[pov] Re: "anonymous" photographer & photo theft
- From: "Viv Ilo E. Veith" <viv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: pov@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 13:34:06 -0400
Ditto! I have never quite understood the whole ppi and how to translate it.
Your explanation is very clear. I saved it to my Evernote for future
reference.
Viv Ilo E. Veith
vividlyclear.com
On Oct 27, 2011, at 1:31 PM, andie Styner wrote:
> Thanks MIchael...
> I've been following this 'conversation' in the background....and I just wanted
> to let you know, (in fact, all you guys that have contributed to the
> thread)...that it was
> great information and much appreciated.
>
> andie
> On Oct 27, 2011, at 10:07 AM, Michael Elenko wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> <NEW-11.11.07.gif>
>
Other related posts: