JPEG is looking in including DRM system to its image format

[Syntaxvgm]

Oh I've never heard of a screenshot before

[jaggysnake57]

I see JPEG as a sort of dead format walking. The only advantage it really holds over the PNG format is in file sizes, which comes at a grave cost to image quality, and that's increasingly meaningless when most PNGs already transfer fast enough over modern broadband internet. I feel like this is just going to push JPEG further toward irrelevance for most of us, and make images look comparably worse on sites concerned about DRM than their competition.

 

lol miles off jpeg is going nowhere any time soon its the backbone of internet photos...seriously can you imagine if imgur of flkr only supported png? how much bandwidth and storage they would need.

 

I'm mostly focusing on web use, rather than professional photoshoots, since web use is primarily where DRM would come up as a concern. I don't think you're any more likely to try to post a 40 MB PNG file than a 5 MB JPEG on a website. Those are both poorly optimized images because they'd probably be far larger than they would ever be viewed.

 

I'm a designer, not photographer. But in school, a photoshoot in JPEG was considered a failing photoshoot—and they checked. Originals should be lossless, ideally in RAW or TIFF format. Needing multiple terabytes of storage for high-quality images kinda goes with the territory.

 

sorry but most photographers may shoot in raw but anything that doesnt need reworking after the project gets converted jpeg. 

and most servers wont allow 40mb uploads most limit it to 5-10mb.

[Lexias]

How would you even implement that?

[Davehaslanded]

Just as an opinion from myself as a freelance photographer, I see both sides of this argument. On one side, its great to be able to google image search anything and save it, and generally DRM never works in the long run.

 

That being said, its a sad state of affairs from a photography point of view at the moment. We either have to upload photos covered in watermarks, which can affect the aesthetics of a picture, or upload them at such low resolution, there is little point. If you do a wedding shoot, the bridge and groom will buy photos from you, but most the time, family and friends are happy to just save the lower resolution photos from Facebook and crop out the watermark if its in the lower right corner. (Bear in mind that even 2mp is sufficient for most people up to 8x10 size)

 

The last wedding I did, i had to threaten a makeup artist with legal action, as she had taken a Facebook preview picture, removed the watermark and meta data, and re-uploaded as advertising material for her business. This isn't uncommon, but is Illegal under copyright law, and does equal the loss of a sales for myself. I personally don't charge large amounts for photos, even for rights free pictures, but people are still happy to steal photos for use on their business sites and advertisements.

 

You also have those that will copy photos and re-upload those as their own. Its very common. Award winning Photographer Jason Lanier recently had to fight a legal battle against a young guy who was systematically stealing his photos in order to advertise his own photography business. (The guys site actually had no photos taken my the guy himself) 

 

I know this is a long post, but its important to see this from the pov of those who are genuinely affected by digital image theft. I personally have 2 jobs as i cant live off photography alone. Most photographers i know live the same way. Its not as well paid as many believe. 

[Bsmith]

as photographer/content creator I can see this becoming a thing, altough with the current way META and EXIF data works you pretty far already, hell evne your camera get's it's own ID number.

Altough metadata can be deleted, I personally would recommand to keep it on the original photo's as proof of concept just incase someone uploads your work as his own, but deleted the EXIF data, since you have a copy with the EXIF data, it's your win.

 

copy of the meta data and EXIF data from a picture on flickr.

 

