PDA

View Full Version : Presenting LF photos in Internet. How?



Martin D.
30-Dec-2007, 13:37
LF photography is largely unknown to the public. To show a LF photo in Internet would require to upload at least a 50-100 MB file, if some jpeg compression is applied. Many just upload a small jpeg, maybe up to 1000pix in width. Is there a better way than this?

1. I just started to include some "photo details" for most of the photos on my web page. The advantage is that the resulting jpeg is small and it is my choice which part(s) of the image get included. Examples: example 1 (http://members.chello.sk/m.drozda/trafalgar_sq.html), example 2 (http://members.chello.sk/m.drozda/welfen.html). The disadvantage is that many or at least some people do not realize that the photo details are not standalone photos, but details from a master photo. Many also do not realize, what they see is not 1:1, but a notably downsampled portion of a photo.

2. It is possible to use a Flash driven tool such as Zoomify (http://www.zoomify.com). It allows to zoom in a photo, possibly giving someone a chance to download the whole file. I am sure that this problem can be easily circumvented in order to allow the zooming only for selected parts of the photos.

3. Custom Flash solution. A few days of my life invested in Adobe Flash and I have something that I can use. I was contemplating a Flash movie, in which the complete photo is shown, and then the camera travels across the photo at somewhat increased (possibly variable) zoom factor. This would probably be somewhat bandwidth consuming and, in general, I would prefer, my web site stays Flash-free.

Any other options? I do not see a direct link between the fancyness of web presentations and photos sold (also because monitor calibration is not widely applied). My web serves (currently) as a reference to people that saw the actual prints. Nevertheless, it would be nice to accentuate the technical and other qualities of LF photography. E.g. my photos were often designed to show several concurrently evolving events, showing a degree of dependance that I would like to emphasize. I realize that a bit more textual description would help clarify things, but still, a good visual presentation is worth a thousand words.

For those who do not understand the question: How to effeciently show a LF photo that when shown in 600pix width is hard to view because people in it got reduced to a few pixels. And at the same time to avoid uploading a larger file that could get "borrowed" by someone else. Any ideas? :confused:

Charles Carstensen
30-Dec-2007, 14:04
Hi, Martin. size your scanned photo to 72 ppi and anywhere near 1000 px longest dimension. No concern about whether the original is LF or not. Be advised EVERYTHING you publish to the internet is already borrowed on the viewer/reader computer. There is no way to prevent or safeguard that. Therefore, only publish low resolution (72 ppi) images. You will soon get the hang of web preparation that will look tack sharp and pretty close to your print. There is nothing like viewing a print.

Ole Tjugen
30-Dec-2007, 14:08
"Downloading" a complete high-res image made with Zoomify would take a very long time - you would have to zoom in to maximum resolution, screen capture, move the rectangle, screen capture, move...

And then stitch it all together, of course. I believe most potential "image thieves" would give up rather quickly.

You're welcome to try it - http://www.bruraholo.no/images/Lodalen.html

Martin D.
30-Dec-2007, 14:21
Ole, is this is a challenge?

I dont like Zoomify because it shows the whole picture, not only because it can potentially get stolen, but also because it does not direct the viewer.

Ole Tjugen
30-Dec-2007, 15:49
Martin, I like your way of presenting selected bits of the whole in more detail.

In my case there are few bits that are more interesting than others - the picture shows no people or even man-made structures! I have some "favorite frames" which would make good pictures in their own right though, and have thought of presenting some of them as "alternative views".
The whole is presented elsewhere (http://www.bruraholo.no/images/Lodalen_GF.jpg), but that only shows the whole and not the level of detail. The Zoomify view is the full 1000dpi scan from a 13x18cm slide (I'll have to check that on my own computer), and would take ages to download and stitch. :)

Lucas M
30-Dec-2007, 17:14
Nice scan Ole. I like it.

Richard M. Coda
30-Dec-2007, 18:35
Reminds me of "Blow Up".

Matt Blaze
30-Dec-2007, 18:48
There is, for all practical (and theoretical) purposes, no effective way to prevent people from keeping bits that you send them. Period. This is a rare instance of theory and practice being the same.

I'm not sure, in any case, what it even means to want to present the image on the Internet but prevent people from "stealing" it. By preventing stealing, do you mean preventing uses other than your original presentation? Use without attribution? Something else?

Perhaps you're a commercial photographer and you want to sell digital or print copies of your work to consumers or stock photo users, but want to promote it on the Web. Or maybe you're an amateur, but can't stand the idea of someone getting copies of your work without crediting you.

Presumably you want to show off the full resolution of your photos.

