Perfect lighting for every occasion

Discussion in 'Casio' started by D-Mac, Mar 24, 2006.

  1. D-Mac

    Matt Clara Guest

    Why? The images on my site are small, moderately compressed jpegs. I have
    the negatives, I know they're mine, and no one's going to do much of
    anything with those small jpegs...
     
    Matt Clara, Mar 26, 2006
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. D-Mac

    D-Mac Guest

    For one thing...
    Pedophiles are everywhere. I do a fair amount of child photography and
    hold a Government "blue card" to allow me to work with children. Not
    long ago some creep hooked one of my child studies and used it in his
    perverted site to attract people through this innocent enough picture. I
    won't bore you with the niceties of a Police enquiry and the cost of
    justifying my innocence. Now, no one gets to see my work but the client
    and any people authorized by the client. Weddings nearly always have
    children in them these days too so no one get at them either.

    For second...
    A creep calling himself in concert with Tony Polson, pulled
    a pic of mine I posted in the belief it was topical and of interest to
    photographers without authority and both posting it back on the 'net
    with less than complementary comments about it's sharpness. It was sharp
    and I later posted proof of that but why should I have had to?

    These creeps stole my images and then set about using them to post
    defamatory remarks and comments about me and my photography. This idiot
    Chrlz, put my pictures on his (now closed virtue of a take down order)
    web site and proceeded to use them to demonstrate his idea of
    photography, using my pictures as examples.

    Now it comes to pass that everyone who has ever taken a picture and
    attempted to please all the people all the time with the balance between
    file size and page viewability, has hit the JPG highlight and soft image
    thing.

    For me, having all my PCs working to make photos on a variety of
    printers using ICC profiles, none were set for making perfect Internet
    suitable images so some of the pictures I posted last year had blown
    highlights and maybe the wrong colour profile for Internet viewing at
    their best.

    I might have over compressed some which led to that soft look. Of course
    in reality, the original and any photos I printed didn't have blown
    highlights, weren't out of focus and actually had vibrant colours. Just
    the ones I posted to the Internet having wide gamut colour profiles
    instead of sRGB looked unflattering.

    Well here we are a year later and with hindsight firmly in place. To
    prevent a repeat of Bret Douglas, Tony Polson and Chrlz, all saying my
    pictures are shit (even if they are). They don't now get to see the
    photo I make a living taking and they soon won't be able to download any
    of my images to repeat their attempts to amuse themselves at my expense.

    That's why I bother Matt. I'm sure Al Denelsbeck is going to love you
    for asking that one!
     
    D-Mac, Mar 26, 2006
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. The butterflies are a PITA, and the no-right click thing won't do
    anything but annoy visitors because you're fiddling with the context
    menu. Then again, there's the FireFox Web Developers' Toolbar ...
     
    Hywel Jenkins, Mar 26, 2006
    #23
  4. I get exactly the same image that's on the screen.
     
    Hywel Jenkins, Mar 26, 2006
    #24
  5. It won't fool many for long.
    Hmmm. You think?
    That won't work. The scripting you're using to move the butteflies and
    that damn right-click message will only stop the casual visitor. The
    JavaScript "encryption" tools usually take a couple of minutes to beat.

    Besides, once your images are displayed on my monitor, I already have
    local copies of them.

    While I thoroughly agree with your points about protecting your work,
    what you're doing will do little to help. Now, you could say that even
    a little is better than nothing, but it's like pissing in the sea to
    make it deeper.
     
    Hywel Jenkins, Mar 26, 2006
    #25
  6. I get exactly the same image that's on the screen.

    Yes. Then you can import it into Photoshop, and labor for hours removing
    that butterfly from somebody's face....:^)
     
    William Graham, Mar 26, 2006
    #26
  7. D-Mac

    Sander Vesik Guest

    Yep. In fact I was a lazy bum and decided that telling my computer to
    list all files newer than 1 minute in my mozilla cache would be more
    convinient and faster than looking at the source ... k, so I did have a
    terminal window open.
    Yep. And while obfuscated javascript will make reading it harder all one
    ultimately needs to do is to just click 'next' over and over again in
    javascript debugger.

