File :-(, x, )
Flash Galleries Replicant !9eLh.HScYE
Trying to sell photos without an online preview gallery sucks. What are the best flash galleries out there?
>> Falldog
Flash is a wrong move imho.

Go for something simpler like minishowcase, http://minishowcase.frwrd.net/
>> Flash Galleries Replicant !9eLh.HScYE
>>124053

Looks pretty, but php/java/ajax sucks for DRM. I was looking towards flash because I don't want the files hosted as site/picture.jpg and thus easily stolen.

Also: extra points for easily modified to host customer galleries--most likely in sub-page form.
>> noko
Sage for DRM. More importantly, since you're the only one with the large and original photo (maybe even the RAW) all you'd be hosting are smaller resolution copies.
>> Anonymous
3WVÐ ja×cnJjay+ow +obbeJ &jap
>> Replicant !9eLh.HScYE
>>124063

What the eff?

>>124059

Sage for DRM? Half of what I've sold is used as web sized graphics or small promotional materials-- ie: V. Easy to steal the shit out of it.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>124065
Any PHP programmer worth his salt should be able to whip up a quick script to serve the pictures as JPEG with a big ol' annoying watermark across 'em.
>> Falldog
Around the interwebs people could easily steal any work, regardless of "DRM." The best you can do is to throw a watermark on and never share an original, full sized copy.
>> Anonymous
Not OP, how large is too large for web with the intention of safeguarding oneself?

Is 800*600 the biggest one should go?
>> Anonymous
I can save and decompile a flash in seconds.

If you're that worried about pictures being stolen, put a good watermark on them and keep sizes very small, but still viewable.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
800*600 + watermark (hueg) and only sell prints.
>> Update Replicant !9eLh.HScYE
So here's where I'm at. Decided against premade galleries and decided to pirate Xtivity. It's just a flash designer tool that's tweaked for web and is for newbs (me for web applications, I know flash for straight animation).

Here's for hoping this works and isn't hueg.
>> Replicant !9eLh.HScYE
>>124093

Prints only isn't possible; I do work for organizations--not individuals--so they're more concerned with re-publishing the photos in pamphlets, posters, promotional materials, websites, etc. I either have sold full reproduction rights (which has paid for a 70-200/2.8L IS USM) or it's for limited run integrated prints.
>> Anonymous
>>124065
No less easy with flash: printscreen button, paste, crop.

People are going to steal your work unless you watermark it.

The only watermarking scheme I've seen that doesn't ruin photographs is the one Magnum uses. Duplicate that if you're really set on trying to make money being your stock photography agency.
>> beethy !HJGkSBB3Ao
>>124106
this?
http://www.magnumphotos.com/archive/C.aspx?VP=Mod_ViewBox.ViewBoxZoom_VPage&VBID=2K1HZOMY58N&amp
;IT=ImageZoom01&PN=1&STM=T&DTTM=Image&SP=Search&IID=29YL534QJGRX&SAKL=T&
SGBT=T&DT=Image
would be a pain to get rid of
>> Replicant !9eLh.HScYE
>>124108

Broken link is broken. But from what I see on their site it's just a patterned, low alpha watermark all over the image. If you notice Google Maps does the exact same thing (albeit v. v. subtle)
>> Anonymous
>>124108
I'm not bothering with a Magnum URL from 4chan, but if it's any photograph by one of their members they display, that's exactly the point.

It's almost impossible to get rid of, but it hardly interferes with appreciating the image at all. Just a medium-gray semi-transparent "(C) Magnum Photos." I've seen only one photograph it bothered me on, where it covered up entirely the face of a little kid towards the back of the scene. If I was trying to sell stuff and I cared enough about it, it's the only way I would even consider watermarking them.
>> Anonymous
>>124111
It's not broken, just 4chan works where long URLs get broken up. You'd have to copy and paste each line seperately. Hence:
>I'm not bothering with a Magnum URL from 4chan

Because I've seen shorter URLs on online shopping sites than Magnum uses.
>> beethy !HJGkSBB3Ao
>>124114
yea it seems like the best watermark i've seen.. and doesn't distract either.
>> Anonymous
>>124115
nah the link is actually broken.
>> Anonymous
>>124118
Exactly. Quite obviously, Magnum knows their stuff.
>> Anonymous
Uh, I'm not saying I'm a master of Photoshop because Beethyfag is the only true Photoshop master.

>>124114It's almost impossible to get rid of

I just looked at some pictures on their website and unless there's something I'm not seeing, there's nothing difficult about removing it.
>> beethy !HJGkSBB3Ao
>>124154
give it a go
you'll need to spend a while clone tooling every friggen area. some places will be near impossible to clone tool well, blemishes will show.
or you can create a shape that will need to match the watermark exactly, anti alias and everything. then lower the brightness accordingly

neither are very fun, people would rather steal images without watermarks
>> Anonymous
>>124123

>>124157

Post the image.
>> beethy !HJGkSBB3Ao
     File :-(, x)
>>124158
enjoy
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
>>124164
I see remnants on the blue thing at the top and the woman in the red striped shirt.

Also, you did something to the contrast of the image. At least on my monitor, which is calibrated, either the contrast is lowered on the midtones are pushed, I can't tell which.

Nonetheless, it's impressive. Send it to Magnum and watch them shit bricks.
>> Anonymous
>>124171

These are the places I can get lazy.

Keep in mind, this is web resolution, no one will be able to tell the difference. Show it to someone who has never seen the watermarked picture, it will only be thought of as an artifact. You see it because you know it's there. I do too.

The JPG had no color profile, so I've assigned it to my monitor's then brought back to sRGB. I'm color calibrated as well but I'm on a Mac.

People remove watermarks everyday.
>> Falldog
It's not that hard, all you need is time and a good eye.
>> beethy !HJGkSBB3Ao
>>124164
not bad

i see some blemishes but that's only because i know where to look
pretty impressive