The Posterous team really needs to get their Twitter/Facebook login working for comments on iOS devices. Tried both to leave a comment on the page but kept getting a "we think this is spam" error. Guys, if I'm giving you an email address and two different oauth logins that are validated, it's probably not spam.
Anyway, here's the comment:
Flash does absolutely nothing to prevent someone from saving copies of images. With basic knowledge of using the developer tools built into any modern browser, it's easy to see the urls being loaded for any resource on a page.
Some photographers have this fear of their images being copied. They spend way too much time concentrating on it. What any successful photographer can tell you is that most of your time is spent being a business person, not snapping the shutter. You make money by marketing yourself and growing your business, not policing the entire internet for errant copies of a photo.
> Flash does absolutely nothing to prevent someone from saving copies of images.
This is only true if Flash is loading external jpegs. If they're embedded in a swf, you would have to go through a great deal more trouble to extract image files. But a right-click 'Save image as' is about all the trouble that most people are willing to go through, and as such, I'd guess that Flash is an effective deterrent much of the time.
I know a few photographers and illustrators, and based on what I hear from them, there is a shockingly pervasive attitude that any image on the web can be appropriated for any reason whatsoever. Even corporate types who should know better think nothing of grabbing images from portfolio sites (or flickr) to use in marketing campaigns, etc. I think it's wise for photographers to do what they can to protect their business and their work.
Also, consider the audience. Often portfolio sites exist solely to impress art directors at ad agencies, who (in my experience) aren't as hostile to flash as, say, developers at startups. And clumsy animated or skeuomorphic interfaces are often totally acceptable in that world. Many of them are still building flash 'microsites', after all. Real sales and commerce are taking place elsewhere (corbis, veer, getty images, et al).
This is beyond most people's capabilities; most people are thwarted by "right clicking is not allowed". (Do browsers let sites disable right-click anymore? I don't think so. But there was a time when they did.)
Someone should make swfextract a browser extension.
I'm working on it. Did you know there's a thing called Emscripten? My dream usecase is I'm out and about, and I need to look up a restaurant's website and OH SHIT IT'S IN FLASH. no worries. [swfextract bookmarklet]. Weee there's all the content. YAY
I guess it wouldn't be so easy if the photo is bigger than the screen. But if they are so worried about people copying their photos, they're probably using a scaled-down version.
I run an online portfolio service FolioHD (http://foliohd.com) and we get that question a lot: "Can people steal my pictures?" We've gone the extra mile to make sure saving pictures is a lot harder than a right-click and Save As, but it seems like lot of people don't even bother trying that first before asking. All the while, a simple screen capture of whatever you're looking at is just as easy, yet no one seems to know about that trick. The assumption is that Flash is safe, but not even Flash can protect against a simple screen capture.
Not trying to be a negative Nancy, but I just went to your site, clicked the 'live site' link to the 'Gooley' gallery, right clicked the image and 'saved as', and it worked.
I even checked to see that the downloaded image matched what I saw on my screen.
Is it supposed to do something else?
For the record, I'm using Chrome on Ubuntu, but I also tried it with Chrome and Windows and got the same results.
I am a photographer and have run into a secondary problem that results from blocking the easy means of saving an image. Most of our clients just want to share an image on Facebook and more than a couple have then just used their camera phones to snap a picture and post that, complete with motion blur and all.
As recently as a couple of years ago I was writing my own custom AS3 based slideshows for showing off my own photos online.
Back then you simply couldn't rely on a browser to resize a photo correctly outside of Flash, which made it impossible to support different client resolutions without storing a ton of copies of the photos on the server or doing dynamic server-side resampling, both of which had their own drawbacks.
If you left the photo resize up to the browser you'd end up with a horrible non-resampled mess if the photo was shown in anything other than 1:1, whereas in Flash it was trivial to display a bilinear resampled version that looked great at any size up to and including 1:1 of the original photo.
I think at this point the usage of Flash is mostly just inertia... it is done that way because it was always done that way. But it was done that way for a purpose. Web browsers sans Flash were horrible about displaying resized images until relatively very recently.
