WDW - Castle Picture

[MICKEY88]

But keep in mind, a small watermark on a picture that is 3000 X 2000 would be much larger once blown up to a poster size...it would no longer be such a small watermark.

As for the cropping, I completely disagree. Although from your artistic perspective, maybe the image was best seen in your eyes that way, but from anothers, they may see something completely different.

The one picture someone posted on here already for everyone else to see is almost perfect, but for what I am doing I need to crop it down and adjust it to fit in the frame, and to fill in some "empty" space. Although the picture is beautiful, my artistic eye/need/desire requires a change to it.

it's not that difficult to apply a watermark that will still be small at 20x30.

as for the cropping and your artistic eye, that is such a slap in the face to the original artist,

that is the equivalent to taking a painting done by one of the masters, and altering it, because your artistic eye is different from theirs,
imagine if someone thought the LAST SUPPER just didn't look right and wanted to put more focus on the center 1/3 of the painting, so they cut off the outer 2/3s

 

[lbgraves]

 

[PA disfan]

 

[JR6ooo4]

If one wants to display "joe photographer's" photo I think it should be unaltered.

But if someone wants to use the photo as substance for another work of art then one might expect it to be altered.

Most contract disputes arise from a lack of communication prior to executing the contract.

Mikeeee

 

[JR6ooo4]

MICKEY88 - I tend to agree with you here. I've never sold a photo in my life and quite honestly, don't plan to. But, if my photo was hanging in someone's house, I think I would want a small watermark in the lower corner. A friend of ours is a wonderful artist. He graciously gave us an original piece of his artwork. Of course, he signed his piece. I view a photo as a piece of art that should give credit to the artist. Now, it doesn't need to be a distracting neon splash across the middle, but a tasteful small watermark in the corner is appropriate. I do think you need to be careful with cropping also. It can alter the perspective and intent of the original image. I learned this the hard way. I took some portraits of my nieces and gave them to my SIL on CD. I was horrified when I saw the prints she had made. She really messed up the photos by adding some tacky frames, goofy crops, etc. Now, I post them on my Smugmug site and she can order them at cost. I don't make a dime, but at least I know they will be printed as I had intended. This is purely a hobby for me, and I enjoy giving away my photos. But, as the creator of the image, I do expect some respect for my work.

Sorry Steve's Girl. I have a smug account. I think anyone can crop during the purchase process so the photo will fit the different print ratios without having black stripes on the top or bottom. A red box is shown for the print ratio/size and it can be moved around to keep subjects in the frame without cropping heads or hands, etc...
Mikeeee

 

[Steve's Girl]

Sorry Steve's Girl. I have a smug account. I think anyone can crop during the purchase process so the photo will fit the different print ratios without having black stripes on the top or bottom. A red box is shown for the print ratio/size and it can be moved around to keep subjects in the frame without cropping heads or hands, etc...
Mikeeee

Yes. You are correct. That is not the kind of cropping I was referring to. I was referring to major cropping. As an example, in one photo there was a beautiful lighthouse in the background and I placed it very carefully in the photo and the end print had the lighthouse cut in half. It really ruined the whole composition of the photo. I always leave enough space that a photo can be cropped to various print sizes and expect that to take place. However, I don't want body parts, important pieces of the composition, etc. cut in half.

 

[giantstu]

Feel free to use any of mine, drop me a private message with your email address and i will send you a high res copy

More are at http://www.flickr.com/photos/57501091@N00/sets/

 

[tjl1388]

PM if you want the hi-res. I don't care about the copyright stuff. All I ask is you tell people where you got it.

Just FYI...Landscape of the castle is RARE....

Feel free to browse the galleries in my signature.

 

[zackiedawg]

Here are a few of my landscape castles, that should be in the right size range (and without people in the frame in any obvious way!). If any of them suit your needs, I'd be happy to share the full res with you by e-mail...just let me know.

Pretty much all the rest I have either have people fairly prominently in frame, or are portrait-framed. Some are cropped from originals (most ranged from 3072x2304 or 3872x2592)...but should still have fairly close to the 3000x2000 pixel range you need.

 

[BrerRabbit_fan]

I clicked on this thread cuz I was curious if the op got what they needed. I was surprised at the amount of people who would want a watermark. If this was a pro board, I could see it, but it's the disboards. Where we spread the magic and help people. I don't know, maybe I'm not expressing myself correctly. I guess I thought that with so many photographers here, the op would have gotten tons of choices, not watermark issues.

