I'm gonna stick my neck out here because there's an issue that's been irritating me for some time now. No malice is meant against any individual or group, and the intention of this topic is to inform, and not offend so here goes.
Here's a section of fine print some artists are ignoring when uploading..........................

Please upload the largest possible version of the image (but under 3200 pixels in width and height) we will create the smaller versions automatically.

I've got my monitor resolution set to 1680x1050 pixels, there are still so many uploads on Caedes that no where near cover my monitor screen. New hd monitors are 1920x1080 pixels what are they supposed to do when searching for wallpaper on Caedes hey? Some artists are so engrossed with photography that they forget Caedes is a wallpaper website. If you are a artist and only want to upload small images there are loads of photography websites out there that specialise in small images where a person can feel more secure from image pirates, why not join another website? you can make new virtual friends, and have loads of fun I'm sure.

I'm not saying push off if you only want to upload small images, but I am saying please don't be mean, and only upload small images occasionally say when a heavy crop has been done.

When I see a really nice image on a gallery I want to download it, and place it on my desktop for a few days but if the image is too small this cannot be done, remember Caedes is a wallpaper website, and many visitors are simply looking for a nice desktop or screensaver image to place on their PC.

Thank you for reading this thread, and letting me get this issue of my chest, I realise some artists are reluctant to upload large images for fear of image pirates. Yes I know they exist but they are practically impossible to stop. There are some very professional artists on Caedes who upload breath taking images of up to 3200 pixels, and to them I want to say thank you for sharing. . (o:

Agree, 100%. I do limit myself to 1920x1200, or 1920x1080, mostly which fulfils the need of most monitors and cannot really be used for much else. I am, however, creating a set of retina images (2560x1440) as I have a new iMac at work that runs at this resolution. Also the new iPad is around this size too.

Small images may be artistic, but do little to cover desktops nowadays.

Thanks for backing me up Chris I didn't realise the new iMac, and iPad ran at such high resolutions!
For my sins I must say that I used to upload to a limit of 1680 pixels, and have only just recently updated to 1920 pixels. But my excuse is I'm using an old noisy bridge camera that is only 10.4meg. What I don't understand is why do people with recent DLSRs limit themselves to say 1440x900, I could easily name names but that's not the point of this thread.

low res is the new copy protection

One more time..

Image Resolution And Print Quality - "How The Resolution Of Your Digital Images Affects Image Quality When Printing"


"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."

"So how high of a resolution value do you need for professional quality printing? The generally accepted value is 300 pixels/inch. Printing an image at a resolution of 300 pixels/inch squeezes the pixels in close enough together to keep everything looking sharp. In fact, 300 is usually a bit more than you need. You can often get by with a resolution of 240 pixels/inch without noticing any loss of image quality. The professional standard, though, is 300 pixels/inch."


/\ 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

Thanks for your input Les, it's good you reminded us of the dots per inch. My step brother is a professional portrait photographer, and told me never to exceed 72dpi when posting an image onto a website, it's good advice if you don't want people getting professional prints from your work.
My main concern is about small images that cannot be used as desktop images.

I understand and hear you, Phil.

Just wanted to reassure some that given what be might considered a 'large' (resolution wise) image/photo.. if ripped/stolen would not result in much, in terms of a print.


And I could stand to be corrected, however, I am under the impression that any image on caedes.net is at 72 dpi. Don't think it is possible to exceed that number.

... ...

Ok, from the "FAQ" section:

"How are the uploaded images stored?

When you first upload an image it is first stored as a compressed JPEG at quality 95. For this reason it is best to upload the image in a lossless format like PNG to avoid double compression artifacts. For the resized images, they are scaled down using a "Catrom" interpolated cubic filter with blur radius of 1 pixel and saved with JPEG quality 90."

What would happen Les if a downloader ran a Caedes image through photo editing software, and raised the dpi from 72 to 300, and then printed it out?

It doesn't matter what the number is. There's still the same number of pixels to be printed in the same space. dpi is how many dots of ink the printer uses in an inch, which has nothing to do with the number of pixels.

According to the copyright notice:
"Things you can do with the image that don't require permission from the author:

Download the image to your computer for use as desktop wallpaper
Download the image to your computer for use in a screensaver or just to look at
Print out the image for personal use only (not to give away or to sell)"

I really don't think that Print out the image for personal use only should be there.. I've been burned before from someone doing that, they had a great time printing and selling.

The whole point is that the print from a 1920x1200 image would be either very small or not very good quality. If you post at 3000x3000 you get a better print, but that is not necessary for most desktops.

There is a balance to be had. The image should be large enough for a desktop but does not have to be the maximum size allowed. Posting tiny images because you are afraid they will be stolen serves no one. But you don't have to post images publicly if you do not want to.

@ Phil: Read through the article linked to above; "How The Resolution Of Your Digital Images Affects Image Quality When Printing".


And there is also the fact that 'we' prepare our images in RGB and do not upload our images in CMYK mode. Images in RGB contain bright colors, printing them out in CMYK would only give you dull and even flat prints.


Plus.. and generally speaking ...

