Web images Vs JPGs NEED HELP

[Willow Photography]

Thanks Morgan,
I think you are right!
However this week I am playing with Foliolink.com ( web designed for photogs ) taking their 7 days trial and uploading images and the results are the same as on my original website.
I am wondering if any of you guys ever bother to open your original image next to your website image to see them side by side on large screen. I can live with my results if I know that it is not just my stupidity that causes it.
Andre
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=144329\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hi Andre

You will be very happy with Foliolink.
I went for it (willow.no) and are very, very happy with it.

Willow

[haefnerphoto]

Andre, I've experienced this problem also.  Here's my solution, although it might be a bit yestertech, it works.  Duplicate your jpeg (in CS2) then under File-Edit in Image Ready open the file and view the two files side by side.  Adjust the copy to match the original, then under File-Edit in Photoshop save the copy and insert that into your website.  When the copy reverts back to Photoshop you'll notice that it's darker and has more contrast but when inserted into your website it will look great.  Jim

[Mark_Tucker]

Hi Andre,

1. I have seen this issue too, with my new style web galleries that are built out of Lightroom. I do not know why. They go in as sRGB, and supposedly come out as sRGB, but in Firefox, many of the images look softer and more desaturated slightly. Maybe not as much as you claim yours are, but they are.

2. Try this: Drag off one of the JPG images off the site, onto your Desktop. Open it in Photoshop. See if you get an alert dialogue box about "no embedded profile" or the wrong profile. I've seen this happen with iView, where, even if you check the box that says "keep embedded profiles", for some reason, in the end, the profile gets thrown away.

Good luck with it. I'll keep thinking about other culprits.

Regards to family,

MT

[jonstewart]

Hi Andre

You will be very happy with Foliolink.
I went for it (willow.no) and are very, very happy with it.

Willow
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=144386\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

This is slightly at a tangent to the main thread.

I so HATE sites that screw with my browser window size so unintelligently. I have a 24" screen... why would you need full screen?

There are a section of users out there who feel exactly the same.

It would be a lot cleverer to use the screen size (working resolution) to determine whether you needed to up the window size to accommodate your website or not, rather than just blandly increasing to max screen size.

...and a front page that actually serves no purpose, and forces the user to read, or apply trial and error, in order to see what are very, very nice photos.

PS I am completely prejudiced against these over engineered flash based (supposedly) immersive  websites. Much prefer a straight html/php/asp/RoR sites with minimum flash required to make image transitions attractive. A photographers website should showcase the beautiful photos, not some website designers work!

As a foil to that last statement, I am looking for a good gallery system to fit into a php site, and I haven't found one yet that I really like. I'd be glad if anybody cared to share their experience with me on that one.

[Willow Photography]

This is slightly at a tangent to the main thread.

I so HATE sites that screw with my browser window size so unintelligently. I have a 24" screen... why would you need full screen?

There are a section of users out there who feel exactly the same.

It would be a lot cleverer to use the screen size (working resolution) to determine whether you needed to up the window size to accommodate your website or not, rather than just blandly increasing to max screen size.

...and a front page that actually serves no purpose, and forces the user to read, or apply trial and error, in order to see what are very, very nice photos.

PS I am completely prejudiced against these over engineered flash based (supposedly) immersive  websites. Much prefer a straight html/php/asp/RoR sites with minimum flash required to make image transitions attractive. A photographers website should showcase the beautiful photos, not some website designers work!

As a foil to that last statement, I am looking for a good gallery system to fit into a php site, and I haven't found one yet that I really like. I'd be glad if anybody cared to share their experience with me on that one.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=144403\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I totally agree with the Frontpage.    
Do not like it either and I try to make it better and more useful.
 Havent had much time to do it unfortunately.

But when you find your way passed the Frontpage I love the way
the pictures are presented.

Andre made me look at my pictures on my website compared to how
they look in PS3. And they are much more saturated on my website.
Have sent a mail to Foliolink and asked about that.
Maybe the sRGB profile is not longer attached to the pictures?

Willow

[samuel_js]

Hi Andre

You will be very happy with Foliolink.
I went for it (willow.no) and are very, very happy with it.

Willow
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=144386\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I personally like this kind of presentation. I've been very close to buy their services but never done it.
Willow, can I ask you about the technique behind the first picture of your Places/People portfolio? I've seen this kind of retouching before and I think it creates a very nice atmosphere, specially in trees and stones. I've never been able to achieve this smoothness. I have hundreds of pictures of stones, trees and forest but never published them because I've never been able to retouch them in the right way...  . Is it a plugin? Or hard Ps work? I understand if you don't want to tell...    

Thank's

[godtfred]

A bit of a threadjack, sorry Andre (hope you don't mind...)

My new website is underway, not completely finished, and the images are not in any way current, but anyways:

http://www.godtfred.com/new/crunch.html

Flash based makes copying from the site a bit more difficult, with some stop motion photography for the "crunching" paper. Easy xml programming with "replace image in this folder using same filename" for changing content. No color conversions or anything going on, just ftp everything up and all is ready to go.

Need to find a way to mark the left and right hand side menus better though?

-axel

[AndreNapier]

Thank you all for your time and sharing knowledge. In the next few days I will try to apply what I learned here. My only final question remains. Is there anybody who can confirm that his web images look the same color in Safari compared side by side with original Jpgs.
Andre

Mark,
Dina sends her regards as well.

