Pics and Ceroc logos

[LMC]

Piccies (http://www.cerocphotos.com/main.php/v/storm2007/) :clap:

[David Bailey]

Piccies (http://www.cerocphotos.com/main.php/v/storm2007/) :clap:
Which would be nice if someone hadn't bunged a big Ceroc logo on top of each one of them, rendering them pretty much pointless :rolleyes:

[MartinHarper]

Which would be nice if someone hadn't bunged a big Ceroc logo on top of each one of them, rendering them pretty much pointless :rolleyes:

It's good enough to see what you need to. Cough up the cash if you want a clean picture, I guess.

I like this one (http://www.cerocphotos.com/main.php/v/storm2007/upstairs/20070302_0102.jpg.html): nice sense of motion and dynamic balance.

[Cruella]

It's good enough to see what you need to. Cough up the cash if you want a clean picture, I guess.


:yeah: Alot of work is put into those pics why should everyone be able to download them for free?

[David Bailey]

:yeah: Alot of work is put into those pics why should everyone be able to download them for free?
Well, mainly because all other pics, everywhere, seem to be viewable without dumbass logos all over the place? :mad:

What's the point in linking to a set of unviewable photos, huh? Why not just call that link an advert for buying pics?

[Cruella]

Well, mainly because all other pics, everywhere, seem to be viewable without dumbass logos all over the place? :mad:

What's the point in linking to a set of unviewable photos, huh? Why not just call that link an advert for buying pics?

I admit the logos are too big, but i'm sure after some feedback he may make them smaller. But the fact is, that there needs to be some sort of logo across them to stop people getting freebies.

[Jamie]

I admit the logos are too big, but i'm sure after some feedback he may make them smaller. But the fact is, that there needs to be some sort of logo across them to stop people getting freebies.

I'd just say fade the logo so it's there, but you can see the picture through it.

[ducasi]

I'd just say fade the logo so it's there, but you can see the picture through it.
:yeah:

I went to look at the pictures, but in the "thumbnail" view you can't see who's in the picture, and I don't feel like wading through all 259 pictures one by one. What ever happened to the slideshow option?

[stewart38]

Piccies (http://www.cerocphotos.com/main.php/v/storm2007/) :clap:

I dont know if that bald head is mine in that pic down stairs about 1/3rd way down dancing with Paw Play ?

Got my nose last time :tears:

more picks of ugly people please :yeah:

[David Bailey]

I admit the logos are too big, but i'm sure after some feedback he may make them smaller. But the fact is, that there needs to be some sort of logo across them to stop people getting freebies.
No.
There doesn't.
All you need to do is to provide low-res versions as tasters, and then wait for people to buy the hi-res ones.

Hell, you could even do hi-res versions and you'd still get orders.

This whole DRM "protectionism is good" rubbish is exactly the same feeble argument music (and now film) companies have been using for the past decade. They're wrong, and so is this.

The only result of screwing up the photos this way is that less people will be interested in viewing them and hence in buying them. What sort of a business deliberately degrades the stuff it's trying to sell? A dumb business, that's what.

[Lee]

I didn't mind paying £5 for a pic of me that was up on the board at Camber, but i would also like to have it in an electronic format as well. This new larger logo has stopped this. :sad:

[LMC]

I'd just say fade the logo so it's there, but you can see the picture through it.
:yeah: - and have e-mailed Alec to suggest just that :nice:

[David Bailey]

:yeah: - and have e-mailed Alec to suggest just that :nice:
See, that's the sort of constructive, reasonable and positive action which really annoys me... :na:

How can we carry on ranting if people are going to listen to us? What's the point? :tears:

[LMC]

See, that's the sort of constructive, reasonable and positive action which really annoys me... :na:
I even thought of it all by myself.

OK, I'm even boring me now...

[Jamie]

Check us lot out! Actually getting together and trying to do something constructive... Whatever next? Trampy dancing with woodface?? :eek:

[Dreadful Scathe]

The only result of screwing up the photos this way is that less people will be interested in viewing them and hence in buying them. What sort of a business deliberately degrades the stuff it's trying to sell? A dumb business, that's what.

