RE: czaphotography.com website up

You're right, one has to protect the URL to the files too.

Some methods which comes to my mind are:

A) Using a plug-in that hooks the keyboard interrupt - to my knowledge
that's something hard to do inside from a browser because of security
issues

B) Using a plug-in that shows the image in the video-overlay mode.

Both methods (including similar ones) need a component that should be
downloaded into the viewer's computer - pretty bothering w/ all these
security alerts and download / installation waits ect... I don't know if
flash / shockwave are capable of doing either A, B or if they implement
some feature that can be used to protect images.

Anyway, I'm sure determined persons will crack / break any protection no
matter what it is. Plus, the more protection, the more bothering is
viewing the site. Best is making a nice / pleasure to browse site,
hoping viewers' common sense methinks.

Regards,
Loris.

-----Original Message-----
From: Ben Coburn [mailto:btcoburn@silicodon.net]
Sent: 22 Haziran 2006 Perşembe 20:25
To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
Subject: Re: czaphotography.com website up

Um... I think this was a joke to begin with. But seriously, if you are
going to get that worked up about digital reproductions don't post
images in an online gallery. For that matter don't show your work in
galleries either, you never know when someone will walk in with a
digital SLR (or camera-phone).

PS. It does not take more than ~30 seconds for anyone with a little
understanding of how HTML works to lookup the URLs to the images and
load them directly. For example
"http://www.hardyphotography.net/img/photos/chinatown/02-Photo-
Supplies.jpg".

Regards, Ben Coburn

On Jun 22, 2006, at 9:44 AM, Camden Hardy wrote:

> Don's right...it's amazing what you can do with images from the web.
> This
> is one of the advantages to the Lightbox technology used in Chris'
> site (and mine too). It makes it much harder for people to save the
images
> to
> their computer.
>
> 10 points for the first one to figure out how to do it ;)
>
>
> Camden Hardy
>
> camden@hardyphotography.net
> http://www.hardyphotography.net
>
> On Thu, June 22, 2006 9:51 am, Don Bryant wrote:
>> Actually Loris I can uprez with pretty good quality from screen
>> captures.
>> As
>> an experiment I did just that with a famous photogs website and using

>> PS
>> bicubic I had amazingly good results when printed as an 11x14 inkjet
>> print
>> using QTR.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Loris Medici [mailto:mail@loris.medici.name]
>> Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 10:56 AM
>> To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
>> Subject: RE: czaphotography.com website up
>>
>> Wow! Don, what interpolation program are you using? Must be a very
>> good
>> one since you can make good quality (not instantly obvious that it's
a
>> repro) inkjet prints from a 400 - 500 pixel image (in the longest
>> dimension) ;)
>>
>> Seriously, according to you is there the risk of someone making good
>> quality and reasonably sized repros (see the criteria above) from
>> 500-600 pixels images one shows in the web? According to my knowledge
>> this pretty unlikely.
>>
>>
>> Regards & TIA,
>> Loris.
>>
>> P.S. The old/plain Print-Scrn trick works, therefore I take your
>> comment
>> as a warning to Christina...
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Don Bryant [mailto:dstevenbryant@mindspring.com]
>> Sent: 22 Haziran 2006 Perºembe 17:18
>> To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
>> Subject: RE: czaphotography.com website up
>>
>>
>> Yeah but I can't capture the images so I can print them on my inkjet
>> printer!
>>
>> Don Bryant
>>
>>
>
>
Received on 06/22/06-11:48:58 AM Z