[pov] Re: "anonymous" photographer & photo theft
- From: Michael Elenko <michael.elenko@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: pov@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 11:27:28 -0700
Harvey,
The most authoritative answer to your question I've seen is by Eric Chan who is
a highly regarded Photoshop development team member.
His answer here is for the Epson 3880, but I would think the facts can be
applied to your printer as well. If this link doesn't bring you to the relevant
section, it is titled "Print Quality."
http://people.csail.mit.edu/ericchan/dp/Epson3800/faq.html#native_res
ME
On Oct 27, 2011, at 10:45 AM, Harvey wrote:
> Hi Michael and all you other POVers.
> Concerning the "Magic" 300 ppi number.
> I have heard that although hour labs and the newspaper asks for 300 dpi/ppi;
> if you're printing at home on a Pro Epson printer, the default output is 360
> or 180 ppi.
> If you print with 300 ppi the machine will convert it to 360 ppi.
> Although it's really hard to tell the difference, when going for the best
> possible quality, I would think that one would prefer Photoshop to make the
> ppi change.
> What say you, Michael?
> Harvey.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Elenko <michael.elenko@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: pov <pov@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thu, Oct 27, 2011 6:07 am
> Subject: [pov] Re: "anonymous" photographer & photo theft
>
> Rondi,
>
> Sure you can capture anything on a screen. The value of what you've captured
> depends on what you are going to do with it, and what is technically
> possible. So as a photographer you've got to minimize the risk, while still
> reaping the gains of easy visibility.
>
> If one understands image resolution, and what can come of it, it can help
> guide choices.
>
> The statement that "most screen captures are at 72 ppi" is basically
> inaccurate. Images don't have an inherent ppi, but they do have a Width x
> Height in pixels. PPI (pixels per inch) is only relevant here regarding the
> quality of a print at various output sizes. It's really more useful to use
> pixel Width X Height in sizing and evaluating your images.
>
> The whole PPI (or DPI which as a misnomer makes things even more confusing)
> is easy to misinterpret, probably because Photoshop has that Image Size
> resolution box that tends to default at 72 PPI. Which is meaningless without
> looking at the document size output dimensions.
>
> For example: Let's say I upload an image of 1200 x 920 pixels to a site.
> Photoshop shows that at 12.778 W X 16.667 H at 72 PPI. In reality, a
> 13x17-in print needs a resolution of about 180 ppi to have a hope of being
> good. And the rule of thumb is that the smaller the print, the higher your
> PPI needs to be because people can stick their eyeballs that much closer to
> smaller prints.
>
> So using this example, what size image would hit the magic 300 PPI target? Be
> sure to uncheck the Resample Image box, type in 300 in the PPI box, and one
> will see that a 3x4-in image would print out nicely.
>
> Let's further say that the site showing my 1200 x 920 pixel image uses the
> transparent gif thing, and that the image appropriator isn't smart enough to
> dig into the source code. So they use a screen capture. That screen capture
> will never add pixels to the original image. It may come close to the
> original size of that image. So I got a 916 x 1159 pixel image from the
> screen grab. A print from that at 300 ppi would be 3 x 3.9 inches.
>
> As a photographer if I'm uncomfortable with giving that away, then the
> solution is to reduce the size of my original uploaded image. There is zero
> need to upload high resolution images to the web in an uncontrolled context,
> unless you want to give away your shots (and sometimes that's OK). The
> reality is that an image with 640-700 pixels on the long size will meet the
> requirement of filling up a computer screen on a webpage with enough detail
> to look good.
>
> As a photographer, you can allow an image appropriator to have a screen shot,
> as there is only about 25 cents worth of hard value there, but they are not
> going to get a decent print out of it. A screen grab of my 700 pixel image
> will yield a image of 1.5 x 1-inch for printing at 300 ppi. Go for it I say.
>
> Ultimately you've got to balance the risk of giving away $.25 per screen grab
> with the benefits of having your work (and maybe name) seen by others
> cheaply.
>
> ME
>
>
>
> For example,
> On Oct 27, 2011, at 7:34 AM, Rondi Lightmark wrote:
>
>> Michael and Viv: doesn't a screen capture make the transparent gif useless?
>> I had someone who wanted to feature
>> my work on her website and promised me that she used the gif with all the
>> work posted. But a simple screen capture
>> showed her that she was wrong.
>>
>> John re Facebook: Yikes. When I think of all of the photographers (me
>> included), that have a page to promote their work on FB. . .
>>
>> Rondi
>>
>>
>> On Oct 27, 2011, at 6:07 AM, John Sage wrote:
>>
>>> On 11-10-26 09:09 PM, Michael Elenko wrote:
>>>> Thanks Rondi for initiating a very engaging thread, and thanks everyone
>>>> for building on it.
>>>>
>>>> Viv, it's great you are being conscientious. Having a transparent GIF
>>>> layer over an image is the approach used by the Nature Photographers
>>>> Network on their high quality website. That along with a watermark is
>>>> pretty standard. It's great you are being conscientious.
>>>>
>>>> John's advice to embed one's name/copyright in the EXIF and ITPC metadata
>>>> fields is very smart and easy to do. All my images imported into
>>>> Lightroom have that performed automatically.
>>>
>>> I've pretty much "standardized" at 640 pixels longest dimension @ 150 ppi.
>>> Why that? After some research there are modern devices (some laptops,
>>> particularly some mobiles) that use a screen resolution higher than the old
>>> classic 72 ppi.
>>>
>>>
>>>> I guess the degree of image protection should be correlated with how one
>>>> views the value of their images. And let's face it, the monetary value of
>>>> photographs have dropped phenomenally.
>>>
>>> I'm pretty active on Facebook and there's two things I've noted there.
>>>
>>> 1) Facebook strips out any copyright data from the EXIF data -- in fact
>>> they seem to re-write the EXIF data completely, and
>>>
>>> 2) Facebook has a breathtakingly draconian (although maybe not unusual)
>>> clause in its "Terms of Service":
>>>
>>> http://www.facebook.com/terms.php
>>>
>>> 2. Sharing Your Content and Information
>>>
>>> "You own all of the content and information you post on Facebook, and you
>>> can control how it is shared through your privacy and application settings.
>>> In addition:
>>>
>>> 1) For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos
>>> and videos (IP content),
>>>
>>> -> you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your
>>> privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive,
>>> transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP
>>> content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License). <-
>>>
>>> This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless
>>> your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it."
>>>
>>>
>>> "...you specifically give us ... a non-exclusive, transferable,
>>> sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that
>>> you post..."
>>>
>>>
>>> mkay...
>>>
>>>
>>> - John
>>> --
>>> John Sage
>>> FinchHaven Digital Photography
>>> Box 2541, Vashon, WA 98070
>>> Email: jsage@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Web: http://www.finchhaven.com/
>>> Cell: 206.595.3604
>>>
>>> pov@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>
>>> To subscribe or unsubscribe: //www.freelists.org/list/pov
>>>
>>
>> Rondi Lightmark
>>
>> Resolute Imagination is the Beginning of all Magical Operations -- Paracelsus
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Michael Elenko
> Eye In The Triangle Photography
> 206-226-3315
>
>
>
>
>
>
Michael Elenko
Eye In The Triangle Photography
206-226-3315
Other related posts:
