Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

First attempt: Water drop

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • First attempt: Water drop

    So, what do you guys think? Taken with my 18-55 IS.
    C+C please
    Flickr |Airliners.Net | Airplane-Pictures.Net | Jetphotos.Net

  • #2
    Nice - looks like a thumb or perhaps an astronaut. Again, the text and the 'c' takes away from the art, but I suppose if you are worried that Reuters is going to steal it to use as their website background, better safe than sorry.

    Leo

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by leon View Post
      Nice - looks like a thumb or perhaps an astronaut. Again, the text and the 'c' takes away from the art, but I suppose if you are worried that Reuters is going to steal it to use as their website background, better safe than sorry.

      Leo
      Sorry for the "copyright", I am very protective of my photos but I may remove those. I will have my portfolio on smugmug so I might not put copyright.
      Flickr |Airliners.Net | Airplane-Pictures.Net | Jetphotos.Net

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by C-FITL View Post
        Sorry for the "copyright", I am very protective of my photos but I may remove those. I will have my portfolio on smugmug so I might not put copyright.
        I don't know but if there is no copyright on it I would think people might believe it is in the public domain and freely use it.
        Flying is the second greatest thrill known to man. Landing is first.

        Comment


        • #5
          http://forums.jetphotos.net/showthread.php?t=4827

          Thought this link may be useful

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by C-FITL View Post
            Sorry for the "copyright", I am very protective of my photos but I may remove those. I will have my portfolio on smugmug so I might not put copyright.
            The thing about watermarking is it's extremely destructive if it destroys the image for those viewing it. One of my absolute pet hates is when you see more watermark than the photo behind it - what's the point in taking the photo in the first place if you're going to sprawl an ugly watermark across it and destroy your creation? It's perfectly possible to watermark subtly and tastefully without ruining the viewing experience for people looking at the photo, it just takes a little thought.

            It's a good photo, keep experimenting.
            Seeing the world with a 3:2 aspect ratio...

            My images on Flickr

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by PMN View Post
              The thing about watermarking is it's extremely destructive if it destroys the image for those viewing it. One of my absolute pet hates is when you see more watermark than the photo behind it - what's the point in taking the photo in the first place if you're going to sprawl an ugly watermark across it and destroy your creation? It's perfectly possible to watermark subtly and tastefully without ruining the viewing experience for people looking at the photo, it just takes a little thought.

              It's a good photo, keep experimenting.
              Thank you Paul. Do you think it would be a good idea to just make some small signature on the bottom corner or just leave it as it is?
              Flickr |Airliners.Net | Airplane-Pictures.Net | Jetphotos.Net

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by C-FITL View Post
                Do you think it would be a good idea to just make some small signature on the bottom corner or just leave it as it is?
                Well let's consider what a watermark actually does; essentially it marks the photo in a way that identifies it as someone's original work and in a way that's very difficult to remove without it being obvious. This first example has a watermark right through the middle of the image, which while being clear and not very easy to remove it totally ruins the actual photo. In short, it's totally pointless taking the photo and showing it on the internet if people can't appreciate it because of the watermark. It almost becomes a part of the composition - a part that just shouldn't be there.



                In this example the watermark is subtly placed down in the bottom left corner. It may not seem much, but to steal the image and remove the watermark you'd have to reconstruct that wooden post and get the ground behind it looking perfect, which isn't all that easy to do. We've kept the essence of the photo intact but still protected it effectively.



                With a little thought you can watermark pretty much any image in such a way. Like this one:



                That tiny little watermark on the nosegear may look pointless, but again, to steal the image you'd have to get rid of the watermark and reconstruct the gear which isn't all that easy to do.

