APUG.ORG to PHOTRIO.COM Migration, Final Details.

[MattKing]

Is it technically feasible to have slightly larger "thumbnails" visible to non-subscribers, and closer to "HD" images visable to subscribers?

 

[removed account4]

You know you can put the watermark yourself and then upload. If you plaster a big watermark across the image, it really makes it useless visually, for me at least. I don't know how other people feel about that. If you make it smaller, Photoshop can remove it in 2 seconds. There are no easy answers, it seems.

i have hoarded as much bad/ tainted KODAK tmy as i can afford and have decided to rephotograph my whole oeuvre MF
so i get a K ODAK F ILM watermar k as i can. i was thinking phottrio had its own watermarking system as some for - sale image sites do ...
( it's real and really hard to remove )but now i am thinking short date film is the answer ..
and maybe i won't even ever remove it and BS my way into the gallery scene saying i am channeling in el lissky

 

[Arklatexian]

We get this on APUG a lot already believe it or not. Posts like that get reported as "scanning" or "digital" and our mods remove it. Quite often it's an innocent mistake by a new member, and usually when the member's post is deleted and they are told to "take it to DPUG you don't belong here", they leave and never come back. One benefit we'll have on the new system is if someone posts a digital topic in the analog areas by accident, we can simply move it to the appropriate area without the usual dramas. We'll definitely need to expand our moderator teams, especially in the analog areas so anyone trying to crosspost digital content there is informed that it's 'not on'. Anyone abusing the system by crossposting, trolling or anything else can be removed. The analog areas should be considered by all as 100% analog and enforced the same way APUG was. All the scanning, digineg, photoshop etc can be discussed in the hybrid/digital areas.

Sean, I need some help! Above, you use the word "trolling" and I see it used here in APUG. I am not "computer literate" and don't want to be but just what in the heck is "trolling"? I would hate to be guilty of it and not know it. As to the big upcoming changes, sleep well, everything is going to work out well and I am certainly no "PollyAnna". Does that term translate in New Zealandish?.....Regards!

 

[mgb74]

Right now, as far as I can tell, there are 2 tangible reasons to subscribe. One is the ability to post/ view the Galleries. The other is to be able to sell equipment. I think the latter is of minimum interest to most. Most subscribers rarely, if ever, partake of that option. Altruism aside, the ability to participate in the Galleries is the true "value added" component of a subscription. I think it would be a mistake to open it up to everyone, potentially hurting the financial bottom line. As the saying goes, "why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?" ( I'm still a proponent of the annual or biannual "free peek/ subscription drive" week for members.) The subscription rate is very reasonable, and Sean should be compensated for the time and effort he puts in to this place.

I would suggest some sort of "paywall". Perhaps limiting non-subscribers to 100 (or some other number) posts. They could still read as much as they want and view the galleries. They could, I suppose, register under another name and reset their post count. But I think it would encourage some of those to subscribe.

And I'd be in favor of an exception for students even if on the honor system.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

... but just what in the heck is "trolling"? ...

Someone who makes (often outlandish or outrageous) remarks for the sole purpose of seeing the reaction it generates. For example, I could say Picasso was a talentless charlatan who was fawned over by self-appointed elitists in the art world and someone could accuse me of trolling (except in this case I'm serious).

I would suggest some sort of "paywall". Perhaps limiting non-subscribers to 100 (or some other number) posts. They could still read as much as they want and view the galleries. ...

I like that idea.

 

[eddie]

I would suggest some sort of "paywall". Perhaps limiting non-subscribers to 100 (or some other number) posts.

I think the problem with this idea is it may limit participation. There are non-subscribers who contribute a lot, who may not be able to do so if there's a cap on "free" posting.
My personal belief is, if you've hit 100 posts, the site is obviously providing something to you (and you to the site), so the $2/month cost is worth paying.

 

[Two23]

I expect my stuff to be stolen if it's posted on the net. People need to get over themselves.

Fortunately, I have nothing worth stealing.


Kent in SD

 

[Luckless]

Disable right click isn't even a padlock, it is at best a deadbolt that you can reach to unlock from the outside.

 

[Eric Rose]

Cruise some of the big name photographers websites. Do you see any watermarks? No you don't. In my experience it's only amateurs who are concerned about getting images stolen from websites. If your concerned about your images getting lifted (really you expect to see your 850px image used on a billboard somewhere?) copyright your images and use a service that embeds a unique code into your image so you can track where they are being used on the web. Beyond that don't post any images you care about on facebook, flickr, instagram or pretty much any social media site. You are giving away your images to them.

