Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos Presentation & Building Galleries 
Thread started 13 Jul 2010 (Tuesday) 17:13
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

size vs theft?

 
Shultz
Lucky 13
392 posts
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Suffolk, UK
     
Jul 13, 2010 17:13 |  #1

Now looking to setup my own gallery/website, although I don't claim to have shot anything worth stealing I'm just wondering what people use size/resolution wise to show off their shots in the best way, but small enough making them not worth stealing?

I don't wanna go down the route of plastering a damn great watermark across the middle, so was thinking maybe 1024 width with a 72 dpi? Or would 1280 still be better without making it too much?

Just after peoples thoughts please?

Shelton.


http://www.onebriefmom​ent.co.uk (external link)
7D ~ 17-55 f2.8 EF-S ~ 100mm f2.8 Macro ~ 50mm MK I ~ Sigma 100-300 f4 APO EX DG ~ TC x1.4 ~ Man 055XPROB & 488RC2 ~ NISSIN Di622

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
tracknut
Goldmember
Avatar
1,740 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jun 2005
Location: Folsom, California
     
Jul 13, 2010 17:32 |  #2

1024px across will make a nice 8x10 print, so if you don't want folks to be able to do that, you need a quite a bit smaller (or a watermark across the photo). The dpi, 72 or otherwise, doesn't matter. Personally I put my portfolio shots up at 440x660px, with no watermark. Nothing goes up larger than that.

Dave


Performance/sport dog photographer (external link)
Facebook (external link)
"Always available to shoot your dog"

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Shultz
THREAD ­ STARTER
Lucky 13
392 posts
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Suffolk, UK
     
Jul 13, 2010 17:49 |  #3

That's quite abit smaller than I thought? I had a play resizing a shot, I suppose I forget I'm running a 1900x1280 desktop which of course makes things a good deal different

I presume though the most common desktop size is still 1024x768?

Shelton.


http://www.onebriefmom​ent.co.uk (external link)
7D ~ 17-55 f2.8 EF-S ~ 100mm f2.8 Macro ~ 50mm MK I ~ Sigma 100-300 f4 APO EX DG ~ TC x1.4 ~ Man 055XPROB & 488RC2 ~ NISSIN Di622

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tracknut
Goldmember
Avatar
1,740 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jun 2005
Location: Folsom, California
     
Jul 13, 2010 18:02 |  #4

On my photo site, usage shows the top monitor sizes are 1280x800 (24% of users) then 1024x768 (19% of users). Yeah, the pics will be rather small, but if you print one out you'd be surprised at how good it looks.

Dave


Performance/sport dog photographer (external link)
Facebook (external link)
"Always available to shoot your dog"

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Hikin ­ Mike
Walkin' Like a Penguin Now!
Avatar
6,352 posts
Gallery: 16 photos
Likes: 340
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Atwater, CA
     
Jul 13, 2010 18:06 |  #5

I still have a 1024 x 768 monitor. I use 600 x 400, un-watermarked, in my gallery (for sale). I use 720px, watermaked for posting on the forums.


Images in the Backcountry (external link) | Facebook (external link) | Google+ (external link) | Twitter (external link)
SEO for the Photographer (external link) | Creating HDRs Using Layer Masks (external link)
Canon 5D 17-40 Ճ/4L 300 Ճ/4L IS 70-200 Ճ/4L 50 Ճ/1.8 1.4x TC Օ Kenko Ext. Tubes

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Shultz
THREAD ­ STARTER
Lucky 13
392 posts
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Suffolk, UK
     
Jul 14, 2010 01:15 |  #6

Many thanks to you both for your input :)

Shelton.


http://www.onebriefmom​ent.co.uk (external link)
7D ~ 17-55 f2.8 EF-S ~ 100mm f2.8 Macro ~ 50mm MK I ~ Sigma 100-300 f4 APO EX DG ~ TC x1.4 ~ Man 055XPROB & 488RC2 ~ NISSIN Di622

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tkbslc
Cream of the Crop
24,567 posts
Likes: 18
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Utah, USA
     
Jul 14, 2010 02:02 |  #7

tracknut wrote in post #10530235 (external link)
1024px across will make a nice 8x10 print, so if you don't want folks to be able to do that, you need a quite a bit smaller (or a watermark across the photo). The dpi, 72 or otherwise, doesn't matter. Personally I put my portfolio shots up at 440x660px, with no watermark. Nothing goes up larger than that.

Dave

Ah, just big enough to grab for my website usage, thanks! :)


Taylor
Galleries: Flickr (external link)
60D | ELPH 330 | iPhone 5s

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
HappySnapper90
Cream of the Crop
5,145 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Aug 2008
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
     
Jul 16, 2010 08:53 |  #8

Take a look at both my websites. My zenfolio has 650 pixels on the long side, all watermarked, and my Photography by Hoy website are 800 pixels wide (for horizontal photos) and all are watermarked.

