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

[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.

 

[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.

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? 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 !

This is me avoiding the watermark discussion
|
|
\/

 

[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

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.

 

[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.

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/