                So generally I'd say if you're really worried about theft then use a small, subtle watermark over an area that contains a lot of detail (the more detail the watermark sits over the more difficult it is to remove without trace). If people really do want to steal photos then they'll choose the easiest ones to steal. Mine for example are very easy to steal because i put the watermark right out of the way so it doesn't distract your eyes from what I'm trying to show, but even that will act as a deterrent to many. The main thing is don't ruin your photos by being paranoid! The simple truth is that the only way to avoid image theft completely is to never let anyone else see them either on the internet or elsewhere, and as I'm sure that isn't really an option you may as well make your photos as enjoyable for people to view as possible. I'm really impressed by your non-aviation photography; you're inventive and you try new things which is the best way to be, so it seems a shame to let this paranoia ruin your images. Try the small but subtle approach.
                Seeing the world with a 3:2 aspect ratio...

                My images on Flickr

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by PMN View Post
                  Well let's consider what a watermark actually does; essentially it marks the photo in a way that identifies it as someone's original work and in a way that's very difficult to remove without it being obvious. This first example has a watermark right through the middle of the image, which while being clear and not very easy to remove it totally ruins the actual photo. In short, it's totally pointless taking the photo and showing it on the internet if people can't appreciate it because of the watermark. It almost becomes a part of the composition - a part that just shouldn't be there.


                  In this example the watermark is subtly placed down in the bottom left corner. It may not seem much, but to steal the image and remove the watermark you'd have to reconstruct that wooden post and get the ground behind it looking perfect, which isn't all that easy to do. We've kept the essence of the photo intact but still protected it effectively.


                  With a little thought you can watermark pretty much any image in such a way. Like this one:


                  That tiny little watermark on the nosegear may look pointless, but again, to steal the image you'd have to get rid of the watermark and reconstruct the gear which isn't all that easy to do.

                  So generally I'd say if you're really worried about theft then use a small, subtle watermark over an area that contains a lot of detail (the more detail the watermark sits over the more difficult it is to remove without trace). If people really do want to steal photos then they'll choose the easiest ones to steal. Mine for example are very easy to steal because i put the watermark right out of the way so it doesn't distract your eyes from what I'm trying to show, but even that will act as a deterrent to many. The main thing is don't ruin your photos by being paranoid! The simple truth is that the only way to avoid image theft completely is to never let anyone else see them either on the internet or elsewhere, and as I'm sure that isn't really an option you may as well make your photos as enjoyable for people to view as possible. I'm really impressed by your non-aviation photography; you're inventive and you try new things which is the best way to be, so it seems a shame to let this paranoia ruin your images. Try the small but subtle approach.
                  Thank you very very much Paul! I will put good pictures on flickr now with a watermark similar to yours.
                  Flickr |Airliners.Net | Airplane-Pictures.Net | Jetphotos.Net

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by PMN View Post
                    In this example the watermark is subtly placed down in the bottom left corner. It may not seem much, but to steal the image and remove the watermark you'd have to reconstruct that wooden post and get the ground behind it looking perfect, which isn't all that easy to do. We've kept the essence of the photo intact but still protected it effectively.

                    Sorry for the stupid question, I really don't know what I'm talking about, but...

                    Isn't in this case too easy to just crop the watermark out?


                    --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                    --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                      Sorry for the stupid question, I really don't know what I'm talking about, but...

                      Isn't in this case too easy to just crop the watermark out?

                      I asked myself the same thing but if you would look at Paul's image, and someone who stole it and cropped, you would see the difference and could probably tell that Paul is the owner of the photo.
                      Flickr |Airliners.Net | Airplane-Pictures.Net | Jetphotos.Net

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by C-FITL View Post
                        I asked myself the same thing but if you would look at Paul's image, and someone who stole it and cropped, you would see the difference and could probably tell that Paul is the owner of the photo.
                        But PMN said it should be difficult to remove. If not, he could have put the watermark in another opposite corner, in the airplane photo in a corner in the sky, not across the landing gear

                        I guess (and again, I really don't know what I am talking about) that the idea is to make it difficult to post a photo without giving credit to its owner even if you don't know the original. Otherwise, PMN's snowy landscape or your water drop don't need a watermark at all (you could put the copiright note for example on a black strip below the image). Anybody who know the original would know at first sight of a copy that it's your photo, even if the black strip is removed.

