[stevebrot]

Done. Now I need to see if the image appears here, rather than the link
Edit: Great, the image appears, but one must use the link icon above, and not post straight into the post.

Cool! Now you need to post a photo with more reasonable pixel dimensions to Flickr to link to (say 1000px on the horizontal axis). There are forum rules (seldom enforced) related to image size. The reasoning being that the large images are often 2x-3x wider than the user's display. There is also the side-effect that the entire page is "stretched" to handle the super-wide image.


Steve

[stevebrot]

Flickr allows a choice of many different sizes so that images can be down-sized for posting in forums

That feature of Flickr is useful if you are willing to let them do the downsizing. I have found that their process leaves something to be desired.

I would suggest that it is not a good idea to upload full-resolution images to Flickr in general. Smaller images are not as tempting for harvest by the roving image pirates that frequent the site. Think that setting your account to "No Share" will save you? Not so. Anything displayed in the browser can be harvested. (I will demonstrate if you wish. I have written my share of "screen scraping" code in the past.) I know this sounds a bit alarmist, but a good photographer friend of mine was very surprised to see her work being widely shared on facebook by one of those sites that generate traffic using that mechanism. When confronted, they basically said "Who? Us?".


Steve

[wombat2go]

Useful info , Steve,
So I just vnc-ed into server in Taiwan and ran a few tests as a non-logged in PF user.
If a photo is uploaded to PF using "Manage Attachments" , anybody can download a copy.
As mentioned, those files appearing in the post need to be 1000 pix or so anyway.

I use Box.com for normal sized files ( 2~3MB) and I often post links here.
I just looked at the options for restrictions which I have not been using till now.
There is an option for the Box.com links to allow view only and preclude download, however I can't see how to set that globally, I have to do it file by file.
Which i will do from now on, not that I put up anything of value and I rarely put shots of persons up.

[rob1234]

Done. Now I need to see if the image appears here, rather than the link
Edit: Great, the image appears, but one must use the link icon above, and not post straight into the post.

Looks loads better! Nice shot.

[arnold]

Cool! Now you need to post a photo with more reasonable pixel dimensions to Flickr to link to (say 1000px on the horizontal axis). There are forum rules (seldom enforced) related to image size. The reasoning being that the large images are often 2x-3x wider than the user's display. There is also the side-effect that the entire page is "stretched" to handle the super-wide image.


Steve

I'm a bit confused here. Are you saying my picture in Flicker is too small or too big?
Edit: I see that you are warning me that full size images are more likely to be stolen, and I should upload smaller images to Flicker.

[stevebrot]

Useful info , Steve,
So I just vnc-ed into server in Taiwan and ran a few tests as a non-logged in PF user.
If a photo is uploaded to PF using "Manage Attachments" , anybody can download a copy.
As mentioned, those files appearing in the post need to be 1000 pix or so anyway.

I use Box.com for normal sized files ( 2~3MB) and I often post links here.
I just looked at the options for restrictions which I have not been using till now.
There is an option for the Box.com links to allow view only and preclude download, however I can't see how to set that globally, I have to do it file by file.
Which i will do from now on, not that I put up anything of value and I rarely put shots of persons up.

Give me the URL for your page on Box.com and I will send you copies of your JPEGS. The rule of thumb is that if an image is shareable to the general public (can be viewed without a password), it is exposed for download by anybody. For example, here is the URL for an image from my Flickr account:

Too Much Lucifer | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

I use Firefox and have the web developer plug-in. That plug-in provides me with detailed information on all images associated with that page including the URL for the main image. I have downloads disabled, but you can very nicely click the link below to view or better yet, right click to save directly to your file system.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7309/9237879090_14f3cf4bf0_b.jpg


Steve

[wombat2go]

Steve , go to my latest DIY on the P6X7 camera. You should be able to view the 3 photos of the camera linked to box.com in the OP.
But you should not be able to download them, as I blocked down-load on those 3 this afternoon as a test.
Let me know, I would like to know.
Thanks

[Nuff]

Steve , go to my latest DIY on the P6X7 camera. You should be able to view the 3 photos of the camera linked to box.com in the OP.
But you should not be able to download them, as I blocked down-load on those 3 this afternoon as a test.
Let me know, I would like to know.
Thanks

Wombat, If an image is displayed on another computer, it's already downloaded to that computer. Otherwise it wouldn't be able to be displayed. The blocking of saving an image on a filesystem it's a bit of javascript that's easily disabled and bypassed. If you don't want the images to be downloaded by people, don't put them on internet.

