Perfect lighting for every occasion

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

  1. Perhaps you should post one or two of your best images in high resolution,
    just to show people what you are capable of....IOW, give these away for
    advertising purposes....then post the others in low resolution.......
     
    William Graham, Mar 27, 2006
    #41
    1. Advertisements

  2. D-Mac

    VS Guest

    I know exactly what you mean. A big ugly embossed copyright notice
    across the photo has prevented such behaviour by out customers, thus
    far. It is transparent enough that it doesn't detract from normal
    viewing of the photo, but is at the same time enough that most people
    think twice about just printing it on their own. ;-)

    Saso
     
    VS, Mar 27, 2006
    #42
    1. Advertisements

  3. D-Mac

    D-Mac Guest

    Good idea William. I'll think on that one.
     
    D-Mac, Mar 27, 2006
    #43
  4. Blow up a crop of one of your high resolution posts, to show how good the
    detail can be to those who are willing to pay for what they get.......
     
    William Graham, Mar 27, 2006
    #44
  5. D-Mac

    Verdoux Guest

    You were right. We were talking about two different images :)

    I see that you're using the same technique as IMDb.com on that bride
    picture. I think that will fool most people (minus computer nerds like
    me). Actually, the first time I encountered that kind of image hiding. I
    had to think for a second where the heck the image was.
    I didn't even have to do that. In Firefox, when you right click on an
    image, you can select "view image" and the browser will show only the
    image and of course it's address. That works on the crew picture, but not
    on the bride picture.
     
    Verdoux, Mar 27, 2006
    #45
  6. D-Mac

    Sander Vesik Guest

    Umm... My bank account, my brokerage account, my taxes filing, my
    dedical record and several other valuable and private things are
    both on the internet and in no particular danger from Intenet thieves.
    If I had a photo job for a client on the internet it would similarily
    be in no greater danger (mod for that fact that I can't buy similar
    physical security for the server as banks can) from thieves than
    my bank account.

    Of course, no "tricks" involving Javascript would be used.
    Nonsense. You either are talking about something else altogether or
    you don't know what you are talking about.
     
    Sander Vesik, Mar 27, 2006
    #46
  7. I don't get the butterflies. Just click on of them and it disappears.
    Or turn of JavaScript.
     
    Hywel Jenkins, Mar 27, 2006
    #47
  8. Indeed, that's why you need to buy my "Box Under The Bed Image
    Protection System(tm)" for £49.95 + shipping.

    "Encoded PHP"? You're way out of your depth here. Whether the PHP is
    encoded or not is irrelevant. By the time the visitor sees the result
    of your "encoded PHP" it's too late. All PHP is parsed on the server
    and outputs vanilla HTML, plain and simple. No encoding. No
    encryption. No protection.

    You cannot protect the code. Try doing it and you *will* be beaten.

    That's the point of making it difficult. There's no point protecting
    your IP from those that are paying for it, is there!?

    Then don't upload print-resolution images to t'internet. Upload samples
    that are 400x300 pixels, and the resulting prints will be rubbish.

    Now, I have no idea how good photographer you are, but this is obviously
    an important business to you. I, on the other hand, am a reasonably
    good web developer. My advice to you is to forget all this
    "encrpytion" and "protection" rubbish, and get on with taking
    photographs. Your advice to me might be "forget all this photography
    rubbish and try to become a better web developer" ;)
     
    Hywel Jenkins, Mar 27, 2006
    #48
  9. It's simple JavaScript trick. Get a decent browser (FireFox, for
    example), install the Web Developer Toolbar and the option to prevent
    all that right-click blocking guff is instantly available via a menu.
    It's already in the browser (IE and Opera included), but the Toolbar
    just makes it much more accessible.
     
    Hywel Jenkins, Mar 27, 2006
    #49
  10. No. It's another simple CSS trick, superimposing a transparent
    400x600px GIF on top. You could just as effectively have used a 1x1px
    GIF.
    Well, it would take a couple of minutes to decode the JavaScript. Go to
    alt.html and google for "hdie html". The responses make interesting
    reading.
     
    Hywel Jenkins, Mar 27, 2006
    #50
  11. Yes. Mozilla and FireFox allow you to run JavaScript but block a site's
    attempts to interfere with the context menu.
     
    Hywel Jenkins, Mar 27, 2006
    #51
  12. For me, fiddling with the context menu. It prevents me from browser
    your site because it prevents me from opening links in new tabs, new
    windows, etc.

    Yes. That's what I do for a living.

    Indeed. That's something you'll struggle to solve with the methods
    you're using.

    If someone wants the image badly enough, they'll figure it out.

    HTTPS probably won't affect end-users much, but neither will it solve
    your problem.

    Security. Plain and simple.
    I've just made lengthy replies to some of your other posts. I hope (and
    I believe) that you will find these useful. If you don't, feel free to
    reply, either here or to my email address, and I'd be happy to chat with
    you about it. The email address I use here is valid and checked daily.

    Trust me, I'm on your side. I have hundreds of photos online and would
    be mighty pissed off if someone nicked them and deprived me of income.
    I don't know if any of them are worth anything to anyone, but one man's
    junk ...
     
    Hywel Jenkins, Mar 27, 2006
    #52
  13. D-Mac

    D-Mac Guest

    Like you said about me, I have no way of knowing how good a web
    developer you are. I do know that the firm who developed my E-commerce
    facility have a clue about what they do. Their recommendations carry
    more weight than yours for no other reason than I do business with them
    and not you. Perhaps what you say is true, perhaps you are not as
    knowledgeable as you claim. How am I to know?

    If what you say is correct then the statements and claims by these PHP
    encryption developers following the introduction I cut and pasted below
    are fraudulent, are they not?

    24 January 2006.
    SourceGuardianâ„¢ 5.5 for PHP released!

    We are pleased to announce that today we have released the latest
    version of our SourceGuardian PHP Encoder, complete with a host of new
    and exciting features. On behalf of the team, I would like to thank all
    of our customers who suggested improvements, additions and comments - we
    have taken many of these ideas and incorporated them into this new
    version. Here are just some of the features that we have added into
    SourceGuardian 5.5:

    I guess it will take you about 2 seconds to find the web site of those
    developers. The samples of my pages they encoded and sent me are
    certainly not plain vanilla HTML and do not easily give up an image
    location.

    Firefox is about as popular in the wild as Ubuntu Linux is. It has about
    as much chance of widespread use as I have of winning an Oscar. I
    realize maybe 8% of my target clients will be computer literate and no
    matter what I do, a few of them will crack my security for no other
    reason than the challenge it provides.

    Maybe I can identify them at the start and not provide Internet proofs,
    maybe I'll just run with the knowledge that some people simply have no
    principals and will steal before they pay. Whatever it is, I can include
    security measures in my coding which will defeat those who try and take
    the images without paying. The final marketing method is a long way from
    finalizing yet. It may result in no Internet presence at all.

    The part I'm having some difficulty in understanding about you and
    Sander Vesik is that you both condemn any attempt I make to protect my
    images and he claims to know how I can but neither of you have presented
    any alternative when alternatives are offered for sale by maybe 100
    corporations heavily into security development... Why is that?
     
    D-Mac, Mar 27, 2006
    #53
  14. D-Mac

    D-Mac Guest

    OK Hywel...
    I just checked your web site. I think devoting your site to the
    criticism of other web developers is the worst form of self promotion I
    have ever seen. If you want any recognition from anyone, you really
    ought to stop this self appointment of superiority over others. Unless
    of course you really can walk on water.

    I see now why you find so much fault in my attempt to secure my images.
    I didn't manage to find your "hundreds of photos on-line" but I guess
    your security level is higher than mine, eh?
     
    D-Mac, Mar 28, 2006
    #54
  15. D-Mac

    Paul Furman Guest

    I think that software is for another purpose entirely: to allow php
    programmers to protect their code while distributing it for sale or to
    run on servers out of their control. But normally you don't need to hide
    the php code from access over the web, it's the default: you don't see
    the php code you see the html that it generates. Php with a database has
    lots of potential security issues for general purpose hackers & thiefs
    though: there are so many ways for folks to play tricks to get into
    customer's passwords, etc. All I'm saying is take reasonable care that
    there is some basic consideration for that when getting the coding done.
    php is not html
     
    Paul Furman, Mar 28, 2006
    #55
  16. That software simply makes an effort to encode PHP on the server, to be
    used when the PHP programmer is required to install the code on a
    server that others have access to. For example, if you were to develop
    some sort of promotional CD that is browser-based and requires, say PHP
    and MySQL, you could use that softwrre to encode the PHP so that prying
    eyes would struggle to make sense of it. "Encoding" is not
    "encryption". Any attempt to "encrypt" PHP must be two way, otherwise
    the PHP interpreter will fail at the first hurdle.