And just to be clear, I practice what I preach. There was a thread on the Theme Park board where someone was the opening family at the MK and I was there that day and sent them a video of themselves. It never occured to me to even think about it. I'm not trying to be preachy here, just a little sad.

 

[caniswolfie]

I read the forums here and I also read at another site where Professional, Semi-Pro, and Amateur photographers. Asking for recognition is tame considering the discussions I have read when the usage of photographs is talked about. Why is this sad to ask for recognition? The photographer is not asking for money of their work. They just want to be recognized for their contribution.

Try to think about the perspective of the photographer. We don't know if the photographer took a quick shot of the castle and then put it up. They could have also spent every morning on their vacation getting up and getting into the park right at opening and coming back at sunset to look for the right light for the photo. Setting up a tripod and waiting for the perfect light and without any people directly in the shot. Then shooting multiple exposures in the landscape and portrait adjusting settings while hoping that they don't lose the light. They want to let people know they took that photo.

There are some that don't care for the recognition and will provide their photos and others that won't. I wouldn't blame the photographer for asking and understand if they won't provide their photos.

I see that some people have provided their photos and it seems like you should be able to get something. I just wanted to chime in why some people might want their photos recognized and not modified. I don't think anyone is trying to be malicious nor try to convince others of not providing their photographs either, just curious and explain their positions.

 

[Jazzylolo]

Here are a couple I took. Obviously if you wanted them I would send you copies without my name on them. Don't know if they are what you are looking for at all but they are slightly different perspectives than others have posted as of yet.

 

[MICKEY88]

I clicked on this thread cuz I was curious if the op got what they needed. I was surprised at the amount of people who would want a watermark. If this was a pro board, I could see it, but it's the disboards. Where we spread the magic and help people. I don't know, maybe I'm not expressing myself correctly. I guess I thought that with so many photographers here, the op would have gotten tons of choices, not watermark issues.

And just to be clear, I practice what I preach. There was a thread on the Theme Park board where someone was the opening family at the MK and I was there that day and sent them a video of themselves. It never occured to me to even think about it. I'm not trying to be preachy here, just a little sad.

True we spread the magic and help people here; i've spent countless hours working on photos for members here, cloning things out etc... and I once took one of my castle pictures and cloned a family in front of it, since they didn't get a good pic themselves..but there are limits, otherwise someone could visit the website of one of us that have them and start asking for random photos, do you think we are obligated to give them up..??
I have taken pictures of total strangers at the park and emailed copies to them, thinking nothing of it, one day I was talking to a gentleman beside me while waiting for the 3:00 parade, he told me his son's HS band was marching down main street shortly before the parade, so I offered to get pics for him, he pointed out his son and I forwarded them, again no big deal, to me this situation was different, it would be a picture I took for myself, invested thousands of dollars for the vacation, spent my time at Disney getting the shot I wanted, to just hand that over to someone who wants to crop it and alter the integrity of that which I created, without honoring my request to leave a small watermark on it, so people could visit my website and see my other work..just isn't an option,..



and just to be clear on this, I have never, and will never sell any of my disney photos, with the exception of those that the Disney legal dept, gave me clearance for..

 

[singjenn]

Here are a couple I took. Obviously if you wanted them I would send you copies without my name on them. Don't know if they are what you are looking for at all but they are slightly different perspectives than others have posted as of yet.

I LOVE LOVE LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVE the last photo. And the photos in your sig are fabulous!!!!! WOO HOO!!!

 

[singjenn]

*This is obviously just an opinion but I had to participate in this thread.

I think some people (of which I will not mention) are getting to big for their britches. It seems that the watermark issue is more of an ego problem than a problem of wanting recognition for their hard work. It's tacky to have a watermark on a poster and it distracts from the photo. I don't recall ever seeing a watermark on a poster of Miley Cyrus or Elle McPherson.....and I doubt the photographer is upset about it. When you give a CD of images or free prints to clients, do you have your watermark on those? I doubt it.

The OP made a valid request and I hope it was fulfilled.

OP....if you didn't get your picture that you want I will be happy to take one for you when I go in May.

 

[MICKEY88]

*This is obviously just an opinion but I had to participate in this thread.