Very true. Putting a huge logo across it is a bit like a burly security guard following you around any time you step into a shop - yes I'm just looking..I will pay if I want something thank you...please stop following me...right I'm off to another shop...

its always a bit harsh when you're assumed to be a thief first :) almost as annoying as web sites that do not allow you to right click....bah

[LMC]

I don't know WHY I am in a good mood today, but I am, so suggest that now we have given some constructive feedback, we don't expect this set of photos to change. Please bear in mind that it takes hours and hours for Alec to sort thru' photos (for the two good ones of me he posted I'm sure there were several mingin' ones which have fortunately bitten the dust) - and do the logo thing.

Me, I ain't gonna whinge unless Alec fails to change it for the next lot he uploads :na:

EDIT: phew, just in time: the current ones will not be changed, waiting for clarification on whether the logo can be made less opaque for future event photos.

[Yogi_Bear]

Very true. Putting a huge logo across it is a bit like a burly security guard following you around any time you step into a shop - yes I'm just looking..I will pay if I want something thank you...please stop following me...right I'm off to another shop...

its always a bit harsh when you're assumed to be a thief first :) almost as annoying as web sites that do not allow you to right click....bah
What's wrong with putting a small reference or a logo in the bottom left hand corner, suc as appear on all his other galleries? Are these hideous large central logos imposed by a higher power.....?
:D

[stewart38]

Check us lot out! Actually getting together and trying to do something constructive... Whatever next? Trampy dancing with woodface?? :eek:

anything bad is removed, although i didnt post anything 'bad' ??

---------------------------------
Hi stewart38,

The post that you created in the following thread has been moved

-----
Post: [quote=LMC;349786][url="http://www.cerocphotos.com/main.php/... (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showpost.php?p=349904)
New Thread: Pics and Ceroc logos
-----

This is an automated message, please do not reply.

Regards,
The Ceroc Scotland Moderating Team.
----------------------------------------------------

[Dreadful Scathe]

Stewart - everything you post is bad. :)

In a Michael Jackson kind of way of course...


...or no, hang on...

[TurboTomato]

I'd just say fade the logo so it's there, but you can see the picture through it.
:yeah:

Seems to be a new thing - piccies from previous events don't have them at the moment. Fade it a little so that the picture is clearer. Alec has to make a living out of these (excellent I must add) pictures, so I have no problem with having to pay for a full size version (though none of me from Storm unfortunately :tears: ).

[David Bailey]

{ stuff }
Yes, the post's been moved (not removed), because there's a new thread.

The message is part of the automated service, so that you know what's happened to your posts, so people can't complain about posts "mysteriously vanishing", the actions are more transparent.

This extra information is supposed to be A Good Thing.

[Dreadful Scathe]

Yes, the post's been moved (not removed), because there's a new thread.

No. They have to have been removed if they no longer show up, unless you mean copied and they are still in the original place. Which you don't, because they're not. So Stewart38 is right :)



This extra information is supposed to be A Good Thing.

Telling users something confusing* that they previously did not need to know does NOT help clarity. :)



*anything with more than 1 word in it is confusing to someone, somewhere :)

[Little Monkey]

I didn't mind paying £5 for a pic of me that was up on the board at Camber, but i would also like to have it in an electronic format as well. This new larger logo has stopped this. :sad:

No it hasn't. You can either scan the photo you paid for at Storm yourself, or you can go to Alec's website and choose the '600x900 image for screen use - by email £0.50' option.:flower:

Saying that, I don't like those big logos either, and I'm glad Alec is going to change it for future photos.

[Twirly]

I didn't mind paying £5 for a pic of me that was up on the board at Camber, but i would also like to have it in an electronic format as well. This new larger logo has stopped this. :sad:

I suspect that if you order one of these pictures with added logo you'll find that hey presto, the version you receive will have the logo removed.

It's a common technique - I used to have to order pictures from Getty Images for brochure covers, and they do the same thing. Check with Alec if this is the case if you want to buy one. (And if the answer is no, then don't buy one!)

However, the logos on the display copies could be a little less disrupting of the picture - you can't really see what you'd be buying.

[Dreadful Scathe]

I bought one and was dissapointed that it was the LOGO that was removed and not the ugly people underneath :)

[Tessalicious]

And the word from the man himself:
Someone was kind enough to draw my attention to the first few posts in this thread.