 

[Papa Tango]

I for one am looking forward to the potential of this move--so much so that I have re-subscribed after a multi-year hiatus away from the constellation of fora here.

The timing is right too. Photo.Net is still crawling about with what may go down in internet history as the most poorly executed site upgrade ever. Many serious photographers have abandoned it--and an opportunity exists to capture a significant share of artists and technicians from that fold.

Looking forward to the future!

Papa Tango

 

[pdeeh]

Could I just remind everyone that all this talk of watermarking and right-clicking is digital territory and thus off-topic for APUG; Post at DPUG for that sort of thing PLEASE!

 

[ozphoto]

It's pretty pointless tbh, there are multiple ways around right-click blocking anyway, and it just makes life hard for people who use context menus.

Quite true - 9/10 I can get into the "guts" of a page and find the image/video/mp3 that I want when it has been right-click disabled.

 

[ozphoto]

Cruise some of the big name photographers websites. Do you see any watermarks? No you don't. In my experience it's only amateurs who are concerned about getting images stolen from websites. If your concerned about your images getting lifted (really you expect to see your 850px image used on a billboard somewhere?) copyright your images and use a service that embeds a unique code into your image so you can track where they are being used on the web. Beyond that don't post any images you care about on facebook, flickr, instagram or pretty much any social media site. You are giving away your images to them.

As a pro photographer, I am concerned at image theft, but I don't WM my images. That being said, I make my images as small as possible, without losing too much detail, and upload for viewing. Your statement about the 850px image being used as a billboard is pretty well spot-on, although I have seen some nasty billboards in Thailand. Just acceptable at a distance, but OMG when you get on top of them - pixels the size of baseballs!!!

Usually, a pro photographer will register their images' copyright (in the US) or be protected under (current) copyright law in Australia - other countries you would need to check the ins & outs. Simply put, if you don't want them used, don't upload them, and if you do - make them small enough to look good at the lowest possible resolution you can get at 72dpi. And yes, you're spot on Eric with the SM bit - if one took the time to read the fine print of their T&C, 9/10 they clearly state they can use and abuse any uploaded images if they so wish.

Could not agree more with your statement about copyrighting your images: if you truly want to keep your images safe, do whatever you have to, to ensure they are protected by Copyright in your country.

 

[Papa Tango]

Could I just remind everyone that all this talk of watermarking and right-clicking is digital territory and thus off-topic for APUG; Post at DPUG for that sort of thing PLEASE!

No, it is quite germane. Subscribers have galleries. Galleries have photographs--displayed here in digital format. Some members are concerned about their images being pirated. The general theme discussion is about the new site foundation and options. It is not about film versus digital. If anything is off-topic, it would be how copyright protections have sidetracked the original migration discussion.

Now if you can figure a way to display photo paper images in APUG (or its impending successor) galleries without converting them to digital, I would sure be interested in hearing about it...

 

[RattyMouse]

i have hoarded as much bad/ tainted KODAK tmy as i can afford and have decided to rephotograph my whole oeuvre MF
so i get a K ODAK F ILM watermar k as i can.

 

[RattyMouse]

Could I just remind everyone that all this talk of watermarking and right-clicking is digital territory and thus off-topic for APUG; Post at DPUG for that sort of thing PLEASE!

Wrong. Everyone here is talking about posting their images HERE at APUG. Hardly off topic.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

Cruise some of the big name photographers websites. Do you see any watermarks? No you don't. In my experience it's only amateurs who are concerned about getting images stolen from websites. If your concerned about your images getting lifted (really you expect to see your 850px image used on a billboard somewhere?) copyright your images and use a service that embeds a unique code into your image so you can track where they are being used on the web. Beyond that don't post any images you care about on facebook, flickr, instagram or pretty much any social media site. You are giving away your images to them.

Eric hit the nail on the head. I read all kind of ridiculous things and see all kinds of ridiculous watermarks and they are all promulgated by amateurs who read some dumb thing on the internet then do it. If you register your images, then post them small you have little to worry about. I don't think I have posted anything larger that about 700/800 pixels wide in the entire history of the internet. 99.999% of people just want to see your images. Watermarks are annoying to them. If you are lucky enough that more than 10000 people look at your images, then you have other issues and are lucky. Stealing of your 700 pixel images isn't one of your issues....