•  

  Canon EOS 1200D

  EF50mm f/1.8 STM
• ƒ/1.8
• 50.0 mm
• 1/250
• 100
• Flash (off, did not fire)
• Hide EXIF
• Make - Canon
• Orientation - Horizontal (normal)
• X-Resolution - 300 dpi
• Y-Resolution - 300 dpi
• Software - Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
• Date and Time (Modified) - 2015:10:12 20:24:21
• ISO Speed - 100
• Sensitivity Type - Recommended Exposure Index
• Recommended Exposure Index - 100
• Exif Version - 0230
• Date and Time (Original) - 2015:10:10 12:24:41
• Date and Time (Digitized) - 2015:10:10 12:24:41
• Exposure Bias - 0 EV
• Max Aperture Value - 1.8
• Metering Mode - Partial
• Sub Sec Time - 00
• Sub Sec Time Original - 00
• Sub Sec Time Digitized - 00
• Color Space - Uncalibrated
• Focal Plane X-Resolution - 5728.176796
• Focal Plane Y-Resolution - 5808.403361
• Focal Plane Resolution Unit - inches
• Custom Rendered - Normal
• Exposure Mode - Auto
• White Balance - Manual
• Scene Capture Type - Standard
• Lens Info - 50mm f/?
• Lens Model - EF50mm f/1.8 STM
• Lens Serial Number - 0000214aa8
• Compression - JPEG (old-style)
• Thumbnail Offset - 906
• Thumbnail Length - 11419
• Coded Character Set - UTF8
• Application Record Version - 0
• Date Created - 2015:10:10
• Time Created - 12:24:41+00:00
• IPTCDigest - f229fef980c894327a8777bd744928e0
• Displayed Units X - inches
• Displayed Units Y - inches
• Global Angle - 30
• Global Altitude - 30
• Photoshop Thumbnail - (Binary data 11419 bytes, use -b option to extract)
• Photoshop Quality - 12
• Photoshop Format - Progressive
• Progressive Scans - 3 Scans
• XMPToolkit - Adobe XMP Core 5.3-c011 66.145661, 2012/02/06-14:56:27
• Rating - 0
• Metadata Date - 2015:10:12 20:24:21+02:00
• Lens ID - 4156
• Image Number - 0
• Approximate Focus Distance - 2.7
• Flash Compensation - 0
• Firmware - 1.0.0
• Distortion Correction Already Applied - True
• Vignette Correction Already Applied - True
• Color Mode - RGB
• ICCProfile Name - Adobe RGB (1998)
• Document ID - xmp.did:91B15F6E0E71E511BA5DEC3A02A85A25
• Original Document ID - AFE023003BEC85EC4CD488B2DD43D2DC
• Instance ID - xmp.iid:93B15F6E0E71E511BA5DEC3A02A85A25
• History Action - derived
• History Parameters - converted from image/x-canon-cr2 to image/tiff
• History Instance ID - xmp.iid:be073c9a-26b8-2f46-bdad-dc4961c40f1f
• History When - 2015:10:12 20:23:05+02:00
• History Software Agent - Adobe Photoshop Camera Raw 9.1 (Windows)
• History Changed - /
• Derived From Instance ID - xmp.iid:92B15F6E0E71E511BA5DEC3A02A85A25
• Derived From Document ID - xmp.did:91B15F6E0E71E511BA5DEC3A02A85A25
• Derived From Original Document ID - AFE023003BEC85EC4CD488B2DD43D2DC
• Format - image/jpeg
• DCTEncode Version - 100
• APP14 Flags0 - [14]
• APP14 Flags1 - (none)
• Color Transform - YCbCr
• Camera ID - 72157640939372033
• Camera Type - Digital SLR

to all the people saying that JPG/JPEG is dead, a full quality 18MP photograph of 5184x3456 (or the otherway around) converted from RAW to png gives you a 15-20mb file size photograph, better quality(which is neglectable on that size with current screen resolutions) yes, but no control over file size or additional settings, like the way website's process them.

with JPG however, you are able to adjust the filesize to what you need(2-4mb for most websites) and encode a scanning function when the image is displayed at a website, I admit that the quality of it is lower, but the amount of quality loss is (like said before) neglectable, due to the current limitations of computer screens, even with pixelpeeping you won't notice much of a diffrence.

[Davehaslanded]

The problem with meta data is, as you said, it can be removed and social networks such as Facebook (I believe Twitter too) automatically remove all metadata on upload.

