1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Don't forget to change the clocks on your camera equipment!

    Dismiss Notice
  3. It is with great sadness that we announce the passing of a long-standing member, Just Dave.

    Dave Barker was a member of Talk Photography for nearly 10 years, and was a prominent member for most of those.
    A very warm, friendly and enthusiastic member, he spent the largest portion of his time on TP welcoming and helping others.

    I'm sure all visitors to this site will join us in thanking Dave for his unwavering support and being a large part of our community.
    Our thoughts are with his family and friends at such a difficult time.

    Click here to join in the discussion

    Dismiss Notice
Tags:
  1. rusticblonde

    rusticblonde

    Messages:
    229
    Name:
    Kirsty
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    So everyone has to love a little eyecandy right :p

    DSC_0315-2.jpg
     
  2. UaeExile

    UaeExile

    Messages:
    2,476
    Name:
    Adam
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Framing is obviously off and you've caught him at a time where most of his face is covered. And I'd lose the watermark, but I have a thing about them so maybe ignore me...:D
     
    rusticblonde likes this.
  3. rusticblonde

    rusticblonde

    Messages:
    229
    Name:
    Kirsty
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Totally know this. Baring in mind this was at a stage with over 1000 people pushing me lol, Taking it from below also didnt help haha. I got one where he was grinding, similar angle, but wasnt sure if it was suitable in this part of the forum LOL! As for watermark its from my page so i forget these things LOL!
     
  4. juggler

    juggler

    Messages:
    3,589
    Name:
    Simon
    Edit My Images:
    No
    What Adam said.. if a snap is obviously a snap and you're not wanting critique then the 'photos for pleasure' group is probably the best place..,

    IF you're going to use a watermark then reduce the opacity.. and perhaps pop it in the blank space at the top?
     
    rusticblonde likes this.
  5. rusticblonde

    rusticblonde

    Messages:
    229
    Name:
    Kirsty
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    ah ok, fair point. Wrong section. Oh ok, will do that. I saw alot with it positioned over the photo to stop deterence from editing out by people lol, I will turn this down for future :)
     
    ancient_mariner likes this.
  6. juggler

    juggler

    Messages:
    3,589
    Name:
    Simon
    Edit My Images:
    No
    I haven't tried but I reckon I could do an ok job of getting rid of it in 1-2 minutes and a good one in 5.

    But.. if someone wants to steal your photo then they will do so regardless of watermark, and may not even bother editing it. You could put a really intrusive mark on but ask yourself - who's going to steal it?

    It's probably different for low margin, high volume, fast turnaround event photographers who rely on web sales, and you might want to do something obvious when sharing a proofing gallery with a client.

    otoh I reckon watermarks are useful for brand building, I do sometimes contemplate one myself - but virtually none of the folk I admire ever use one so I haven't yet.
     
    rusticblonde and Bluedog like this.
  7. rusticblonde

    rusticblonde

    Messages:
    229
    Name:
    Kirsty
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    That is the best justification i have ever seen. Such a valid point. I guess Ive seen some mates get scoldered on other forums. Prime example, friend of mine did an awesome shot of Staithes. Someone stole it and claimed it as his own. No mention of him. I would get pretty peeved with that :confused:
     
  8. juggler

    juggler

    Messages:
    3,589
    Name:
    Simon
    Edit My Images:
    No
    I was intending it to come across as a reason NOT to use one :)
     
  9. Sir SR

    Sir SR

    Messages:
    5,663
    Name:
    Shaheed
    Edit My Images:
    No
    I used to have one, almost invaraibly in the negative space that I so love in portraits but I've not used them for a while now, mainly for the reasons described
     
    rusticblonde and juggler like this.
  10. rusticblonde

    rusticblonde

    Messages:
    229
    Name:
    Kirsty
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Fair point. I may consider dropping it
     
    juggler likes this.
  11. Lez325

    Lez325

    Messages:
    15,657
    Name:
    Les
    Edit My Images:
    No
    shot is ok, Slightly out of focus- look at the name on his shorts for example and you cut off his arm the watermark is pointless, anyone with any knowledge in Photoshop could remove that in minutes as already stated ( me included) lol

    No one is going to steal a photo snap to be honest and your details are electronically embedded in the image anyhow if you use Photoshop, so ownership can be quickly proved in such an event.