I've been taking pictures with a DSLR for quite a few years now and the best advice I can give is to concentrate on the basics first. Turn off all the automation and learn how to shoot manual. Then, when you understand aperture, shutter speed, focal length, ISO, spot metering etc. you can study the manual and try to figure out if any of the more automated features still make any sense to you. (To me they don't. I always use spot metering and shoot in either "aperture priority" or "manual" with ISO manually set).
Shooting good-looking images with flash is surprisingly hard. A friend of mine who went down that route and spent the better part of a year learning shooting with flash recommended this book:
Also, you should learn how to use Lightroom, Aperture, Bibble or similar for post processing. (If you understand how the postprocessing tools work you can shoot with that in mind).
But most important: shoot every day. Practice as often as you can. Bring your camera with you everywhere. If you shoot a few thousand frames per month for a year you are bound to learn something.
That's a good example of how to become a good photographer in just a year. (If you click through his photo stream you'll find a lot of interesting images that were shot with flash).
Flash in photography is a tool like any other. It can be used well or used poorly. After discovering the strobist blog a few years ago, I found that controlling light with flash and lighting in layers has opened up a bunch of new creative opportunities for me.
I strongly suggest checking it out if you're a serious photographer. Http://strobist.blogspot.com
And contrast. And totally screws with lighting depth. And red-eye.
Assuming built-in flash alligned with the camera lens. You can mitigate a lot of this with bounce and slave units. Still, I'm finding that natural lighting and a small tripod (even a 6" mini braceable on a wall or pole) does wonders and makes for some stunning photos. At other times, even motion blur can be useful (especially for night/club shots).
One factor influencing photographers could have been that many of their high profile clients were (and are) creating and hosting Flash websites. A lot of ad agencies still espouse Flash websites. Check out thefwa.com or Comm Arts Interactive awards: http://www.commarts.com/interactive for examples.
Of the above, Red is the worst, offering this one-liner (in #333, no less): "You need to upgrade your flash." Yes, even on iOS. Other all-Flash agency sites, like http://www.ogilvy.com and http://www.razorfish.com prefer to serve Flash, but manage to offer nearly all information and content in the absence of a Flash plugin.
If you want photographers to update their websites, vote with your wallet.
If you're not a consumer of professional photogs' products or services, you don't really have a dog in this fight, even if Flash blows.
To those who have used online portfolios to make actual purchasing decisions, was that a task you want to perform from your phone or tablet, or something for which you are content to use a larger display?
Absent that, please ready a trove of anecdotal evidence from other professional photographers, of the form: "I migrated my Flash web gallery to <insert alternative here> and my business grew by X%"
I co-founded 2 separate companies that have (so far) made Flash websites for photographers our bread and butter. One serves the wedding/portrait crowd, the other high-end fashion and commercial photogs. Each does 7-figures in revenue per year.
We have had HTML mirror sites for smartphones and tablets since the iPhone existed (+/- a few weeks). Most of our competitors do as well. So the example in the post is only semi-valid.
Of course I'll be the first in line to celebrate Flash's demise. We're rolling out all HTML5 solutions now and the future looks good.
Another thing worth mentioning is to stop watermarking your images. No one wants to see that "RICK JAMES PHOTOGRAPHY(C)" smothered across an otherwise pristine image. It cheapens the image and doesn't prevent theft. Watermarks are trivial to remove.
I'm pretty technically advanced (both with computers and with photos) and I don't know how to remove watermarks. They prevent theft like the lock on my front door prevents theft: not by making it impossible, but by making it harder. They're both fairly unobtrusive ways to prevent opportunists from stealing.
There's one benefit of watermarks (to the copyright owner) that's often overlooked. Removal of a watermark makes it much easier to prove willful infringement in a copyright lawsuit, which has a lot higher penalty. I don't remember the particular case, but there was one where that was a primary reason cited in the awarding of a particular penalty.
That's an excellent point that I wasn't even aware of.
I look at unobtrusive watermarks like I look at the BSD license: you can use the image, but you're legally bound to preserve attribution, because the creator released the work for notoriety.
