Deleted albums

Joves wrote:

The Time Capturer wrote: If someone wants your images bad enough, they will get them, right-clickable or not. I have an application that does screen captures, entire screen, active window, or selected area. I don't use it to steal pictures. In my case, it's for capturing images of directory lists and processes for use in tutorials.

Just want people new to the internet to know, if your images are on display, there is no real safe option. If you worry about theft, the best option is to keep them low rez and watermark. If you don't display them, you remove any hope of exposure to potential clients.

That is the best solution. Anymore people think because it is on the net it is up for grabs. More of the entitlement mentality as I see it.

I agree that seems to be the commonality. I read a while back that if you offer stock images and don't allow potential clients the opportunity to download a comp to see if the image of interest will benefit their particular project, they will bypass and look elsewhere.

It's a toss up that has no real solution, as of yet.

Thank you ! For making things more secure.

It is frustrating there is no good way to protect our images. I had started to water mark mine like this but I did not like it as I think it is to distracting but maybe I should go back to it.

I just did a right hand click on a few photos of mine and others and was able to save them. I'm still hopeful that disabling the right hand click on images occurs as Chris mentioned. I've always stuck with posting low resolution images. Would it ne possible PT to place a copyright symbol on all the photos that are posted here? I have no idea about how difficult that would be but it would sure solve a major problem.

ilh2009ky wrote:

photobod wrote:
I understand the problem Davud. I just did a right hand click on a few photos of mine and others and was able to save them. I'm still hopeful that disabling the right hand click on images occurs as Chris mentioned. I've always stuck with posting low resolution images. Would it ne possible PT to place a copyright symbol on all the photos that are posted here? I have no idea about how difficult that would be but it would sure solve a major problem.

To do that is a simple PHP code. However, all images are different and the copyright symbol would be best placed individually to prevent possibly covering the subject. I don't have a problem with watermarking because it's not part of the image itself. It may be distracting but I can see beyond it. Just be sure it doesn't interfere with the image's subject or story...

fotozone wrote: It is frustrating there is no good way to protect our images. I had started to water mark mine like this but I did not like it as I think it is to distracting but maybe I should go back to it.

I don't have a problem with the watermark in this image. Your placement is perfect; it doesn't block the subject but has sufficient coverage to make it difficult to remove by potential thieves. As long as you place them manually to avoid overpowering your subject, then go for it if that's what makes you comfortable. People will still see your image and look beyond the markings.

The Time Capturer wrote:

fotozone wrote: It is frustrating there is no good way to protect our images. I had started to water mark mine like this but I did not like it as I think it is to distracting but maybe I should go back to it.

I don't have a problem with the watermark in this image. Your placement is perfect; it doesn't block the subject but has sufficient coverage to make it difficult to remove by potential thieves. As long as you place them manually to avoid overpowering your subject, then go for it if that's what makes you comfortable. People will still see your image and look beyond the markings.

I've just kept the file size at under 800 pixels on the long side for years...Watermarks (other than a small one along the bottom) are too intrusive...It's the price we pay in the digital age.

Screamin Scott wrote: I've just kept the file size at under 800 pixels on the long side for years...Watermarks (other than a small one along the bottom) are too intrusive...It's the price we pay in the digital age.

I experimented with one of my own photos using the screen print method. The photo was uploaded at 640 n the long side. After cropping out the rest of the screen, the photo was very usable on the web. I believe I'm going to start using an unobtrusive watermark on ones I really want to protect.

So pleased this topic has been well posted, it is a most interesting topic with so many differing views, at the end of the day it will come down to the individual and what they choose to do.

I personaly will be putting new albums on with 72dpi and a watermark along the bottom, it will be fairly translucent so hopefully will not distract, I cant bring myself to place a watermark through the middle of a photo.

I noticed PT has put an article on FaceBook about this topic today as well. Big Brother is watching? That's not always a bad thing...

They fixed it!!!!! Right click on a photo and this pops up "Sorry, you don't have permission to copy our users work." Wohoo!!!!

kyclover237 wrote: They fixed it!!!!! Right click on a photo and this pops up "Sorry, you don't have permission to copy our users work." Wohoo!!!!

Yes I saw this today.
An update on my position is that I have worked hard at producing some albums for web use only, they are all at 72dpi with a watermark about 1" up from the bottom, its not as translucent as I intended but it works for me.
Posted about 5 albums today with more to follow.[/b][/color]

It was right after one of my photos was featured in this weeks Photography Talk newsletter that I noticed I had been notified of a couple downloads. I sent them both emails. One responded back. I always put them at 72 dpi but decided to take them all off and put my name on them in several places. I will just save them for the next contest.