I do most my advertising and communications with clients through Facebook. It was from there that I got my photo stolen. Now to be fair, as soon as I shook my fists and demanded a take down, she did apologise and offer to take it down. As it turned out, she was new to the business and didn't realise the law for copyrighted images, and that is the biggest problem. People are so used to saving things that they find on Google or Pinterest etc, that the idea that you have to contact the image owner and ask for permission first and possibly pay any fees is so alien and unknown to them. We have kind of created this online society where taking something you see as being easily accessible online is okay. While most people realise that software, video and music piracy is bad, people don't seem to feel the same way about pictures. And the silly thing is, that the argument used for software video and music piracy not really affecting such a large company, simply does not apply to images. Most the time, they are taken by freelance photographers who are not very well paid, but are trying to make a living out of what they do

[TetraSky]

Eh, they can put whatever DRM they want, it will never stop someone who really want to copy it.

[Guest]

PNG master race 

[vanished]

Honestly I laughed to hard at this news, and still do every time I read it.  There are so many problems with this...

1. jpg is actually a pretty crappy format.  There are others out there that have much higher quality with smaller sizes, so it's time for jpg to die, not get this added
2. How incredibly easy do you think this would be to defeat?  We're not talking about software, a video, or even music here... it's an image.  9 times out of 10 you'll be able to just screenshot the picture once you are able to view it, and then that would circulate DRM-free
3. One of the only reasons jpg is still around (I assume) is its prevalence (kind of a catch 22 I guess).  It's everywhere, so everyone uses it.  If we go and make a new version, how long will it take for support to spread to everywhere it needs to?

[CatCloud]

Exactly. Its great for photographers. But im not sure how ready we are for DRM on images. Id much prefer it to stay in JPEG2000 or a new version JPEGx or something.

But but... I shoot raw!

Anyways, does this prevent pictures to be edited by other people? Or stolen?

[Darkman]

 

That's all I have to say. Oh, also, rip headphone users.

[vanished]

But but... I shoot raw!

Anyways, does this prevent pictures to be edited by other people? Or stolen?

Totally.  Just like it did with music, games, and movies

[GoodBytes]

Honestly I laughed to hard at this news, and still do every time I read it.  There are so many problems with this...

• jpg is actually a pretty crappy format.  There are others out there that have much higher quality with smaller sizes, so it's time for jpg to die, not get this added
• How incredibly easy do you think this would be to defeat?  We're not talking about software, a video, or even music here... it's an image.  9 times out of 10 you'll be able to just screenshot the picture once you are able to view it, and then that would circulate DRM-free
• One of the only reasons jpg is still around (I assume) is its prevalence (kind of a catch 22 I guess).  It's everywhere, so everyone uses it.  If we go and make a new version, how long will it take for support to spread to everywhere it needs to?

Considering that most cameras can't take pictures in PNG, especially because the user and professionals don't demand it, PNG is not gaining grounds.

Professionals are fine with max quality jpg, especially that it saves quickly on slow memory cards, great for fast picture taking. Camera makers are happy, because they don't need to spend money on faster processor and more RAM to support saving PNG files and have a queue system for saving them on memory cards. Makes the OS and software of the camera much easier. In addition, if professionals wants the best picture quality they demand RAW.

Consumers knows JPEG, and they want JPEG. Also Alpha is not needed, as you don't have transparency on a picture. Also, camera printers don't support anything but JPEG. So if the user takes pictures as PNG's, they can't go at the pharmacy or whatever and have it printed.

So in other words, we are stuck with JPEG.

[vanished]

Considering that most cameras can't take pictures in PNG, especially because the user and professionals don't demand it, PNG is not gaining grounds.

Professionals are fine with max quality jpg, especially that it saves quickly on slow memory cards, great for fast picture taking. Camera makers are happy, because they don't need to spend money on faster processor and more RAM to support saving PNG files and have a queue system for saving them on memory cards. Makes the OS and software of the camera much easier. In addition, if professionals wants the best picture quality they demand RAW.

Consumers knows JPEG, and they want JPEG. Also Alpha is not needed, as you don't have transparency on a picture. Also, camera printers don't support anything but JPEG. So if the user takes pictures as PNG's, they can't go at the pharmacy or whatever and have it printed.

