Caedes
Upload Images
Welcome guest
Log In or Register
User Stats
- 2 total users online
- 37 users active today
- 259165 total members
- +show users online
Elephant Graveyard
Discussion Board -> Elephant Graveyard -> No new uploads
No new uploads
Comments
Post a Comment - Subscribe to this discussion
Russ, your images will be sadly missed.
LynEve
LynEve
0∈
[?]
The question is not what you look at, but what you see ~ Marcel Proust
I'll miss your work Russ ... so many were an inspiration. Take care & stop by whenever you can.
0∈
[?]
This is it! ... MJ
That's sad... I hope you'll pop up with a comment or two at times, Russ. Makes me angry that scurrilous thieves can drive an artist away...
mary
mary
0∈
[?]
"Never let your studies interfere with your education." - Pete Seeger
I know exactly how you feel. I don't know what the answer is. There must be one-somewhere. I know it could be fixed to where viewers can only view and not be able to download. But, that would defeat the purpose of the site-WALLPAPER! The next best solution is to keep the sizes and resolutions small enough that at least the images cannot be reproduced for sale and profit. Glad your still going to be hanging around.
Momma
Momma
0∈
[?]
i totally agree with you. it does seem so sad and strange that we can't prevent this. i will miss your wonderful images. would you let me know privately (email) if you choose not to do so in this section where you will be posting. i can't begin to tell you how many of my shots are now the "property" of others who sell them. why can't we figure out a solution.
0∈
[?]
AVATAR BY PJ...............
i am always extremely grateful for the kind comments and suggestions that you make.
Please Visit My Gallery
This is a terrible day, I agree. Very sad. ;o( You & your art will be missed.
0∈
[?]
I've got amnesia & deja vu at the same time. I think I've forgotten this before ! ... That was Zen, but this is Tao !!! ...CLICK TO SAVE LIVES !
I don't blame you Russ, I have been thinking of doing the same thing. I will miss your work but I am glad you will still be participating on the site. I agree with Pat, if you decide to post again, use smaller sizes.
0∈
[?]
If you wish to purchase framed photos, prints or greeting cards of my work please visit my website .http://www.redbubble.com/people/ziggy7
how small are the smaller sizes?
0∈
[?]
AVATAR BY PJ...............
i am always extremely grateful for the kind comments and suggestions that you make.
Please Visit My Gallery
Russ. I appreciate your concerns, but I do feel there is an element of collective hysteria about rips at the moment. Now, before I get everyones back up, and I do not mean to, the logic to my statement is as follows.
I post pictures to Caedes so that total strangers from all over the world can download them for free and put them on their desktop. They are also allowed to, free of charge, print the pictures out and put them on their own walls. That is, use them for personal use in those ways. I keep the resolution down to 1920x1200 and plaster my name in the corner so that anyone who sees them knows who the artist is.
To emphasis a point, I do not make any money from this. My ego is boosted when my pictures are downloaded, but caedes is a not very popular site, and I also post elsewhere to increase the number of people who can see my wonderful art. (My opinion and a minority one at that).
Most of the recent sites that have been notified as having ripped off pictures, seem to do the same. That is they are not selling the pictures, they are also giving them away. The end result is that total strangers can download them and put them on their desktop for free and I get no money from this. That is the end effect is the same, for me anyway. If caedes wish to do something about it as it reduces traffic to this site then that is another matter.
If the site that rips the pictures is selling prints, then they would not be very good quality anyway, and have to be small. And so far no one is appearing to do this (I might be wrong and have not gone through every thread to see if that is right, so apologies if I am wrong). The guy that used it for commercial reasons should be served a DMCA notice, as should anyone that uses pictures for commercial purposes. The other sites I am not so worried about, certainly not the extent that some caedes members are.
My personal view is that anything that is posted to the web will be viewed and downloaded. If you make money from selling prints, and I do not know if that is the case for Russ, then I would not post my pictures as desktops, and certainly not at above 1024x768 resolution.
If you post to a desktop site you are giving your art away for free. Be happy that people like it so much and want it. Go after those that make money out of our art, but lets keep the whole thing in perspective.
I shall miss Russ's art and it is a shame that he felt compelled to take this action.
I post pictures to Caedes so that total strangers from all over the world can download them for free and put them on their desktop. They are also allowed to, free of charge, print the pictures out and put them on their own walls. That is, use them for personal use in those ways. I keep the resolution down to 1920x1200 and plaster my name in the corner so that anyone who sees them knows who the artist is.
To emphasis a point, I do not make any money from this. My ego is boosted when my pictures are downloaded, but caedes is a not very popular site, and I also post elsewhere to increase the number of people who can see my wonderful art. (My opinion and a minority one at that).
Most of the recent sites that have been notified as having ripped off pictures, seem to do the same. That is they are not selling the pictures, they are also giving them away. The end result is that total strangers can download them and put them on their desktop for free and I get no money from this. That is the end effect is the same, for me anyway. If caedes wish to do something about it as it reduces traffic to this site then that is another matter.
If the site that rips the pictures is selling prints, then they would not be very good quality anyway, and have to be small. And so far no one is appearing to do this (I might be wrong and have not gone through every thread to see if that is right, so apologies if I am wrong). The guy that used it for commercial reasons should be served a DMCA notice, as should anyone that uses pictures for commercial purposes. The other sites I am not so worried about, certainly not the extent that some caedes members are.
My personal view is that anything that is posted to the web will be viewed and downloaded. If you make money from selling prints, and I do not know if that is the case for Russ, then I would not post my pictures as desktops, and certainly not at above 1024x768 resolution.
If you post to a desktop site you are giving your art away for free. Be happy that people like it so much and want it. Go after those that make money out of our art, but lets keep the whole thing in perspective.
I shall miss Russ's art and it is a shame that he felt compelled to take this action.
0∈
[?]
You make some good points Chris.
However suggesting there is collective hysteria about rips I think is an overstatement.
Members share their art here but take exception to ownership being claimed by some stranger using the work of others to promote their own sites.If you put a collection of your photos outside your house for the enjoyment of others, and someone came along and placed them in a gallery of their own and claimed them as their property and their work, I think you would be upset as well.
It is common decency to ask permission to use the property of another person. Some do and I have given my permisssion gladly in some cases.
Seeing my 'work' offered on mousepads, mugs and other novelties for monetary gain does not make me hysterical but it does make me mad. I make no money from it and have no wish to but I do object strongly to others doing so. A large size image is not needed for small items, so posting smaller resolutions does not prevent this.
"Plastering your name in the corner" does nothing whatsoever to prevent your art from being ripped. Your name can be removed by anyone.
However suggesting there is collective hysteria about rips I think is an overstatement.
Members share their art here but take exception to ownership being claimed by some stranger using the work of others to promote their own sites.If you put a collection of your photos outside your house for the enjoyment of others, and someone came along and placed them in a gallery of their own and claimed them as their property and their work, I think you would be upset as well.
It is common decency to ask permission to use the property of another person. Some do and I have given my permisssion gladly in some cases.
Seeing my 'work' offered on mousepads, mugs and other novelties for monetary gain does not make me hysterical but it does make me mad. I make no money from it and have no wish to but I do object strongly to others doing so. A large size image is not needed for small items, so posting smaller resolutions does not prevent this.
"Plastering your name in the corner" does nothing whatsoever to prevent your art from being ripped. Your name can be removed by anyone.
0∈
[?]
The question is not what you look at, but what you see ~ Marcel Proust
Caedes not a very popular site?????
6318 users active today at this moment!!!!
1652 regular members -
115983 total images -
88 new images today
6318 users active today at this moment!!!!
1652 regular members -
115983 total images -
88 new images today
0∈
[?]
The question is not what you look at, but what you see ~ Marcel Proust
Caedes is the only site that I have posted images and as Lyn has stated those images are being used and claimed by others. I also do not make any money from those images. Caedes was a place to interact with other photographers and share ideas and comments. It is not safe for me to share my work in this way without the risk of images being ripped off. It's my personal choice not to feed the vultures any longer. I cherish my caedes friends and their art. I'm sorry for not being an active part of the caedes community. Maybe in the future I'll have a change of heart. Thanks for understanding my decision.