I didn't write, or ask for, the link, and I'm entirely happy for it to be removed if it is taken to be advertising.

I take the point that the logos on the thumbnails make it hard to see who is in the pictures. I will see if there is a way around this.

It is now possible to pay for a larger (600x900) jpg without the logo, currently at 50p per image. There is still a £1.50 (for p&p, read "administration") charge per order. These prices may change though.


This is not DRM protectionism. As you will see at the bottom of every single page on the site, I am happy for people to download images on the website free of charge for their own personal use. If, as in this case, the images are made available with a ceroc logo on them, then you should interpret this to mean only that the version I am happy for you to download for free is the one with the logo. If you want a copy for your own personal use without the logo, you now have the option of paying for it. I don't see where DRM comes in - your rights in all the images I have ever posted are, and always have been restricted ("for your own personal use") but as always I am relying on your honesty to abide by that.

No one is being accused of "being a thief". As mentioned, the website states explicitly that anyone is free to download pictures for their own use exactly as they are posted on the website. Nothing about this has changed. Moreover, unauthorised duplication of copyright material is not theft - it is a breach of copyright.

Arguments about "this will stop people ordering from the website" from well-known forum names would perhaps carry some weight if those forum names had ever bought any photos from the website.

If Lee will contact me I will gladly send him a jpg of the print that he bought.

THe photos from Storm represent 5 solid days work - Friday, Saturday, Sunday, Monday and Tuesday. (That does not include the considerable extra time taken to fulful print orders.) Kindly do me the courtesy of allowing me to find the best way to get a return on that investment, and accept that the result may not align with your own, individual agendas.

In short - there is no intention to stop people doing anything that they have up to now been able to do. I have simply chosen not to make unwatermarked pictures from this event available to all free of charge. The "my nose is out of joint" tone of disappointed entitlement from some of the posters is unwarranted.

If anyone thinks this is sufficiently important to want to discuss further then I'm happy to do so, on a one-to-one basis. My telephone number is 07738 533878.

[LMC]

{confusing stuff}


*anything with more than 1 word in it is confusing to someone, somewhere :)
Confused me.



If Lee will contact me I will gladly send him a jpg of the print that he bought.
To be fair to Lee, no e-mail address on the website that I could find :flower:

And before there's any shouting, it was me that reported the above post, because the thread is in a publicly viewable section and has someone's private phone number in it. No other reason.

[Tessalicious]

Alec specifically asked for his phone number rather than his email address to be posted and he uses that phone for business purposes such as for Ceroc Events (http://www.cerocphotos.com) - so it's not a private number. It can be used to get in touch with him, as can the form on his other website danceportraits (http://www.danceportraits.co.uk).

Hope that helps.

[LMC]

Fair 'nuff, thanks - wasn't clear that it was a business number :)

[David Bailey]

Alec specifically asked for his phone number rather than his email address to be posted and he uses that phone for business purposes such as for Ceroc Events (http://www.cerocphotos.com) - so it's not a private number. It can be used to get in touch with him, as can the form on his other website danceportraits (http://www.danceportraits.co.uk).

Hope that helps.
Anyone else think this is a really cumbersome way of communicating? :whistle:

Anyway, who's this Alec Myers person? He sounds a bit weird if you ask me.

[LMC]

Oh, and while I'm here...


I didn't write, or ask for, the link... advertising.
True, he didn't.


Why not just call that link an advert for buying pics?

Because I originally posted the link on the main Storm thread for people's interest. No other "agenda". Particularly not advertising. The thread only got split because someone who wasn't even there (I name and shame DJ) started ranting about the photos.

I have no commercial interest in:

Ceroc TM
Alec Myers TM
My own organisation ... better get back to work.

Hey, this is TWO rows from ONE weekender - damn we're getting good...

[David Bailey]

Because I originally posted the link on the main Storm thread for people's interest. No other "agenda". Particularly not advertising. The thread only got split because someone who wasn't even there (I name and shame DJ) started ranting about the photos.
'Coz, basically, I thought they were rubbish. I still do, and I'm clearly not the only one, although admittedly I'm the most rant-y.

And let's never ever again repeat the whole "you can't have an opinion coz you weren't there / didn't do it / didn't experience the wonder of pregnancy" argument...

