Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/01/22
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Hi Ted and thanks! Regarding theft and so on--that is a risk, yes, but I do want to show off my pictures to this group and the world in general, so I have to run that risk. I post the images at 750x500 pixels (horizontal) or 600x400 pixels (vertical)--unless I crop them, in which case the short side may end up bigger or smaller. If we take 200 dpi as the minimum acceptable resolution for printing, then it means that anybody can download them and make a print of approximately 3.5x2.5 inches if the image is horizontal, and smaller if it is vertical. So stealing the images for the purpose of printing them is not likely to be a huge issue; someone can of course pinch them for web display. But again, this is a risk that I simply have to accept if I want you to look at my stuff! Thanks for looking. Nathan Ted Grant wrote: > Nathan Wajsman showed: > Subject: [Leica] Nathan's PAW 2: An evening in Berlin > >> here is my PAW for week 2. All these were taken during one evening in >> Berlin, where I stopped on my way home from Poland: >> > http://www.fotocycle.dk/paws/?page_id=8 <<<<< > > > Hi Nathan, > What can one say about the reflections but very well done! In both > colour & B&W. Certainly illustrates the impact of using different films. > > Although I have a question about posting such excellent exposures at the > size they are? I realize these are not jpegs at 72 size for > transmission. However, given the world of the internet is full of SOB's > stealing images for their own use and money in they're pockets. I have > to say something about the size of your photographs. > > Each time I'm primed to have a website produced I'm shown how easy it is > to copy a picture. Particularly, your vertical reflection photo then > print it 9 X 6 inches. No the photo isn't smashing, but it sure could be > used for re-production by any number of unscrupulous thieves or > publications. > > I've been told web sight photographs could have water marks on the > photographs. Yes I understand water marking, but I've also been shown > how easy it is to copy a photograph with a water mark, re-move it and > the 9X6 print looked pretty good. > > Copying has crossed my mind any number of times while looking at some of > your photography because it's so dang good! But this is the first time > I've made a point of it because the Berlin pictures warrant the warning. > > It's been my understanding if one posts a picture through the internet > the resolution should never be any greater than 72. In your case the > size shows 240. So in the future, certainly with some of your work > looking so professionally acceptable, maybe it's time to make 'em 72 > from now on. > > I trust this is of some use. > ted > > Ted Grant Photography Limited > 1817 Feltham Road > Victoria BC V8N 2A4 > 250-477-2156 > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > -- Nathan Wajsman Almere, The Netherlands General photography: http://www.nathanfoto.com Picture-A-Week: http://www.fotocycle.dk/paws Seville photography: http://www.fotosevilla.com Stock photography: http://www.alamy.com/search-results.asp?qt=wajsman http://myloupe.com/home/found_photographer.php?photographer=507 Prints for sale: http://www.photodeluge.com Blog: http://www.fotocycle.dk/blog