    That software is of no particular use when the developer is in full
    control of the server and denies shell or FTP access to others. Unless
    you're sharing your web space with other users that have access to your
    server root, it's of no use. SourceGuardian DOES NOTHING TO PROTECT
    WHAT THE USER GETS IN THEIR BROWSER, NOR WILL IT PROTECT YOUR IMAGES.
    You might as well use Zend SafeGuard. After all, that's written by the
    people behind PHP, but it's still only an encoder.

    The reason Sander and I don't offer you reliable alternatives to
    protecting your images, beyond not uploading them, is that there isn't
    one. That's the part you're struggling to grasp.

    The site of mine that you looked at is just a blog. It's nothing to do
    with my profession. Here are the photos I mentioned:
    http://owners.ourphotos.org.uk/hywel/

    You'll soon notice that I've done exactly what I advise against: I've
    intercepted the context menu. I don't care here, though. This isn't a
    commercial venture and I think the interception suits the interface.

    I'm ducking out of this now. You're not prepared to listen to others'
    views and advice, even though those people have infinitely more
    knowledge in the field of web development than you. However, this link
    may be useful to you:
    http://kibo.org.uk/mfaq.php?grp=sec

    There's an on Native American proverb: if three people tell you you're
    ill, lie down.
     
    hywel.jenkins, Mar 28, 2006
    #56
  17. D-Mac

    D-Mac Guest

    The only problem in your analogy is you expect me to accord you the
    respect of your professional ability and don't respond with any to mine.

    You can hardly blame me for responding to your condescending remarks
    when you offered no evidence to suggest you are anything other than a
    smart arsed kid with a web site lashing out at anyone who ever cobbled
    together a web site you took offense at.

    Even to the point of using the worst kind of self promotion imaginable
    in using your web site to put shit on everyone else you didn't think
    fitted your moulds of perfection. You may indeed have a lot more web
    development skill than I do but you have no right to exemplify other
    people's work as a reason why yours is better when at the end of the
    day, you don't present the evidence to support such a premise.

    Sander, you might notice has not offered such a site as any example of
    his work, only claiming (as a joke) to know how to do what you now say
    can not be done. The really curious part of all this is you use browser
    interference in the same way I do and yet criticize me for doing it.
    What exactly is your point here? "Do as I say not as I do"?

    I am always prepared to listen to other with something of value to tell
    me. "Give it up", does not fit into that criteria. Did you have anything
    to contribute other than promote yourself as an expert without any
    substance?
     
    D-Mac, Mar 28, 2006
    #57
  18. I've made no criticism of your professional ability whatsoever. You're
    not a professional web developer. I have, admittedly, been critical of
    your attempt to secure your IP because, as people have said, it's
    pointless, yet you continue to attempt to justify it and convince
    people that what you're doing will work. It won't. I can't make it
    any clearer than that.

    Promotion? What are you talking about? I suspect you read the first
    entry concerning that life coaching bollocks. There are over 100
    entries on that site, ranging from that one that you've read to my
    feelings on finding my cat dead in the road. If you read over this
    thread again you'll find that of the two of us you are the most
    personally critical.

    I haven't made any effort to declare my work better than anyone's. All
    I've said is that your image protection and "content encoding" methods
    are severely flawed. That's why you've taken offence: you're not
    prepared to listen to people on this, instead claiming that a software
    vendor's view of its own software is more valid than that of people
    that have been working in internet-related technology since 1994.

    To quote Sander, "But its code only to distarct the clueless and casual
    surfers.." He's telling you that your method won't prevent your images
    being stolen.

    I'm not using the context menu interference as a mechanism to protect
    content. It's being used for navigation, nothing more.

    My point is that your code that intercepts the context menu, and the
    transparent image on top of the bridal photograph, is of no use in
    protecting your IP.

    OK. How about this ... Give up the transparent GIF and context menu
    copyright thing. It won't stop people copying your images. Do as
    others have said and merely make low-resolution versions of your
    photographs available online, perhaps with high-resolution crops of
    certain parts of the image to show the detail. I can't see how anyone
    would be turned off buying an image because the one that's online is of
    poor quality.

    Yes, I did, but you're not listening. You made the assertion that, one
    day you'll be protecting your client-side content with server-side
    technology, thus preventing people like Mr Clara from getting at your
    images. Then the experts stepped in and advised you that you won't be
    able to do this.

    As for scrambling the code and using a non-standard directory structure
    (if such a thing exists), wget will beat that within a single
    command-line instruction.

