To watermark or not (Page 2): Hi CHG_CANON The sentiment was not aimed at a technical statement or truth of that statement but a generalised statement of I will be posting lower res...

JoeJoe

CHG_CANON wrote:

Joe, this '72 res' idea is a nice sentiment, but technically inaccurate. For a detailed technical discussion of the actual technology options, consider this post: Recommended resizing parameters for digital images

You might consider too using a more secure site to then use an HTML link for the presentation of images onto this site.

Hi CHG_CANON

The sentiment was not aimed at a technical statement or truth of that statement but a generalised statement of I will be posting lower res images wether 72dpi or 30dpi (hope that makes sense) that individuals like our resident borrower will feel are technically no good to copy and use in their own personal work.... Kind of defeats the purpose of a photography forum not showing full size quality images but that's another argument for another thread and someone a bit more cleverer than me..…..

Regards
Joe

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

JoeJoe wrote:

Hi CHG_CANON br br The sentiment was not aimed at... (show quote)

Spend some time reading the linked post ....

JoeJoe

CHG_CANON wrote:

Spend some time reading the linked post ....

Sorry CHG_CANON

My fault entirely in not making it clear enough.... I will lower the resolution to a point that only the idea but not the quality of the image will be evident.... Hope that now makes sense....

I hope this is ok to do ...I am showing 130dpi original and a 25dpi altered in PS… the 25dpi was changed from the JPG and proportionally reduces its filesize and quality ………. resampled... I have removed now you have seen it as I don't want to offend the OP....

Changing the DPI solely results in a tiny filesize that gives an idea of image but not good enough to use in someone else's project or to study on here at a pixel level.....

Regards
Joe

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

JoeJoe wrote:

Sorry CHG_CANON br br My fault entirely in not ma... (show quote)

Spend some time reading the linked post ....

JoeJoe

CHG_CANON wrote:

Spend some time reading the linked post ....

CHG_CANON

I have and it isn't what I am after …. Thanks anyway

PHRubin Loc: Nashville TN USA

JoeJoe wrote:

....I am showing 130dpi original and a 25dpi altered in PS…
Regards
Joe

I have an old copy of PhotoShop. It doesn't use the term dpi when saving but rather quality on a 1 to 12 scale. Dpi only has meaning when an image is printed, but not as a file. My photos are 6,000 by 4,000 pixels if at full resolution, but the number of dpi (dots per inch) depends on what size I print the photo.

FotoHog Loc: on Cloud 9

JoeJoe wrote:

I've had one stolen on here and then posted back on here in someone else's work claiming they have a right to my work under US law only last week. The image was removed by Admin.... I no longer feel safe uploading Full Images and am contemplating either not posting here anymore or posting 72 res as advised by others on here....

Regards
Joe

Sorry to hear that has happened to you. People like that deserve nothing but pity. I don't know if that was a financial loss for you, but you can be proud of having produced something that was good enough for a thief to give up his self-respect over. I still believe, though, that the vast majority would not steep to that low level of behavior.

JoeJoe

PHRubin wrote:

I have an old copy of PhotoShop. It doesn't use the term dpi when saving but rather quality on a 1 to 12 scale. Dpi only has meaning when an image is printed, but not as a file. My photos are 6,000 by 4,000 pixels if at full resolution, but the number of dpi (dots per inch) depends on what size I print the photo.

Check Image - image size - auto resolution (All versions of photoshop)

DPI is dots per inch and works across all media print or digital image once you resample.. I wont put up images as its quite easy to check for yourself...

Regards
Joe

JoeJoe

FotoHog wrote:

Sorry to hear that has happened to you. People like that deserve nothing but pity. I don't know if that was a financial loss for you, but you can be proud of having produced something that was good enough for a thief to give up his self-respect over. I still believe, though, that the vast majority would not steep to that low level of behavior.

I have never had a camera stolen yet had several images stolen, having had 20 cameras and taken millions of photos over this time I could only say the odds either way are staggering... IMHO & experience

Regards
Joe

FotoHog Loc: on Cloud 9

JoeJoe wrote:

I have never had a camera stolen yet had several images stolen, having had 20 cameras and taken millions of photos over this time I could only say the odds either way are staggering... IMHO & experience

Regards
Joe

Well, my experience was quite the opposite. My D810 with good lens was recently stolen, and it was not because of any carelessness on my part. On the other hand, none of my photos were ever stolen, at least not that I am aware of. I wonder about the real odds in each case.