    Also, you say you are a beginner, yet slap a watermark stating "Kirsty Marks Photography" on an image- seems a little odd to me

    Les ;)
     
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2017
  12. ancient_mariner

    ancient_mariner

    Messages:
    6,415
    Name:
    Toni
    Edit My Images:
    No
    With watermarks for the kinds of image that people will copy & paste, it may be helpful to keep them small and faint so that they remain on the image rather than causing people to want to shop them out. If it ever comes down to a serious dispute about ownership then if you have the RAW file you can demonstrate providence.
     
  13. nickEnackEnoo

    nickEnackEnoo

    Messages:
    1,145
    Name:
    Nick
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    It's a very common thing to do amongst beginners and hobbyists.
     
    rusticblonde likes this.
  14. Turbo-G

    Turbo-G

    Messages:
    115
    Name:
    Grant
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I assume you were in the crowd, rather than being there as a photographer?

    Unsure who the subject is, and I'm not a concert photography expert - but up the nose shots whilst the subject is "eating the mic", is not a great look. The framing is not ideal, and it is too tightly cropped. A wider shot showing more context would perhaps work better, in this situation.

    As above, watermarks are totally unnecessary.
     
    rusticblonde likes this.
  15. rusticblonde

    rusticblonde

    Messages:
    229
    Name:
    Kirsty
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Les, i am a beginner, however trying to start a business and may as well. As for the watermark, my mate learnt the hard way by some loon nicking his image and claiming it as his own. It was only through eagle eyes that someone pulled it up. Its a harsh reality that it does happen. Hence why i put something on it, i know its probably idiotic like. I am very much a beginner and only been really doing it a year :)

    As for photoshop removal completely agreed, it could be removed by someone with knowledge. I tend to be more forthcoming on client stuff XD :)
     
  16. rusticblonde

    rusticblonde

    Messages:
    229
    Name:
    Kirsty
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Hi Turbo, yes i was a bystander and merely pointing and clicking imho. Jake liked the photo on Twitter so he must have liked it, although your points are duely noted.

    As for watermarks i have made some comments on this. These are there for FB, purely because i and a few people have been scolded for image nicking. It does happen :confused:
     
  17. rusticblonde

    rusticblonde

    Messages:
    229
    Name:
    Kirsty
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    It is, tbf i am much more a hobbyist and beginner. This is not a full time job and i have a long way to go to be perfect or at least reasonable. You are right with the watermark thing.
     
  18. sunnyside_up

    sunnyside_up POTY (Joint) 2016

    Messages:
    3,575
    Name:
    Bethy
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Watermarks... oh good grief, this old nut again? You'll always have your 'fors' and 'opposed'.

    Kirsty - I don't find anything wrong with your watermark - I look at it like branding... in fact, I'm actually not all that bothered about it's position either. I use one pretty much everytime. I like mine, it says 'Hey, I took this'. I have two sets of four presets out of lightroom upon export grey or white left/right/top/bottom, and use whatever one works best for the photo. If I were to say one thing about yours, it would be to perhaps make it a tad bit smaller, that's it. You can see mine in the image below. I started using it from the time I started this photography malarky and continue to use it now. Doesn't matter if you're just starting out or not, if you're trying to develop your brand, then there's no time like the present.

    [​IMG]Bump by Beth Botterill, on Flickr

    It's true - if someone wants to remove your watermark they can... that's something that I accept. But I don't use it to prevent theft. I use it as I mentioned above. And I think that's the right attitude to have about it.

    I'm sure there's loads that will say I'm totally wrong. :)
     
  19. rusticblonde

    rusticblonde

    Messages:
    229
    Name:
    Kirsty
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Totally get that also, and thanks for the suggestion. Im in two minds as per :)
     
  20. Lez325

    Lez325

    Messages:
    15,657
    Name:
    Les
    Edit My Images:
    No
    I would suggest you get yourself a Web site in that case. Post only low resolution images on Facebook and as said copyright remains with the photographer and exit is embedded in the image. So theft is easy to prove
     
    rusticblonde likes this.
  21. Lez325

    Lez325

    Messages:
    15,657
    Name:
    Les
    Edit My Images:
    No
     
  22. Lez325

    Lez325

    Messages:
    15,657
    Name:
    Les
    Edit My Images:
    No
     
  23. rusticblonde

    rusticblonde

    Messages:
    229
    Name:
    Kirsty
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I have a website (well, FB, website is in progress currently). Low res, good point, i will consider this. As for Exif data there is also plenty of programs that can remove this, its a sad reality. Ive seen numerous pieces of work with Exif data removed :confused:
     