    There are effective ways of protecting online content to be acessible to
    only those that have teh password - but that includes using .htaccess
    and similar and encrypting the originals if needed. Even just allowing
    https only (even without client certificates) is a good step as it will
    in most cases reduce the number of caches the image ends up stored in.
    And this is of course just the beggining towards a more secure web presence
    which is not just protected by nuisance level deterrents.

    <joke>potographer on internet who is worried about security and don't
    understand what I just wrote? pay me $$$$ and I'll explain</joke>
     
    Sander Vesik, Mar 26, 2006
    #27
  8. D-Mac

    Colin D Guest

    No, not really, Will. Just grab two shots with the flutterbies in
    different places, and clone one image to another.

    Not that I'm out to break Doug's protection; I use Opera as a browser,
    and it just puts up a message box that says I can't copy the image.

    Colin D.
     
    Colin D, Mar 26, 2006
    #28
  9. Yeah....The ones that really intrigue me are when you right click on the
    image, and it doesn't give you the, "save image" option......I wonder how
    they do that?
     
    William Graham, Mar 26, 2006
    #29
  10. D-Mac

    D-Mac Guest

    The point of making it public William, is only to discover flaws. I have
    some information now, from all who downloaded both images that I could
    never have discovered in months of private trial.

    It seems some people are downloading the film crew when I pointed to my
    index.htm page to demonstrate another download foiler I'm integrating
    into the butterfly thing with an image about copyright. There will be no
    announcement when I'm happy with it, I'll just begin using it.
     
    D-Mac, Mar 26, 2006
    #30
  11. D-Mac

    D-Mac Guest

    What is more annoying? fiddling with the context menu by using a
    relatively mild warning like this and altered images when you ignore it,
    or forcing a log-in or secure connection before you get to see what I'm
    selling? Have you any idea of marketing and the effect of security on
    your customers? I'm trying to encourage visitors while at the same time
    prevent theft. These are very difficult goals to blend without pissing
    off the people with money to spend.

    Just because you can install a "developer's tool bar" or my rudimentary
    right click killer can be over ridden, does not mean the sort of people
    who steal my type of photographs actually have that ability or the
    knowledge to do it.

    I fully agree that there are "other" security measures. My gallery has
    them and it denies access to everyone who doesn't have a password. That
    certainly stopped image theft and it stopped 80% of my Internet sales of
    wedding and portrait re-prints too!

    HTTPS is a pain in the arse where images are concerned and will deny
    anyone on low speed ADSL or dial-up from seeing the pictures in any hope
    of a reasonable time. They'll give up and I'll still lose sales.

    I have in the past not provided access to photos I sell as prints to
    framing and print outlets because someone did download some pictures of
    my post cards and made their own from them. This has had a huge impact
    on my sales of post cards, not to mention frustration in me because I
    see a market and my concern about theft prevents me from grabbing it.

    If I (or anyone else in this position) do not strive to find balance in
    these things, then we might just as well cut the cable and go back to
    paper catalogues. I might offer you the suggestion that newsgroups are
    not normally frequented by people looking to buy photographs or prints.
    They are frequented by people with a bent towards the subject of the
    group and are often a lot more technical than my target audience. Why
    would someone with a PC bought from a department store to "do some
    typing and banking" need to install Firefox in the first place?

    If you and Sander could be a little more constructive and provide some
    ideas here (assuming you have some)instead of just criticize my efforts,
    you might gain some respect for your criticism. There is no security in
    secrecy, you know?
     
    D-Mac, Mar 27, 2006
    #31
  12. In my opinion the best safeguard against picture theft is simply not putting
    very high resolution photos on the web. IOW, make sure your demos are of
    rather poor resolution, so any attempt to blow them up and print them will
    result in a very poor print. Then, if someone wants to pay your price, send
    them the higher resolution file........
     
    William Graham, Mar 27, 2006
    #32
  13. D-Mac

    Verdoux Guest

    The link you gave in your original post was this:
    http://www.photosbydouglas.com/lighting.htm

    And that page has this image in it:
    http://www.photosbydouglas.com/images/crew-W.jpg

    Those Javascript protections don't really work on Firefox.
     
