photographer's fears

There are plenty of no right-click scripts to download but I haven't found one yet that can't be defeated. It is too easy to change browsers or pickup the pic file from your cache. The only thing that really works is to use a combination of several techniques.

• Keep the picture small. Smaller than the size you plan on selling.
• Put a layer of copyright text over the image, diagonally so that it can't be easily removed.
• You could use a no right-click script in addition to this.
• Make the link to pictures a pop-up window to make it harder to find the link to your pictures.

Nothing is foolproof but a combination of techniques will stop most.

I'd go with Mairvings idea of the copyright text or word "sample" across the image, dont waste your time with watermarks, they are easier to remove than it is to get around a no right click.

Another way is to make the images in bits, take one image, cut it into 4 (or more) sections and display in a table, unless its real big in file size people may miss its actually a few bits and not one image. but this way is more for people using the image than printing it.

I believe there are some Java applets out there that will let you display an image, and doing so through this technique does make them a lot harder to steal.

Quote: I figure that if I display pictures on a web site using image resolution apporopriate for a monitor, people won't be able to produce high quality prints from them.

Yes.

And the other responses will help you with people who want to reuse them on the web.

Compression and a "watermark" like livingartsphotogallery.com uses in her gallery will resolve the issues. Julie sells her work in various sizes, as cards, photos, and is offering high-res for web and print work in the future, and that was one of her concerns as well.

Suzanne

P.S. http://members.shaw.ca/jonespm2/PJDigPhot.htm has a Java application that would help for reducing the ability of people to snag the image. It's called TouchUp, I think.

Quote: Originally posted by akohl
Am I correct about this?

I think the others have answered that question but I just wanted to elaborate a bit. Most monitors are only capable of displaying 72 dpi (dots per inch). Printers use at least 150 dpi - usually more like 300 I think. Not sure about that since I'm not a print person. Anyway, if you took a 72 dpi image and expanded it to a suitable print size it gets very very pixelated. Try doing this in a graphics program and you'll see what I mean. It's not pretty.

Thanks for the help.

I'm going to tell him that if we display images on a website people will be able to use those images for display on a computer screen but won't be able to print them anywhere near the qualily of his actual photographic prints for display on walls.

Quote: Originally posted by mairving

• Keep the picture small. Smaller than the size you plan on selling.
• Put a layer of copyright text over the image, diagonally so that it can't be easily removed.
• You could use a no right-click script in addition to this.
• Make the link to pictures a pop-up window to make it harder to find the link to your pictures.

these are all great suggestions. whatever you do, don't display the entire picture in full quality. No browser script or java application out there will protect you from the "print screen" option.

Let us know how it goes

(a java application can block the print screen function)

http://members.shaw.ca/jonespm2/software.htm is a java application that disables a number of features, not sure about the print screen, but I have seen it done -- look for java galleries that require plugins, as they will do it.

Suzanne

As for livingartsphotogallery.com, people can still steal her pictures using internet explorer 6.0
When you mouse over on the picture, IE automatically gives you an option to save the picture or print it

So? The images are visibly watermarked, highly compressed and only at 72 dpi. She sells prints and hi-res versions, without watermarks, for printing. I didn't say you couldn't get them. You can get the same images just by going into your cache.

All I said was the images (which can be taken any manner of ways) aren't high enough quality to be useful.

What, exactly, is your point? Or haven't you been listening?

Suzanne

Yes, you are correct. If anyone tries enlarging 72dpi photos they will get a pixelated effect.

Pixelized in a graphics program yes.

But I wanted to add soemthing here. For some reason when I take a 72dpi photo into my HP Photosmart P1000 printer, I can enlarge to 8X10 with no pixelizing, no distortion.

I have no idea why an image that will get so horridly distorted when enlarged in Photoshop can work so well with the printer.

So yes, I would watermark.

I discovered this technique recently:

In Photoshop 6
Select your logo, text or whatever
Paste it onto your photo
Keep it selected and hit the delete key
In the layers menu go to bevel and emboss
Use the pillow emboss and slide the control all the way to the right.
You can then resize, fade the layer or whatever to get the watermark however you want it.

It makes a visible mark that isn't too obtrusive.
(There must be simlar ways to achive this in different graphics programs)

In addition you could place the photos in table and use *real* image as the cell background, then place a small trasparant giff sized in the browser to be the size of the image in that cell, so right clicking would get them nothing but...well....nothing.

I highly dought an HP would print a 72 dpi picture perfectly.

Even if you did decide to crop up all his images and put them as a background or whatever people could always do a screen shot and then paste in into a graphics app then print.

Putting photos online can be will always be risky, but I think people in your clients demographic are into the real thing, not scamming.