gun pictures

lvpatt

July 17, 2011 10:42

i have noticed when some people advertise on the auction sites they use pictures from the gun manufacturer / midway, able etc. same model as advertised, but great pics.
does anyone know how to do this? my pics are not real good quality.

tks

0

• 

  rufe-snow

  July 17, 2011 11:32

  The term is called "hot linking". A high quality photo is acquired off the net from GOOGLE images or a similar source. It's URL code is copied and then pasted into a add. The URL code has to be in the correct format to work though, and sometimes has to be massaged to work correctly in a add.
  
  Search YOU TUBE and GOOGLE using "hot linking photos" as the search term. You might luck out and get specific instructions on how to do this.
  
  NOTE! many of these photos are copyrighted, and your probably violating the law by using them without permission or payment to it's owner(s).

  0
• 

  nononsense

  July 17, 2011 12:35

  lvpatt,
  
  I reiterate that most commercial photos on the internet are copyrighted and it's not recommended to use them without permission.
  
  'Hot linking' will normally get the pictures removed from the site.
  
  You can select the photo, 'save as' to your computer then use a photo-host to make the picture usable on your auction.
  
  Once again, doing this will usually get you into trouble in some way, shape or form. Your best bet is to get some practice taking better pictures. Ask on this website or some of the better photographic websites to get some good advice. With today's digital cameras, it's nearly brain dead simple to get good pictures. I advise you to skip trying to use your phone and expect to get anything usable for sales. Even the less expensive digital cameras are better than cameras on phones.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Best.

  0
• 

  beantownshootah

  July 17, 2011 15:26

  Just to clarify, the term "hot linking" refers to creating an active link to a picture hosted by a second party (presumably without their explicit consent).
  
  For example, here I'm "hotlinking" the gunbroker.com bullet logo right off this website:
  
  
  
  Since I am neither hosting the image (gunbroker is), nor have I actually copied it, I am not doing anything illegal. I just posted the link to it; your browser has created the image. Since Gunbroker.com put the image in a public space specifically for public viewing, they can't legally object to me doing this.
  
  This isn't just my personal opinion; there is strong legal precedent from the 9th circuit Federal appeals court indicating that "hotlinking" images is neither illegal nor a copyright violation. All of the major web search engines (Google, Yahoo, etc) do this to collate images that you can preview then click. You can read about the legal decision here:
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_10,_Inc._v._Amazon.com,_Inc.
  
  Now, that said, depending on circumstances it may (or may not) be considered rude, or "slimy" to hotlink someone else's image depending on how you do it and why. Doing this in a listed auction using someone else's stock image is definitely uncool.
  
  I've also seen some pretty funny "workarounds" where the person being hotlinked changed the image they were hosting at a particular address to seriously humiliate the person doing the hotlinking. Imagine if all of a sudden instead of a stock image of a Smith and Wesson, your auction listing shows a picture of a 64 year old male transvestite holding a water pistol! If you create links to someone ELSE's hosted images, you run the risk that they can take those images down at any time they like, or worse, change them to something else.
  
  On the other hand, copying someone else's copyrighted image, then hosting it yourself is a clearcut copyright violation. Not only is that "uncool", but it also opens you up to copyright civil liability. . .you don't want to go there.
  
  Again, for example if I took the above Gunbroker.com "bullet" log, copied it, then hosted it directly on my website, Gunbroker.com *could* sue me for copyright violation. Hopefully they'd be happy for the free advertising, instead of suing me, but that would be their right!
  
  Edit: One more thing:
  quote:Even the less expensive digital cameras are better than cameras on phones.
  
  2-3 years ago, that was always true. Its not necessarily true anymore. The cameras on the high-end digital "PDA" type phones are actually quite good now.
  
  For example, the camera built into my (Motorola) Droid "X" is an 8 megapixel with built in flash, and it takes true high def video. It also has digital zoom, auto-image stabilization feature, and true functional macro ability. I'm not exaggerating at all when I say it takes a LOT better pictures than my 5 year old 4 Megapixel dedicated actual camera. If you have an I-phone, the new ones have pretty decent cameras too, if not quite as good.
  
  Most important thing when you're taking images is good lighting and appropriate depth of field (eg use a macro lens for detailed closeups).
  
  Camera resolution isn't actually as important as one might think, since unless you're zooming way in on the image or enlarging it, the limiting factor generally isn't image resolution, its monitor/display resolution.

  0

Please sign in to leave a comment.