Professional photojournalist Mark M. Hancock discusses photojournalism and the eccentricities associated with gathering images for daily newspapers and magazines.
Posting larger images is always a toss-up though. You make images big, people steal them. And it doesn't matter so much that the print quality is not good enough to do anything with them or that there is a watermark. Watermarks are easy enough to remove, and interpolation software now makes it possible to make passable prints. There is the old argument that you would not have made that sale anyway, but still, it is the principle of the matter.
There was a recent uproar in the photoblog community because a Russian guy was selling several of the more popular bloggers' images as his own. That was bad enough, but they were included among a large set of images that were distasteful to say the least. Public outrage outwardly resulted in the removal of the images from the site, but in reality I suspect did little more than force him underground.
And of course the other problem is design. Clearly your site design does not allow for larger images, but it would be nice if the zoom were larger. Personal preference I suppose. On my own site, I decided to restrict images to 480 px high as a purely aesthetic decision in order to keep visitors on lower res monitors from having to scroll. I'd like my images to be larger, but until people upgrade their monitors, it will have to do.
In addition to the drawbacks you mentioned, my site is actually designed to be a text blog. I've been too busy lately, but I plan to get back to writing. For the site to have larger images, I would need to restrict the number of posts displayed per page. I know we all have DSL in the U.S., but it's not the case elsewhere. I started on the Net when a 1M download took seven hours. I would rather the information loads quickly for the folks who have old-style modems.
Type "photojournalism + mark" in most search engines to return here.
* Hold Ctrl and scroll mouse to change font size.
* Click on pictures to see larger photos.
Rita Captured - Katie Award winner
The 2nd printing has also SOLD OUT. Thanks for your support and helping The United Way.
7 comments:
I love the mirror effect.
I loved when the hail stopped.
;-}
possibly the nicest flood shot i have ever seen. sometimes shots like this make me wish you posted bigger images so i could see them better.
Oh, you like big images. You should see one of the Phosaics in person one day. :-)
Posting larger images is always a toss-up though. You make images big, people steal them. And it doesn't matter so much that the print quality is not good enough to do anything with them or that there is a watermark. Watermarks are easy enough to remove, and interpolation software now makes it possible to make passable prints. There is the old argument that you would not have made that sale anyway, but still, it is the principle of the matter.
There was a recent uproar in the photoblog community because a Russian guy was selling several of the more popular bloggers' images as his own. That was bad enough, but they were included among a large set of images that were distasteful to say the least. Public outrage outwardly resulted in the removal of the images from the site, but in reality I suspect did little more than force him underground.
And of course the other problem is design. Clearly your site design does not allow for larger images, but it would be nice if the zoom were larger. Personal preference I suppose. On my own site, I decided to restrict images to 480 px high as a purely aesthetic decision in order to keep visitors on lower res monitors from having to scroll. I'd like my images to be larger, but until people upgrade their monitors, it will have to do.
In addition to the drawbacks you mentioned, my site is actually designed to be a text blog. I've been too busy lately, but I plan to get back to writing.
For the site to have larger images, I would need to restrict the number of posts displayed per page. I know we all have DSL in the U.S., but it's not the case elsewhere.
I started on the Net when a 1M download took seven hours. I would rather the information loads quickly for the folks who have old-style modems.
Originally posted June 20, 2005.
Post a Comment