So in other words, we are stuck with JPEG.

Where did all this about PNG come from?  I never mentioned it.  There are other lossy formats that are higher quality and smaller in file size than jpg.  They just aren't taking off because of (among other reasons) some of the issues you listed; jpg is everywhere, supported universally, why change?

 

Update: one example

Edited October 19, 2015 by Ryan_Vickers

[GoodBytes]

Where did all this about PNG come from?  I never mentioned it.  There are other lossy formats that are higher quality and smaller in file size than jpg.  They just aren't taking off because of (among other reasons) some of the issues you listed; jpg is everywhere, supported universally, why change?

 

Update: one example

I know, but I assume you mean PNG. Even worse what you suggest as they can't be opened with standard image editing, and not web ready. If you are going to replace an image format in 2015, better make it lossless compression format, like PNG, and not replace crap with something less crap, but still crap.

[vanished]

I know, but I assume you mean PNG. Even worse what you suggest as they can't be opened with standard image editing, and not web ready. If you are going to replace an image format in 2015, better make it lossless compression format, like PNG, and not replace crap with something less crap, but still crap.

I'm fully aware that other formats like the one I showed are hardly even known about, never mind supported anywhere.  I'm just saying it's sad that we're all still using jpg when things like that exist.

 

And PNG does not directly compete with jpg/what I showed/other lossy formats.  It's not like one is unequivocally better than the other; they have their uses.  Obviously the main advantage to PNG is transparency and losslessness, but for things like photographs there is no reason to waste so much space when even a max quality jpg would get pretty much the same appearance for a far smaller size (and this benefit would be even more exaggerated with the format I showed).

[QueenDemetria]

Oh I've never heard of a screenshot before

Screenshots are good for capturing "what you see", but aren't a 100% good solution for taking images. Chances are if a images is DRM'd, the sample for that image is watermarked, so you would have a watermark on the screenshot, or your monitor is smaller than the resolution of the picture, so you don't get the full res pic.

[Syntaxvgm]

Screenshots are good for capturing "what you see", but aren't a 100% good solution for taking images. Chances are if a images is DRM'd, the sample for that image is watermarked, so you would have a watermark on the screenshot, or your monitor is smaller than the resolution of the picture, so you don't get the full res pic.

then just...you know...have a watermark on the image and/or only display it low res.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ಠ_ಠ

[QueenDemetria]

then just...you know...have a watermark on the image and/or only display it low res.

There are assholes like me that put a giant watermark over what you want to see on the image .

[Syntaxvgm]

There are assholes like me that put a giant watermark over what you want to see on the image .

yah I'm not seeing what image DRM would change about that. 

Like if it's displayed without a watermark at all you have it. 

[vanished]

yah I'm not seeing what image DRM would change about that. 

Like if it's displayed without a watermark at all you have it. 

Unless it's one of my 38282 x 19200 monstrosities

You would have to have a very large screen, or be very patient

[1823alex]

Why are they doing this when RAW format is clearly superior in image quality and already has all this. I've always viewed Jpeg as the other image format for compressing an image and uploading it without much DRM/EXIF.

[QueenDemetria]

yah I'm not seeing what image DRM would change about that. 

Like if it's displayed without a watermark at all you have it. 

It would prevent people from right clicking and "save picture as" on images(watermarked or not), and if you do sneaky tricks to download the image it (hopefully) wont open.

[vanished]

Why are they doing this when RAW format is clearly superior in image quality and already has all this. I've always viewed Jpeg as the other image format for compressing an image and uploading it without much DRM/EXIF.

While any pro is obviously shooting in RAW, jpg is still pretty common for distributing the final product, and I guess they want to try and help people in protecting that product.

[SeriousDad69]

Game devs have been DRMing their games since forever now and these days it only takes pirates a couple days to crack them. Pirates had a working copy of Dragon Age: Inquisition up on kick ass torrents like 3 or 4 days after launch. Lol so let's DRM photos hahahaha this will work out good for them.