|
|
Post by Bailey on Jun 11, 2018 8:13:29 GMT
I notice as I browse around looking at photos on the www that many people are uploading images for web display that are at a much larger than is required for web display. Given that any image anyone uploads onto the www can easily be downloaded by someone who wants it, by publishing large images you are giving away potentially high resolution images that might be suitable for printing, if that is the purpose someone downloads an image for. Consider this scenario: 1. An average viewer screen size of around 1920 x 1080 pixels. 2. The web page an image is displayed on is set up to display the image on 50% of the viewers screen width (this is done using CSS styling) This means that the image will occupy 960 pixels. If the image to be displayed is actually physically say 3000 px wide, then the viewer's browser will resize the image down from 3000 px to 960px anyway for you. How and how well the browser does the resizing depends on the browser. You don't have to be Einstein to work out that 3000 into 960 won't go and that resizing (by throwing away some pixels and interpolating) has to be done by the browser. But if someone downloads the image from the web page, they will be receiving the 3000px wide image. So there is is no real need to publish large photos if their sole purpose is web display. You may as well downsize the original image to an appropriate size for where it will be displayed and the expected average screen size of your viewers. This way you, and not the browser, control how your image is downsized for web display. By publishing appropriately downsized images, anyone downloading the image will most probably only be able to use it for web display as well, as it will unlikely be suitable for good quality prints. Anyway, as always, just some food for thought  |
|
|
|
Post by Bailey on Oct 17, 2018 11:14:59 GMT
I hope no-one is under the misapprehension that their images are safe on any web page where the mouse right-click has been disabled by the web page. It's close to the easiest thing to get around and does not require any special programming skills, or any programming skills.
I constantly shake my head in disbelief at how people are inadvertently (I assume) "giving away" for free from their online galleries, or wherever online, very large images by thinking that a disabled mouse right-click somehow protects their images from visitors stealing them.
Please remember that even if your online image appears small on a web page, if someone right-clicks and downloads the image shown on a web page they will be receiving the same image you uploaded originally unless the web site hosting your images stores them separately and creates a smaller version for web display.
|
|
|
|
Post by srmoment on Oct 18, 2018 16:18:30 GMT
...hmmm.....guilty as charged. My images are usually 5184 X 3879 px. Are you recommending that I change this to 1000 X 748 px (or lower) using save-for-web ? Or, my images register as approximately 8 to 11M if I save as a jpeg (maximum), so do you recommend I save at High for approximately 2.2M. Which method is better, save-for-web or save as a jpeg?
For the record, I put my images on Flickr (and from Flickr to PS&M) because I like the process of creating and making something "artworthy". If someone likes it, I am thrilled and if someone wants to print it, I am thrilled.
|
|
|
|
Post by whippet on Oct 18, 2018 19:31:35 GMT
Food for thought, Bailey.
If right click is disabled, there is still the snipping tool.
|
|
|
|
Post by ritage on Oct 18, 2018 20:57:33 GMT
I agree with srmoment. I'm tickled pink if someone thinks my images are worth stealing 
Rita |
|
|
|
Post by tonyw on Oct 18, 2018 22:11:55 GMT
I agree with srmoment. I'm tickled pink if someone thinks my images are worth stealing
Rita Me too! If I was a pro I would think different but I need to keep my amateur status so I don’t charge should anyone want to use one. Actually the last ones that someone used did earn me a really nice batch of home-baked cookies  |
|
|
|
Post by Andy on Oct 18, 2018 22:47:53 GMT
For the record, I put my images on Flickr (and from Flickr to PS&M) because I like the process of creating and making something "artworthy". If someone likes it, I am thrilled and if someone wants to print it, I am thrilled. Me too! |
|
|
|
Post by Bailey on Oct 19, 2018 1:25:47 GMT
...hmmm.....guilty as charged. My images are usually 5184 X 3879 px. Are you recommending that I change this to 1000 X 748 px (or lower) using save-for-web ? Or, my images register as approximately 8 to 11M if I save as a jpeg (maximum), so do you recommend I save at High for approximately 2.2M. Which method is better, save-for-web or save as a jpeg? For the record, I put my images on Flickr (and from Flickr to PS&M) because I like the process of creating and making something "artworthy". If someone likes it, I am thrilled and if someone wants to print it, I am thrilled. Hi srmoment, That is great news about you being happy for visitors to your images to go ahead and print them. Your images are absolutely amazing . But many people are happy to publish their images but not for visitors to download them and use them for their own purposes - printing, re-editing, republish on their own web sites etc etc. The purpose of watermarks is to deter people from using other peoples' online images. Regarding sizing images for screen display, I nearly always downsize the original image to around 900px high using Bicubic Sharper and then use use "Save for web". Let me explain, and I should have done this in my op, what happens when you publish an image online. Every image on a web page will be located in an <img> HTML element, in which you can specify the width and/or height of the image on the web page. Something like this <img src="/myFolder/myImage.jpg" style="width:30%;" />The width:30% is telling the browser to resize the image so that it will be 30% of the width of the html container the img element is in. If the container is the width of the browser window and the browser is maximised on a 1920px screen then the image seen by visitors to the web page will be the original src image resized to 576px wide. So if the original image is say 5000px wide, the browser will downsize it to 576px because obviously 5000px can't physically fit in anything smaller in width. But if someone right-clicks on the image in the web page and downloads it, they will receive the original 5000px wide image.