As to "stealing", it's the nature of the internet for people to use images they find online elsewhere for gratis, usually without attribution. I can completely understand if the copier claims they alone made the image, but these sort of claims can be and are disproven by the original author or other people who have seen the original work and are sometimes removed thanks to current copyright laws (at least in the USA.) Tools like TinEye or Google Images can also help find the original image.
However people do generally attribute images; those who don't (and don't claim the image as their own) are only "stealing" potential profit from the author, which can easily be prevented by either selling it to some group, like a newspaper or magazine, or not uploading the image to the internet at all.
Aesthetically, watermarks can look pretty gnarly, but this of course depends on the person and the watermark. For example, my current wallpaper is that of my favorite anime/manga and has only the compiler's watermark (not the author's) on it, one that is small and translucent. I don't mind it, because it's unobstructive, but if I put the image on Imgur, am I "stealing" from the author or just not giving credit where credit is due?
oh, the old 'watermark vs no watermark' online rant. if you want to get into that please define 'stealing' in this particular scenario and how making your picture uglier is a 'lock'. if you are afraid of people who want to see your photos, don't publish them, and btw thanks for assuming upfront I'm a criminal, I just wanted to look at your work.
I may be mistaken but I thought Safari's "activity" view showed downloads made by Flash applets. So you just get the URLs for every image served up right on a silver platter. I'd assume it works the same in Chrome.
You can just as easily deter casual image saving by doing what some folks do and put a clear image layer above the actual image, so the browser prompts the user to save a 1px clear png instead. If they know enough to view the source or use a DOM inspector you can't really stop them anyway.
There are 3 main methods used to stonewall the saving of images from online content.
1. embed in flash/pdf
2. javascript to interrupt right clicking
3. overlaying a transparent image to capture the click
I say 'stonewall' because as a general rule: If the user can see/hear it then the user can save it. Most often in the pristine format supplied.
Content providers should be aware of this already and simply not make commercially-useful content available online. (E.g. by using low resolution/overly compressed or watermarked images.)
Where degraded quality is acceptable: Consider that even the least technical person you know is able to pickup a camera and point it at their screen.
SWF as a DRM measure doesn't work terribly well -- it is easy to carve the data out of the SWF file. The JFIF headers (and equivalent for PNG and GIF) stick out like a sore thumb to forensic file carvers.
Even encoding or encrypting the data to be decoded by the flash player doesn't achieve strong protection -- the same carvers can be applied to process memory with similar ease. If you are going to display content on in an untrusted (end-user) process, content producers are going to have to accept that they can save that content.
That was my reaction as well; the author obviously doesn't realize Flash helps photographers protect their work from Google and the right-clickers, which a lot of them actually do care about.
I was half-expecting a complaint about View Source, which would've made sense; I don't see what the gripe is here other than a word of warning to fellow photogs about Flash probably not working on the mobile phones of those who might hire them, and a general appeal to the use of Web standards. Unless I'm missing something.
As an aside, though, when I read this, I cringed:
"I know [Flash disappearing] is fairly unlikely, but even Adobe has pretty much dropped support for Flash in favor of HTML5."
Er, come again? Adobe is sunsetting Flash for mobile browsers. All other incarnations of Flash are still very much on the roadmap.
It just kills me to see how confused so many people seem to be about Flash, what it's good for, what it's not so good for, and what Adobe's future plans are for it. Certainly Adobe is to blame for a lot of this, but the "Flash vs. HTML5" theme of 2011 certainly didn't help clarify how different the two really are.
Not necessarily—at least for some Flash interfaces, you can still get images loaded by Flash out of your browser's cache, as, e.g., with Opera's opera:cache cache explorer.
I guess you're right, though, in that by removing the plain old right-click+save option it adds at least somewhat of a barrier for the unmotivated or uneducated would-be thief.
It isn't very good at disabling a screenshot, though. Disabling right-click, in Flash or Javascript, even if the URLs aren't visible (which they are), is trivially circumvented with a screenshot.