I can think of several options:

1 - Just bite the bullet and rely on non-technical protections. (This is the option I favor for most of my own photos). Make whatever resolution you want available on the web and include contact information in the image (e.g., in exif data or in a small and unobtrusive text outside the image border). Honest people will find you. Dishonest people won't. Live with it, and hope that the benefit of wide distribution of high quality photos will make you richer and more famous that you would be had you employed more restrictive (and ineffective) protections that prevent people from seeing your pictures in all their respective glory.

2 - Damage your web photos. Use big obtrusive watermarks. Realize that these are generally easy for a determined adversary to remove and make your photo look like crap to your potential customers and fans.

3 - Technical solutions like Zoomify. If all the bits of the image are available, they can be put together. They also prevent people with platforms you didn't anticipate from enjoying your photos.

4 - Low-res and selective high res. Make a low-resolution version of your image available, with links to full resolution crops of selected areas. This lets you show people what the overall image looks like, show off how good it looks at full resolution, but doesn't expose all of the bits of the full resolution image. This may be a good compromise for the paranoid, and you encode the links to the crops as hot areas of the image in html or javascript if you want to get fancy. I believe this is basically Ole's approach, if I understand it correctly.

But option 1 is probably better than you think, depending on your business.

Ed Richards
30-Dec-2007, 19:12
Did a Zoomify test with an 8k x 6k image. It gets chopped into 1000 small bits. On a 10K wide image, it is 2000+. Pretty difficult to put back together, but not theorically impossible, and it might be possible to automate it. Still, I doubt it is a huge risk.

Matt Blaze
30-Dec-2007, 20:03
Did a Zoomify test with an 8k x 6k image. It gets chopped into 1000 small bits. On a 10K wide image, it is 2000+. Pretty difficult to put back together, but not theorically impossible, and it might be possible to automate it. Still, I doubt it is a huge risk.

That should be easy to automate. And once automated, it requires no skill or effort to reconstruct any given image. It seems extremely foolish to depend on such a mechanism for any serious security purpose. (This is not to say Zoomify has no valid purpose -- it seems to be a reasonable, if somewhat technologically fragile and client-specific, way to provide arbitrary resolution images on the web).

Ed Richards
30-Dec-2007, 21:46
> It seems extremely foolish to depend on such a mechanism for any serious security purpose.

But we do not have any serious security purposes. We are just showing images, perhaps to sell a few, mostly because we can. if we really needed security, we would never send a digital file out for printing and we would keep our prints locked away. It is all a balance.

Matt Blaze
30-Dec-2007, 21:58
> It seems extremely foolish to depend on such a mechanism for any serious security purpose.

But we do not have any serious security purposes. We are just showing images, perhaps to sell a few, mostly because we can. if we really needed security, we would never send a digital file out for printing and we would keep our prints locked away. It is all a balance.

Then why play games by publishing images in platform-specific formats that don't actually provide any real protection? It likely serves your interests better to simply make the photo available in a format that maximizes the number of end users it reaches while providing information on how to license it, order prints, or whatever.

The original poster didn't articulate what he was actually trying to protect, but he seemed to concerned about theft of some sort. At the same time, he wants to make his image available at high quality. Pretend pseudo-secure content protection mechanisms will not help him achieve either of those goals.

Ed Richards
30-Dec-2007, 22:16
> Then why play games by publishing images in platform-specific formats that don't actually provide any real protection?

Because security is always a question of costs. It does provide a level of protection against casual downloading and copying. It does not prevent a dedicated image thief from getting the images, but it may be a reasonable tradeoff. We make security tradeoffs all the time. If you are on the Internet, you can be hacked and have images stolen off your harddrive. If your work is really valuable, it is easy enough to break into a studio and steal the whole drive. The more you secure it, the harder it is to use.

Zoomify has side-benefits - a lot of folks do not have viewers that let them handle large images very easily. Showing LF prints effectively is a real problem, so anything that might help is worth some investigation and risk. Otherwise we might as well use point and shoot digital - no one knows it is LF on the WWW.

Matt Blaze
30-Dec-2007, 22:23
> Then why play games by publishing images in platform-specific formats that don't actually provide any real protection?

Because security is always a question of costs. It does provide a level of protection against casual downloading and copying. It does not prevent a dedicated image thief from getting the images, but it may be a reasonable tradeoff. We make security tradeoffs all the time. If you are on the Internet, you can be hacked and have images stolen off your harddrive. If your work is really valuable, it is easy enough to break into a studio and steal the whole drive. The more you secure it, the harder it is to use.

Zoomify has side-benefits - a lot of folks do not have viewers that let them handle large images very easily. Showing LF prints effectively is a real problem, so anything that might help is worth some investigation and risk. Otherwise we might as well use point and shoot digital - no one knows it is LF on the WWW.

Look, I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but long experience with content protection schemes and the Internet suggests that you're wrong about the nature of this particular security tradeoff. Once anything of any value is "protected" with Zoomify (and I'm sorry to be picking on them here; I'm not sure they even claim security as a benefit), someone will create a tool to extract full resolution images from it. And then its veneer of security disappears. Retroactively. For everything ever published with it.