  24. Lez325

    Lez325

    Messages:
    15,657
    Name:
    Les
    Edit My Images:
    No
  25. rusticblonde

    rusticblonde

    Messages:
    229
    Name:
    Kirsty
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Hahahah i saw it several times. God bless predictive and all that XD
     
  26. Lez325

    Lez325

    Messages:
    15,657
    Name:
    Les
    Edit My Images:
    No
  27. rusticblonde

    rusticblonde

    Messages:
    229
    Name:
    Kirsty
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Seriously thanks for the feedback however. Im still very new and trying new things. I will get there :)
     
  28. Lez325

    Lez325

    Messages:
    15,657
    Name:
    Les
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Have a look for a free Web site I started out with one. They are in my opinion better than Facebook. I have a go daddy one now for around £100 a year. Does all I need it to.
    Best advice is keep at it

    Les
     
  29. rusticblonde

    rusticblonde

    Messages:
    229
    Name:
    Kirsty
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Wow £100 a year! Holy crap!! Thats expensive!! Im a webdesigner by trade (this is more a hobby right now). I pay £8 quid a month, ok so thats nearly 100 XD... i never think about it like that. Tbh i just havent had a chance to get something knocked up, but im sure i will get something done shortly. I certainly will, i can only improve (i hope XD)
     
  30. ancient_mariner

    ancient_mariner

    Messages:
    6,415
    Name:
    Toni
    Edit My Images:
    No
    You could always host on photobucket/flickr in private albums and then create a free blog to post images using blogger.
     
    Lez325 likes this.
  31. Lez325

    Lez325

    Messages:
    15,657
    Name:
    Les
    Edit My Images:
    No

    Hmm....... £8 per month that equates to £96 a year when I went to school :exit:

    Facebook has always been, in my opinion, a dodgy place to display any image that "is worthy of being stolen",

    Do advertise on Facebook by all means &, DIRECT TRAFFIC TO YOUR INDIVIDUAL SITE:runaway:which I'm guessing you already have if you pay £8 per month which confused me as you state "Tbh i just havent had a chance to get something knocked up" So what are you paying £8 a month for then??????

    Les :sony:
     
    Last edited: Jan 16, 2017
  32. Lez325

    Lez325

    Messages:
    15,657
    Name:
    Les
    Edit My Images:
    No
  33. Lez325

    Lez325

    Messages:
    15,657
    Name:
    Les
    Edit My Images:
    No
  34. Lez325

    Lez325

    Messages:
    15,657
    Name:
    Les
    Edit My Images:
    No
  35. Phil V

    Phil V

    Messages:
    18,239
    Name:
    Phil
    Edit My Images:
    No
    The OP is a web designer. Which is probably what her website is for.
     
  36. Lez325

    Lez325

    Messages:
    15,657
    Name:
    Les
    Edit My Images:
    No
  37. snap-happy

    snap-happy

    Messages:
    253
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Keep the watermark! If anyone removes it then your compensation can be much higher as they can't claim they didn't know who owns the copyright!! Too many pictures being stolen or given away for free as it is.
     
  38. snap-happy

    snap-happy

    Messages:
    253
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Low res doesn't stop others using the picture on a website/Facebook. Keep the watermark!!
     
  39. Lez325

    Lez325

    Messages:
    15,657
    Name:
    Les
    Edit My Images:
    No
    do you really envisage anyone stealing that particular (out of focus image) , Get real

    Les
     
    rusticblonde likes this.
  40. rusticblonde

    rusticblonde

    Messages:
    229
    Name:
    Kirsty
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    You never know Les.... (just a thought).... i know my image isnt perfect in the slightest. I have found 2 people using 2 pink tribute images i shot once, and they refused to credit or comment my name. They as well werent the greatest, but it could happen.

    I guess a watermark is a matter of choice?
     

Share This Page