Some new great shots of my new neighbor and her litle one.

[pyrxtc]

I had so much fun shooting them.

I got a lttle carried away but couldn't pick a favorite shot. what's your's?

Since she spent about 2 hrs out in my front yard yesterday morning, I took advantage of the view. She didn't seem to mind the camera snapping away and I got a lot of pics that I lie and can't decide which is my favaorite. these are the ones I have owkred on so far, which is your favorite?

1. This is how close she was, taken from my living room.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a125/pyrxtc/BearFamily-1074.jpg

2. http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a125/pyrxtc/BearFamily-10714.jpg

3. http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a125/pyrxtc/BearFamily-10715.jpg

4. http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a125/pyrxtc/BearFamily-10717.jpg

5. http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a125/pyrxtc/BearFamily-10732.jpg

6. http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a125/pyrxtc/BearFamily-10788.jpg

7. http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a125/pyrxtc/BearFamily-107106.jpg

8. http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a125/pyrxtc/BearFamily-107123.jpg

9. http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a125/pyrxtc/BearFamily-207.jpg

10. http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a125/pyrxtc/BearFamily-20715.jpg

11. http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a125/pyrxtc/BearFamily-20748.jpg

12. http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a125/pyrxtc/BearFamily-20753.jpg

13. http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a125/pyrxtc/BearFamily-20754.jpg

14. http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a125/pyrxtc/BearFamily-20763.jpg

15. http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a125/pyrxtc/BearFamily-20765.jpg

16. http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a125/pyrxtc/BearFamily-20767.jpg

17. http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a125/pyrxtc/BearFamily-20768.jpg

18. http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a125/pyrxtc/BearFamily-20771.jpg



the last few pics show the little one listening to Mom and following her back into the woods.

[YEKCIM]

Very nice pix, but the watermark is annoying. Any way to get rid of it?

~YEKCIM

[pyrxtc]

yeah, the watermark showed up more than I thought it would. I'm testing out a new way to watermark my photo's and it looks like I'm still getting it too dark. I'm working on it.

[Master Mason]

Very nice pix, but the watermark is annoying. Any way to get rid of it?

~YEKCIM

sorry I have to agree, the watermark wrecks them for me.

[Dan Murphy]

sorry I have to agree, the watermark wrecks them for me.

LOL, for a minute I thought the pictures were taken through some sort of antique stained glass window, LOL. Watermarks like that ruin so many pictures.

[YEKCIM]

yeah, the watermark showed up more than I thought it would. I'm testing out a new way to watermark my photo's and it looks like I'm still getting it too dark. I'm working on it.

Just out of curiosity, why do you find it necessary to watermark them in the first place?

~YEKCIM

[pyrxtc]

I always watermark pics before I post them online. I have seen way too many times where pictures have been used from someone who did not take them. Although, my group of photographer friends did't even notice the mark, so I guess I'm just used to seeing it on pics too.

[MicMin]

Great pictures. That is really close. I like the second and the last picture best.

[DisneyGirl4188]

I agree with the others, the watermarking is way too distracting for me to even begin to enjoy the pictures.

[ukcatfan]

I always watermark pics before I post them online. I have seen way too many times where pictures have been used from someone who did not take them. Although, my group of photographer friends did't even notice the mark, so I guess I'm just used to seeing it on pics too.

I understand wanting to protect your work, but how could someone use a web-sized image for anything other than something like a personal website? It is not like it can be used very well for print advertising or something where the image could earn some money. I doubt that anyone would buy an image when the max size they could get is an 800x600. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Kevin

[YEKCIM]

I always watermark pics before I post them online. I have seen way too many times where pictures have been used from someone who did not take them. Although, my group of photographer friends did't even notice the mark, so I guess I'm just used to seeing it on pics too.

Certainly your choice, but I think you are way too paranoid about this. There are literally thousands of WDW pix on just this forum and I've never heard anyone complain about someone "stealing" their picture. In fact, I've been asked a couple times for permission to use one of mine as a scrapbook shot or computer wallpaper, or whatever, and am happy to oblige. I don't really think I have anything that's good enough to be found in print anywhere anyhow, so as long as someone asks permission, I have no problem. If I've missed a royalty, I guess it's just my loss.

~YEKCIM

[jann1033]

they might look cute but forget protecting the photos, protect yourself :) ;) last year a bear broke into a woman's house a few miles from me and would have killed her if the daughter hadn't be able to get her away from it.. it ripped the door right off the hinges to get in..cub+mama could = dangerous situation. i'd be calling the game warden:rotfl:

[Marinerbaby]

Certainly your choice, but I think you are way too paranoid about this. There are literally thousands of WDW pix on just this forum and I've never heard anyone complain about someone "stealing" their picture. In fact, I've been asked a couple times for permission to use one of mine as a scrapbook shot or computer wallpaper, or whatever, and am happy to oblige. I don't really think I have anything that's good enough to be found in print anywhere anyhow, so as long as someone asks permission, I have no problem. If I've missed a royalty, I guess it's just my loss.


I don't think the OP is being paranoid at all. I too watermark my images unless they are being posted in a contest or similar where they cannot be. After seeing others images and hard work stolen recently on other boards I began watermarking just about everything. Yes people can still screen shot and digitally get rid of the watermark but it is a lot harder to do so when it is over the image like the OP’s are. I do the same thing with client proofs. :) Copying images is stealing.

To the OP~ What lens were you using? I love the images. I am use to seeing watermarks so they don't bother me. Great shots especially number 2 and I love number 18. :) TFS

[pyrxtc]

I am using an Evolt 500 with my 40-150 3.5-4.5 kit lens. I've gotten some pretty nice shots out of it. I do have my eye on some nicer lenses but they are all true Zuiko/Olympus so they come with a pretty price tag too.

I was sitting with my lens hanging out my kitchen window, just barely open big enough to get the lens through. For a few moments when momma was gone, I did open the front door and take a few of the cub but had my DD watching where momma was the whole time.

There is an electric fence going up this week to keep momma away since On Sunday she went after my neighbor and her dog, chased them and got pretty close. This was after they looked out all the windows and checked for momma. The fish and wildlife department said to leave her alone but if she has a repeat of Sunday, then my neighbor will be getting himself a new bear rug and a hefty fine. Cub will have to be found and rescued but momma will be dead if she attacks people.

Also, with the watermark thing and it only being an 800x600 pic, you'd be surprised at what some people think is a good picture as to where they'll take a web image and blow it up to an 11x14 even. But even a web image being used on someone elses website as their own photo (we had a person on a messageboard do just that with a bunch of posted photos) is illiegal and I'm just making it harder for them.

[kat3668]

I love the one with the Momma and baby looking at each other!!!
Very nice work!!

[manning]

Mama bear on the ground in front of the fence looks pretty good without the watermark

I'd show it to you but I deleted it.

[donaldduck1967]

Nice shots. Maybe try a Smith ans Wesson lens next time.... :rotfl2:

[pyrxtc]

Mama bear on the ground in front of the fence looks pretty good without the watermark

I'd show it to you but I deleted it.

Huh??

[fitzperry]

Although, my group of photographer friends did't even notice the mark, so I guess I'm just used to seeing it on pics too.

How could anyone fail to notice that? :confused3 I'm used to seeing watermarks too, but when they're smack dab in the middle of an image, it makes it rather difficult to enjoy the picture. And isn't that the reason for posting them in a forum such as this--so that people can enjoy them? If I were that concerned about having my images stolen, I just wouldn't post them. Honestly it sounds a little like you're saying we're not sophisticated enough to overlook the watermark.

[wilma-bride]

Just my opinion but, in this particular case, although they're great shots because of the subject, I don't think they are professional looking enough for anyone to want to 'steal' them.

I just think it's a shame that you are so untrusting, you would rather lose the 'wow' effect by sticking a dirty great big watermark on it than risk someone maybe using it on their own website, in a scrap book or even printing it out. I do appreciate that professional photographers need to protect their pictures in some way but this, I think, is totally different.

And, yes, the watermark is off putting - anyone who doesn't see it, in my opinion, has not got good eyesight :confused3

I would love it if you reposted them without the watermarks so we could get a good look at the Mom and cub :thumbsup2

[Marinerbaby]

Mama bear on the ground in front of the fence looks pretty good without the watermark

I'd show it to you but I deleted it.

I am hoping this was said tongue and cheek but after recent events on other boards I do not find this to be funny.

And, yes, the watermark is off putting - anyone who doesn't see it, in my opinion, has not got good eyesight

Wow! I was one who said that the watermark does not bother me. I never said I didn't see it nor do I happen to have poor eyesight thank you. I stated that I understand why it was there and I am use to seeing the same thing on other people's images. I use a different watermark but I do use one and put it on all client proofs as well as most things posted online.

I don't think they are professional looking enough for anyone to want to 'steal' them.


You obviously have your opinion however the OP did not ask for CC or for someone to critique her images. She was sharing and I think putting down her images is not positive nor supportive which is what I thought this forum was suppose to be. :confused:

[abbybeth]

I think it's fine if you watermark and I completely agree with your reasons for doing it. I was still able to enjoy your pictures with the watermark in place (and like you said, you're still tweaking the watermark)

how neat to be able to get shots like that! thank you for sharing!

[jann1033]

just thinking maybe we should just ignore watermarks if they bother us/ we think they are overused/ unnecessary and if it ruins the photo for us just don't post...this is getting to be like refillable mugs, a hot topic;)

[wilma-bride]

Wow! I was one who said that the watermark does not bother me. I never said I didn't see it nor do I happen to have poor eyesight thank you.

Actually, my post was aimed at the OP who said that none fo her photographer friends noticed the watermarks so it wasn't directed at you at all.

[wilma-bride]

OK, so I guess I ought to try and phrase what I said aobut the watermark better - I knew it would be taken out of context by someone. I would have edited my OP but, since it's already been quoted, all I was trying to say is that the subject of the photographs is such a great one that the pictures should have been 'Wow' - instead, they were just OK because, for me, the watermark really detracted from how wonderful the bears are. I wasn't trying to say that the OP's pictures weren't good, just that I thought it was a shame that such unusual pictures should be ruined by the watermark.

I am bowing out now.

[manning]

Huh??


I cloned the watermark out, but didn't want to keep it.

Just wanted you to know it could be done, that's all.

Great pictures!!

[fitzperry]

I use a different watermark but I do use one and put it on all client proofs as well as most things posted online.

FWIW, the professional photographers in my circle of acquaintances generally do not watermark their proofs, and if they do it is somewhat less conspicuous. Frankly I wouldn't purchase photos from someone who would not let me examine the images without such an obtrusive mark.

however the OP did not ask for CC or for someone to critique her images.

To the contrary, she did ask which ones we like best.

She was sharing and I think putting down her images is not positive nor supportive which is what I thought this forum was suppose to be. :confused:

No one is "putting down her images." Just the watermark, which makes it a challenge to really see the images to determine which ones we like best, which is the question that was posed.

[fitzperry]

just thinking maybe we should just ignore watermarks if they bother us/ we think they are overused/ unnecessary and if it ruins the photo for us just don't post...this is getting to be like refillable mugs, a hot topic;)

Awww, but I can't really get into the Nikon v. Canon v. Pentax v. Olympus v. Sony debate. And I need something to argue about on occasion besides whether the kids can have another popsicle. ;)

[Marinerbaby]

FWIW, the professional photographers in my circle of acquaintances generally do not watermark their proofs, and if they do it is somewhat less conspicuous. Frankly I wouldn't purchase photos from someone who would not let me examine the images without such an obtrusive mark.


I would imagine there are some who don't choose to watermark. It is a personal choice as to how they would like to run their business. For me I choose to watermark and I would imagine you would not purchase my images. That's o.k. too.

To the contrary, she did ask which ones we like best.


Asking which we like the best is not asking for HHCC or CC. Just our opinions on which of the bunch we like the best. Just as you have your opinion I have mine and I felt saying none of the images were good enough to be stolen is putting their images down. I cannot respond as to whether these comments bothered the OP but for me they would.

I have been on the DIS boards for a long time and have never once tried to cause problems or stir the pot. This post just really bothered me and after recent events felt I needed to say something.

I guess I should have kept my opinions, experiences, and watermarked images to myself. I am done trying to explain my feelings on this matter and going back into “lurkdome”. Thanks for the support.

[Master Mason]

this guy is one of the most stunning wedding photographers I have seen. Take a look and see how he watermarks his photos he posts on the net.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=321686

As always everyone is free to do what they want, but I want to see the work, not the watermark.

[fitzperry]

Asking which we like the best is not asking for HHCC or CC. Just our opinions on which of the bunch we like the best.

If I asked that question, I would assume that I was inviting cc because I would want to know why people prefer one image over another.


Just as you have your opinion I have mine and I felt saying none of the images were good enough to be stolen is putting their images down. I cannot respond as to whether these comments bothered the OP but for me they would.

I forgot about that comment (which incidentally was not mine), and I would agree that it is a bit of a put down. However, the remarks concerning the watermark are not criticisms of the images themselves. Furthermore, the watermark issue is directly relevant to the op's question (i.e., which ones people like best) because if you can't really see the images, then how can you possibly say which ones you prefer.

I guess I should have kept my opinions, experiences, and watermarked images to myself. I am done trying to explain my feelings on this matter and going back into “lurkdome”. Thanks for the support.

What are you so upset about? :confused3 The rest of us are merely expressing our opinions, same as you.

[cpbjgc]

I liked #11 especially.

The only other comment I have is what were the bears doing before they got to your place? Their fur looks like they fell in a vat of hair gel :rotfl: !

This is me avoiding the watermark discussion
|
|
\/
:tiptoe:

[jann1033]

Awww, but I can't really get into the Nikon v. Canon v. Pentax v. Olympus v. Sony debate. And I need something to argue about on occasion besides whether the kids can have another popsicle. ;)

well in that case... maybe we can start a thread on watermarking refillable mugs:rotfl2:

meant to multi quote here and did it wrong so...the watermark master mason linked to imo is nice, it actually adds to the photos rather than detracting from them and you can see the whole photo. truthfully that is the only type of watermark i ever remember seeing on any photos for sale but i guess i don't get around as much ;););)

[pyrxtc]

this guy is one of the most stunning wedding photographers I have seen. Take a look and see how he watermarks his photos he posts on the net.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=321686

As always everyone is free to do what they want, but I want to see the work, not the watermark.

Sorry, but he is signing his images with his studio name, not watermarking them. A lot of watermarks that I have seen are multiples of the same thing across the entire photo.

this site one of many ways to watermark a Photo. http://graphicssoft.about.com/cs/photoshop/ht/apswatermark.htm

I also only watermark my digital files. My printed proofs do not have a watermark or even my signature on them. I figure, they want to see their picture on the wall, not my sig.

I ignored the post aboutt he WoW photos intentionally since obviously that could be taken many ways and I hate when their are stupid debates on the board. I juts wanted to show how close the bears were to my residence and haven't even touched the pics to add a WOW factor at all.

Also, as stated by someone else, if you don't like the watermarks, then don't post about the pics. My photographer friends "don't see it" cuz they are used to it and understand why it is done. I'm not saying anyone on here would steal any of the pics but they are posted on photobucket and could easily be taken from there as well. My own Aunt managed to grab all of the pics I posted of my sister leaving for the war and save them to her computer. I would have given her full res copies if she asked me but told me how she grabbed them herself.

[iggbees]

those bears were precious looking! that's amazing that they were so close and just playing in the tree.

[KrazyPete]

What a great photo opportunity! We don't have that kind of wildlife where I live. Just an occasional deer and never in my yard. I like number 8. You have stuff going on in the foreground, middle, and background. The bear is framed up quite nicely there.

On your watermarks, I don't like'em at all. It's way too much. I don't know you and I'm not judging you personally, but when I see stuff like that it comes off as a little self-important to me. I don't watermark the photos on my site. I do password protect the high res copies in my gallery to control who has access to them. When I post online I use low res version of the photo (usually around 400px on the long edge). I think that's small enough to keep them from being used for most commercial purposes.

[DizGeek]

LOL...this thread is amazing! Someone posts a few pictures of something and people jump down the persons throat for some tiny obstruction.

Too funny.:rotfl2:

[Master Mason]

LOL...this thread is amazing! Someone posts a few pictures of something and people jump down the persons throat for some tiny obstruction.

Too funny.:rotfl2:

I don't think anyone jumped down her throat, we were asked which one we liked the best. Several of us stated that we found the watermark so distracting that we could answer the question.

It is the OP's perogotive to watermark her pics however she see's fit. And everyone else is free to either be ok with it or to dislike it.

[°O°Joe]

My own Aunt managed to grab all of the pics I posted of my sister leaving for the war and save them to her computer. I would have given her full res copies if she asked me but told me how she grabbed them herself.

No offense, but is there something wrong with this? I really don't get it. If she's just taking a copy to put on her computer for future viewing, isn't that the same thing as bookmarking the photobucket page for future viewing?

Or is she taking the pictures and sharing them elsewhere and taking credit for them?

I'm a little confused...

I may be wrong, but I don't think saving an image off the net and storing it on your computer is illegal or immoral for that matter.

FWIW, I would have enjoyed the pictures MUCH more without the watermark. After all, was it not your intent to share the pictures so others could enjoy them?

[pyrxtc]

No offense, but is there something wrong with this? I really don't get it. If she's just taking a copy to put on her computer for future viewing, isn't that the same thing as bookmarking the photobucket page for future viewing?

Or is she taking the pictures and sharing them elsewhere and taking credit for them?

I'm a little confused...

I may be wrong, but I don't think saving an image off the net and storing it on your computer is illegal or immoral for that matter.



When you take a picture off the net for your own use or to share or sell, it is called copyright infingement! therefore illegal. If I came to your yhouse and foudn pictures on my computer that I did not send to you personall or sell to you, then I could rightfull sue you for copyright. Same as scanning in pro photo's after you ahve them done ata studio and then using them on your myspace. If you didn't take it or have permission from the person who did to save it to your computer, then you have no rights to it. Even if you just want to look at it later. bookmark it all you want since that is not the same thing at all! It is staying in the same place and not being stolen via right click. Why do you think that Disney has turned their photopass into a flash program? To make it harder for people to "steal" the photo's.

"MYTH # 5.
"If I am not making money off the photos, I am not violating copyright."

Copyright infringement is not excused if you are doing it for some reason other than profit, such as malice or the collectivist notion that an individual's creative work "should be free for all to share." These are the typical motives of some people who post thousands of Playboy photos to newsgroups. The court may fine you more or treat you more harshly if you have a profit motive. But you can still get punished-badly-if your actions are harming the commercial value of the infringed pictures. Or if you infringed "knowingly" or "willfully." Or if the judge thinks it appropriate to "send a warning" to discourage other would-be infringers.

Violating copyright is illegal whether you do it for money, love, competitive advantage, "

Quote was borrowed form link below.

http://www.flickr.com/groups/professionalphotography/discuss/72157594407399712/

[Master Mason]

Actually your picture is on my computer in my temp files the minute I open it up.

And actually the use does come into play. I can use any photo I find on the net legally in a school paper, or as an editorial. The editorial use is how the paparrazi get away with taking pictures of folks without their release to their image.

Your free to do as you wish, there your photos. Many folks feel your detracting from the beauty of your photos by doing so, but that's your call. Your reasons are your own and are personal to you. But if that is your choice, then you must be prepared for people to tell you that it detracts from your pictures.

BTW, did you ask permision to quote from the above source??

[jesszac610]

I love the one with the Momma and baby looking at each other!!!
Very nice work!!

That's my favorite too!

[°O°Joe]

When you take a picture off the net for your own use or to share or sell, it is called copyright infingement! therefore illegal. If I came to your yhouse and foudn pictures on my computer that I did not send to you personall or sell to you, then I could rightfull sue you for copyright. Same as scanning in pro photo's after you ahve them done ata studio and then using them on your myspace. If you didn't take it or have permission from the person who did to save it to your computer, then you have no rights to it. Even if you just want to look at it later. bookmark it all you want since that is not the same thing at all! It is staying in the same place and not being stolen via right click. Why do you think that Disney has turned their photopass into a flash program? To make it harder for people to "steal" the photo's.

"MYTH # 5.
"If I am not making money off the photos, I am not violating copyright."

Copyright infringement is not excused if you are doing it for some reason other than profit, such as malice or the collectivist notion that an individual's creative work "should be free for all to share." These are the typical motives of some people who post thousands of Playboy photos to newsgroups. The court may fine you more or treat you more harshly if you have a profit motive. But you can still get punished-badly-if your actions are harming the commercial value of the infringed pictures. Or if you infringed "knowingly" or "willfully." Or if the judge thinks it appropriate to "send a warning" to discourage other would-be infringers.

Violating copyright is illegal whether you do it for money, love, competitive advantage, "

Quote was borrowed form link below.

http://www.flickr.com/groups/professionalphotography/discuss/72157594407399712/

interesting... I guess I'm breaking the law all the time then. Well, technically I break the law everyday when I go one mile over the posted speed limit.

I don't know - seems kind of silly to me. To me its kind of like saying you can't cut a picture out of a FREE magazine and frame it and put it on your wall. What's the difference if you're using it for your own personal use? Now if I sell that picture that's a different story.

And why post a picture on the internet that you don't want ANYBODY to have a copy of anyway?

I'm not trying to "stir the pot" so to speak... just trying to use a little common sense.

[jann1033]

My own Aunt managed to grab all of the pics I posted of my sister leaving for the war and save them to her computer. I would have given her full res copies if she asked me but told me how she grabbed them herself.

total curiosity on my part but....the whole watermarking thing kind of shocks me, i can understand it for someone who is a pro and sells his photos for a living and puts them online for his customers to view but doesn't want them to copy them but for a something like these or family photos i just don't understand the rational behind it. especially the family ones.. guess i am
just wondering why you posted them if you didn't want anyone to see or use them...was it more because she bragged about taking them? i doubt anyone would have an exception to someone taking a photo of their sister going to war otherwise...my sister takes my photos of my granddaughter i post all the time and I could care less,in fact that's why i post them, so she can see them and get prints if she wants.:confused3 :confused: :confused3

(& since this surfaced again and will probably be the only photo thread ever that ends up locked i want to be part of history so i am asking this ???:lmao: )

[YEKCIM]

(& since this surfaced again and will probably be the only photo thread ever that ends up locked i want to be part of history so i am asking this ???:lmao: )

:rotfl2: :rotfl2: :rotfl2: :rotfl2:

[pyrxtc]

total curiosity on my part but....the whole watermarking thing kind of shocks me, i can understand it for someone who is a pro and sells his photos for a living and puts them online for his customers to view but doesn't want them to copy them but for a something like these or family photos i just don't understand the rational behind it. especially the family ones.. guess i am
just wondering why you posted them if you didn't want anyone to see or use them...was it more because she bragged about taking them? i doubt anyone would have an exception to someone taking a photo of their sister going to war otherwise...my sister takes my photos of my granddaughter i post all the time and I could care less,in fact that's why i post them, so she can see them and get prints if she wants.:confused3 :confused: :confused3

(& since this surfaced again and will probably be the only photo thread ever that ends up locked i want to be part of history so i am asking this ???:lmao: )

I didn't watermark the family ones. I was just using it as an example of copyright imfringement. I do sell my images and will be offering some of these bear ones up for sale on my site. I don't watermark the ones on my site either, they are right-click protected but you can get around that if you are knowledgable.

I was surprised that she took them from photobucket since I would have just e-mailed her a full-res copy if she asked me. the only reason I knew is cuz she Pm'ed me to yell at me for having fuzzy pictures online and she couldn't steal them right. Then Pm'ed me agian tom tell me it was her computer and got all the pics fine. Although she is one of those people who will take a pic that she saved off the internet and print an 8x10 of it and think it looks ok.

[pyrxtc]

BTW, did you ask permision to quote from the above source??

No, but I directed you to the source and in no way told you that it was mine. Nor did I copy or download it to my computer.

[Master Mason]

No, but I directed you to the source and in no way told you that it was mine. Nor did I copy or download it to my computer.

Actually if you visited the site it was located, it would be on your computer in your interenet cache files. So while maybe unknowingly you did.

My point is, you felt no problem using someone elses words for a purpose they didn't intend without asking their permission first. By your strict interpretation of the copyright laws, you have violated that same law giving credit does not alevate the usage of it.... just saying.

[MarkBarbieri]

I'm appalled.

[pyrxtc]

Actually if you visited the site it was located, it would be on your computer in your interenet cache files. So while maybe unknowingly you did.

My point is, you felt no problem using someone elses words for a purpose they didn't intend without asking their permission first. By your strict interpretation of the copyright laws, you have violated that same law giving credit does not alevate the usage of it.... just saying.

Actually if you read the page, this was for the purpose those words were written.

[Master Mason]

Actually if you read the page, this was for the purpose those words were written.

See and I just went to the site, and looked, and no were does it say that copyright of the words has been given up, or a statement that says one is free to use the words in anyway.

I have no intention of getting into a p..ing match here, but I just find it amusing that your so adament about the copyright rules, but then violate them yourself, because they are words rather than a picture. It was still the intelectual capital of the person that wrote it.

My point is, and I have said it many times now. If you don't want someone to take your photo, the only sure way is to not put it on the web in the first place. And, your free to do with your photos whatever you want, for whatever reasoning you want to attach to it, just don't be offended when someone tells you that placing a great big watermark accross the photo detracts from it. Because it does, it compleately distroys the image. If you want to do it fine, but to me, it doesn't show your capablities as a photographer, it just shows parinioa.... My opinion only.

[pyrxtc]

My point is, and I have said it many times now. If you don't want someone to take your photo, the only sure way is to not put it on the web in the first place. And, your free to do with your photos whatever you want, for whatever reasoning you want to attach to it, just don't be offended when someone tells you that placing a great big watermark accross the photo detracts from it. Because it does, it compleately distroys the image. If you want to do it fine, but to me, it doesn't show your capablities as a photographer, it just shows parinioa.... My opinion only.

Can you find it in this thread that I was offended by this? I know that other people were and said I might be but I never said I was. Also, I wasn't showing off my capabilities as a photographer, just the coolness of having the wildlife so close to me that I could get so close to them for pictures. I don't need to try to show off my capabilities as a photographer on here. My clients like as do I and that's all that matters.

[MICKEY88]

I've never heard of anyone using a watermark to show their skills as a photographer...
it's more in the way of having some sense of control over usage, which is a right granted to artists under the law..


some people lock their cars all the time, some people never do, is one group paranoid or simply trying to protect their property..??



the wedding photos we were guided to are nice, but realistically wedding photos especially low resolution/file size such as those, are among the least likely to be taken off the net, who would want to take wedding pics of strangers...for their own personal use...

when I shoot school events such as my nieces kindergarten graduation, I upload to my website in low resolution simply for ease and speed, and although it would be silly for any parent to download these low resolution pics when they've been told they simply have to email me and I will send them the full size file, I watermark these for one simple reason I want to deter the few people who will download the low resolution pics anyway, enlarge them to 8x10s then display them, while telling people I took them, which makes me look bad because the 8x10s look bad..

[jann1033]

I'm appalled.
:lmao: and that in itself shows just how shocking this thread is :lmao:

[Master Mason]

Can you find it in this thread that I was offended by this? I know that other people were and said I might be but I never said I was. Also, I wasn't showing off my capabilities as a photographer, just the coolness of having the wildlife so close to me that I could get so close to them for pictures. I don't need to try to show off my capabilities as a photographer on here. My clients like as do I and that's all that matters.

Your correct, I am sorry, you never complained, that was others.

But I still find it funny that you violated the very same copyright rules your worried others will do with your photos....

Anyways, you know how I feel, and I know how you feel, and we will just have to agree to disagree on this one.

[cpbjgc]

http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f331/cpbjgc/Stuff/deadhorse.gif

BTW, this is a copyright infringement, because it is a substantial taking of the image, I don't know the source of the image, and I am not attributing the image to the holder of the copyright (since I don't know who it is). And to make it even more interesting, legally speaking, it is an international infringement! I think it sums up where we are at quite nicely, though.

[MICKEY88]

the watermark topic always amazes me,

I guess I see it as tv viewing or listening to the radio

if you don't like the content you are free to change the channel,

if watermarks bother someone that much, they can simply not view the pictures, there are plenty of other threads to view..

or like b&w or color pictures, I personally have never liked b&W I always figure things were made in color for a reason,

and I wonder why, people who prefer b&W photos, don't watch tv in b&w.


but I would never think of telling them they were wrong, or try to impose my preference on them:confused3 :confused3

[jann1033]

http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f331/cpbjgc/Stuff/deadhorse.gif

BTW, this is a copyright infringement, because it is a substantial taking of the image, I don't know the source of the image, and I am not attributing the image to the holder of the copyright (since I don't know who it is). And to make it even more interesting, legally speaking, it is an international infringement! I think it sums up where we are at quite nicely, though.

for get the copyright stuff....what i want to know is...why is the horse standing on his head and are those xs on his eyes a watermark
:laughing: ;)

[MICKEY88]

for get the copyright stuff....what i want to know is...why is the horse standing on his head and are those xs on his eyes a watermark
:laughing: ;)

actually if you look closely I think he's standing on his tongue

[YEKCIM]

I find the invisible assailant very disturbing.

~YEKCIM

[MICKEY88]

I find the invisible assailant very disturbing.

~YEKCIM


the disturbing invisible assailant , :thumbsup2 is obviously very disturbed

[Jeanne B]

I find the invisible assailant very disturbing.

~YEKCIM

:rotfl2: :rotfl2: :rotfl2:

I've intentionally stayed out of this thread but this cracked me up, we've gone from pictures of bears to disturbing invisible assailants, I think I've forgotten all about the watermarks at this point!!:lmao:

[YEKCIM]

:rotfl2: :rotfl2: :rotfl2:

I've intentionally stayed out of this thread but this cracked me up, we've gone from pictures of bears to disturbing invisible assailants, I think I've forgotten all about the watermarks at this point!!:lmao:

That was the intended result.

~YEKCIM

[Jeanne B]

That was the intended result.

~YEKCIM

You did a fine job because you had me in stitches. :)

[scottny]

nice pics but watermark is distracting.

I only watermark the photos on my website that i sell on. Everything else is up for grabs. Someone wants it for desktop wallpaper or something no problem.

[iluvdisnee]

Coming in WAY late on this but I have to say I certainly wasnt expecting her "Neighbor" to be a bear, LOL It made me chuckle. I was expecting pics of a little girl twirling through a yard!

About watermarking...I can see WHY people do it. I'm an Ebayer and also an owner of 2 beautiful St. Bernards.

Ebay photo's get stolen all the time and its truly annoying. I once had portraits done of my Saint, Tally, and I posted them on a few Dog Owner Forums that I was a member of.

A year later, there was a woman on ebay Selling Stationary, Postcards, Greeting Cards, Labels etc and GUESS who was on it....MY DOG and HER PORTRAIT! I happened to be looking for Saint Bernard Christmas cards when I came across what was SHOCKING to me. I was FREAKED OUT thinking, MY DOG IS ON EBAY!

I emailed this woman ANGRY of course saying she had no right to be using my portrait for her gain. Apparently (This was her story) she got the "rights" to use the photo from the dogs "owner". I told her thats impossible because I am the dog's owner. She told me to prove it.

I took the Whole Packet of portraits, laid them out on the table and took a picture of it along with the release form.

Once she saw that, it was AMAZNG how fast those auctions ended! She also profusely apologized!

SO, Watermraking on the net is SOMETIMES necessary if the pictures are good enough for someone to use for monetary gain!

Just My .02 from my own personal experience!

[pilgrimage]

How far away were you when the photos were taken? I'd have
been fascinated first, then terrified.

[pyrxtc]

I was about 10 feet from them. It was cool for a while but hated having to stay in the house wiht the kids in case she came back.

[donaldduck1967]

I was about 10 feet from them. It was cool for a while but hated having to stay in the house wiht the kids in case she came back.

A Little OT but how was Great Escape. We were there 2 yrs ago and thought it was good for the little ones but not for the older crowd. My daughter and her cousins loved it espically the Bugs Bunny area.

[pyrxtc]

A Little OT but how was Great Escape. We were there 2 yrs ago and thought it was good for the little ones but not for the older crowd. My daughter and her cousins loved it espically the Bugs Bunny area.

I hated it for the little kids. Well, the kiddie area was fine but their measuring system was really inconsistent. My youngest didn't like being denied to go on the rides constantly. He was the 42 inches but all of the measuring sticks were taller but never the same. My DS got told no but shorter kids went on after him. I will be going again but only cuz I bought season passes and the coupons are only good there and not at NE one.

[donaldduck1967]

I hated it for the little kids. Well, the kiddie area was fine but their measuring system was really inconsistent. My youngest didn't like being denied to go on the rides constantly. He was the 42 inches but all of the measuring sticks were taller but never the same. My DS got told no but shorter kids went on after him. I will be going again but only cuz I bought season passes and the coupons are only good there and not at NE one.

Thanks for the feed back. My daughter was only 3 @ the time wasn't close to 42". She was able to do all the rides in Bugs Bunnt area and in the area by the swan boats ( the trains, cars , etc.) Thanks.