There may be reasons to use such tools for image publishing, but security isn't one of them. This is a tradeoff that favors the attacker, not the defender.

paulr
30-Dec-2007, 22:53
This seems like a way to invent new problems in order to solve imaginary ones.

The web lets people see a representation of your work. It's not about perfectly duplicating it. Good thing ... imagine the trouble sculptors, large scale painters, and architects would be facing. Your worries as a photographer would seem minor in comparison.

If for some reason you choose to post full resolution images, then you're giving people your full resolution images. My guess is there's less chance of people stealing them than of just choosing not to download the enormous things.

If you cripple the files with watermarks or other digital damage, then you're adding another layer of annoyance for your poor audience.

Ed Richards
31-Dec-2007, 06:16
Zoomify is honest about the problem:

How secure are my images with Zoomify?

Zoomify's zoom-and-pan viewing solution makes copying images much more difficult than other viewing alternatives. Zoomify is viewed using Flash Player and the Player does not present a right-click Save As option as is standard with any large image in a web page. Second, Zoomify's display approach uses many small pieces - like a mosaic. These image 'tiles' are downloaded only as needed, so the entire image at full resolution is not displayed at full resolution. Using 'screen shots' to capture an image would therefore require assembling many small images in a photo editor - an inexact and time consuming process.

It is important to note, however, that no image presented on the web can be completely protected - if you can see an image, the data is on your computer and it can be retrieved by someone sufficiently determined.

http://imagefolio.com/products/zoomify/faqs/

-------

Should you put all your images up in Zoomify? Putting aside security, at 1-2,000+ files per image you will get a data management nightmare for uploading unless you are directly connected to your server.

Is theft an issue? If you selling fine art prints, probably not - I do not see folks hacking images and setting up a fine art sales site, and galleries are unlikely to buy them. If you license high rez images to be used digitally, it is more of an issue. If you are famous and your images sell for a lot of money, you do not care about putting big images on the WWW.:-)

Part of the security is critical mass. There is not much on the WWW in zoomify that would motivate a hacker to build a good zoomify ripper. That could change, and if it does, folks using Zoomify would need to reevaluate their decision.

One major advantage of Zoomify is that your images are not automatically copied into the WWW archive systems or search engines. Once you publish any image on the WWW, you can assume that it is sucked into archiving systems, meaning you can never get it off the WWW.

Matt raises good points. I, and others, have been stymied by the problem of showing LF images on the WWW in an easy to view way that differentiates our work from digicam shots. It is probably worth the risk of losing a few images to help people understand the detail they will get in a large print.

Martin D.
31-Dec-2007, 08:52
This is not an imaginary problem. That is why someone invested time&effort to come up with a tool such as Zoomify. I guess, one only needs a few hours to write a script that can download a whole Zoomify picture. It is just a question of time till Google starts doing it for indexing purposes. These guys want to be in the possesion of everything that is digital.

Marketing LF photography is relatively costly. At the same time, the size of displays is gettting larger and larger. My current LCD is 1600x1200 pixels. The next one might be 6000x4000 pixels large (in 2-3 years). I think, the question how to present LF photos is very up-to-date. This is not an imaginary problem. In 2-3 years, a large portion of monitors/TVs could have a built-in automatic color calibration.

starkhaze
15-Apr-2010, 07:40
who are you expecting is going to steal your photos?

why do you care?

what do you think they'll do with them?

Thebes
15-Apr-2010, 11:05
Stealing pictures? Last I checked when my pictures are copied I still have the original, unlike when my bike got stolen back in college... I suppose it might marginally devalue one's work to have them copied a whole lot without one's consent.

I suppose the most likely devaluation would be someone using it for the web, in which case they will just "steal" the normal sized web image.

I suppose someone might download the full size file and print it. If they did they might have otherwise bought a print, so you might some day loose a sale this way. Some unscrupulous individual might print them and pass them off as his own work- that would be my biggest worry.

Zoomify seems to me to be reasonably "secure" in this case. If it takes a programmer a few hours to "steal" my image I really doubt they will bother. I doubt anyone would bother to purchase this program from another. I suppose that someone in Nigeria might one day write a script to "steal" my entire body of work and printing it with crap inks, sell it in some African art gallery catering mostly to other illegal hackers and the like.... oh well, seems low risk to me.

Thinking about this, half the photos I've seen on gallery walls in Taos were too far away (above other work mostly, or behind a sculpture, etc) for me to see the difference between LF and MF and sometimes even 35mm. Of course these galleries also have some dubious sounding things listed as the "media" of these works.