    Verdoux, Mar 27, 2006
    #33
  14. D-Mac

    VS Guest

    Using JavaScript. Add the following lines close to your HTML page, just
    after </HEAD> is fine.

    <script type="text/javascript">
    document.oncontextmenu = new Function("return false");
    </script>

    There, no message, no butterflies, just 'disabled' right click.

    More, and in an easy to understand way, here:
    http://javascript.about.com/library/blnoright.htm

    Cheers,

    Saso
     
    VS, Mar 27, 2006
    #34
  15. D-Mac

    VS Guest

    You mean, you're going to tell them about watermarking their products?
    ;-)

    Saso
     
    VS, Mar 27, 2006
    #35
  16. And you can't undo this while viewing the photos? - How long does it stay in
    effect? couldn't you change the programming back in your own machine? - I am
    not a software person, so I don't know how to change this kind of
    coding........
     
    William Graham, Mar 27, 2006
    #36
  17. D-Mac

    D-Mac Guest

    And that I think sums it up for most of the people using the Internet.
    You can do this while coding the page but you can't do it on the fly.
     
    D-Mac, Mar 27, 2006
    #37
  18. D-Mac

    D-Mac Guest

    You missed part of the thread Verdoux.
    This is understandable when a thread becomes disjointed like this one
    has. The page with the image you can "apparently" download is
    http://www.photosbydouglas.com/index.htm No javascript here and when it
    is encoded, you won't easily discover where the "real" image is.

    Your discovery method on the crew page now, is simply to read the
    source. If later the source is a reference to a database entry or
    encoded to scramble the html or not in a script language at all, you
    won't discover the location of the image.

    All javascript is easily defeated by simply disabling java in the tools
    section of Internet explorer's "Internet options". So it's not just
    Firefox. I have been using an applet on another site which does pretty
    much the same thing without using javascript but it too is relatively
    easily defeated and adds to the bandwidth drain.

    The current "best shot" I have is on the index page linked above. When I
    later scramble the html and use a directory different to the "standard"
    image directory, it will be relatively secure from most people.

    Currently on about line 70 of the source for that page you can read the
    location of the "real" image and just download that instead of the blank
    you get if you right click and save the image now.

    I have also recently done some PHP coding with mySQL as the database and
    this, along with encoding every page on the site is probably the best
    long term answer to image and code theft. I just hesitate to shell out
    for a PHP accelerator to keep the site up to a reasonable speed as these
    methods all consume bandwidth.

    But if that's what it takes, I'll do it.
     
    D-Mac, Mar 27, 2006
    #38
  19. D-Mac

    D-Mac Guest

    The only secure method of protecting your photos from Internet thieves
    is to not put them on the Internet in the first place. Every other
    method only gives you degrees of protection. If I could get a system as
    fast as pure html and as secure as encoded PHP, I'd still have to
    contend with those who know how to pull the image already on their hard
    drive after the page loads.

    The compromise will almost certainly be poor quality, small images with
    a copyright notice all over them. Terrible compromise but this is the
    cost of protecting your copyright. I'll probably have to encode the
    pages of the commerce site too, just to protect the code.

    I understand entirely now, why Adobe, Microsoft and a few others found
    the most economical means to secure their copyright was to inconvenience
    all their customers when none of the thieves who pirate there software
    are actually customers!

    I am primarily interested in preventing "computer literate" relatives
    from downloading bridal and portrait pictures. "Sure mate, I'll print
    you some, why pay the Photographer when I can download the pics and
    print 'em at half the price"... Sort of thing.
     
    D-Mac, Mar 27, 2006
    #39
  20. D-Mac

    D-Mac Guest

    In a perfect world, William, Butterflies would talk and there would be
    no need for locksmiths. Sadly your suggestion may still be the best
    alternative Which is why I dropped Internet sales 2 years ago and went
    back to paper catalogues.

    I'd save $5k a year if I can get the on-line thing secure enough to show
    at least some detail in the images.
     
    D-Mac, Mar 27, 2006
    #40
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.