All seems pretty reasonable. There's nothing too out of the ordinary or controversial in there (like we'll all have robot butlers and flying cars by next year), I guess they're just seeing the way things are going in 2016 and extrapolating for 2017.

All seems pretty reasonable. There's nothing too out of the ordinary or controversial in there (like we'll all have robot butlers and flying cars by next year), I guess they're just seeing the way things are going in 2016 and extrapolating for 2017.

You removed all your files from shuterstock??

On an unrelated note, all the images in the article are from offset.

In the case of the main banner image, the shot of the man walking on a sand dune, the web version is a 72dpi jpeg 1200px x 725px for $250 on offset. But If you right click on that banner image (control click on a mac) and select "view background image" you get an unwatermarked jpeg that's 72dpi 1440px x 960px, no charge.

You'd think SS would take some precautions like using some kind of watermark or at least embedding the photographer's cred directly on the image. Or use some js to disable right clicking. Something to protect their contributors. Just a pet peeve of mine.

On an unrelated note, all the images in the article are from offset.

In the case of the main banner image, the shot of the man walking on a sand dune, the web version is a 72dpi jpeg 1200px x 725px for $250 on offset. But If you right click on that banner image (control click on a mac) and select "view background image" you get an unwatermarked jpeg that's 72dpi 1440px x 960px, no charge.

You'd think SS would take some precautions like using some kind of watermark or at least embedding the photographer's cred directly on the image. Or use some js to disable right clicking. Something to protect their contributors. Just a pet peeve of mine.

"Locks only keep an honest man honest", anybody with two cents of computer knowledge or photo edit skill can defeat any image protection or watermarks on the web. Right click is the least difficult to bypass of them. If you can see a photo on the web, it's already on your computer!

You might consider a new pet peeve that has some substance or value?

The article is the same old garbage we get every year. What the agency wants us to think they know or are promoting. These artists are guessing just like any of us would if we were asked to predict the future. Some of it is last years news. Some is wishful thinking for what they would like to see, because that's their direction. At least that I can enjoy as creative direction.

I was happy to see the prediction that old photo look filtering was going away. I thought the guy who says film will make a comeback is stuck in the good old days. The best parts are still ahead, not looking back at what's obsolete and gone.

We need our own thread on what's in the future for stock photography and I'll bet it's more correct then the SS or Getty articles.

Yeah, i don't know how to fix that. I think the link adds some kind of modifier to your URL, that defaults to your image portfolio, but I don't have any images... so it doesn't quite work. 

Tried that before, doesn't work unfortunately. The URL reverts to...

https://www.shutterstock.com/g/Space+Stock+Footage

...which brings back search results saying that I don;t have any images.

Quote from: YadaYadaYada on December 31, 2016, 13:00

Quote from: memakephoto on December 31, 2016, 11:19

On an unrelated note, all the images in the article are from offset.

In the case of the main banner image, the shot of the man walking on a sand dune, the web version is a 72dpi jpeg 1200px x 725px for $250 on offset. But If you right click on that banner image (control click on a mac) and select "view background image" you get an unwatermarked jpeg that's 72dpi 1440px x 960px, no charge.

You'd think SS would take some precautions like using some kind of watermark or at least embedding the photographer's cred directly on the image. Or use some js to disable right clicking. Something to protect their contributors. Just a pet peeve of mine.

"Locks only keep an honest man honest", anybody with two cents of computer knowledge or photo edit skill can defeat any image protection or watermarks on the web. Right click is the least difficult to bypass of them. If you can see a photo on the web, it's already on your computer!

You might consider a new pet peeve that has some substance or value?

The article is the same old garbage we get every year. What the agency wants us to think they know or are promoting. These artists are guessing just like any of us would if we were asked to predict the future. Some of it is last years news. Some is wishful thinking for what they would like to see, because that's their direction. At least that I can enjoy as creative direction.

I was happy to see the prediction that old photo look filtering was going away. I thought the guy who says film will make a comeback is stuck in the good old days. The best parts are still ahead, not looking back at what's obsolete and gone.

We need our own thread on what's in the future for stock photography and I'll bet it's more correct then the SS or Getty articles.

I'll manage my own pet peeves if it's all the same to you.

Quote

If you can see a photo on the web, it's already on your computer!

True to a point. What decade do you think it is? A decade ago you could look through your browser cache and easily find images stored there but if you were to root through your browser cache now, you might find it more trouble than it's worth to try to get at the cached images.

You are right about one thing though, it is impossible to keep people from getting their hands on images if they have the knowledge. However, the number of people with that knowledge is far lower than you believe. Placing a transparent .png over the image for example will mean when people right click the image they get the png instead of the photo. Javascript to disable right clicking also works for 95% of users. Most web users are not developers or experts in these things. And what's wrong with a stock photo agency taking all the precautions they can?

Throwing your hands up and saying, people can get to the images if they want to so why bother even trying is a sad sad attitude.

I don't know why I bother, won't happen again.

I wasn't throwing my hands up, I was pointing out that disabling right click is a waste of time. Somebody who wants to steal anything off the web, can. Your argument was how terrible it was that they didn't disable right click to protect contributors.

I'll guess you figure the whole web should have watermarks and no right click, because people might steal a photo?

I have an idea. Write to SS and complain to the source. Or do you figure it's futile and a waste of time.

What did you think of the article and the opinions besides being completely distracted by a nice looking photo without watermark?