I don't foresee consumer level 6000x4000 displays. Really, not ever, they would cost too much and for most people offer too little in return. Same reason we don't see consumer MF digicams. My 15" lappy display is 1920x1200 and while my eyes (with glasses on) can read it comfortably, my wife squints and gripes when she uses it for web browsing.

Jack Dahlgren
15-Apr-2010, 11:13
I don't foresee consumer level 6000x4000 displays. Really, not ever, they would cost too much and for most people offer too little in return. Same reason we don't see consumer MF digicams. My 15" lappy display is 1920x1200 and while my eyes (with glasses on) can read it comfortably, my wife squints and gripes when she uses it for web browsing.

This thread is so dead I shouldn't comment on it, except to point out that a 45" diagonal screen (27"x 36") with the same pixel density as your laptop would be just about 6000x4000. You can already buy TV screens of that size for around $1000. So it is just a matter of time before we hit 6000x4000 in those sizes.

jnanian
15-Apr-2010, 12:20
who are you expecting is going to steal your photos?

why do you care?

what do you think they'll do with them?

people steal images ... publish them without consent, don't give YOU a by-line
and don't pay you a usage fee.

it doesn't matter what they do with them ... my photographs aren't royalty free stock images ...

Dirk Rösler
16-Apr-2010, 06:18
And LF images on the web have to be BIG because??

Paul Kierstead
16-Apr-2010, 06:48
You cannot present large prints on the web. The web is its own medium. Lets ignore the stealing aspect and assume you went with Zoomify. Would this represent your work? Let say you sold 24x30 prints. Is zooming and panning around in anyway shape or form the same impact as viewing that print? It is not. If, I suppose, the person buying it was a surveillance specialist, or did photo reconnaissance, it might answer their needs, but for art it wouldn't make any sense at all. Who cares if you can zoom in? Is the idea you are selling is that you can use a loupe on your photographs? If you are selling overall impact, zoom ain't going to reproduce it (in my opinion, it takes away from it).

The best you can hope is to present them well enough to peak interest in the actual prints.

Just my CAD$0.02 (but pretty close to USD$0.02 now-a-days)

CarstenW
16-Apr-2010, 11:47
I personally doubt that the kinds of people who *buy* prints spend a lot of time looking at 100% crops to determine sharpness. That kind of thing is the domain of photographers :)

Mike Anderson
16-Apr-2010, 13:38
And LF images on the web have to be BIG because??

To prove that it is indeed an LF image.:)

...Mike

kedbro
24-Sep-2010, 02:37
Is it too late to pitch my two cents on this issue?

I came across this topic after searching the forum for "watermarks." I searched this because I've seen many images on this forum emblazoned with a copyright symbol and the photographer's name. To me, this represents a disconnect with the internet we currently occupy.

Let me begin by asserting three things:

1. If you post your images on the internet, you cannot prevent them from being stolen.
2. If you post your images on the internet, and if they are worth stealing, they will be stolen.
3. You can either "prevent" your images from being stolen, or you can provide the best viewing experience for your good-natured peers without losing any copyright or financial gains you would otherwise expect to gain.

Now, let me explain myself, and let me begin by explaining why I might choose to do so.

The last time I was in the Eastern Sierras (don't ask me when this was, as it might cause withdrawal symptoms - I grew up in CA and now live in beautiful, but lacking in Eastern Sierras, OR) I would wake up or relax in the most beautiful sunsets/sunrises. These are some of the most popular photographs to take with LF cameras, and for good reasons. Beyond epic Sierra sun change photos, we see on this forum some absolutely awesome photography from a huge range of people. That's one of the reasons this is maybe the only photo-only forum I visit - quality of photography, quality of critique, quality of character. Good people.

All of this is coming from a 21 year-old kid. I make no aspirations to who I am - I'm a kid. I relish in it. I don't post much and I could bore you with my story in photography, but I wont. Doesn't matter. I shoot large format for almost all of my serious work (when I can, sometimes circumstances require my 6x9 Fuji which I LOVE) because using the view camera is what finally connected me with my photography beyond just a blind desire to take pictures. I am working on my senior thesis right now, and I know all the seniors and juniors (total of around 7 I believe) in my program. I'm the only one who knows how to use a view camera. I'm still a kid.

What I mean is that I f---ing respect you guys. This is the only forum on the internet where I can count on images worth my time every instance I load the webpage. Even when someone, whether it be a new guy or someone experienced, posts something that isn't up to par, or even just straight up stinks, I can expect both courteous, professional criticism and a humble, excited artist who will come back next week with a badass photograph.

What I mean to say is please, please, please: do not mar your photographs with your name. Putting your name on your photographs makes your photographs look ugly. It's distracting. Putting your name on your photographs does not stop any would-be thieves from copying your image. Photoshop! Putting your name on your photographs does not prevent any would-be buyers from stealing your photographs instead. They want the photograph, not an 800px JPEG!

