Posted by Jonathan N. Little on 07/14/06 17:28

Joel Shepherd wrote:
> "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@centralva.net> wrote:
>
>> Dylan Sung wrote:
>>
>>> The only good solution is to pack a watermark into your image. For that
>>> you need a graphics editor and save the resultant image with no other
>>> layer info.
>> Elsewhere in this thread I address ineffectiveness of watermark
>> technology...the watermark is only detectable when you use professional
>> graphic software AND if you have the watermark plug-in AND you bother to
>> look for it! If the thief had such they could make their own images
>> rather than steal them!
>
> It's not like the thief needs those things in order for the watermark to
> be a deterrent. The point isn't to warn off the thief: it's to embed
> information in the image that can be used to prove ownership. It doesn't
> have to be easily accessible to all.
>
>> Another thing to note, the watermark is lost with a screen capture, so
>> an image can very easily be cleansed of the watermark.
>
> But the screen capture technique introduces another problem. Take a
> screenshot of a 600px wide image on your 96dpi resolution monitor, and
> what prize do you end up with? A 600px wide image at 96dpi. Not exactly
> stunning quality, and certainly not something that can be enlarged (on
> screen or paper) to any significant degree. It has almost no value,
> other than display on other screens. For fine visual art, screen
> captures aren't much of a threat.
>

Ah, but for the display on the web it does not use DPI or more
accurately PPI, but a 600px image goes to what I listed as #1, don't put
hires images online. But if someone puts a full size digital camera
image switch you monitor to 1600 x 1200 you can get a pretty decent
image and no watermark and that is my point. BTW I can go up to 2048 x
1536 and I am sure there are many that have better hardware...

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

[Back to original message]