Russ
Russ
0∈
[?]
MY IMAGE ARE COPYRIGHTED AND NOT AUTHORIZED
TO BE POSTED ON ANY OTHER WEBSITE!
Hey Russ,
Sorry to read/hear of your decision. Truly. :o|
You are and have been an exemplary member of the Caedes Community.
Gracious and kind with your words and time, not to mention sharing your wonderful gift of creativity behind the lens and in the editing chair.
You have my utmost respect and of course, I respect your decision.
If I may, some thoughts on the printing and selling of images:
When it come to printing images, as I understand it, there are a number of factors to be considered. Pixel count, file type and mode employed to name the more important ones.
i) Pixel count.
A real-life example.
/\ Kind of, sort of ... it does illustrate though what happens to the 'quality' of an image in the process of printing.
Of note and specifically with reference to the article above, the resolution that 'we' post, for the most part I believe ... is at 72 dpi.
Observe in the first part of the article how that translates into a 'print'. And a print at that, that is extremely small and extremely poor 'quality'.
ii) Where file type is concerned, lossless files such as .eps or .tiff are usually required for printing. Not ... .jpg, as are the images' file type on the site here.
iii) On the point of mode, 'we' prepare our images in RGB and do not upload our images in CMYK mode.
If you had original images in RGB which contains bright colors, printing them out in CMYK would only give you dull and even flat prints. And since 'we' do not observe 'designing' in CYMK mode ... the color levels might or would, have to be adjusted once again to acquire the colors you originally had.
Back to the discussion ...
If I may, and if this is going to be a productive discussion ... as opposed to one of histrionics, as has happened in the past with some 'hot' topics ... how's about we try to address the problem in this thread that Russ has created?
As opposed to taking contrary opinions and taking them apart piece by piece.
Sound good good?
Alright, let's back up the discussion truck and address:
1) Jen's question of how 'small is small'?
Again, I refer you to the above linked article ... "Image Resolution And Print Quality" by Steve Patterson.
Reading through the article, one discovers that a posted image at 1200 X 800, at 72 dpi ... is barely enough 'quality' for a 'printed' image of the size 4 inches by 2.667 inches.
And ... that is not, not ... taking into consideration that the original file type is .jpg, nor in the preferred CMYK mode for printing.
/\ So ... what does this mean?
If you post an image, for example in the wide screen ratio of 1900 X 1200 at 72 dpi, as suggested by Chris above ... the potential printing size and still maintaining some degree of 'quality' would be that of:
1900 pixels wide divided by 300 pixels per inch = 6.333 inches
1200 pixels high divided by 300 pixels per inch = 4 inches
Sorry to read/hear of your decision. Truly. :o|
You are and have been an exemplary member of the Caedes Community.
Gracious and kind with your words and time, not to mention sharing your wonderful gift of creativity behind the lens and in the editing chair.
You have my utmost respect and of course, I respect your decision.
If I may, some thoughts on the printing and selling of images:
When it come to printing images, as I understand it, there are a number of factors to be considered. Pixel count, file type and mode employed to name the more important ones.
i) Pixel count.
A real-life example.
/\ Kind of, sort of ... it does illustrate though what happens to the 'quality' of an image in the process of printing.
Of note and specifically with reference to the article above, the resolution that 'we' post, for the most part I believe ... is at 72 dpi.
Observe in the first part of the article how that translates into a 'print'. And a print at that, that is extremely small and extremely poor 'quality'.
ii) Where file type is concerned, lossless files such as .eps or .tiff are usually required for printing. Not ... .jpg, as are the images' file type on the site here.
iii) On the point of mode, 'we' prepare our images in RGB and do not upload our images in CMYK mode.
If you had original images in RGB which contains bright colors, printing them out in CMYK would only give you dull and even flat prints. And since 'we' do not observe 'designing' in CYMK mode ... the color levels might or would, have to be adjusted once again to acquire the colors you originally had.
Back to the discussion ...
If I may, and if this is going to be a productive discussion ... as opposed to one of histrionics, as has happened in the past with some 'hot' topics ... how's about we try to address the problem in this thread that Russ has created?