Listen to me. Your photographs will be stolen, in whatever terms that means (there are some things you can do, which are wholly independent of your name on the photograph). Your photographs will enjoy much increased exposure. Those who are at all interested in buying your work will not replace their interest by stealing 800 pixel images from the web.

Richard Mahoney
24-Sep-2010, 03:51
Martin,


LF photography is largely unknown to the public. To show a LF photo in Internet would require to upload at least a 50-100 MB file, if some jpeg compression is applied. Many just upload a small jpeg, maybe up to 1000pix in width. Is there a better way than this?

1. I just started to include some "photo details" for most of the photos on my web page. The advantage is that the resulting jpeg is small and it is my choice which part(s) of the image get included. Examples: example 1 (http://members.chello.sk/m.drozda/trafalgar_sq.html), example 2 (http://members.chello.sk/m.drozda/welfen.html). The disadvantage is that many or at least some people do not realize that the photo details are not standalone photos, but details from a master photo. Many also do not realize, what they see is not 1:1, but a notably downsampled portion of a photo. ...

That web browsers and monitors are a very poor medium for representing the quality possible in large-format prints is something that has bothered me too. Also prefering to avoid Flash and so on I've done pretty much the same as you: I give a medium sized jpeg of the complete image and then, lower down the page, a link to a detail at the same size. Here are two examples:

Camera Antipodea - Faeries visit Moeraki Flag Station :: Complete Image
http://camera-antipodea.indica-et-buddhica.com/portfolios/portfolio-one/springbank-railway-station

Faeries :: Detail
http://camera-antipodea.indica-et-buddhica.com/portfolios/portfolio-one/springbank-railway-station/springbank-railway-station-detail.jpg

Camera Antipodea - Coal Range with Tired Flue :: Complete Image
http://camera-antipodea.indica-et-buddhica.com/portfolios/portfolio-two/annat-range

Coal Range :: Detail
http://camera-antipodea.indica-et-buddhica.com/portfolios/portfolio-two/annat-range/annat-range-detail.jpg

Although this approach is rather crude I've found it reasonably effective at giving the viewer a rough idea of what a 4x5 transparency is capable of holding and eventually putting on a print. That said, I've only found that these detailed images are satisfying if they originate from a decent drum scan -- my v700 Epson really won't cut the mustard here. The details on my site are cut from 8" x 10" 305 ppi images that have been reduced from 24" x 30" 305 ppi drum scans. At no point have the scans been sharpened so they may not appear as crisp as some might like, but for all that, I think that the tonality isn't too bad, at least on my cheap run-of-the-mill monitor.

I'm very interested to read about how others are approaching this issue.

Best,

Richard

Sascha Welter
24-Sep-2010, 05:19
What I mean to say is please, please, please: do not mar your photographs with your name.

Are you aware that in some legislations (the UK comes to mind) there are attempts to pass legislation that would make any picture that is "orphaned" (which means "photographer can't be identified") to be something alike to "public domain". Putting a name right in the image helps a lot there.

Personally I don't like my name in my pictures too much, I try to do it with as much style as I can muster. But if someone is going to "steal" my pictures, they should at least have to make a little conscious effort to crop or smear out my name. It's a matter of raising awareness.

Besides, quite often pictures are often just "passed around" on the intarweb thingy... in which case at least someone could stick my name in a search engine and know who pressed the shutter. I've been in the same situation and found it quite interesting to find more of the same photographer.

Last, I would like to point out that imprinting the name of the photographer or studio is actually an old tradition. Such imprints have given hints to many historians :-)

David Aimone
24-Sep-2010, 05:27
On Flickr I am now putting my name on everything. I know it isn't perfect, but neither is Flickr's theft prevention approach.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ioglass/

On my more "serious" site, hosted by zenfolio (see signature below), I don't put my name on it. They have a much more robust non-copy regimen. Of course, you can always take a screen shot, but at least the resolution is low.

I agree, a screenshot-derived version is not going to compete for the attention of anyone looking to buy a good LF print.

feppe
24-Sep-2010, 09:44
They have a much more robust non-copy regimen.

If it's 50% better than any other alternatives, it's still zero.

As has been said here and elsewhere: if you don't want your images copied legally or illegally, don't put them online. Only post at resolutions you are comfortable sharing, and ensure metadata includes copyright information, and use a watermark if you feel necessary for various reasons.

Ben Syverson
24-Sep-2010, 12:49
Try this exercise: visit the sites of your favorite pro photographers and look for watermarks. You will be hard pressed to find a single one.

I will also say this: it's been my observation that the more protective someone is of an idea, the less worthy of protection it is. It's guaranteed that the guy who takes horrible kitten portraits on his DSLR will have the largest watermarks, the most prominent legalese, a trademarked business name, and will try to somehow patent his website. Meanwhile, the working pro puts up her best work at a large size and keep on working.