Whenever 'we' ask some software or a program to interpolate data, be it photographic or otherwise.. it's no substitution for the 'real' thing (read and for example; 'if the original photographic image was larger in resolution size to start off with').

I understand a visitor can download, and print an image of Caedes, and I now understand the print quality will be poor, thanks Les.
It would be good to hear some more opinions from other artists on the subject of small images.

Good good. :o)

And my apologies, Phil.. as it was not my intention to redirect the discussion at hand.

I was merely weighing in on the notes of misconceptions that I believe have resulted in the smaller images being posted and are at the root of this discussion.


Me?

Desktop size posted.. and done for me. :o)

I always try to upload mine at 3000 x 2000, seems to be a good size for screen savers..I think, at least on my puter.

You have always been very generous with your upload sizes Gregg, and I know you get a lot of downloads from your work. Thanks for sharing your great photographs with us.

this is a nice conversation and all,im guessin someone saw something they liked but it was to low res for their Ipnis,god forbid that..point is im wondering if a person thinks lowres = cant steal it how do you explain to them so they can understand WTF yall with the coolest puters already know.

"... point is im wondering if a person thinks lowres = cant steal it how do you explain to them so they can understand WTF yall with the coolest puters already know."


Quoting but one post from the above discussion;

"The whole point is that the print from a 1920x1200 image would be either very small or not very good quality."

But, at 1920X1200 is more than fine for a desktop/wallpaper.

I am definitely in favour of desktop sized images.

In the past when size restrictions were in place it was common for uploads not desktop size would have borders added to conform . . but many do not like borders !

I dont think anyone likes getting their work 'pinched' for someone elses profit. Some object more than others. Even small ones can be used by those who are unable to read or choose to ignore the copyright regs . . . mousepads, coffee mugs etc do not require large ones.

Desktop wallpaper - name of the game. Images should be suitable for the purpose :)

Screen resolutions are increasing, and it's going to get harder and harder to post images suitable for screens that can't be printed. I sell my art on Zazzle, and a 1920x1080 image fits fine on many of the smaller items. But there's no point in posting here if it's not big enough to fill a screen. You just have to decide if you're willing to take the risk.

Akeraios any post that looks wicked as hell would be a good post would be sweet unless it is so super lowres that people can see pixels then that would suck.

Prints Prints Prints....as far as the lowres thing I have 2 flat panels turned on there side to display stuff.I have a cheap pc runnin both.point is you all talk about prints im talkin digital,there is allot of images i would love to have but dont want to shell out the cash to get,cant run them on what i have cause they are lowres.without any fancy lawyers,fine print,whatever else you can think of they just shut my butt down if i want what they got i have to pay them "DIRECTLY"

Theres a world outside of the eyes and fingers please dont shut the rest of us down.

"Theres a world outside of the eyes and fingers please dont shut the rest of us down."

That's a really interesting statement, LOL.. can you elaborate some more?

As I am not sure if you are speaking as an artist that sells their work, or ... ?


To my mind, if I wanted a print hanging on my wall.. I would most certainly pay for the quality and not do it 'on the cheap'.


Which kind of segues/dovetails on my initial request.. elaborating on your (quoted) statement above.

'Cause.. I wonder ...


If by opening up the world of art to more people via computer/desktops/wallpapers has been the result ... then there may be more people interested in beyond just that.

And may have considered putting something up on their walls ... having been exposed to a world that they were not as familiar with beforehand (or.. as appreciative of).

I was trying to explain why people post lowres images.It has nothing to do with people stealing an image then printing it.In fact there is a whole thread here on the site about stole digital images.
Like i was sayin above i have 2 flatpanels I use as giant pic frames one a 32 and the other a 72 almost all the cgi stuff scales up great even to the 72.Pretty much most stuff Ive done and almost everything Ive saved continually loops on those 2 tv,s.
DIRECTLY means if I want a highres image to display I have to give the person who created the image cash if I want to use it.
Now theres a photogragher that gets digital frames then loads his stuff on them and sell it that way.
That all being said maybe some of the people who post stuff here just plain dont know,maybe they have older computers that have a difficult time opening larger files.Who knows but do you really want them to leave just because what they post wont cover the screen on you new IPad?

"Who knows but do you really want them to leave just because what they post wont cover the screen on you new IPad?"

No, of course not.

And that is why this discussion has focused on educating/clearing up misconceptions, in part.


Then again, and aside from smaller images being able to be used as wallpapers for smart phones.. if everyone posted very small resolution images, and for the sake of argument ... 640x360 ... not sure what the point of doing so would accomplish in the end?

For both, the artist and members/viewers alike.

i just got an ipad and downloaded some stuff here agreed major disappointment.who needs the lowres guys,they need to beat it get some skills then come back when their up to our standards.you guys are right there are plenty of places for these budding artists to get skills and make friends we dont need them here.

kiddin aside you guys post stuff like this all you do is piss people off,why would anyone waste their time postin here if they have to compete with this sort of mindset?

I'm not asking anyone to leave LOL2112 there are plenty of very good low resolution images on this site.

What myself and Les are trying to say is please upload higher resolution images, as they will not make good prints, and all images are copyrite protected.

sounds good to me