    All that said, why anyone would take a screen-resolution image and
    attempt to print it is beyond me. The home page image of the bride
    would print at no more than 2x3 inches without severe loss of quality
    anyway, so what's the point of having it? If people want it to use on
    another web site, well, that's different gravy. Those people would
    probably be able to get it anyway.

    Here's the bottom line re. PHP. It will just output HTML (and perhaps
    CSS and JS, possibly graphics if you're feeling adventurous) to the
    client. Once it's been parsed, it's there for all to see. A PHP
    accelerator will not increase bandwidth usage. That runs on the server
    to speed up the output from the PHP script. Using PHP, MySQL and
    output encoding will not prevent people from taking your images.

    Google Groups thread you should read:
    http://tinyurl.com/fvcsu
    http://tinyurl.com/gcwae

    Lucid Images - "How to add a copyright to your images"
    http://tinyurl.com/j8qm9
    The point about accessibility is interesting
     
    hywel.jenkins, Mar 28, 2006
    #58
  19. Douglas stated:
    That would be me. Although Douglas still doesn't seem to get it..
    No, only *you* can 'pull' your images. Folks like me have to REpost
    them, so latecomers to threads can see what the fuss was about.
    Which it was - as an example of bad resizing, bad sharpening, bad
    compression. Douglas claims high ground as a master of image
    enlargement and processing, and yet he continues to post flawed images
    that he usually withdraws, as soon as they get criticised. I reposted
    this particular image (somebody has to, as Douglas doesn't have the
    guts to leave any of his images up for more than a week or two). Then
    he claims, as he has done here, that people are pursuing him and
    stealing his images and making money (grin). Have you *seen* his
    images? I think the butterfly is clearly his best work....
    We had to. You cowardly removed it. And then of course, you pretended
    it was better than it was. Here it is, by the way. Just for you and
    your fans, Douglas. It is *exactly* as you posted it, including
    copyright notice, except for the *properly* sharpened right eye and ear
    area:

    http://community.webshots.com/photo/262782767/2621868330048119320voNsyx
    (note, turn OFF the auto resize function at right, or image will look
    pixellated)

    During the discussions about how soft this image looked, Douglas posted
    a larger version of it, and I used *that* version to replace the guy's
    right eye (your right, not his) with a properly resized and lightly
    sharpened version. Note how half of his face seems blurred, and half
    looks sharp? The 'bad' half is what Douglas called 'in focus' . It
    possibly was, but who could tell with such a soft image? I reposted it
    to show the difference that proper sharpening can make. What exactly
    is your problem with that, Douglas? Can *you* not spot the difference?
    Feel free to issue another (imaginary) take-down order, but as I
    stated last time, I'll take it down myself after a reasonable period.
    AND I'll simply repost it again (and again) if you keep bullshitting
    like this. Just learn to take criticism like a man, leave your images
    up, and stop making up conspiracy stories.
    All well deserved, if you ask me. But if there are others who think
    your stuff is wonderful and your ideas worthy (don't seem to be many on
    this thread..), I'm sure they will balance out little old me. But why
    would such an event bother you so much, if the images/ideas were good?
    So you really issued a take down order, did you???? How come I didn't
    hear about it, and all my stuff is still up? Forgive my mirth, but you
    are so full of it, Douglas. Take your hand off it before it drops off.
    I only took *that* image down as a courtesy to you, and because I
    don't want your images cluttering up my stuff.

    If you left your damn images up, we wouldn't have to keep reposting
    them for latecomers to threads.. But I've reposted it now anyway, so
    you better get another take-down order underway, okay? Maybe your
    solicitor and mine can do lunch? (O:

    By the way, I give you credit for at last saying this:
    (O: How come you never got even close to admitting that in the
    original argument?

    I find this thread quite amusing. The incredible waste of time to
    prevent 'theft' of web-sized images. Does anyone honestly believe
    Douglas is losing money because of it?

    Get over it. If you don't want anyone to have your 'masterpieces',
    don't post them at any size that matters. Or live with the fact that
    someone can make a huge fuzzy enlargement from them (unless of course
    they have access to Douglas' miracle software... that has never
    actually been demonstrated).
     
    mark.thomas.7, Mar 28, 2006
    #59
  20. D-Mac

    Matt Clara Guest

    My philosophy on the subject? Let it run like water off a duck's ass.
     
    Matt Clara, Mar 28, 2006
    #60
    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.