 

[pdeeh]

No, it is quite germane.

whoosh ...

 

[David Lyga]

Sean,

With both whit and honestly, I state, without equivocation, that the true and ongoing test of the viability of Photrio will be whether David Lyga will be capable of successfully navigating this new forum. - David Lyga

 

[mgb74]

I think the problem with this idea is it may limit participation. There are non-subscribers who contribute a lot, who may not be able to do so if there's a cap on "free" posting.
My personal belief is, if you've hit 100 posts, the site is obviously providing something to you (and you to the site), so the $2/month cost is worth paying.

There certainly are some non-subscribers who contribute, but they also cost. Sean made a comment about bandwidth (and I assume the cost of bandwidth) in reference to whether to allow non-subscriber access to galleries. So it's not just that non-subscribers don't pay their share, they also don't pay for the resources (server bandwidth) they use. Now maybe it's an insignificant amount; but $24 per year is an insignificant amount to many of those non-subscribers.

And if $24 is too much at one time, maybe a $12-15 6 month subscription.

I don't think we want a paywall so tight that it limits casual participation. Or discourages those just getting started with APUG. Or - most of all - those starting out with film. But I think a "read all you want" but a limit on posts accomplishes that.

 

[pdeeh]

But I think a "read all you want" but a limit on posts accomplishes that

How do you propose that existing members (but who are not currently subscribers) whose posts already exceed the limit are treated?
Should they be made to pay before being able to post any more?
If they're allowed to continue without paying ("grandparented"), how will that look to the newcomers who are expected to pay to continue posting?

Whatever the answers, i think it is grossly overestimating the perceived 'importance' of Apug to the world at large, to believe that charging people to participate will increase the number of subscribers rather than just encourage newcomers to go "well fuck you" when asked for money to participate.

They'll just go elsewhere where talk is free.

 

[Arvee]

How do you propose that existing members (but who are not currently subscribers) whose posts already exceed the limit are treated?
Should they be made to pay before being able to post any more?
If they're allowed to continue without paying ("grandparented"), how will that look to the newcomers who are expected to pay to continue posting?

Whatever the answers, i think it is grossly overestimating the perceived 'importance' of Apug to the world at large, to believe that charging people to participate will increase the number of subscribers rather than just encourage newcomers to go "well fuck you" when asked for money to participate.

They'll just go elsewhere where talk is free.

+1. A paywall is a stupid idea and will cause folks to move on to non-restrictive photo sites.

 

[removed account4]

Cruise some of the big name photographers websites. Do you see any watermarks? No you don't.

i don't know man, some of them don't have watermarks cause they aren't big and famous enough, or maybe that is how
they got so big and famous to begin with !
to be honest, i just like saying big, fat, juicy watermark.

but i'm serious about rephotographing all my work with worthless-tmy ...
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[mgb74]

How do you propose that existing members (but who are not currently subscribers) whose posts already exceed the limit are treated?
Should they be made to pay before being able to post any more?
If they're allowed to continue without paying ("grandparented"), how will that look to the newcomers who are expected to pay to continue posting?

Whatever the answers, i think it is grossly overestimating the perceived 'importance' of Apug to the world at large, to believe that charging people to participate will increase the number of subscribers rather than just encourage newcomers to go "well fuck you" when asked for money to participate.

They'll just go elsewhere where talk is free.

They would get N number of additional posts; that problem solved. As to the "perceived importance of APUG", I would argue that when a non-subscriber has hundreds, even thousands, of posts they do perceive some importance to APUG. Why they don't contribute - if they can afford it - escapes me. As to going somewhere else where talk is free, fine.

If I apply your implied logic, no one should bother to subscribe (unless they want to use the classifieds). How long will APUG last if that's the case? If there's a paywall that is not too restrictive, some non-subscribers will decide to do the right thing, some will continue under the limits of the paywall, and some will leave. I doubt APUG will be harmed by their leaving.

 

[pdeeh]

No such conclusion follows from "my logic".

The question here turns on how many new subscribers can be gained on the newly rejigged site.

The subscription model has *already* failed at apug. Witness the tiny proportion of subscribers vs. members that sean has told us about so many times.

Placing further restrictions on what people can do at apug for free will not drive up subscriptions. It'll just drive down new members.

Plus, of course, it will drive away existing members, and thus decrease the advert revenue that is so badly needed.

Being punitive towards current non-subscribers serves no purpose.
if you want apug to be a special and exclusive club, that's fine. But it'll die with you.