boy is it ugly and dysfunctional. I loved <
http://www.msfirefox.com/> .
ugly and dysfunctional
Exactly.
But safer than IE6 for those poor misguided souls.
Many thanks to Tony, Chris and Daryl for their recommendations. I know at some point I’ll have to jump in the water. I’m glad I asked, as I learned a lot and at least I can jump in with a little more knowledge in my floaties! I’ll be back to visit if I have any more questions 🙂
<snarky voice> who’s not doing their regular updates then?</snarky voice>
This poor misguided soul’s updates are on auto pilot John. Every now and again I just get a message saying updates are ready to install. Still got version 6 though.
To be honest, I’m not really bothered either way. I don’t see browsers as a braggable commodity, Norton always picks up any potential intruders, we’ve got a hardware firewall, and I tend not to go looking for dodgy web sites 😉
Phosphor & Michael,
Thanks for pointing out what I didn’t know about Firefox’s customizable main Menu bar. That is indeed more as I’d like to see, perhaps even going beyond the customizability offered by IE6 which it turns out I cannot easily compare to as there are no PCs at home with IE6 on them. I thought one still was but I was wrong.
This led me to further exploring my issues with the font rendering, which was rather puzzling given how many web pages look identical in both FF and IE, but not a web page I created for my own use as a sort of "personal portal". When I created a new page with Arial text on it, the text looked identical in both browsers and yet the contents frame of my "portal" showed the Arial text in FF appearing to be bold, while it looked as desired in IE. Well, after enough looking, I found the culprit was an extra style attribute on a form button that I’d created. Why that style wasn’t respected by Firefox I don’t know, but IE just ignored it and returned to a normal font face for subsquent text.
So, for now I’m seeing everything in Firefox as I’d like, with a more compact toolbar area that still provides most all the access to items I favor. I’ll continue using Firefox for a while and see if it does win me over.
Thanks again,
Daryl
Don’t forget to install some useful add-ons (previously called extensions) for Firefox. There are literally thousands available. One that’s useful for Photoshop users checking out graphics or photos on the Web is Colorzilla (lets you read the RGB values of any pixel, sample an area with the eyedropper, zoom in on pages, etc.).
Chris,
There is a huge amount of customizability in FF. As Michael said, simply the idea of rapidly turning on and off Java script – to tell java script that it’s okay to be on for this site, temporarily, for this session; the list goes on.
I don’t see browsers as a braggable commodity,
That used to be true. But let me ask you, do you have Active X enabled? If you do, you are at risk. I’ve never had an issue, but my kids get a pop up and the next thing you know, the home page is hijacked and so is the hosts file.
I am the neighborhood computer guy, pretty much like most of you likely are – people don’t surf safely and don’t know how t respond to threats. For me, when I was in IE, I had Active X set to "prompt". I had to make a deicision on every page as to whether or not to allow it – on pages I am familiar with, an easy decision, but on others? It’s a risk – sure, it turns out that it was a silly flash animation. But it is just as easily those "click here because you have a virus" pop ups – you never know until it’s too late.
Now, for the savvy, you’re probably okay with IE. But the browser simply isn’t a safe surfing environment. IE7 is supposed to give more protection and control – IE has not had any updates or improvements in over six years. Now that Mozilla is eating into their fiefdom, they’ve decided to add similar features to FF.
I have FF customized with a theme I like, and a couple of add ons. The nice thing, that not a lot of people know about, is that you can use Profile Manager. So you can have a profile that has certain things enabled or disabled for regular surfing, and other profiles for other activities. When I go to the computers my kids use, I launch FF with my profile so that my bookmarks are there, and the settings I like. It’s quite nice really.
That said, I’ve abandoned Active X. Ever since I did, AdAware returns NOTHING; Spybot Search and Destroy tells me "congratulations!". That NEVER happened before I started using FF. In fact, where I used to run spyware utilities two or three times a week, I rarely ever run them any more – at least not more often than once a month.
I was aprehensive about the conversion, but I’ll tell you, once I changed to FF, using Tabbed browsing (only now available in IE7), it’s changed the way I surf. Far and away safer and more efficient.
