Fractal_Artist
Guest
|
|
« on: March 30, 2009, 11:29:29 AM » |
|
http://www.allfractup.com/images/FRQ06227.pngI switched the background to his one. It loads faster. http://www.allfractup.com/images/FRQ08385.pngI had some criticisms at work that my web site looked too simple. I refrained from countering each point (which some might suggest is a challenge for me) because I wanted to hear his complete opinion. So I asked him to show me what he thought I ought to do. One of his suggestions was to add backgrounds. So I thought about it for a while. Should I go online and snare some cool looking tiles? Or maybe use my own fractals? It was easier to use my own oversized fractals instead. So, here is the first background that I chose for my index page. You can see a thin strip of brighter color at the top and bottom of this one. In the middle the colors aren't as vibrant. Well if you look closer you may catch a glimpse of the "sample" word that Nahee_Enterprises wrote about with Pattern #018. What happened is I didn't use the right sized overlay and it left a portion of the fractal uncovered. Between the two types of security words which do you think looks better? To see the word "sample" and all of the colors intact....or.... to see the fractal without being reminded that "sample" word is there? I believe all of the fractals in my Cross Stitch gallery show full brightness and colors of the fractal, but have a prominent "sample" word covering each of them. The other galleries have the word present where it is more or less obvious.
|
|
« Last Edit: April 03, 2009, 06:49:42 PM by Fractal_Artist »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
cKleinhuis
|
|
« Reply #1 on: March 30, 2009, 09:19:26 PM » |
|
this image is a tileable one, i like tileable backgrounds for websites, but all in all i only can say they shouldnt be too colorfull, because colorful backgrounds destroy the look of a page, but tileable images with *very* low contrast are very nice!
|
|
|
Logged
|
---
divide and conquer - iterate and rule - chaos is No random!
|
|
|
Pauldelbrot
|
|
« Reply #2 on: March 31, 2009, 01:48:35 AM » |
|
Why not get rid of the "sample" word entirely? Nobody else posting fractals here feels the need to wreck them in such a manner. :-)
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
lycium
|
|
« Reply #3 on: March 31, 2009, 04:06:00 AM » |
|
Why not get rid of the "sample" word entirely? my thoughts exactly... images of that resolution are useless for prints, why mess up what you show people? Nobody else posting fractals here feels the need to wreck them in such a manner. :-) it's because we're naive: secretly there are people making small fortunes off the images stolen from us
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
cKleinhuis
|
|
« Reply #4 on: March 31, 2009, 12:37:37 PM » |
|
@paudel/lycium i do not get what you mean ...
|
|
|
Logged
|
---
divide and conquer - iterate and rule - chaos is No random!
|
|
|
lycium
|
|
« Reply #5 on: March 31, 2009, 01:06:37 PM » |
|
basically, it should be regarded as flattery if someone prints off a "stolen" low-resolution fractal image. to think that there is real financial loss in such an event, and to take the drastic countermeasure of degrading the viewer's experience just in case, makes little sense. here are two examples of great fractal art galleries with little to no watermarking: http://www.josleys.com/galleries.php (jos leys) http://www.rfractals.net/ (ramiro perez) if such incredible images can be given away for free, then why should we mortals worry about losing two cents of (very) hypothetical value at a much greater real cost? we should be happy that our gallery is visited and try our best to maximise the viewer's enjoyment.
|
|
« Last Edit: March 31, 2009, 01:09:28 PM by lycium »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
cKleinhuis
|
|
« Reply #6 on: March 31, 2009, 01:39:14 PM » |
|
i see, ok, watermarking ...
i also think that watermarking is not worth the effort, especially on low quality images which are rendered in a hurry without any anti alias ...
|
|
|
Logged
|
---
divide and conquer - iterate and rule - chaos is No random!
|
|
|
Nahee_Enterprises
|
|
« Reply #7 on: March 31, 2009, 08:24:46 PM » |
|
Between the two types of security words which do you think looks better? To see the word "sample" and all of the colors intact....or.... to see the fractal without being reminded that "sample" word is there? Personally, if one must alter the image with text, then they should just put a signature in one of the four corners. As has been stated in the comments above, with images at such a low resolution (small dimension in pixels), there really should not be any need to worry about theft and printing of such. Nobody is going to make a fortune off of the images on your web site. And if they do manage to sell anything of yours, it most likely will not be enough money to worry about.
|
|
« Last Edit: October 10, 2013, 04:43:40 PM by Nahee_Enterprises »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Fractal_Artist
Guest
|
|
« Reply #8 on: April 01, 2009, 02:15:41 AM » |
|
Between the two types of security words which do you think looks better? To see the word "sample" and all of the colors intact....or.... to see the fractal without being reminded that "sample" word is there? Personally, if one must alter the image with text, then they should just put a signature in one of the four corners. I've done that along the bottom left edge.As has been stated in the comments above, with images at such a low resolution (small dimension in pixels), there really should not be any need to worry about theft and printing of such. Nobody is going to make a fortune off of the images on your web site. And if they do manage to sell anything of yours, it most likely will not be enough money to worry about. Each person is entitled to do as they please. I welcome the comments that have been made. In the cross stitch community I have seen it is very popular to take images (in print or on the internet) and to then use them without permission from the rightful owner or creator of those images. I remember a woman wanted to use my fractals for her PC desktops/wallpapers. But she didn't want me to have my copyright notice, name, or the sample word on any of the fractals. So I went to her web site and saw that she was using people's faces/images on cool looking backgrounds, and claiming they were all her original creation (with her own copyrights on them).This part is non-fractal: My sister used to make American Indian face masks until she learned that a woman was making copycats that were being passed off as the real thing. My sister wasn't flattered that someone was stealing from her. I don't blame her for feeling that way.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Fractal_Artist
Guest
|
|
« Reply #9 on: April 01, 2009, 02:34:32 AM » |
|
basically, it should be regarded as flattery if someone prints off a "stolen" low-resolution fractal image. to think that there is real financial loss in such an event, and to take the drastic countermeasure of degrading the viewer's experience just in case, makes little sense. here are two examples of great fractal art galleries with little to no watermarking: http://www.josleys.com/galleries.php (jos leys) http://www.rfractals.net/ (ramiro perez) if such incredible images can be given away for free, then why should we mortals worry about losing two cents of (very) hypothetical value at a much greater real cost? we should be happy that our gallery is visited and try our best to maximise the viewer's enjoyment. Ly, I visited both sites and I do agree that the images on both do not need watermarking. Much of it looks like dippin' dots ice cream, lumped together in fractal-like patterns.
|
|
« Last Edit: April 01, 2009, 02:40:43 AM by Fractal_Artist, Reason: I may have mistook Ly\'s meaning in his post. »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|