Hey there,

I was wondering if you could put an image with htm extension into your website and have the actual image show up. One of my images that I created is like that and when I try to put it into my website to show, it always comes up as a hyperlink instead. It just won't show up as an image. I've tried the img src and embed codes but they only seem to respond to jpg, gifs and other formats of the like.

Any ideas?

Quick image information, the jpg was spliced with several images to form one image which resulted in the htm extension.

Thanks if anyone knows!

Images should have their proper extension (eg .jpg, .gif, .png) in order to be rendered correctly in a web page by the browser.
The .htm (or .html) extension is exclusively for web pages, containing the html code.

I don't understand what made slicing up a jpg file having them turned into .htm.

In theory, you can call an image whatever you want, as long as you configure your server to send it with the appropriate Content-Type header (image/jpeg, image/gif, or image/png).

In practice, MSIE sometimes ignores the Content-Type header and decides how to handle a file based on its filename extension, or based on what the beginning of the file looks like. I don't think this is an issue for images, but you never know. Furthermore, anyone who saves the image to their filesystem will probably need to rename it, otherwise it is likely to be treated as an HTML file.

That's a completely different question. You no longer have an image. You have an HTML file that displays several images in a table. They aren't the same thing at all.

If you want to treat it as a single image (e.g., displaying it inline in another HTML document, using it as a background), then you need to "unslice" it and use the original intact image.

I could be wrong, but I think Everlie has used some program to cut an image up. The program has then produced a HTML document that glues the pieces together again.

If that's the case Everlie, you should have a HTML file and a number of image files. Open the HTML file in a text editor to see what it really is. Probably it's a table with a lot of image tags. You need to copy the code for that table and insert it in your page where you want the image to show up. Then you need to upload the real images pieces to the server too.

Yes, I'm so sorry I didn't explain it better. I do have a program that slices up a larger image into many pieces. It's a form of "image protection" for web images and I was looking for a little help since I run an online gallery.

Believe me, I do know that there's no full proof way of protecting images but this would make it a little more difficult to snatch so to say. From what I tested, it does make it a little harder.

Only problem was that once it was sliced up, the full image was generated into htm/html so I didn't know how else to have the actual picture show in the website gallery other than having to click a hyperlink and then taken to a separate window to view. I only know how to do your basic img src codes.

Pandy, I went ahead and uploaded the entire folder to my server which included the html and all the image pieces. I did check the html file in an editor and found the table code, so I copied and pasted it where I wanted the image. Unfortunately where all the images should be, are a bunch of little red x's.

I checked the image tags and it just has the name of the image (img src= image.jpg), not the source where it's located (img src=url/image.jpg). The only thing I can think of is changing them manually, which will probably be the death of me because it's split into 100 pieces (lol) or I'm completely missing something......

The name of the image is all that's needed if the images are in the same folder as the HTML. Sooo - either you can put the images in the that folder or you'll have to edit the IMG tags. That won't kill you either. Use Find & Replace.

If you have tags like this now:
<img src="bla.jpg">
Find: src="
Replace width: src="path/to/
And you'll end up with:
<img src="path/to/bla.jpg">

Thank you so much! It worked.

Image slices are only really effective at causing pages to load slower. If someone wants to steal your pictures, they will. If my browser can see it, then I've downloaded it.

One of the cardinal rules of the WWW - if you don't want people to have it, don't put it there to begin with.

Image slicing is an overkill solution to a non-problem that only creates problems (gaps between images, slow load times, etc) IMHO, but each to their own.

I'm aware of this, thanks!

However being a digital artist and putting my work on the internet to do commissions kind of goes with the territory for portfolios. As I said before, I know there are ways around pretty much any precaution people take to protect their work but that doesn't mean one shouldn't try. The load time isn't that much stalled either.

And yes I'm sure browsers automatically download the images, however if they want to sit there and put all the pieces together like a past time puzzle, by all means I sure can't stop them. lol

Why would anyone do that when they can just take a screen shot?

That would be great for them if they want to stare at a white page.

Seriously you all can ban together and tell me about the ways of stealing images, which I'm very well aware of. I was just victimized by a bunch of tubers so I had a big wake up call. I never said that it COULDN'T be done but if it'll make it just an "inch" harder, then I'll do it. As that saying goes, if a theif wants a car, he can get into it, but that doesn't mean you should just leave the keys in the ignition for them.

Aren't you going to show them the image at all, just a blank page? Yes, THAT will stop them from stealing it.

........and it starts.

No to your answer Pandy. I've tested it with several people and they can't get a screen capture of it.

I'm not sure if I'm being misinterpretted or offended someone but I think it's best I go. I'm starting to feel like the hospitality here is running low.

I really appreciate all your help very much. And again if I've somehow offended anyone (?) I apologize.

Thanks!

You haven't offended anyone, but your stuff about "protecting" images is just irritating because it's something that we see a lot of. The only way you are likely to achieve it is by following in Hollywood's footsteps - read up on "Vista DRM", and "trusted/treacherous computing". You will have to restrict your website to people who are prepared to use Vista and all-M$ software for a start.

Otherwise, the only way there are people who can't get a screen capture of this image is if either you or they don't understand what it means. Why don't you show us this "uncapturable" page?

It also helps to explain quite what you mean by "protect". If you are doing work on commission for someone, for example for printing on something, then don't publish this work. But if you are happy for anyone to view it, then the only way you can do this is by implicitly giving them permission to make a copy (that's what the HTTP protocol is). It is not possible to "let them view it while it's on your server", or any of the thousand other confusions popular among lawyers and other ignorant people.

Don't be so touchy, Everlie. We are just trying to tell you how it works.

Watermark your image. Then, one has to have at least some skills to clean up the image, which is not something everyone has

Honestly, it's not a matter of being "touchy." English is not my first language but "Aren't you going to show them the image at all, just a blank page? Yes, THAT will stop them from stealing it. " didn't come off as "showing me how it works." I just don't find subtle sarcasm helpful, but that's just me. Everyone is different. If you're truly trying to help someone, I feel there's more tactful ways of doing it...which you did at the beginning and I appreciated it.

And if someone trying to protect their work is irritating to you, I don't see how I shoud be the one to bare that irritation? That's your own personal issue with the matter, I have nothing to do with it. I only came here with a specific question in hand, although I did get the help I asked for, thank you again, I also got the ironic "polite" rudeness when it was known that I was simply trying to protect my work. What's the harm in letting me try? If it doesn't work out, then I'll deal with it and the results I got and go down a different route, but that's my burden. There was no reason for any of this. However I sincerely am sorry for any irritation I brought. At least now I know that there's a small "controversy" with image protection.

Again thank you for the feedback. Frederiek, I'm doing more research on watermarking and how it works. Thanks for the suggestion.

Arigato,
Everlie.

Nor is it mine.



OK, in plain text then. The only way a screen cap will come up showing a white page is if the page really is white.

You don't show us how you accomplish this trick, so I choose to believe it still can't be done.





It doesn't irritate me. You came here for help and you got that, I think. We tried to help you a little more than you asked for. We often do. I never wanted to insult you. When someone who isn't that experienced starts to talk abut protecting images we always tell them that it's impossible. Would you rather continue to think it's really hard to snatch your pictures when in reality all it takes is a couple of key strokes?

Watermarking is quite easy (see the search for it at good-tutorials.com. Just make sure that the watermark image (brand) slightly covers a part of your image.

If you have lots of images on which you want to set a watermark, then go see Russell Brown's Digital Watermark Branding tip (about halfway down the page, QuickTime video).

These sites are, among a few others, my favorite Photoshop tutorials and tips sites.

Good luck!