But, and sorry if I wasn't clear - I wasn't accusing you of advertising, I was talking about the site itself. I lurrrve you :flower:


Hey, this is TWO rows from ONE weekender - damn we're getting good...
Is it me, or did that weekender seem to generate tons of bad feeling? More than normal, that is?

Blimey, I'm glad I missed it...

[David Bailey]

Anyway, if you want an example of a site that doesn't have scary logos over the pics, see here:
Gallery (http://www.luminousfrog.co.uk/cms/main.php)

So clearly not everyone feels they're necessary...

[Dreadful Scathe]

This is not DRM protectionism. ....all the images I have ever posted are, and always have been restricted .... but as always I am relying on your honesty to abide by that.

So they never had DRM features in the past, but now they do, so you're relying on our honesty to not download "corrupt" pictures ;)



No one is being accused of "being a thief".

I would never suggest such a thing, but it feels like we are being treated like one if images are so "corrupt" we wouldn't want them anyway. If I browse a magazine in a shop I would be less likely to buy it if it had huge stickers partially covering whole articles - stickers that were only removed when you bought the thing. This is exactly the same thing.

Well, actually no it isn't ;) Pictures are easy to lift from a website without the shopkeeper noticing, so I can see your point. You've got to admit though, its less of a watermark and more of a WATERMARK!!!!!!. It was more the "shock and awe" tactics that merited any comment. The principle is sound.



Moreover, unauthorised duplication of copyright material is not theft - it is a breach of copyright.

Oooh hark at you with your facts and big vocabulary :)



Arguments about "this will stop people ordering from the website" from well-known forum names would perhaps carry some weight if those forum names had ever bought any photos from the website.

Good point. It was a suggestion that it "may" affect some peoples likelihood to order. Its a perception thing isnt it, do people care enough that theres a big logo, so much so that they stop ordering? I doubt it very much :). I'd buy some but I don't think I know anyone in them :)

As ever though, nonsense, stirring things up threads like this one aren't worthy of an offline discussion. Nobody really talks about stuff like this in real life do they? Surely nonsense should stay here, where it belongs. :)

[under par]

As ever though, nonsense, stirring things up threads like this one aren't worthy of an offline discussion. Nobody really talks about stuff like this in real life do they? Surely nonsense should stay here, where it belongs. :)
:worthy: :yeah:
Oh at last someone with an ounce of sense.. (Yes ! that 's you DS (sorry!))

Alec takes some wonderful photos at many events If you like them buy them otherwise give it a rest.

[TurboTomato]

Anyway, if you want an example of a site that doesn't have scary logos over the pics, see here:
Gallery (http://www.luminousfrog.co.uk/cms/main.php)

So clearly not everyone feels they're necessary...

Whether this has anything to do with the issue I don't know but....

The pics on that site IMO certainly aren't up to the standard of Alec's, in not just composition but post-production as well (which is the thing that takes the time). As I say, whether that's relevant to the discussion over watermarking I'm not sure other than to comment that if I'd spent hours on the post production (and thousands on equipment to get the shots) then I'd be less likely to give away freebies :)

[Cruella]

Anyway, if you want an example of a site that doesn't have scary logos over the pics, see here:
Gallery (http://www.luminousfrog.co.uk/cms/main.php)

So clearly not everyone feels they're necessary...
Um, where are the Storm photos on there?

[David Bailey]

Whether this has anything to do with the issue I don't know but....

The pics on that site IMO certainly aren't up to the standard of Alec's, in not just composition but post-production as well (which is the thing that takes the time). As I say, whether that's relevant to the discussion over watermarking I'm not sure other than to comment that if I'd spent hours on the post production (and thousands on equipment to get the shots) then I'd be less likely to give away freebies :)
I didn't say they were better, or even as good - but I'm much more likely to browse through them without that big annoying, as DS would say, WATERMARK there...


Um, where are the Storm photos on there?
They're there now:
Southport (http://www.luminousfrog.co.uk/cms/v/Feb07/)

EDIT: yes, I know they have watermarks - the point is, they're not so intrusive. So you can actually see the photos. Which is the only thing I was complaining about in the first place...

