RIght size to use for posting photos: Question: What is the best, smallest size to post photos so that thieves would be thwarted if they tried to steal them, and people who simply want...

francesca3 Loc: Sausalito, CA

Question: What is the best, smallest size to post photos so that thieves would be thwarted if they tried to steal them, and people who simply want to copy them would not be able to get anything but a fuzzy photo?

photo guy Loc: Chippewa Falls, WI

francesca3 wrote:

Question: What is the best, smallest size to post photos so that thieves would be thwarted if they tried to steal them, and people who simply want to copy them would not be able to get anything but a fuzzy photo?

Thumbnail

francesca3 Loc: Sausalito, CA

photo guy wrote:

francesca3 wrote:

Question: What is the best, smallest size to post photos so that thieves would be thwarted if they tried to steal them, and people who simply want to copy them would not be able to get anything but a fuzzy photo?

Thumbnail

Thanks...no more need be said. This may be one of the shortest threads ever.

photo guy Loc: Chippewa Falls, WI

francesca3 wrote:

photo guy wrote:

francesca3 wrote:

Question: What is the best, smallest size to post photos so that thieves would be thwarted if they tried to steal them, and people who simply want to copy them would not be able to get anything but a fuzzy photo?

Thumbnail

Thanks...no more need be said. This may be one of the shortest threads ever.

Glad to be of assistance.

snowbear

Only post the real crappy photos that nobody would want ;)
If they are online, there are no guarantees.

francesca3 Loc: Sausalito, CA

snowbear wrote:

Only post the real crappy photos that nobody would want ;)
If they are online, there are no guarantees.

Ahh ha! I knew there was a solution!
Wish I could actually withdraw the high res. photos that I've already posted, dammit.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

This isn't going to be a short thread anymore :)

francesca3 Loc: Sausalito, CA

rpavich wrote:

This isn't going to be a short thread anymore :)

I know, huh? Especially with the wise-cracking "element" here.
:))) Like it, really.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

francesca3 wrote:

rpavich wrote:

This isn't going to be a short thread anymore :)

I know, huh? Especially with the wise-cracking "element" here.
:))) Like it, really.

Being serious; my solution is to be flattered. If someone thought my shot was good enough to use, then bravo!

francesca3 Loc: Sausalito, CA

rpavich wrote:

francesca3 wrote:

rpavich wrote:

This isn't going to be a short thread anymore :)

I know, huh? Especially with the wise-cracking "element" here.
:))) Like it, really.

Being serious; my solution is to be flattered. If someone thought my shot was good enough to use, then bravo!

Good point.
I am not going to worry about downsizing what's already out there in the ethernet. If I discovered a photo of mine printed commercially anywhere, I would be ecstatic. (Makes me wish I knew how the pics I sold as stock photos were used!)

russelray Loc: La Mesa CA

I post my photos as 575 pixels max on the long side. Some of my older ones from years ago are 640 pixels max on the long side. That size picture looks fine on the Internet but if you download it, you'll see that it's a whopping 75KB or so, meaning that the quality just isn't there for anything other than viewing on the Internet.

Timarron Loc: Southwest

I first saw an article about this in one of the photo mags. This guys story about a stolen photo takes the prize.

http://fstoppers.com/fstoppers-original-the-stolen-scream

dar_clicks Loc: Utah

francesca3 wrote:

Question: What is the best, smallest size to post photos so that thieves would be thwarted if they tried to steal them, and people who simply want to copy them would not be able to get anything but a fuzzy photo?

Sadly, if photos are posted there's always a chance they will be misused by someone. My past standard for maximum longest side of 600 pixels back when dial-up was prevalent is now often not good enough to present a photo for maximum impact on today's larger monitors. Also, speeds are faster now so lately I've been e-mailing photos of 800 to 1000 pixels on longest side. It's large enough for good viewing, but also just large enough for another person to begin to misuse it. It is really a matter of if you want someone to see it, which is kinda the point, the risk is there. Actually, a really publishable file needs to be much larger than that, so the usual sizes posted are not likely to be up to commercial standards anyway, if that's any consolation.

Hollyak Loc: E. Texas

Just wondering....with digital photos how do you prove you are the original photographer? People can get around watermarks if they are determined. At least back in the film days, you had the negative to prove it was yours.

snowbear

In the US, you can register them with the US Copyright Office - either individually or as a collection. My stuff is not good enough to really worry about it. I give a lot of them away at a royalty-free stock & reference photo site.

Having a raw image might work, however I don't know what would hold up in court, I also understand that going to court over an image is cost prohibitive for the average person.