Richard Mahoney
25-Sep-2010, 16:44
Try this exercise: visit the sites of your favorite pro photographers and look for watermarks. You will be hard pressed to find a single one.

I will also say this: it's been my observation that the more protective someone is of an idea, the less worthy of protection it is. It's guaranteed that the guy who takes horrible kitten portraits on his DSLR will have the largest watermarks, the most prominent legalese, a trademarked business name, and will try to somehow patent his website. Meanwhile, the working pro puts up her best work at a large size and keep on working.

In my opinion, Tim Parkin provides practical and well balanced suggestions on some of the issues raised in this thread:

Still Developing :: How big should my web images be?
http://www.timparkin.co.uk/blog/1405508489281010341


Still Developing :: Adding Copyright Information
http://www.timparkin.co.uk/blog/6130824558223220608


Best, Richard

Greg Miller
25-Sep-2010, 17:32
Putting a name right in the image helps a lot there.

No need to do that. Just put your copyright information in the image metadata. Plus doing this protects against any "orphan" legislation. If you make a practice of this, and someone removes it as part of stealing the image, it strengthens the case against them. Using metadata is just as powerful as using a visible watermark but does not negatively impact the visible image for innocent viewers.

But from a practical, very little harm is done by stealing images from the web. Legitimate buyers will properly license an image. Image stealers never would have paid anyway and probably don't have enough money to actually collect much in a copyright suit (good luck collecting copyright damages form a deadbeat).

The best protection is to put your copyright information in the image metadata, and properly copyright your images with the Library of Congress. Then if someone steal your image, and they are worth going after, you will collect the damages and the stealer also has to pay your legal fees.

You can copyright an entire set of images for $35. You need to do this within 90 days of first publication. So it only costs $140/year to do this. If that is too much money, then your images are not worth anything anyway.

Also, FYI, you can use technology such as Tineye to find any of your images that are displayed on the internet. If you copyright your images properly, then you can sit back and hope someone steals your image, find them with Tineye, and then collect the damages. ;)

feppe
25-Sep-2010, 17:39
No need to do that. Just put your copyright information in the image metadata. Plus doing this protects against any "orphan" legislation.

That's a pretty bold statement. Given many orphan works legislations are still in the works across the world you have no way of knowing what requirements there are for a work to be considered orphan.

Greg Miller
25-Sep-2010, 18:50
That's a pretty bold statement. Given many orphan works legislations are still in the works across the world you have no way of knowing what requirements there are for a work to be considered orphan.

No more bold than thinking a visible watermark is going to protect you. Its hard to imagine a case where an image can be an orphan if your contact information is in the metadata. And while it might be slightly easier to remove metadata information than clone out a visible watermark, many image thieves won't even be aware that metadata exists, and therefore won't know to remove it.

But you don't have to take my word for it. Take it from people whose business is to know:

http://www.photoattorney.com/?p=109
http://asmp.org/articles/frequently-asked-questions-about-asmps-position-orphan-works.html

Quote from ASMP:

"How do I protect my work from becoming an orphan?

You should do all the things ASMP already recommends. These steps are simply good business and in a digital age, they are critical.

* Register your work with the Copyright Office.
* Embed metadata with your contact info as creator.
* Embed metadata with the licensing terms when delivering work to a client
* Embed metadata with restrictions for use when putting work on your own site.
* Try to get your clients to include your photo credit on all print uses.
"

feppe
26-Sep-2010, 01:40
No more bold than thinking a visible watermark is going to protect you. Its hard to imagine a case where an image can be an orphan if your contact information is in the metadata. And while it might be slightly easier to remove metadata information than clone out a visible watermark, many image thieves won't even be aware that metadata exists, and therefore won't know to remove it.

But you don't have to take my word for it. Take it from people whose business is to know:

http://www.photoattorney.com/?p=109
http://asmp.org/articles/frequently-asked-questions-about-asmps-position-orphan-works.html


I'm not saying don't use metadata for copyright info, and I didn't claim watermarks protect your work.

Neither of the links had anything to say about usefulness of watermarks, or lack thereof.

Greg Miller
26-Sep-2010, 03:27
I'm not saying don't use metadata for copyright info, and I didn't claim watermarks protect your work.

Neither of the links had anything to say about usefulness of watermarks, or lack thereof.

You said my statement about using metadata to protect against orphan works legislation was bold. Both sites specifically mention using metatdata as a key tool to protect for orphans works legislation (along with registering the copyright which I alos suggested)

By definition, orphans are works where the creator cannot be found. If the work has the contact information of the creator embedded in the metadata, any legislation in the works would have to be pretty contorted to allow such an image to be an orphan.