[Cruella]

I didn't say they were better, or even as good - but I'm much more likely to browse through them without that big annoying, as DS would say, WATERMARK there...


They're there now:
Southport (http://www.luminousfrog.co.uk/cms/v/Feb07/)

EDIT: yes, I know they have watermarks - the point is, they're not so intrusive. So you can actually see the photos. Which is the only thing I was complaining about in the first place...
They have less intrusive watermarks, but they also aren't Storm photos.:confused: (Or any other Ceroc event come to that)

[David Bailey]

They have less intrusive watermarks, but they also aren't Storm photos.:confused: (Or any other Ceroc event come to that)
The point I was attempting to make, was that other commercial sites have photos of dance events, which are either completely viewable, or are much less intrusive, that's all. It's a comparison, nothing more.

[Cruella]

The point I was attempting to make, was that other commercial sites have photos of dance events, which are either completely viewable, or are much less intrusive, that's all. It's a comparison, nothing more.

So does this (http://www.cerocphotos.com/main.php) site on all the photos other than the Storm ones.

[MartinHarper]

Is it me, or did that weekender seem to generate tons of bad feeling? ... I'm glad I missed it...

Well you certainly seem to be having bad feelings, but then you didn't go.

[David Bailey]

Well you certainly seem to be having bad feelings, but then you didn't go.
That's my default state at the moment... :sad:

[under par]

That's my default state at the moment... :sad:
You certainly do have a lot of opinions/comments about events... its such a shame you don't attend events as much as you opinionate about the effects of the events. IMHO:whistle:

The dancing at events is so much more enjoyable than commenting on it afterwards especially if you didn't actually go.

Yo u have a right to an opinion but I'd rather see you out there dancing than keep on talking about others doing it.

[David Bailey]

You certainly do have a lot of opinions/comments about events... its such a shame you don't attend events as much as you opinionate about the effects of the events. IMHO:whistle:
Unfortunately, I have health issues. Commenting is about all I can do at the moment.

[under par]

Unfortunately, I have health issues. Commenting is about all I can do at the moment.

Really sorry to hear about that, but even I attended with a sprained ankle and watched.... must be love Mrs Par wanted to dance:love:

[Lee]

To be fair to Lee, no e-mail address on the website that I could find :flower:

OMG, I hope I haven't started world war 3.

Lee

[Lee]

Anyone else think this is a really cumbersome way of communicating? :whistle:

Anyway, who's this Alec Myers person? He sounds a bit weird if you ask me.

I prefer email!

Lee

[Little Monkey]

Alec takes some wonderful photos at many events If you like them buy them otherwise give it a rest.

The man is a genius! He's even managed to take a pretty good photo of me at Camber!!!!:eek:

Congratulations, Mr. ESG, you're my hero. I think I'm gonna have to buy the black and white one......

[TurboTomato]

I didn't say they were better, or even as good - but I'm much more likely to browse through them without that big annoying, as DS would say, WATERMARK there...


Not disagreeing with that - as I said, I'm not sure how relevant my point was. Ideally they should be toned down purely to make them more viewable.

[Feelingpink]

The point I was attempting to make, was that other commercial sites have photos of dance events, which are either completely viewable, or are much less intrusive, that's all. It's a comparison, nothing more.Photo sales generally are higher when using watermarked images. So, if photography is your income, you would have every reason to watermark your images. Not every owner of a commercial site realises this, which is possibly why there are sites containing non-watermarked images. Another reason could be because they don't know how (& yes, there are fabulous scripts for Photoshop CS2 which will do this, handling portrait and landscape images).

Not sure why sales are lower - perhaps a low-res version viewable on a PC/Mac is enough for some people, rather than needing a print - and others just print it out anyway as a pixelated postage stamp. And the earlier suggestion for scanning in a purchased print is a definite breach of the Copyright Act.

[ducasi]

It's worth clarifying that the Luminous Frog (Jive Addiction) photo web site does have unmissable watermarks in the middle of their photos – the main difference is that, compared to those on the CerocPhotos web site, you can still clearly see the subject of every photo.

Both web sites appear to use the same software package – Gallery – which, I believe, has the ability to automatically watermark images without very much extra effort.

(I also agree that the quality of the photos on the CerocPhotos web site is far superior to those on the Luminous Frog web site.)