I think some people (of which I will not mention) are getting to big for their britches. It seems that the watermark issue is more of an ego problem than a problem of wanting recognition for their hard work. It's tacky to have a watermark on a poster and it distracts from the photo. I don't recall ever seeing a watermark on a poster of Miley Cyrus or Elle McPherson.....and I doubt the photographer is upset about it. When you give a CD of images or free prints to clients, do you have your watermark on those? I doubt it.

The OP made a valid request and I hope it was fulfilled.

OP....if you didn't get your picture that you want I will be happy to take one for you when I go in May.

although you didn't mention names, I'll reply since it doesn't take much to figure at least part of your reply is directed at me, since I've spoken the most on watermark/copyright,

anyone who knows me would laugh at your suggestion, because one thing I do not have is an ego,

just as disney must be strict in enforcing their copyrights and trademarks, so must photographers...if you ignore it, in most cases and then try to bring a case against someone for copyright infringement, your previous lack of enforcement can be used against you in court..

you will never see a watermark on a poster of a celebrity, because that type of photo shoot is a work for hire job, the photographer is hired to shoot the photos and the client owns the copyright, not the photographer, and since they are paid nice money for the shoot, rather than giving the picture away, of course they are not upset, they get exactly what they contract for..

but you will almost always see some sort of text on a poster of a celebrity so they are rarely word free
when I personally, and most other photographers I know give a cd of images to a model, there are 2 sets of files, one full size that they can have printed for a hard copy portfolio, and a set of web ready images with copyright/watermark on them, there is also a contract involved that clearly states what the pictures can be used for, self promotion only, no commercial use unless a new contract is negotiated between the model and the photographer, the contract also clearly states that the images can not be edited, cropped or altered in any way, including the removal of the copyright, which for the record makes the copyright infringement a felony...

all of those things are fairly standard in a contract between model and photographer in a tfcd shoot..


what I find really interesting is that years ago all studios included their name on the front of 8x10s etc, usually in gold, no one ever questioned it or thought it shouldn't be there until the proliferation of one hour mini labs,

although the OP made a valid request I'm fairly certain that most photographers, would react negatively if asked for a free picture, and then be told the person receiving it plans to crop it to make it look better per their opinion..

and just for the record if the tone of the OPs replies to me had not taken the direction they did, I most likely would have tried to get a workable shot when I'm at WDW the 13th thru the 27th

one last thought, I just visited your website, nice work, but I'd be really careful about publicly making the special offer you have for May, it's my understanding that the owners of the location don't look kindly upon people making profit off of their property and unique backgrounds...

 

[ssanders79]

Here are two shots from last week. These are both cropped as the originals were landscape. If you like any of these just let me know and I will send you an original.

 

[zackiedawg]

Just want to throw a little fairy dust around this thread in hopes all the 'chippiness' can go away, and the OP can just keep the thread on topic.

First...for those who don't want to share photos...no problem. For those that do...no problem. For those who want to, but are worried about copyright or usage...no problem. There!

Look...everyone's different, and has different standards, reactions, opinions, etc regarding their photography. Non-professionals have less to worry about; professionals must take their livelihood into consideration. If someone mentioned that they wanted a watermark if their photos were used, let it be...that's their stipulation, and the OP can choose to use those photos or not. There are plenty of other options available, so no great problem.

I am by several definitions a 'professional' photographer. I've sold photographs, been paid to do shoots, hired to do modeling portfolios, and had photos purchased for publication locally and nationally. And I, like most 'professional' photographers, have learned that some precautions do have to be taken with internet postings with photographs because there really are people out there who want to steal other people's works and attempt to profit from them...and it isn't easy proving them wrong and getting your property back. Of course, you can only go so far - watermarks can be cropped or cloned out, right-click-disablers can be defeated with print-screen programs, etc. If someone wants to steal your photo...they will. My method is simply to never post my photos any larger than 800 pixels on the long side, which at least limits how a stolen photo could be used (it won't pass muster for large prints or publication).

But I'm also not a career photographer. I don't rely on my photography income for a living. My photography is a hobby that pays a little folding money on the side, essentially paying for itself by letting me buy new equipment with the profits. I might be a little more stringent or protective if I relied on photography as a career, or relied on the income from it. So I don't begrudge those who choose to be more careful with their work.