As opposed to taking contrary opinions and taking them apart piece by piece.
Sound good good?
Alright, let's back up the discussion truck and address:
1) Jen's question of how 'small is small'?
Again, I refer you to the above linked article ... "Image Resolution And Print Quality" by Steve Patterson.
Reading through the article, one discovers that a posted image at 1200 X 800, at 72 dpi ... is barely enough 'quality' for a 'printed' image of the size 4 inches by 2.667 inches.
And ... that is not, not ... taking into consideration that the original file type is .jpg, nor in the preferred CMYK mode for printing.
/\ So ... what does this mean?
If you post an image, for example in the wide screen ratio of 1900 X 1200 at 72 dpi, as suggested by Chris above ... the potential printing size and still maintaining some degree of 'quality' would be that of:
1900 pixels wide divided by 300 pixels per inch = 6.333 inches
1200 pixels high divided by 300 pixels per inch = 4 inches
0∈
[?]
"An eye for an eye, and soon the whole world is blind." - Mahatma Gandhi
Les I like your calculations however I have a 24 or 26 inch monitor and the 1900x1200 images look great via DVI. So i'd imagine it'd make for a decent print that is at least a 16x24. I've seen photographers take small images off sports illustrated on the Internet and turn them into fine 16x20 prints. Good size eh?
0∈
[?]
~~~~~~~Photographematis de Deus Facturae ~~~~~~~~.
From the first paragraph of the first link in my post above Joeys':
"The term "image resolution" means how many of your image's pixels will fit inside each inch of paper when printed. Obviously, since your photo has a fixed number of pixels, the more of them you squeeze inside each inch of paper, the smaller the image will appear on the paper. Likewise, the fewer pixels you print per inch, the larger the image will appear on paper. The number of pixels that will be printed per inch is known as the resolution of the image, or "image resolution". Image resolution has everything to do with printing your image.
It has nothing to do with how your image appears on your computer screen, which is why images you download off the internet usually appear much larger and higher quality on your screen than they do when you print them."
"The term "image resolution" means how many of your image's pixels will fit inside each inch of paper when printed. Obviously, since your photo has a fixed number of pixels, the more of them you squeeze inside each inch of paper, the smaller the image will appear on the paper. Likewise, the fewer pixels you print per inch, the larger the image will appear on paper. The number of pixels that will be printed per inch is known as the resolution of the image, or "image resolution". Image resolution has everything to do with printing your image.
It has nothing to do with how your image appears on your computer screen, which is why images you download off the internet usually appear much larger and higher quality on your screen than they do when you print them."
0∈
[?]
"An eye for an eye, and soon the whole world is blind." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reading does not appear to be one of your fortes, Joey. Quoting from my post above yours ... once again;
"If I may, and if this is going to be a productive discussion ... as opposed to one of histrionics, as has happened in the past with some 'hot' topics ... how's about we try to address the problem in this thread that Russ has created?"
You can throw around alllll the terms that you would like (DVI), smoke screens ("I've seen photographers take small images off sports illustrated on the Internet and turn them into fine 16x20 prints. Good size eh? ") et al ... whatever.
Back up your stuff, if not ... back out of the discussion at hand. Thanks.
"If I may, and if this is going to be a productive discussion ... as opposed to one of histrionics, as has happened in the past with some 'hot' topics ... how's about we try to address the problem in this thread that Russ has created?"
You can throw around alllll the terms that you would like (DVI), smoke screens ("I've seen photographers take small images off sports illustrated on the Internet and turn them into fine 16x20 prints. Good size eh? ") et al ... whatever.
Back up your stuff, if not ... back out of the discussion at hand. Thanks.
0∈
[?]
"An eye for an eye, and soon the whole world is blind." - Mahatma Gandhi
Due to the large amount of images being ripped off from caedes.net I have decided to remove most of my gallery and will no longer post new images. I appreciate all of your kind words supporting my work and cherish your friendship. I will continue to view and enjoy your own bodies of work. I can not continue to provide my images to be available for those that have chosen to steal our works from this site. Thanks for being good friends and for being an inspiration to me. May you all be blessed with success.
Russ Heidler (heidlerr)