Posts for: gvarner
Feb 18, 2024 09:50:43 #
DirtFarmer wrote:
SOOPP?
Or we can have See How I Tried. š
Feb 18, 2024 09:42:30 #
We have SOOC so now we can have POOC. š
Feb 17, 2024 11:54:21 #
Real Nikon Lover wrote:
When I send an email using Outlook from my desktop/local drive, I can send it as an embedded image or an attached image. Outlook embedded compresses the image and it can usually be sent without problem. If I attach the same image it cannot be sent as it exceeds the 20 megabytes allowed by the provider (GMAIL and SPECTRUM).
I have not noticed a significant loss in resolution sending it as an embedded file using HTML as the email format and "Insert, Pictures. This Device" method.
I have not noticed a significant loss in resolution sending it as an embedded file using HTML as the email format and "Insert, Pictures. This Device" method.
Downsize your image to less than 20 meg or use a service like Drop Box.
Feb 17, 2024 10:57:35 #
Send the photo as an attachment to the email. Donāt copy then paste it into the email.
Feb 13, 2024 11:24:03 #
DirtFarmer wrote:
The original raw file may be changed when it comes to metadata or the jpg preview, but the original raw data in the raw file ARE NEVER CHANGED. It is not a question of saving the edited file. The original raw data are not changed. The raw data are the important bits from the sensor. Since they are never changed, they provide a consistent starting point for an editing program to apply edits.
What part of metadata is changed? How can the embedded preview file be changed by an edit since you save your work with a different file name?
Feb 13, 2024 11:09:48 #
dsnoke wrote:
I'm not trying to debate the value of RAW files. ... (show quote)
As long as the edited file is saved with an extension like jpg or tiff for example, the original RAW file is not changed. Itās that simple. I use Photoshop Elements and save all my edited files as psd files.
Feb 13, 2024 11:05:20 #
maxlieberman wrote:
No, I have a Dell.
Donāt use the Dell Photos app. Open File Explorer, navigate down to your device, open it and select the folder DCIM. Your photos will be in that folder. There ma be one or more DCIM's with slightly different names but they all contain photos. Copy and Paste the photos you want to a folder on your HD.
Feb 12, 2024 19:16:55 #
Wyantry wrote:
b I am not wishing to start an argument, but the ... (show quote)
That spells it out pretty clearly. All the material here is proprietary to the website. So, if itās theirs, what can they do with it? š
Feb 12, 2024 19:10:30 #
Longshadow wrote:
Neither does posting images on the internet make them public property...................
Neither does posting images on the internet make them public property...................
I think all this dialogue here shows that copyright law is completely unenforceable unless we wish to enforce it on ourselves.
Feb 12, 2024 13:23:14 #
dustie wrote:
Really?
Is that something like vehicles parked at curbside on a public street, rather than in a private garage attached to a private dwelling, are public property -- ever since streetside curbs were invented?
Is that something like vehicles parked at curbside on a public street, rather than in a private garage attached to a private dwelling, are public property -- ever since streetside curbs were invented?
Thatās a ridiculous comparison. Vehicles are registered to their owner for one thing and parking on a designated area on a public street does not make them public property. You need to think ahead about what you post in Ryder to keep from looking silly instead of brilliant.
Feb 12, 2024 12:25:44 #
This may help dispel some of the ignorance around this issue. Technically, the maker owns it but keeping others from using it without permission of the owner is a harder sell.
https://www.copyright.gov/what-is-copyright/
https://www.copyright.gov/what-is-copyright/
Feb 12, 2024 12:18:47 #
srt101fan wrote:
Some people come to UHH to learn. In this case the issue is limitations on the use of photos posted on the internet.
People will look at an emphatic answer like yours as having credibility when it's no more than conjecture.
No, it's not trivial. You're doing a disservice. You are cluttering up what could be a valuable discussion.
People will look at an emphatic answer like yours as having credibility when it's no more than conjecture.
No, it's not trivial. You're doing a disservice. You are cluttering up what could be a valuable discussion.
Heaven forbid that we "clutter up" dialogue on this forum. Perhaps everyone being in lockstep agreement would be more agreeable. SMDH
Feb 12, 2024 11:44:38 #
srt101fan wrote:
So when you emphatically agreed that photos posted on the internet become part of the public domain that was based on conjecture?
Yes and Iām subject to being corrected by evidence, as we all must be. I sense that youāre upset about the certainty I expressed in my comment about public use. Such a trivial thing to be upset about just to make an argument.
Feb 12, 2024 10:22:46 #
srt101fan wrote:
Yes. Iām amenable to questioning my own conjecture. The only references to copyright law that Iāve read about relate to using someone elseās photo for profit. Iām open to evidence that that is not the case, that simple personal use is also a violation.
Feb 12, 2024 09:39:31 #
Iād like to know if anyone can post a copy of a court decision where copyright law has been violated by anyone using for personal non-commercial use a photo that was posted on public media. That would settle the issue for me. Otherwise weāre just tossing around personal opinions that are not based on evidence.