And LF images on the web have to be BIG because??
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)
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
Website - Linhof Technika, Schneider 90/5.6 Super-Angulon, 210/5.6 APO-Symmar
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.
Martin,
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-bu...ailway-station
Faeries :: Detail
http://camera-antipodea.indica-et-bu...ion-detail.jpg
Camera Antipodea - Coal Range with Tired Flue :: Complete Image
http://camera-antipodea.indica-et-bu...wo/annat-range
Coal Range :: Detail
http://camera-antipodea.indica-et-bu...nge-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
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 :-)
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.
David Aimone Photography
Critiques always welcome...
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.
Bookmarks