[filmscanners] Re: Disabling right-click, etc. (was: Webhomepage writing software)

["david soderman" <scapes@wi.net>]

David Soderman wrote:
>>But it's not quite that easy nor as cut-and-dried as the above.  For
>>example, you've just thumbed-your-nose at the state-of-the-art in
>>professional event photography.  On-line proofing is currently all the rage
>>in that area...especially for out-of-town customers.
Laurie S. wrote:
> Well actually it is.
>I have to agree with Anthony on this one and also to
> remark that I do not think his remarks indicates that he is
> thumbing-his-nose-up at the state-of-the-art in professional event
> photography.

I have to disagree with Laurie on this one and also to remark that I think
Anthony Atkielski *continuously* thumbs-his-nose at everything and everyone.
As for Laurie's alleged agreeing with Anthony on this one, I'm still
listening.........

Laurie S. wrote:
>  After all, there is nothing that says that one needs to show
> the high resolution final printed version as online proofs.  Afterall, these
> are proofs not the final product so one typically does not even have to
> color correct the image beyond that which is automatically done by the
> processing lab for paper proofs; nor does or should one spot, retouch,
> sharpen, or carry out other image enhancement proofs for online display

Hmmmmm.  Where do I begin...and how can I be gentle?
Let's get to the point; let's be a little loose & cryptic.
Most assuredly, you've pushed one of my "hot buttons" here.  This is my 24th
year of being a professional portrait photographer.  Throughout all of this
time, I've been an advocate of BANISHING FOREVER that old, antiquated term
"Proof"!  I've spent lots of time/effort trying to persuade my colleagues to
find a lab that produces "finished print" quality "previews" (or proofs).
This way, a pro photographer can sell the previews for a rewarding profit.
Of course, this arrangement would require a high quality image...for the
customer to choose from.
So...whether it's "previews" in the form of hardcopy prints or on-line
images - what's the difference?  There *is* no difference!  We're trying to
*sell* the images that we present to our clients!  Why?  Because we already
*have* the images!

Laurie S. wrote:
> Thus, to use Anthony's words, you have not put anything on your site that
> you absolutely do not want stolen under any circumstances."  If the
> non-finished low resolution proofs are stolen, you have to accept it just as
> you often have to accept customers that steal and copy your paper proofs.
Well, let's do hope that all of the above has already dealt with the lame
tradition of "proofs" vs. "finished prints".
Also, there is another vital concept that seems to be sorely lacking here:
the customer "just settling for" copying "the proofs" - as opposed to "the
real thing".
I don't know where y'all come from...but I'm in a post-industrial community
that would "cheerfully" settle for 2nd best...when push-comes-to-shove.  The
ramifications of this are endless.  They would be *thrilled* to settle for
whatever they can print off the web.

Perhaps we all ought to know just a trifle more about what we are
espousing...or who we are puckering up to...before we begin tickling the
keyboard with our digits?   ;-)

Joyfully, -david soderman- <><


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body