So my comments follow common sense, and are similar to recommendations by experts in the industry. I fail to see why my statements were "bold".

bdkphoto
26-Sep-2010, 08:32
That's a pretty bold statement. Given many orphan works legislations are still in the works across the world you have no way of knowing what requirements there are for a work to be considered orphan.


The ASMP recommendations are based on the proposed legislation, and there is extensive analysis of the congressional bills and legislation proposed including keeping tab on legislation Europe. We know exactly what is being proposed, and the best practices needed to keep your work from being "orphaned". All of this detailed information is available on the ASMP website.

As Greg Miller mentions, these business practices will give you the tools to protect your work from being orphaned and your rights managed work.

feppe
26-Sep-2010, 09:36
The ASMP recommendations are based on the proposed legislation, and there is extensive analysis of the congressional bills and legislation proposed including keeping tab on legislation Europe.

This is exactly the info that was missing in Greg's comment which prompted me to respond with the "bold" comment. It seems that metadata is indeed sufficient.

Scratched Glass
29-Sep-2010, 15:16
Interesting topic. I can't imagine that most photographers concerned with these issues will ever lose money due to a photo being stolen. I'm about to have a web page, and I'm a little concerned that people we grab photos for screen savers, power points and desktop backgrounds. Why? I guess I want recognition and if someone was on my website and stole my photo for that purpose I guess that is recognition enough. This is a ego problem more than anything. Most photographers have trouble marketing a single photo. Are these photo thieves excellent marketers of crappy Internet photos?

Ben Syverson
29-Sep-2010, 15:42
Do you think Annie Leibovitz or Gregory Crewdson lose sleep over this kind of petty theft?

I look forward to the day when someone grabs one of my images from the web and uses it as their wallpaper. I would be so flattered.

If someone does wind up stealing one of your images for an ad or something commercial, you should thank your lucky stars, because you're about to cash in. Even without a registered copyright, you can still claim substantial damages. That's the easiest money you'll ever make.

Greg Miller
29-Sep-2010, 18:32
This is exactly the info that was missing in Greg's comment which prompted me to respond with the "bold" comment. It seems that metadata is indeed sufficient.

Or perhaps you could reserve calling someone else's statements "bold" for when you have a thorough grasp of a topic. A simple polite request to provide some support for my statement would have been far more useful in this case.

jnanian
29-Sep-2010, 19:51
for some reason a lot of people think that having high resolution images on
their website, or places ( like this ) where they post their imagesm they think it really makes a HUGE difference to see an image that one has to scroll all around to see it because it is too big to fit on a cinema display monitor.
one of the best thing to do, to protect oneself is to not post large / deep images.

if someone steals a tiny jpg they really can't do much with it, but if they take a
large image they can do more with it ...

getting paid damage-claims for non registered-non copyrighted images ..

good luck ! ( it isn't as easy and cut+dry as one would hope it would be )

feppe
30-Sep-2010, 09:25
Or perhaps you could reserve calling someone else's statements "bold" for when you have a thorough grasp of a topic. A simple polite request to provide some support for my statement would have been far more useful in this case.

Random comment on the internet about a legal matter without any supporting links or lawyer credentials is bold, especially when people's livelihoods may depend on such comments.

Relax. It's not like I claimed you eat your young.

I'm done with this conversation, if you need to reply send a PM.

Greg Miller
30-Sep-2010, 11:49
I'm quite relaxed. All I did was post some accurate information.

But this is now the 3rd post where you are trying to publicly paint me as the bad guy. If you stop trying to paint me as the bad guy, I'll stop replying.

rdenney
30-Sep-2010, 14:06
From Stroke of Genius:

Prospective Plaintiff: "And then he told me to go to Hell! I want to sue!"

Bobby Jones, wise counselor: "I recommend you just forget it."

P.P.: "But he told me to go to Hell!"

B.J, w.c.: "I looked it up. You don't have to go."

I suspect that legal matters only matter much in court. I can't imagine ever suing someone for using one of my images, but I put a watermark on them just to force them to actively demonstrate their willingness to steal by rubbing it out. It's more of a moral thing with me. If they did so, I would not sue, simply because I don't see how I could show damages sufficient to pay a lawyer to do battle. I suspect this is the case for many photographers. Commercial photographers who sell prints on the Internet seem to me more protected by low resolution than anything else.

Rick "thinking that most images that don't work at 800 pixels are unlikely to blossom at 8000 pixels, but some that do work at 800 sure might wilt at 8000" Denney

Ben Syverson
2-Oct-2010, 20:45
Rick "thinking that most images that don't work at 800 pixels are unlikely to blossom at 8000 pixels, but some that do work at 800 sure might wilt at 8000" Denney
Rick, I'm normally on the same page as you, but I have to take exception to this. There are plenty of images that don't have any huge power at web resolution, but are absolutely mind-blowing as detailed prints.