[AndreNapier]

More difficult? I'd say more convenient. I get to see all the paths to your originals nicely lined up in a browser window, if I want. Like this:  http://www.godtfred.com/new/images/portrett_001.jpg All I have to do is copy the whole list and paste it in my download window to get them on my disk. That's how I also could see that the image posted by Andre in his flash animation had the wrong profile attached.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=144490\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

EPd,

you are scaring me. I paid $3000.00 to the web designer who swore that none of the images can nbe copied. Mother f........
I just settled my copyright litigation for stolen image and I have to say it is not fun procedure.

Andre

[godtfred]

you are scaring me.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=144529\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Me too, yet I was actually only after the "Why can't i drag this image to my desktop, it wont move. I dont know, someone told me you should right-click and choose [span style=\'font-size:8pt;line-height:100%\']save image to the desktop[/span]? It does'nt work, I'll ask IT tomorrow about it, maybe something is wrong with my computer" kind of protection...

still....  

-axel

[Willow Photography]

More difficult? I'd say more convenient. I get to see all the paths to your originals nicely lined up in a browser window, if I want. Like this:  http://www.godtfred.com/new/images/portrett_001.jpg All I have to do is copy the whole list and paste it in my download window to get them on my disk. That's how I also could see that the image posted by Andre in his flash animation had the wrong profile attached.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=144490\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I tried to do that on Godtfreds site and I could copy it!
But when I tried to do that on my site, willow.no, I could not copy it.

I dare you to try it on my site  

Willow

[jonstewart]

I tried to do that on Godtfreds site and I could copy it!
But when I tried to do that on my site, willow.no, I could not copy it.

I dare you to try it on my site   

Willow
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=144541\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Unfortunately, if you can see it on your screen, then it can be copied. Period. No exceptions.

All that web designers can do is make the process a little more awkward, and hope that people on your site don't know how to workaround.

Here you go... took me less than 30 secs to download, trim and upload to my site.

EDIT: I didn't realise we were ina  competition to see who could download it fastest. I used a screendump, as it's the most commonly known way of doing this sort of thing



(ps @willow: I do love your photography. I haven't figured out a more satisfactory way of displaying photos than you have at the moment!)

[samuel_js]

And here is your original fish. Shot with a Canon 5D, I see.
[attachment=3509:attachment]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=144565\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Epd, could you try with the galleries on my site? There's two different flash galleries: the start movie and the simple viewer galleries on the portfolio links...  

Thank's

[jonstewart]

http://www.samuelaxelsson.com/nature/bin/i..._garden_034.jpg

[attachment=3510:attachment]

I hate to scare people, although this is not the first time it happened on this board. I will not post the exact procedure in a public place like this, but I only used standard functionality of my browser. There is no geek-level involved here. Unfortunately. What really concerns me is that there seem to be people who make money on selling lies to their customers, claiming that they can build a copyright proof website.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=144577\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Absolutely agree with EPd here. Lies and more lies.

I used a method even less complicated than EPd as well!

Edit: As I have now posted above, it was screen dumped. Not elegant, but very commonly known.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

I'd have to add that I think Samuel's photo is slightly safer from having a decent print made than Willow's, because his is only some 500-odd pixels wide, while hers is over 900 pixels wide. The smaller the pixel dimension, the harder it is to get a good print.

But as for stealing to another website, with no up-rezzing, I doubt if there is a way to protect an image. Adding a visible copyright watermark of course at least requires the thief to go to a little more trouble to get rid of it.

Flash certainly doesn't protect anything, as you guys have amply demonstrated.

[Willow Photography]

I'd have to add that I think Samuel's photo is slightly safer from having a decent print made than Willow's, because his is only some 500-odd pixels wide, while hers is over 900 pixels wide. The smaller the pixel dimension, the harder it is to get a good print.

But as for stealing to another website, with no up-rezzing, I doubt if there is a way to protect an image. Adding a visible copyright watermark of course at least requires the thief to go to a little more trouble to get rid of it.

Flash certainly doesn't protect anything, as you guys have amply demonstrated.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=144607\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

OK, I will not dare you guys again.  
I just have to live with it I suppose.

[Graham Mitchell]

I am joining this thread a little late.

Yes, there is NOTHING you can do to stop people copying your images. I hope that some technology becomes available which can scan the net looking for almost identical images to your own. It is doable but might take time before it happens.

As for flash - I am surprised that so many photographers use it. When flash scales images to fit the screen size it uses primitive interpolation with very nasty artefacts. It can really ruin image quality (at least on this 1440x900 monitor I am currently using).

Here's a good example of excellent photos spoiled by flash image stretching:
http://www.koendemuynck.com/

Try People, image 001 - look at the lance.

[Morgan_Moore]

I have just finished refreshing my www.sammorganmoore.com website

15k asp/html script watches folders, lists them at the bottom and counts and displays the images

no flash only java on the text style and my own screen sizer !

retro or cool ??

SMM

[godtfred]

retro or cool ??
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=144693\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

both in my book  

...while hers is over 900 pixels wide.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=144607\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think that's a "he", but I might be wrong

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

I think that's a "he", but I might be wrong
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=144694\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think you're right. I've now checked his website.