As a photographer who puts images online I am primarily concerned about visual presentation. Flash offers one thing that most browsers don't yet - full screen slide shows without browser chrome or anything else showing. So I offer a hybrid site to visitors with fallback to browser neutral navigation and viewing and Flash driven slide shows that allow for the best photo presentation without distractions.
Until this is solved in all browsers, I am unlikely to ditch Flash for photo presentation.
Is there any evidence that customers/clients want or like to view the full screen version? Everyone I've asked as well as my self find it annoying (specially the welcome screen directly going in to full screen, along with playing music automatically).
I offer it as an option but I strongly encourage it, especially if you want to see a large view.
From an artistic point of view and as the creator of the work, it's my prerogative to control the presentation of my work. I want to remove distractions and provide a clean viewing space that doesn't bias how the image is perceived. To me its akin to not having other stuff all over the presentation walls. Just the photographs, some space and nothing more.
If you want to "provide a clean viewing space" and "nothing more" then leave off the music or give me an option to opt-in. Speaking strictly as a consumer, I don't think of the web as a "push" medium. It should be a "pull" medium. I want the HTML I ask for. The same goes for audio-visual. I hate it when a web page imposes a soundtrack and/or video on me. Give me access, but don't push it on me unannounced and unasked for.
How do you know I'm not listening to my favorite mix on iTunes?
Personally, I don't do anything like that. I don't even offer soundtracks as an option. I remove as many widgets/options as possible. It all goes back to my objectives in presenting my photographs.
My main point was, right now Flash gives me more control over achieving clean full screen presentation, control over image scaling that doesn't destroy sharpness, and smooth and stutter-free fade in/out transitions.
I can't get that in all browsers and have it be consistent yet. When I can I'll drop Flash. In the meantime for those users that don't have Flash I'll offer a fallback view, albeit with not as nice or consistent presentation as I would like.
Browsers are implementing full-screen for any HTML element. Firefox, Chrome, and Safari already shipped it and IE will in 2012. Try that for modern browsers and fall back to Flash for older browsers?
There are definitely better ways to showcase photography these days that allow cross-device compatibility.
Allie Siarto and Loudpixel have a great Wordpress theme product that derived from and is targeted to that very need: Whitespace
http://usewhitespace.com.
Sadly the author suggests using Lightbox, which is really aggravating because it takes over the window and tends to move really slowly with all the useless animations. Sometimes you spend more time watching the animated resizing than you spend looking at the images themselves.
Some of the 'independent photographers'/arts types use indexhibit (a php script) to manage simple web sites of images, text, sound, and the slicker commerical photographers have their flash sites that look fantastic on an iMac. I rather like indexhibit, sort of democratic in a way.
Strange the way technologies differentiate practices. Its years since I raised a Nikon in anger mind you.
I don't think that without knowing why a given person will opt for Flash over conventional technologies, be it a photographer, restauranteur or auto manufacturer, it would be impossible to address a solution for them, never mind require them to abandon the use of a certain technology that many other [successful] players in their industry are using.
It's not like photographers demanded Flash as a presentation layer from the begininning. Obviously, they saw something in it that would allow them to control how the user views and interacts with their work while eschewing alternatives.
These are people who have invested not just thousands of dollars on equipment, travel and education, but who have also dedicated their lives and sometimes livelihoods on their art. To ask them to further invest in the ever-changing landscape every time a technology falls out of favor may be too much for them to bear. Just like a simple camera and film, Flash has been there, relatively unchanged, for many years.
Every changing? We've been complaining about Flash on sites like these for years. We wanted a way to view their menus on our phones. We wanted to be able to see their hours without waiting for a 10 megabyte flash object to load. We wanted to make a reservation online, etc.
I'm not sure why these Flash interfaces exist. More than likely someone who's good at running a restaurant isn't going to be know a lot of technology and will get roped into the most expensive flash-based design they can afford. Items like usability, mobile friendliness, etc never come up because the owner doesn't know or care about it and the designers are too invested in Flash to try anything else.
Is this hurting their business? I'm not sure. I never go to restaurant sites. I visit yelp instead. I only do takeout from places that have good systems in place. Its a competitive advantage now to take online reserverations and have a menu I can view on my phone. Considering something like 80% of all new restaurants go out of business after their first year, it might make sense for these owners to stop being so pigheaded about technology and ask themselves if that slow non-mobile $20,000 Flash site is really serving their customers.
