Unusable (to others) filenames would seem quite a reasonable step to prevent
search engines finding your images - but you will not be able to use useful
descriptive text.
I would also point out that search engines only generally index pages of
registered domains or those that you volunteer to tell them about. Although
working this way will prevent memorable domain names (eg. wordweb),
restricts web space and bandwidth and so is of limited use to most.
The thumbnail size is reasonably sensible as I am sick of looking at web
pages where they are too small. It's infuriating when you have to open the
thumbnail to see what it is meant to represent. I think you could go a
little smaller but for detailed images you soon get to a situation where you
cannot see anything. It's a tricky balance between quick loading and
useable. Most importantly you have to remember that unlike you the surfer
doesn't know what's in the picture and their brain won't be able distinguish
the images as easily as yourself.
At the risk of supporting either AA or AF (both AH, yes that's personal, but
we've all had more than enough arguing for arguings sake - shut up or push
off). I would say that you want the large image to be full page but not
overspill. So I would use something a little smaller to display full-screen
at 1024x768 (the most common in my experience - even on poor quality 15"
monitors that can bearly do it). The people with poor monitors tend to push
them to the limit - the people with decent monitors tend to appreciate the
quality so stick to the lower resolutions. My decent quality ageing 17"
monitor can just about do 1600*1200 but I have very rarely used it even for
a few minutes I much prefer the quality of the lower resolutions.
The point (other than an on-topic dig) is that a 1024*768 image will have
scroll bars round it at 1024*768 - you need to allow a little for the edges
of the window and the title bar. With copyright (and bandwidth) worries
smaller is also better as you can make a surprisingly decent print out of a
high quality 1024*768. I think something like a 600*400 (or even smaller)
image will look good on most screens, whilst at least limiting print use if
not web use.
Steve
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rob Geraghty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2001 11:22 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Stealing images
> I save it as an LZW TIFF raw file
> and crop file. The I make a 1024x768 jpeg with copyright notice and
> watermark,
> and a 300x200 jpeg for a "thumbnail". I write the raw files and crop
files
> to
> different CDRs with the jpegs if possible for easy identification. The
CDR
> is
> named the same way as the film. Hopefully a naming convention which is
> logical to me but doesn't give away the content is less of an invitation
for
> theft than "mona_lisa.jpg" - especially via search engines. :)
>
> Rob
>
>
>
