I just realized...

[Chunk]

...that I haven't sent anyone to http://www.scantips.com/ for information recently.
This is a great source of information for anyone just starting to get into image processing whether they are starting from a scanner or using images from a digital camera.
I think the plain english explanations of confusing subjects and similar terms are among the best available on the web.

Many of the scanner tools he explains operate exactly the same way in the image editors we all use.

I also think his explanation of files formats is one of the easiest to understand.

I know the site helped me a great deal when I was starting a few years ago.

[Clicker]

Purrrrrrrrfect ! thanks!

[another view]

Forgot about that one - I remember reading about every page on the site a few years ago. I'll have to see what's new.

[Chunk]

Forgot about that one - I remember reading about every page on the site a few years ago. I'll have to see what's new.

Not much is new. I'm glad that it has stayed on entry level footing. Looking through it is a good review.

[Chunk]

Purrrrrrrrfect ! thanks!

I hope you find it helpful. I think the frustrations you were feeling last week may have triggered my remembering this. I was wanting to be able to say "Click on the 'How To Post Pictures' button on the top of the page" but of course that button isn't there.

[Asylum Steve]

Yeah, I used that site quite a bit when I was first starting with my scanner and trying to get this whole print/web resolution thing worked out.

One thing I disagree with this guy on is the whole 72dpi fiasco. Of course I realize that this number has nothing to do with screen resolution, and is in fact an output (printing) setting, but I think output resolution is quite important to web images and web workflow, and goes hand in hand with all the other factors of creating web graphics...

Two very important factors for me when putting my work on the web: one, my pics have to have low output resolution, so anyone stealing and printing one would not get an optimum print. And two, I need to create pics with consistent web size (IOW, images that have a consistent size when viewed on a computer monitor).

Using a convenient standard such as 72dpi, even if it is "mythical" and not based on anything concrete, helps quite a bit in achieving both of these things.

A big reason is because I often resize my images for web by simply changing the resolution number, NOT the overall pixel dimensions.

So, using a consistently low resolution number (I actually am not married to 72, but rather use something in the 70-80 range) to resize, then checking the overall pixel dimensions to check how it fits on a monitor screen is the way I like to work...

[Sebastian]

Two very important factors for me when putting my work on the web: one, my pics have to have low output resolution, so anyone stealing and printing one would not get an optimum print.

But no one will ever be able to get a decent print out of a 600 pixel wide file, whether it's 3000 dpi or 72, so why bother?

Just curious.

[another view]

But no one will ever be able to get a decent print out of a 600 pixel wide file, whether it's 3000 dpi or 72, so why bother?

Just curious.

That's what I was thinking. From what I know, 600 pixels is 600 pixels is 600 pixels . Not claiming to be an expert here, but am I missing something? If I had a 600px X 400px image on a website (here, for example) it could be printed 1.3"x2" at 300dpi, or 4"x6" at 100dpi etc.

Obviously a postage stamp sized image at a good resolution is about as useful as a 4x6 printed at a really low resolution = not much.

[opus]

well, I'm still a fan of low resolution, because someone might steal a picture and use it in a brochure or a montage or photoshop illustration, and some people don't mind a "little" image degradation. But if you make a postage stamp sized file at low resolution, it will be EXTREMELY frustrating for anyone to even think about using.

Check out this link:
http://www.dpchallenge.com/forum.php...ighlight=stole

[Sebastian]

well, I'm still a fan of low resolution, because someone might steal a picture and use it in a brochure or a montage or photoshop illustration, and some people don't mind a "little" image degradation. But if you make a postage stamp sized file at low resolution, it will be EXTREMELY frustrating for anyone to even think about using.

Check out this link:
http://www.dpchallenge.com/forum.php...ighlight=stole

Kelly,

It doesn't matter one bit. DPI is just the distribution of the pixels, the amount of pixels is all that matters, no matter how they are being distributed. A postage stamp sized image will look like crap blown up, no matter the DPI. In my example above, the thoeritical 3000 DPI image and the 72 DPI would both look exactly the same when blown up, if they were 600 pixels on the longest end. Try it and you'll see for yourself. Take a 600 pixel wide image, set the resolution to whatever number you want without interpolating. Do the same with a duplicate file of the same image, and set the DPI to a polar opposite. Now blow them both up to a certain size, and you will see no difference whatsoever between the two.

[opus]

OK, it looks like they removed the images from that thread, I don't know why. But when I was there last Thursday night I saw the controversy, with the person in the DPC - Digital Photography Contest forum showing us her original and pointing to its theft and use in PSC - PhotoShop Contests forum. The perpetrator was proud of what he had done. Others defending him bragged that they went over to the DPC forum and registered so that they would have easy access to all the images posted there. I can't find that thread anymore either. I found the original category ("round reflection") but the offending image has been removed.

http://www.photoshopcontest.com/archives

This raises the question: The photoshopcontest.com site offers an "image search" on the web, so that a person can find any image fitting a keyword they desire, probably to use in their own photo illustration. What do you think of that?

http://www.photoshopcontest.com/imagesearch

[Sebastian]

Kelly,

What does any of that have to do with scanning or understanding resolution?

To answer your question though, are the "thieves" making money off the images? Are they taking the original shots and marketing them as their own?

If you answer yes to one or both of those quesitons, then I would take issue. But frankly, they do neither. They use source material to practice their photoshop skills and compete largely to just feel better about themselves. Would it be nice if they asked permission? Of course. There's not much we can do about that except teach our children and acting as good rolemodels ourselves.