1024 pixels on the long side would take up someone's entire screen, which means they won't be able to see the entire image (unless your website automatically resizes to show the whole image on the screen). Anything to avoid a viewer scrolling around to see your site is a good thing.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Shultz
THREAD ­ STARTER
Lucky 13
392 posts
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Suffolk, UK
     
Jul 16, 2010 10:19 |  #9

Thanks for your thoughts, some cracking shots there as well :)

Thats quite a large watermark you use, do you not find it detracts from the shot somewhat?

Shelton.


http://www.onebriefmom​ent.co.uk (external link)
7D ~ 17-55 f2.8 EF-S ~ 100mm f2.8 Macro ~ 50mm MK I ~ Sigma 100-300 f4 APO EX DG ~ TC x1.4 ~ Man 055XPROB & 488RC2 ~ NISSIN Di622

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
coldplug
Member
79 posts
Joined Jan 2008
Location: Croatia, Zadar
     
Jul 17, 2010 06:55 as a reply to  @ Shultz's post |  #10

I would say that if you have web site that with purporse for selling images or attract your possible clients, you will get more income by putting there bigger, quality images, not distracted by any watermarking, than you will loose profit by some images being stolen. If you have small images they are unattractive, look bad, lack details and so, that site will not have lot of visitors and so will not create as much profit as it would with bigger images. The same apply for watermarks over nice images that make them ugly.

Just my opinion, not everyone will agree with it.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Shultz
THREAD ­ STARTER
Lucky 13
392 posts
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Suffolk, UK
     
Jul 17, 2010 07:50 |  #11

Not selling anything for now, nowhere near good enough!! Just wanted somewhere to share a few of what I like best for now, settled on 650 pixels longest side, just trying to decide whether to watermark in a corner or not.....

Shelton.


http://www.onebriefmom​ent.co.uk (external link)
7D ~ 17-55 f2.8 EF-S ~ 100mm f2.8 Macro ~ 50mm MK I ~ Sigma 100-300 f4 APO EX DG ~ TC x1.4 ~ Man 055XPROB & 488RC2 ~ NISSIN Di622

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dsd17
Senior Member
Avatar
487 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 94
Joined May 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
     
Jul 17, 2010 09:04 |  #12

Not sure if you care, but here's a breakdown that W3Schools did on monitor resolutions back in Jan 2010:

Date - January 2010
1024x768 - 20%
1280x1024 - 18.2 %
1280x800 - 17.3 %
1440x900 - 10.5 %
1680x1050 - 10.0 %
1920x1200 - 4.6 %
1366x768 - 3.6 %
1920x1080 - 2.3 %
1152x864 - 2.1 %
1600x1200 - 1.4 %
1280x768 - 1.2 %
800x600 - 1%
640x480 - 0%
Unknown - 3%




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Shultz
THREAD ­ STARTER
Lucky 13
392 posts
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Suffolk, UK
     
Jul 17, 2010 10:12 |  #13

Interesting thanks!

Shelton.


http://www.onebriefmom​ent.co.uk (external link)
7D ~ 17-55 f2.8 EF-S ~ 100mm f2.8 Macro ~ 50mm MK I ~ Sigma 100-300 f4 APO EX DG ~ TC x1.4 ~ Man 055XPROB & 488RC2 ~ NISSIN Di622

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tracknut
Goldmember
Avatar
1,740 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jun 2005
Location: Folsom, California
     
Jul 17, 2010 12:04 |  #14

dsd17 wrote in post #10553045 (external link)
Not sure if you care, but here's a breakdown that W3Schools did on monitor resolutions back in Jan 2010:

Date - January 2010
1024x768 - 20%
1280x1024 - 18.2 %
1280x800 - 17.3 %
1440x900 - 10.5 %
1680x1050 - 10.0 %
1920x1200 - 4.6 %
1366x768 - 3.6 %
1920x1080 - 2.3 %
1152x864 - 2.1 %
1600x1200 - 1.4 %
1280x768 - 1.2 %
800x600 - 1%
640x480 - 0%
Unknown - 3%

Typically these will be a measure of hits on their own site. So if your customer profile is similar to those looking for technical web info, then this could be fairly accurate.

Dave


Performance/sport dog photographer (external link)
Facebook (external link)
"Always available to shoot your dog"

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

1,706 views & 0 likes for this thread
size vs theft?
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos Presentation & Building Galleries 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is skoczekan
679 guests, 301 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.