[stevebrot]

Steve , go to my latest DIY on the P6X7 camera. You should be able to view the 3 photos of the camera linked to box.com in the OP.
But you should not be able to download them, as I blocked down-load on those 3 this afternoon as a test.
Let me know, I would like to know.
Thanks

The images your linked to are part of a flash presentation (sort of like a youtube video) and while they are based on your uploaded files, what is displayed is not your original image files. Your originals are safe from casual harvest, though it is still possible to do a simple screen capture of limited dimensions. It may be that could I find the script that loads the player and get to the image that way, but I am not feeling particularly devious tonight.


Steve

[wombat2go]

Yes Nuff, I am not sure what protocol Box.com is using to raster the image. I am sure a hacker could re create an image as you say. Least of all a screenshot by imagemagick or so.
However I just checked again and it is not possible to save the file , or even to do a save-as on the html.
The image does not get saved.
Thanks

Thanks, Steve

[arnold]

This one with an old SP11 I picked up for $15 with a good SMC 200mm. This picture taken by Tac 1.4 on it.

[pentaxk1000denver]

Hello All,

A few shots from recent trips to the mountains here in Colorado.

Flowers may bore people, but I never get tired of them, personally. Especially not wildflowers. Some wildflowers near Guanella Pass:


Ektar100, K55 1.8

I find myself often having to take loads of purple/magenta out of slightly underexposed areas of my Ektar shots. Here's what it looked liek before:



More wildflowers from Guanella Pass:


Ektar 100, Vivitar 100mm Macro Lens


Ektar 100, K55 1.8

I believe I shot the above at maybe f4, here's what it looks like stopped down a little more:



A still-frozen Emerald Lake:


Ektar 100, Sigma Super-Wide 24mm 2.8

A closer shot of the driftwood log, converted to black and white (there was no color in the frame) and increased contrast:


Ektar 100 (converted to BW), K55 1.8

A winged friend at Emerald Lake:


Ektar 100, Vivitar Series 1 (Kiron) 70-210 3.5

An aggressive scavenger at Emerald Lake:


Ektar 100, K55 1.8

A view down stream:


Ektar 100, K55 1.8

My apologies for the volume of pictures in my post. Thanks for looking and any comments/feedback/suggestions/tips always welcomed!

[manntax]

Hello All,
A few shots from recent trips to the mountains here in Colorado.

Fantastic serie! I would gladly switch urban landscapes of London for those mountains... 8)

I find myself often having to take loads of purple/magenta out of slightly underexposed areas of my Ektar shots. Here's what it looked liek before:

This! I shoot my first Ektar 100 recently and going through PP now I discovered exactly the same thing - in some shots with some shadows and darks I have to shift some Hue of magenta and purples and reduce their saturation to bring back the original look. But still a fantastic film I will definitely be using often!

-manntax

[gofour3]

A couple with the new 67II and 135/4. Fuji Provia 400X.





Phil.

[gofour3]

Hello All,

A few shots from recent trips to the mountains here in Colorado.

Flowers may bore people, but I never get tired of them, personally. Especially not wildflowers. Some wildflowers near Guanella Pass:


Ektar100, K55 1.8

I find myself often having to take loads of purple/magenta out of slightly underexposed areas of my Ektar shots. Here's what it looked liek before:



More wildflowers from Guanella Pass:


Ektar 100, Vivitar 100mm Macro Lens


Ektar 100, K55 1.8

I believe I shot the above at maybe f4, here's what it looks like stopped down a little more:



A still-frozen Emerald Lake:


Ektar 100, Sigma Super-Wide 24mm 2.8

A closer shot of the driftwood log, converted to black and white (there was no color in the frame) and increased contrast:


Ektar 100 (converted to BW), K55 1.8

A winged friend at Emerald Lake:


Ektar 100, Vivitar Series 1 (Kiron) 70-210 3.5

An aggressive scavenger at Emerald Lake:


Ektar 100, K55 1.8

A view down stream:


Ektar 100, K55 1.8

My apologies for the volume of pictures in my post. Thanks for looking and any comments/feedback/suggestions/tips always welcomed!

Nice series!

Phil.