All you need to do is find your favorite Pt/Pd contact printing photographer and look at their website. Internet's response? "Nice capture. Try using Brightness & Contrast."

Jeff Wall, Edward Burtynsky, Ansel Adams, Edward Weston... None of these dudes do well in Flickr format. They really do "blossom" at their full print resolution.

rdenney
3-Oct-2010, 13:27
Jeff Wall, Edward Burtynsky, Ansel Adams, Edward Weston... None of these dudes do well in Flickr format. They really do "blossom" at their full print resolution.

No argument. But you can tell by looking at their small images that they will be powerful large images, if the quality holds up and delivers the promised detail.

I don't think I've ever seen a photo that looked bad in small sizes but suddenly looked really good at large sizes. What makes it look bad when printed small (poor composition, uninteresting subject, trite interpretation) probably won't be corrected when printed large. I know, I've made a zillion photos in this category. So, when small, they at least have to show promise or potential, with few exceptions.

On the other hand, I've seen (and made) photos that looked great at low resolution, but when printed large, did not hold up at all. I would guess that is a much more common event.

Rick "definitely not arguing against the value of large-print quality" Denney

Ben Syverson
3-Oct-2010, 14:56
To me, the work below basically looks bad at this size, but is obviously much better in person:
http://www.moma.org/interactives/exhibitions/2001/gursky/images/99cent_pop.jpg (http://www.moma.org/interactives/exhibitions/2001/gursky/99cent_pop.html)

http://blog.lefiltredumonde.com/liesandkisses_es/images/Edward%20Burtynsky_2.jpg (http://www.edwardburtynsky.com/)

http://img.groundspeak.com/waymarking/607bcfc9-2e8c-4147-be80-e02540779995.jpg (http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WM561N_Shack_and_Trees_Point_Lobos_California)

rdenney
3-Oct-2010, 19:20
To me, the work below basically looks bad at this size, but is obviously much better in person:

The first and third, at least, make me want to see the image up close, with a lot of enlargement. Even at this size, I can tell that they might really be interesting printed large. They do not look "bad" to me at all.

This picture (linked because it is not large format)...

Summer Storm, Alaska, 2007 (http://www.rickdenney.com/images/summer_storm_alaska2007_lores.jpg)

...makes me want to get close. But it does not deliver the goods in a large print. All promise and no delivery, simply because the camera was too small. I have a bunch in this category.

So, I started looking for large-format (6x12 and up) images I'd made that look good in large prints but not that good small, and this is the best example I have:

http://www.rickdenney.com/images/japns_maple_scan0015_lr.jpg

I'm just not sure the gap between large and small is so big that it pushes the small to "bad" and the large to "good".

Rick "probably wrong" Denney

Richard Mahoney
4-Oct-2010, 19:20
No argument. But you can tell by looking at their small images that they will be powerful large images, if the quality holds up and delivers the promised detail.

I don't think I've ever seen a photo that looked bad in small sizes but suddenly looked really good at large sizes. ... Denney

Possibly this is because -- after years of looking -- you know what you're looking for. I wonder though how many `ordinary' viewers would be impressed by Sommer's images at the Getty, esp. his `Colorado River' and even more esp. the `Arizona Landscape'. Personally, I find the subtle composition and promised texture of the `Arizona' just wonderful, even at such a small size. From this glimpse alone I'd very much like to stand in front of the original, though it wouldn't surprise me if these web impressions left the vast number of viewers cold. I wonder too about the Amon Carter holdings for Eliot Porter: so much is just too refined, and the web is coarse at best.

Frederick Sommer @ The Getty
http://www.getty.edu/art/gettyguide/artMakerDetails?maker=1746

Eliot Porter @ Amon Carter
http://www.cartermuseum.org/collections/porter/about.php


Kind regards,

Richard

rdenney
4-Oct-2010, 21:54
I wonder too about the Amon Carter holdings for Eliot Porter: so much is just too refined, and the web is coarse at best.

Eliot Porter is a great example in support of your's and Ben's point, and his work seriously undermines my thesis. Thank you for bringing it back to mind. I saw his work in the flesh only once, at the museum in Albuquerque many, many years ago. Those dye transfer prints were just something to behold. They were not that big, though.

And I have his In Wildness...--the first edition with the varnished plates--and I have to admit that these really do make sense only larger than a typical web display.

But many of his images show promise even in small sizes. This one, which is linked from the Amon Carter museum website you linked, is an example:

http://www.cartermuseum.org/collections/porter/images/details/P1990-60-51.jpg

This one, though, makes your point pretty well:

http://www.cartermuseum.org/collections/porter/images/details/P1990-51-4071-5.jpg

(And as a former Dallasite, my heart was always with Fort Worth. The Amon Carter was just one example of how Dallas applied culture like a varnish, but Forth Worth had it down deep in the grain.)

Rick "who has never made a dye transfer print" Denney