robertvarga

The comments about people being able to download despite protections being in place is true. If they want to get around it they can. While some protection would be useful to stop the casual thief I think that a useful measure would definitely be to allow only members to view larger versions of the images as Patrick states with different levels of access for different people.

 

Landrum, I think the problem is that while it would be fine for people to download an image to use as wallpaper I think it's another matter for them to download an image to pass-off or sell as their own.

 

Personally I would only upload an image no larger than 1024x768 (with frame - 800x600 without frame) with high compression (60-70%) watermarked and with a tag. And based upon what Vrindavan has said I would include an email address or URL as well so if it is published or used elsewhere people can contact you. I'm just amazed they would not only steal your work but then print it with the your logo as well.

 

Yes, any thief can remove these but it will make it more difficult for them and recompressing a highly compressed file will also add to this.

It seems we've all being doing it wrong according to Ken...

 

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/25-vs-5000-camera.htm

Scott, some clarification - I never asserted that more is always better, i will be happy when the "mathematical finite number above which more MP can not give you any more detail" is reached or at least digital equals the quality/versatility of film. After that point for camera manufacturers it will be all about refinement and squeezing the last bit detail out of each captured image - and designing the lenses to match this.

 

For the record I shoot on a Nikon D300 with 12.3Mp and I have my old Canon 300D (yes I switched brands to get a cheap digital SLR) which shoots at 6Mp. I still use the Canon to take snapshops but that's about it.. Certainly the difference in the quality of the shots is marked in the detail, shading and clarity and that doesn't only come down to the difference in the camera's processing engines and lenses.

 

PS would have preferred 16Mp but that was beyond my budget at the time

Avoid, as others have said without any sort of protection you're not likely to see the goods. I have ordered $30-50 items from Hong Kong but it was through ebay/paypal (maybe try that as an avenue) and I figured I could afford to lose the money.

Nothing wrong with having a passion for being creative. Keep up the good work.

Not a bad cover - I always did think it looked staged though.

If you scan an inferior or low res print all you get is the same quality of enlargement - you don't get detail/information being added after the fact. If someone invents a way of doing it (and there are many people that have captured their kids growing up on phone cams or crappy 1-2.5Mp point and shoot cams) they will be very rich indeed.

Tommy, as stated above lens and technique but I would still say that going for the max Mp in a good quality camera is important (no point in getting a crappy throw away camera with 12Mp). Your comment about a 4x6 print is true but more Mp will give you more and crisper detail. Also bear in mind that those 4x6 prints are fine but you or someone else may want to do enlargements later which higher resolution and detail will allow.

Sure, and I think there is a law of diminishing returns that applies here as well as a reasonable balance of camera performance and image quality. With 20Mp+ cameras coming down the pipeline it will be a case of affording a lense good enough to take advantage of the sensor.

Have registered but it's absolutely useless - can't get in most of the time or it's dead slow. The email forwarding doesn't work either.

Photoshop can make a bad image loook good and a good image look great but at the end of the day it is just another colour on the palette. As others have stated the problem is overuse or used clumsily - used just because it can be applied so easily. I think of HDR which is now so overused and so badly overused that I just skip images if it is obvious from the thumbnail that its been used.

I would recommend Drobo with 4x 1Tb drives - which is the solution that I've gone with based upon extensive experience with RAID (overrated and flaky) and upon recommendations from people that work with this stuff day in day out. It's simple and effective. The other alternative is just external drives either on a router or unraid - http://lime-technology.com/ - personally I prefer something that manages itself without having to waste time building or troubleshooting it.

 

PS I have all my vital data on the Drobo backed up to additional 1Tb drives.

 

PSS backing up to DVD is fine but you should transfer your data to new optical media every 10-15 years. Nothing lasts forever.

Many of these comments remind me of the discussion about memory in the late 80s - i.e. you only need, or ever will need 640k. We know the fallacy of that argument. My advice is go for the best camera and range of megapixels you can afford.

 

The technology and the market will push forward until digital truly matches and exceeds film. At that point it will be about refining the technology.megapixels equal resolution and detail so I don't see any validity to the argument that less is more.

Reflected in a door handle.

 

BTW I'm new to photo.net - so hello all.<div></div>