Your mileage may vary.
Here are a couple of what I would call "must have" add ons for Firefox:
AdBlock Plus <
http://www.extensionsmirror.nl/index.php?showtopic=774&h l=adblock+plus> – Block Advertisements; whitelists, blacklists, etc.
NoScript < http://www.extensionsmirror.nl/index.php?showtopic=3444& hl=noscript > – Select when Java Script can run and whether to allow it permanently or temporarily.
Well, as I use Firefox now that I’ve got a better handle on its custommizability, the more I like it and can see it may well become my default browser. In fact, I went ahead and set it up as that, just so I get in the habit of using it rather than IE.
I really like that NoScript extension Tony, so thanks for that tip. I also installed the All-in-One sidebar which I like in particular for being able to view source code alongside a web page. Per Michael’s suggestion I also installed Colorzilla although I’m not certain if I will find much use for it or not. A new theme or skin might be nice too…all these neutral toolbar areas are rather bland.
Daryl
Building the gallery by means of Flash should help a bit to avoid the casual copier.
Of course the absence of ActiveX makes Firefox attractive but the main reason I use it is for one extension: AdBlocker. I have so many extensions installed that Firefox probably does run slower than IE but then Firefox makes up for it by not having to render all those ads. The only time I fire up MSIE is to check a web layout that I am developing. The idea of using MSIE7 with its new Firefox-like features is like preferring the catch-up QuarkXPress over InDesign. Too little; too late.
And in regard to the initial query about preventing image theft, you can also drag images from a Firefox (or any non-MSIE) web page to your desktop so those no-right-click javascripts are even more useless.
Disabling javascript and doing other tricks in MSIE is no challenge with the optional developer toolbar <
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=e59 c3964-672d-4511-bb3e-2d5e1db91038&displaylang=en>, a neat add-on whether you are a web designer/developer or not.
"Disabling javascript and doing other tricks in MSIE is no challenge with the optional developer toolbar, a neat add-on whether you are a web designer/developer or not. "
WebDeveloper Add-On for Firefox:
<
http://chrispederick.com/work/webdeveloper/>
Jennifer…
Apologies for my part in hijacking your thread!
But this is good stuff!
🙂
And also for the record: Opera has one <
http://operawiki.info/WebDevToolbar>.
I just mentioned the dev toolbar for IE because the issue was mentioned earlier that it is awkward to turn off javascript in IE. And the IE dev toolbar is not as popular as the one for Firefox.
The image drag trick in Firefox means you do not need the dev toolbar to quickly turn off javascript and steal an image. (But now that I noticed, MSIE7 now allows you to drag images – – but it prompts you with an annoying message asking if you really want to move it from the ‘zone’.) Oy.
An important note to the OP…
Building the gallery by means of Flash should help a bit to avoid the casual copier.
This is likely as good a solution as you can find. This makes it exceptionally difficult for most to take your work.
I don’t like flash because it forces my viewing experience (and let’s face it, good design is far and few in between), but it’s a good suggestion from Gustavo.
I would actually encourage theft and not use any tricks. chrisjbirchall made a good point early on:
watermark the images with "© Jennifer Perry 2006"
But I would suggest watermarking them with "© 2006 JenPerry.com" so that folks that see your stolen images elsewhere will know where to find the real deal. Use image thieves as your own marketing team.
I agree Jim. But you know how some folks are – they just want that "control" <grin>.
Phos – no problem. I’ll admit that the content was way over my haed, but it was interesting reading. I’ve been pretty much lost in the photoshop world for about a year and that’s about all I can handle. It’s always good to look beyond one’s horizons though.
The flash and watermarks are def. good ideas. I’ll probably end up using an assortment of techniques. Since I’m so new in the web world, I was hoping to get any advice that I could. So, thanks!
I like BEBO, I’ve got over 100 photos there. It is all good (art, photography and illustration)+ my resume. You can, yes copy them but just watermark em. It allows you to organize them and in very easy ways. AND it’s free!