                        --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                        --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I must admit that I tend to take a rather fatalistic view of watermarks. I don't watermark my pictures as at a normal maximum of 1400px wide they're not going to be a huge amount of use.
                          A reputable potential user will always ask, a disreputable user will take it anyway.
                          I personally up to now hate watermarked images with a vengeance when they go right across the majority of image and intrude greatly on the impact of the image. There have been some watermarked images that I have skipped in screening as they make it too difficult to screen properly.

                          Paul's solution brings about the best balance if you must use a watermark by avoiding major obstruction but still making it difficult for an image thief and I must say that I might just change my attitude to watermarking in future having had a few images pinched for admittedly low level use. Most of of them have been small cropped images of small props used in the for-sale columns of "Pilot" and "Flyer" magazines.

                          EDIT...nearly forgot....nice images Jan. I'm a huge fan of frozen motion shots.
                          If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I was at a pancake breakfast the other day and was watching a photographer take pictures of families with Santa. On one particular take, two kids on one side of Santa had their eyes closed, and one the second shot, the other kid (who was on the other knee) had their eyes closed.

                            The person printing the photos took the two, put them in photoshop, cut them, merged them and made one beautiful picture and it appeared impossible to distinguish that it was two separate photos. It was perfect. She did it in about 30 seconds. I doubt if she was a photoshop expert (but she was pretty darn good).

                            After that I came to the conclusion that no photo, no matter how much watermarking has been done, is 'safe'. The question is: do you do photography for enjoyment or for employment?

                            Leo

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by brianw999 View Post
                              I must admit that I tend to take a rather fatalistic view of watermarks. I don't watermark my pictures as at a normal maximum of 1400px wide they're not going to be a huge amount of use.
                              A reputable potential user will always ask, a disreputable user will take it anyway.
                              I personally up to now hate watermarked images with a vengeance when they go right across the majority of image and intrude greatly on the impact of the image. There have been some watermarked images that I have skipped in screening as they make it too difficult to screen properly.

                              Paul's solution brings about the best balance if you must use a watermark by avoiding major obstruction but still making it difficult for an image thief and I must say that I might just change my attitude to watermarking in future having had a few images pinched for admittedly low level use. Most of of them have been small cropped images of small props used in the for-sale columns of "Pilot" and "Flyer" magazines.

                              EDIT...nearly forgot....nice images Jan. I'm a huge fan of frozen motion shots.
                              Ok I see Brian. I try to go light with watermarks here on JP because I know a few photographers who put this dark one in the middle or a spot where it is light and it ruins the pictures. Thank you for the comment on the photo. And like Paul and others say, it's not about the equipment, it's about the skill. I took this with a 18-55 IS lens, not the fastest thing out there, I still managed to get a decent shot though!

                              Originally posted by leon View Post
                              I was at a pancake breakfast the other day and was watching a photographer take pictures of families with Santa. On one particular take, two kids on one side of Santa had their eyes closed, and one the second shot, the other kid (who was on the other knee) had their eyes closed.

                              The person printing the photos took the two, put them in photoshop, cut them, merged them and made one beautiful picture and it appeared impossible to distinguish that it was two separate photos. It was perfect. She did it in about 30 seconds. I doubt if she was a photoshop expert (but she was pretty darn good).

                              After that I came to the conclusion that no photo, no matter how much watermarking has been done, is 'safe'. The question is: do you do photography for enjoyment or for employment?

                              Leo
                              Apparently programs exist that remove watermarks automaticly
                              Some photographers don't watermarks their photos, put them on a website that you can't right click and copy, but you can just use a snipping tool or ctrl + prnt screen so you can take it away. There's just no justice in this world for someone's work.
                              Flickr |Airliners.Net | Airplane-Pictures.Net | Jetphotos.Net

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X