I'm willing to share my photos with the OP, if they wanted any of them, because I am trusting that the intent is to use them solely for personal consumption, and it is in the spirit of the boards and Disney. Do I mind if they crop them, edit them, or change them? No...because these aren't 'professional' photographs that I've prepared with the intent to sell or profit from...these are just vacation shots for me. I don't sell photos of Disney copyrights or protected scenes as I'm not licensed to do so...so sharing them to the OP for me is just a friendly gesture of one person sharing vacation photos with another. If someone went through the not inconsiderate expense of licensing to sell Disney photos, I would expect them to protect their photographs with watermarks, contracts, disclaimers, and anything else they can think of. Or if someone's career or income relies on their name as a photographer and getting credit for their work, sold-for-profit or not.

Anyway...hopefully we can all let each person have their own standards for use of their photography, and not judge or criticize if our own standards differ. The OP might have started the argument inadvertently or otherwise with the reply to the watermark or cropping comments...but remember too that the OP may not have realized they would be dealing with a mix of fellow Disboarders AND professional photographers, and that each might have very different requirements for usage of their photos. If someone's photos are not to the OP's liking, they don't have to use them...similarly, if they don't like the rules attached to someone's photos, they don't have to use them. If you want to offer your photos to the OP, go ahead and offer them - set the rules (if any) as you see fit, let the OP choose to use them or not, and let's not judge each person making the offer just because they had a different set of rules!

 

[MICKEY88]

Just want to throw a little fairy dust around this thread in hopes all the 'chippiness' can go away, and the OP can just keep the thread on topic.

First...for those who don't want to share photos...no problem. For those that do...no problem. For those who want to, but are worried about copyright or usage...no problem. There!

Look...everyone's different, and has different standards, reactions, opinions, etc regarding their photography. Non-professionals have less to worry about; professionals must take their livelihood into consideration. If someone mentioned that they wanted a watermark if their photos were used, let it be...that's their stipulation, and the OP can choose to use those photos or not. There are plenty of other options available, so no great problem.

I am by several definitions a 'professional' photographer. I've sold photographs, been paid to do shoots, hired to do modeling portfolios, and had photos purchased for publication locally and nationally. And I, like most 'professional' photographers, have learned that some precautions do have to be taken with internet postings with photographs because there really are people out there who want to steal other people's works and attempt to profit from them...and it isn't easy proving them wrong and getting your property back. Of course, you can only go so far - watermarks can be cropped or cloned out, right-click-disablers can be defeated with print-screen programs, etc. If someone wants to steal your photo...they will. My method is simply to never post my photos any larger than 800 pixels on the long side, which at least limits how a stolen photo could be used (it won't pass muster for large prints or publication).

But I'm also not a career photographer. I don't rely on my photography income for a living. My photography is a hobby that pays a little folding money on the side, essentially paying for itself by letting me buy new equipment with the profits. I might be a little more stringent or protective if I relied on photography as a career, or relied on the income from it. So I don't begrudge those who choose to be more careful with their work.

I'm willing to share my photos with the OP, if they wanted any of them, because I am trusting that the intent is to use them solely for personal consumption, and it is in the spirit of the boards and Disney. Do I mind if they crop them, edit them, or change them? No...because these aren't 'professional' photographs that I've prepared with the intent to sell or profit from...these are just vacation shots for me. I don't sell photos of Disney copyrights or protected scenes as I'm not licensed to do so...so sharing them to the OP for me is just a friendly gesture of one person sharing vacation photos with another. If someone went through the not inconsiderate expense of licensing to sell Disney photos, I would expect them to protect their photographs with watermarks, contracts, disclaimers, and anything else they can think of. Or if someone's career or income relies on their name as a photographer and getting credit for their work, sold-for-profit or not.

Anyway...hopefully we can all let each person have their own standards for use of their photography, and not judge or criticize if our own standards differ. The OP might have started the argument inadvertently or otherwise with the reply to the watermark or cropping comments...but remember too that the OP may not have realized they would be dealing with a mix of fellow Disboarders AND professional photographers, and that each might have very different requirements for usage of their photos. If someone's photos are not to the OP's liking, they don't have to use them...similarly, if they don't like the rules attached to someone's photos, they don't have to use them. If you want to offer your photos to the OP, go ahead and offer them - set the rules (if any) as you see fit, let the OP choose to use them or not, and let's not judge each person making the offer just because they had a different set of rules!

very well put , thanks for mediating.... , I'm done...

 

[annnewjerz]

very well put , thanks for mediating.... , I'm done...

Much better than last tim I attempted by telling you "boys" to "play nice in the sandbox" That just started another flare up all on its own.