Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here

Is there a downside to 1000px uploads?

John_Duckett 13 386 2 Norfolk Island
7 Dec 2004 8:03AM
Cheers for that piece of info Glenn. I missed that in the options page. Much happier now.


Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

raziel_uk 13 4.9k
7 Dec 2004 8:46AM
As I've mentioned elsewhere if you have any of the top graphic software packages (Photoshop, Paint Shop Pro, etc.) there should be an option to electronically copyright your work. It does cost money but that's because the hidden copyright contains a link to the digimark website with your details on, so if someone does nick it and try to do anything with it I believe it comes up with the copyright warning message.

I believe it does cost about $49 per 100 photos (but check that) which I think is very good value if you're serious about protecting your work.

Just Jas Plus
16 26.2k 1 England
7 Dec 2004 11:48AM
So what actually happens when somebody tries to nick your work. Do you have to rely (hopefully) on finding out sometime, or is there some sort of automatic alert when they try to download, or what?
declanh 14 112
7 Dec 2004 2:48PM
Ash and Jas,

its impossible to stop people downloading jpg images from a web server - simply because a server just "serves" you the image - the fact you can view it means its been downloaded onto your pc already - its very easy to dowload all images on a page/site - in fact there are firefox extensions to help you do this.

In fact any still image thats rendered on your pc browser can easily be captured by pressing printscreen an then pasting from the clipboard into your favourite photo editor.
Pete Plus
16 18.8k 97 England
7 Dec 2004 3:17PM
Declan have you seen the pic Boyd posted up for you?
ellis rowell 13 2.0k United Kingdom
7 Dec 2004 3:38PM
I've just checked out the 1000 pixel size and it seems to be very near A4 in size. It could be usable if someone downloaded it. But would any publishers be interested in what is in effect a 1MP picture.
UserRemoved 14 4.2k
7 Dec 2004 4:46PM
Of course has anyone noticed that uploading a photo at 1000 pixels high is a bit of a waste of time and bandwidth?

Most screens arent that tall a resolution (wide yes, tall no) and so IE/Firefox even at fullscreen will resize the pic to fit in the window.
snapbandit 13 2.3k 3 Northern Ireland
7 Dec 2004 4:53PM
Declan, apologies for not getting to upload your test shot last night (at least I see it was done), I could not upload all night, then got a call & had to go into work!, only got home for a short while and am now back in work (on a Tea break!).

Joe B
declanh 14 112
7 Dec 2004 4:57PM
Pete and Boyd,

Thanks for doing the upload test Boyd. Looking at the auto resized image it looks a little soft to me so I'm guessing it does a straight resize without a sharpen.

The Moire effect is not as apparent as I thought it might be with the concentric circles hence my feeling that the process merely does a resize. This will introduce a varying amout of softness into each resized image I think. Looking at the full size image its easy to see that the smaller one has been softened considerably.

what does everyone else think ??

declanh 14 112
7 Dec 2004 5:03PM
@Joe B

No Bother Joe, I appreciate the offer anyway.

snapbandit 13 2.3k 3 Northern Ireland
7 Dec 2004 5:04PM
As with my pic last night, it is definitly softer, any ideas pete? how can we get the 500pix version to the sharpness we want? many will prefer a different amount or type of resampling/sharpening also varying with the image itself, wish I had the answer! (apart from only uploading a 500 pix version)

Joe B
Just Jas Plus
16 26.2k 1 England
7 Dec 2004 5:27PM
Declan - I was aware that any body could download a pic. What I was asking is what does the electronic tagging do for you? It doesn't stop the downloading - what safeguards do you get for your $49? A warning notice doesn't seem much! One could put that up oneself for nothing!

declanh 14 112
7 Dec 2004 5:36PM
Sorry Jas,
I misunderstood you then.


explains what the digital watermark is trying to achieve - basically its embedding a numeric fingerprint in your image.

You can subscribe to their tracking service to which attempts to find images on the web with your id and reports them to you. But this will be heavily dependent on how good their web crawler is for example... not sure it will necessarily find you image on photosig or ephotozine tho due to the COLD FUSION php or other scripted nature of the web pages wont make them crawlable.

But then again I'm to lazy to read it in detail - this is my expectation of what it does - let me know if im wide of the mark.
Just Jas Plus
16 26.2k 1 England
7 Dec 2004 5:39PM
Thanks, Declan. I get the idea now.

Cheers, jas
declanh 14 112
7 Dec 2004 5:44PM
i see the pricing excludes the crawling from all but the 500 dollar/year pro package - so its not particularly useful unless you are DEAD serious about your image protection.

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.