So unless someone is happy for visitors to take full sized images from web pages there is no point in publishing full sized images because as I mentioned, the browser will downsize it anyway. In the early days of the Internet with slow dial-up connections being the norm, publishing large sized images only slowed down the loading of a web page immensely and chewed up visitors' band-width. Today that is not an issue so much. Downloading other peoples' large images for personal use is very easy and quick nowadays.
hth
|
|
|
|
Post by Sepiana on Oct 19, 2018 3:51:00 GMT
I agree with srmoment. I'm tickled pink if someone thinks my images are worth stealing
Rita Me too! If I was a pro I would think different but I need to keep my amateur status so I don’t charge should anyone want to use one. Actually the last ones that someone used did earn me a really nice batch of home-baked cookies Three's company! Me too! |
|
|
|
Post by Bailey on Oct 19, 2018 4:02:56 GMT
Food for thought, Bailey. If right click is disabled, there is still the snipping tool.
Yes that is correct whippet .
The disablement is done with javascript - basically it's one line of code to turn off the context menu that appears when you right-click an image. Users re-enabling right-click gives users the possibility of downloading the full sized image. The snipping tool doesn't. After all, users have the final say in whether right-click is enabled in their browser or not, not the web page author. And that is the way it should be.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bailey on Oct 19, 2018 4:05:02 GMT
I agree with srmoment. I'm tickled pink if someone thinks my images are worth stealing
Rita Me too! If I was a pro I would think different but I need to keep my amateur status so I don’t charge should anyone want to use one. Actually the last ones that someone used did earn me a really nice batch of home-baked cookies
Hi tony,
I am not a pro either but I do have photos on sale in my cousin's picture framing store. I don't upload those photos anywhere on the Internet.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bailey on Oct 19, 2018 4:17:45 GMT
I agree with srmoment. I'm tickled pink if someone thinks my images are worth stealing
Rita
Hi Rita,
and me too I think most people would be. But I don't let them download full-sized images.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bailey on Oct 19, 2018 6:19:06 GMT
Me too! If I was a pro I would think different but I need to keep my amateur status so I don’t charge should anyone want to use one. Actually the last ones that someone used did earn me a really nice batch of home-baked cookies Three's company! Me too!
Going through this thread again I am surprised, but pleasantly though , at how many people are happy for their online images to be downloaded.
But if someone downloaded one of mine, made prints and sold them I am not so sure I would be happy. That is the main reason I don't upload images I wouldn't want people to download and the one's I do upload are relatively small in size for printing and people can do what they like with. So to make prints they would have to go through the process of trying to make good quality enlargements.
But making large prints is so much easier for anyone if they can download large sized images in the first place.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bailey on Oct 19, 2018 9:27:08 GMT
For the record, I put my images on Flickr (and from Flickr to PS&M) because I like the process of creating and making something "artworthy". If someone likes it, I am thrilled and if someone wants to print it, I am thrilled. Me too!
Thank you Andy,
I am sure this is good news to people.
|
|
|
|
Post by hmca on Oct 19, 2018 15:26:50 GMT
It's easy to be cavalier about this and I am as guilty as others. I do have to say though that I have been taken aback when I have seen images that I have created hijacked by local realtors.
|
|
