The Never Ending Photo Thread

[Zevo]

Grandkids.

[Mattington]

Went to a local VW show n' shine a couple weeks ago called Das Volks. Here are a couple of my favorite shots.


IMG_3718 by Mattington12, on Flickr


IMG_3688 by Mattington12, on Flickr


Herbie Detail by Mattington12, on Flickr


Race Herbie Engine by Mattington12, on Flickr

[Table 5]

Ok, it's been bugging me for years and I've been quiet about it out of respect for others, but I can't take it anymore...I just have to ask.....for the love of god, why does every amateur photographer plaster a giant signature on every photo AND do it in that cheese ugly-ass scripty font?

It ruins otherwise legitimate photos. It's distracting and takes your eye away from the actual content. I say this as someone who used to work in the magazine industry as an art-director, and hired professional photographers as part of my daily routine. Not ONE person who I used has ever done that to their photos.

It's not going to catch the attention of some bigwig and make you into a star, because no professional worth their salt will compromise their photos like that. It's also not going to protect others from stealing your work, because I can easily crop your name out or photoshop it. There are ways to incorporate a copyright into your Exif data that will work better.

At the very least, if you ARE going to put a signature on your work, can you find a nice subtle, tasteful font and do it small. Please do not ruin your photos with terrible typography.

Thank you for allowing me to indulge in a rant. Carry on......

[SebC]

^ If you'd like to provide a nice free logo/typesetting for me, please do so. In the mean time, I will do something amateurish, because I'm an amateur, but would nevertheless like to get creditted when my subject steals my copyright (see a few post/pages back) and it goes viral. Putting my name on the photo is an easy way to do so. It won't stop anyone determined to steal my work, but it will help where the person taking it is lazy, ignorant, unskilled, or apathetic.

(Note that I'm not doing this for my posts here, but I will be doing it for Facebook going forward.)

[wittynickname]

Originally Posted by Regulator75

First panorama with the new camera.

The original size was 19526 X 3612.
11 image panorama @ 50mm and f/10 (Nikkor 50mm f/1.8)

Spoiler!

Cloudy Calgary Panorama by Witty nickname, on Flickr

Well that username looks familiar

[Regulator75]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Ok, it's been bugging me for years and I've been quiet about it out of respect for others, but I can't take it anymore...I just have to ask.....for the love of god, why does every amateur photographer plaster a giant signature on every photo AND do it in that cheese ugly-ass scripty font?

It ruins otherwise legitimate photos. It's distracting and takes your eye away from the actual content. I say this as someone who used to work in the magazine industry as an art-director, and hired professional photographers as part of my daily routine. Not ONE person who I used has ever done that to their photos.

It's not going to catch the attention of some bigwig and make you into a star, because no professional worth their salt will compromise their photos like that. It's also not going to protect others from stealing your work, because I can easily crop your name out or photoshop it. There are ways to incorporate a copyright into your Exif data that will work better.

At the very least, if you ARE going to put a signature on your work, can you find a nice subtle, tasteful font and do it small. Please do not ruin your photos with terrible typography.

Thank you for allowing me to indulge in a rant. Carry on......

I try to keep mine fairly small and out of the way, however on a larger panorama it will be a bit larger. My copyright details are also in the EXIF data, however even those can be wiped out (if one really wanted too).

I've been published in books, magazines and random online content. For these photos, I'll always submit the original non watermarked photograph. As for flickr, well it's just part of my workflow process.

But yes, some watermarks are insanely huge and ugly.
If someone wants it bad enough, they'll get it.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by SebC

^ If you'd like to provide a nice free logo/typesetting for me, please do so. In the mean time, I will do something amateurish, because I'm an amateur, but would nevertheless like to get creditted when my subject steals my copyright (see a few post/pages back) and it goes viral. Putting my name on the photo is an easy way to do so. It won't stop anyone determined to steal my work, but it will help where the person taking it is lazy, ignorant, unskilled, or apathetic.

(Note that I'm not doing this for my posts here, but I will be doing it for Facebook going forward.)

Oh believe me, I'm plenty aware that someone can steal your work. I'm just not sure it's worth it to ruin photos. My only source of income is my creative work, and I dont bother to put any signatures on it. The thing is that most people too ignorant to steal work are not going to be making money off of it. And if somebody legitimate is stupid enough and does it on purpose.....well then you've got yourself a pretty good legal case.

My primary distaste for the huge scripty signatures is a visual one. Your eye always goes to the watermark, and not the actual content. It's distracting and takes away from your photos. Visually our eyes tend to go towards any outliers in the image, and when you put scripty type setting in there, that's exactly what it is.

I personally really like how this photographer handles it. Nice, simple, and shoved in the corner.

Spoiler!

Or this one.

Spoiler!

Even though the framing might be too much )he does this for most of his photos so it creates a nice personal style), it's put in the framing device, and not the actual photo.


If I can make a suggestion for watermarks, I'd say keep them as small as you can while still being readable, stick them as far to a side as possible, and use a least distracting font as possible (ideally a sans-serif, or an elegant serif if you need to).

And just an FYI, you also don't need to put a copyright symbol on a photo. Your work is automatically legally considered protected even without the ©.

Anyway, sorry if I sound preachy.....it's just one of those gear grinders.

[DownInFlames]

I agree that watermarks can ruin a photo, and are usually annoying if used by amateurs.

If you really want to protect your work, use a digital watermark, like Digimarc (which is built into Photoshop). And register your copyright. That gives you definitive proof that something is yours if you need to take someone to court.

http://www.cipo.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ci...h_wr00003.html

[MrMastodonFarm]

Despite agreeing with you in general Table but just to show how personal preference comes into play here, I personally hate that one you showed above. I think the border is too thick and too distracting.

[Table 5]

You're right, that border itself might be distracting too. I personally don't mind it too much, but I can see how others would. He also does it without the border....I probably should've looked harder!

[Regulator75]

Les chit chat, more pics.

I recently did a product shoot for an artist friend of mine.
This is just one of many of his designs.

Dion Brake (Surferguy on CP) of Como Designs, creates one of a kind pieces for your home or office space.

This clock (and others) can be ordered through http://www.jackandjadehome.com/store/classic-clock.html
His other projects can be viewed at http://comodesigns.com/index.html


Red Nebula Clock by Witty nickname, on Flickr

[Regulator75]

Just playing around with the DoF and seeing the difference when using my macro lens.

Seen at 105mm | f/5.6 | 500 ISO

Delicate Dandelion Spores (1) by Witty nickname, on Flickr

Seen at 105mm | f/3.5 | 500 ISO

Delicate Dandelion Spores (2) by Witty nickname, on Flickr

[surferguy]

Originally Posted by Regulator75

Les chit chat, more pics.

I recently did a product shoot for an artist friend of mine.
This is just one of many of his designs.

Dion Brake (Surferguy on CP) of Como Designs, creates one of a kind pieces for your home or office space.

This clock (and others) can be ordered through http://www.jackandjadehome.com/store/classic-clock.html
His other projects can be viewed at http://comodesigns.com/index.html


Red Nebula Clock by Witty nickname, on Flickr

Just saw this, looks great!

Also CP members get a significant discount when compared to the Jack and Jade prices. You know where to find me!

[woob]

Says 103, yet it keeps taking me to 102 when I click on 103.

Edit: And now that I've posted this, 103 works. Odd. Nothing to see here, carry on. Great pictures, all!

[schteve_d]

Originally Posted by woob

Says 103, yet it keeps taking me to 102 when I click on 103.

Edit: And now that I've posted this, 103 works. Odd. Nothing to see here, carry on. Great pictures, all!

That happens to me too, not just in this thread but intermittantly on any old thread. Doesn't happen very often, maybe once every couple of weeks.

[Regulator75]

A couple recent panorama's.

Spoiler!

11 image panorama @ 50mm and f/10
Original size was 13628 X 6534

Blue Sky City by Witty nickname, on Flickr

Spoiler!

12 image panorama at 112mm and f/11
Original size was 20132 X 4194

Monster Cloud Above Calgary by Witty nickname, on Flickr

[Azure]

There is no page 103 when that happens. Its just a glitch.

[Azure]

And since when isn't the Bow the highest building in Calgary?

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Azure

And since when isn't the Bow the highest building in Calgary?

It is.

[SebC]

Perspective