What it all comes down to is this: if you don't want people doing things to your images that you don't agree with, don't ever, EVER, post them ANYWHERE on the web. The sole purpose of the web is to take information and spread it, and to give the viewer control over it. If you don't agree with that, you're in the wrong place.

As for the search function, Google has been doing that for years with much better success. IMO, to take issue with tools like that is to take issue with the web as a whole.

None of the above is aimed at you Kelly, just voicing my thoughts about the issues raised in your questions.

[Chunk]

OK, it looks like they removed the images from that thread, I don't know why. But when I was there last Thursday night I saw the controversy, with the person in the DPC - Digital Photography Contest forum showing us her original and pointing to its theft and use in PSC - PhotoShop Contests forum. The perpetrator was proud of what he had done. Others defending him bragged that they went over to the DPC forum and registered so that they would have easy access to all the images posted there. I can't find that thread anymore either. I found the original category ("round reflection") but the offending image has been removed.

http://www.photoshopcontest.com/archives

This raises the question: The photoshopcontest.com site offers an "image search" on the web, so that a person can find any image fitting a keyword they desire, probably to use in their own photo illustration. What do you think of that?

http://www.photoshopcontest.com/imagesearch

I think that's a fairly common thing. Google has an image search. I usually use it to link to the picture's original page in a discussion. I did that in Nat's Mum thread last week. Do you think that's wrong?
I don't think that pictures should be grabbed to be used in other pictures without permission.

[opus]

Sebastian, it has (had) to do with image resolution in that it seemed to go hand in hand with image theft and use.

But I've been straightened out now.

The thing about the web, is that it's SO huge, that even if you've been surfing for years (as I've been), every day you come across new portals into issues you've never thought about. And with me being so "new" back to photography and posting my own images, it's all new to me.

[Sebastian]

You know what's sad? The photographers in the thread Kelly linked to. Outbursts like "you should bring a lawsuit ASAP." show two things.

A, you have no clue about copyright laws. You can't sue unless you can prove their use of the image cost you income, slandered you, or in some other way damaged you or your business. Copyright law (for anyone except the RIAA) means little. If the image isn't registered, and if the thieve's actions didn't cost you money, there is nothing more you can do but politely ask them to stop.

B, they make us photographers look bad. Do we want to be know as prima-donnas who cry every time our image is manipulated after we KNOWINGLY put it in a place where ANYONE can do ANYTHING with it that comes to mind?

I see it this way, someone, somewhere is seeing your work. If they like it enough, they will try to find the original creator. You're getting free advertisement. If you don't like what they did with it, ask them to remove it, but be polite about it. If we all come across as crybabies no one will take us seriously. If anything, they will do it more just to spite us. Empty threats and long threads about ruffled feathers hurt us more than anything.

We are artists. By crying wolf constantly it will just make us look bad in the long run. THose people that do those manipulations are artists as well, it's just that they take source materials and do incredibly creative work with them, to come to a new derivative piece. Funny how when they are not getting paid for it, they are thieves, but when they are getting pad for it, they are "designers."

We should be working with them instead of crying about it. In fact, I think I'll contact them. I have craploads of images that are useless, that could be great as pieces for montages. If I put up a site with lots of mages like that that they can use freely, as long as it's not for profit and as long as I am credited, then we both win. They get their source materials, I get my name out there as often as possible.

Sometimes we just need to step back and ask if we are taking ourselves just a bit too seriously...

[Sebastian]

AND TO ADD, on the "Contact" section of the "Digital imaging thieves guild" site is a drop-down to contact the owners of the site regarding copyrght concerns. I wonder if any of those bitching photogs even bothered to look?

[Asylum Steve]

Seb,

I guess the "why bother?" is the other part of my previous post, the way I like to work...

As I said, I use resolution to resize (reduce) my pics quickly. The way I figure, changing the output resolution alone in ps does indeed change the pixel size of the image, and as total pixel size of a pic is important for a web graphic, using output resolution is a legitimate way to resize a web graphic, and so relevant and important to my workflow...

Capite?

[Sebastian]

Seb,

I guess the "why bother?" is the other part of my previous post, the way I like to work...

As I said, I use resolution to resize (reduce) my pics quickly. The way I figure, changing the output resolution alone in ps does indeed change the pixel size of the image, and as total pixel size of a pic is important for a web graphic, using output resolution is a legitimate way to resize a web graphic, and so relevant and important to my workflow...

Capite?

Ah...I misunderstood, thought you were making two different points, nevermind.

I just read it differently than you intended. Too many words...

[Asylum Steve]

...is that some of my web graphics are closer to 800 pixels wide or more, and at that size I do think a 600 dpi or higher file would print pretty well.

I do agree, however, that this subject isn't worth spending too much time on. I mean, it's not like I dwell on this stuff or anything, more that I'm simply comfortable in my wrokflow...

[Clicker]

I hope you find it helpful. I think the frustrations you were feeling last week may have triggered my remembering this. I was wanting to be able to say "Click on the 'How To Post Pictures' button on the top of the page" but of course that button isn't there.

Yes, I certainly was frustrated!
I'm still unhappy with my photos, and the way they look on screen, but alot of it would probably be lessened if I had a Software program to Enhance and dodge/burn. I Greatly Appreciate all the information I have gotten from PR Members

Thanks !