This is the same battle we had with restaurants being cash only 15 or so years ago. The ones that embraced credit cards seemed to have flourished and the cash-only place is either gone or has degenerated into a dive. I think the lower tech your industry is, the most room there is for disruption. These blue-collar places really need to consider the big picture here.
> I never go to restaurant sites. I visit yelp instead.
I've tried and I let them know when I do.
When I want the experience, I'll go to the web site. When I just want to know if they have food that fits within my dietary constraints, I'd like to find out easily. That's not necessarily available via yelp (or whatever is awesome this week).
It is hard to find the restaurant sites as the flash only ones often have no content that is indexed by google, like a blank one I visited yesterday to see if it was open.
If they existed in the first place it was probably because back when the precedence was set, Flash was on the verge of being the next big thing. Resizing images, audio, video, chat, installed on 98% of browsers, etc. It was only getting better and the thought was that everyone needed a website or they'd be out of business. That didn't pan out for the restaurant business, whose model is based more on reputation than menu updates. A model dutifully exploited by the likes of Yelp.
If Flash sites still exist today it's either because of economic apathy (they don't make any money from it) or they're targeting a specific user. Yes, some things look crappy on purpose and some people actual derive value from that.
I cannot speak from the perspective of a professional photographer, but I'm assuming that they do not derive the majority of their income based on targeting devices or platforms and those people affording them advice in that particular market segment aren't on the same level as say someone who makes a living in providing technology services to companies that do.
You're making the assumption that photographers are concerned about the same use cases as you are. Without addressing their need for using Flash, you cannot begin a conversation about why it's a horrible and obsolete choice, never mind provide an adequate solution moving forward.
I didn't say it was horrible or obsolete, or anything about my use cases. What is clear is that the OP, who is clearly a photographer, can't use Flash for perfectly valid use cases for him, as a photographer.
I think his article is a little OTT since the solution to his problem is simple - don't use Flash. In fact, the whole article is about how he doesn't actually have a problem because he doesn't use Flash, and I'm not sure why he feels the need to exhort all other photographers to do the same, but each to their own. But his reasons for not using it are perfectly valid and based on a valid use case for photographers.
What I'm voicing is neither an objection nor an approval for one choice of technology over another. What I'm saying is that the author of the post, without any admitted experience or knowledge deems themselves so adept as to ask an entire industry segment to abandon the use of a technology without providing any sound logic behind their request or viable alternatives.
I know they shouldn't be using Flash; I've been berating people about that for over a decade. But even so, as a technologist I cannot offer a solution to that particular segment without knowing the root cause of their particular choice, their present requirements nor the necessity of a photographer engaging in a venture that for all I know won't provide them any return or benefit. I find it presumptuous to know what's best for someone else without even knowing the root causes of their alleged problem, especially artists who by virtue of their business model have more to lose than gain by presenting their work in an inferior portfolio format.
There will be some who'll find a solution that fits them best and other who'll keep paying the hosting and update fees until they've become tired and lose interest. It's the nature of the beast. All told, there will be less developers with Flash abilities moving forward and the public will become more educated, so who knows, maybe the problem will solve itself.
Adapt or die. Mobile is already big and it will get much bigger. 2012 is the year of the tablet. Android should finally produce some great tablets, the iPad 3 will be great, and we might even see some interesting tablets from Microsoft.
I've often seen "Adapt or Die" mean "Adapt (to my specific use case) or Die (in my eyes, i.e. someone who was never in your addressable market in the first place)."
Anyway, here's the comment:
Flash does absolutely nothing to prevent someone from saving copies of images. With basic knowledge of using the developer tools built into any modern browser, it's easy to see the urls being loaded for any resource on a page.
Some photographers have this fear of their images being copied. They spend way too much time concentrating on it. What any successful photographer can tell you is that most of your time is spent being a business person, not snapping the shutter. You make money by marketing yourself and growing your business, not policing the entire internet for errant copies of a photo.