October 01, 2014, 09:11:10 AM

Author Topic: Waterscapes  (Read 57079 times)

ckwaller

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 39
    • View Profile
Re: Waterscapes
« Reply #360 on: May 09, 2014, 09:08:39 AM »
Wonderful shot, ckwaller!

Wish I could see a larger version without that massively intrusive watermark, though. I know people like to protect their work, but when the watermark totally kills the image, I honestly wonder what the point is. ;P

Thanks, jrista! Believe me, I would have preferred to post the shot without my watermark. However, I've done this in the past (on other forums/sites) and wound up finding my photos being used by other people/companies without my permission. That's never any fun, haha!

Now, I link directly from my site which automatically stamps my watermark on all images to deter any theft.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Waterscapes
« Reply #360 on: May 09, 2014, 09:08:39 AM »

Eldar

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1534
    • View Profile
Re: Waterscapes
« Reply #361 on: May 09, 2014, 09:27:24 AM »
Wonderful shot, ckwaller!

Wish I could see a larger version without that massively intrusive watermark, though. I know people like to protect their work, but when the watermark totally kills the image, I honestly wonder what the point is. ;P

Thanks, jrista! Believe me, I would have preferred to post the shot without my watermark. However, I've done this in the past (on other forums/sites) and wound up finding my photos being used by other people/companies without my permission. That's never any fun, haha!

Now, I link directly from my site which automatically stamps my watermark on all images to deter any theft.
There are lots of people here, with watermarks. But most of them put it in the periphery to make sure the image is worth viewing. To be honest, even though I may agree with jrista that your image seem to be a good one, I did not even consider spending time on it because you watermark ruins it completely.
5DIII, 1DX, 8-15/4L, 16-35 f4L IS, 24-70/2.8L II, 70-200/2.8L IS II, 70-300/4-5.6L IS, 200-400/4L IS 1.4x, Zeiss 15/2.8, 17/4L TS-E, Zeiss 21/2.8, 24/3.5L TS-E II, Sigma 35/1.4 Art, Zeiss Otus 55/1.4, 85/1.2L II, 100/2.8L IS Macro, Zeiss 135/2, 600/4L IS II

Sporgon

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1923
  • 5% of gear used 95% of the time
    • View Profile
    • www.buildingpanoramics.com
Re: Waterscapes
« Reply #362 on: May 09, 2014, 10:28:58 AM »
To be honest, even though I may agree with jrista that your image seem to be a good one, I did not even consider spending time on it because you watermark ruins it completely.

+1

You can use invisible watermarks anyway. I just post images at 740 px across now, the maximum for seeing full width on CR as well. If people want to nick 740 px images from Building Panoramics I just let it go, as long as they are not being used by the thief for blatant profit.

Also if you're just showing a picture or CR, as opposed to trying to show resolution for instance, very small images are much better on the website.

Click

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3107
    • View Profile
Re: Waterscapes
« Reply #363 on: May 10, 2014, 08:26:26 AM »
kinda sorta waterscape. I got really lucky with the time of day on this tour at Hearst Castle.


Very nice shot

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4729
  • POTATO
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: Waterscapes
« Reply #364 on: May 10, 2014, 12:26:04 PM »
Wonderful shot, ckwaller!

Wish I could see a larger version without that massively intrusive watermark, though. I know people like to protect their work, but when the watermark totally kills the image, I honestly wonder what the point is. ;P

Thanks, jrista! Believe me, I would have preferred to post the shot without my watermark. However, I've done this in the past (on other forums/sites) and wound up finding my photos being used by other people/companies without my permission. That's never any fun, haha!

Now, I link directly from my site which automatically stamps my watermark on all images to deter any theft.

I understand, but there are ways of doing watermarks that don't deaden the photo. The way your doing it now, it really does just...kill any real viewing pleasure. I mean, I know the photo is truly amazing, but...it's not...not the way it's currently presented.

You can still watermark, you just don't need to do it in a photo-deadening way like you have now. Studies have been done that show that even a very small watermark, just an artists or company name relatively near the center (doesn't even have to be AT the dead center) of a photo is enough to kill off over 90% of potential "thieves". Thieves are in quotes because the vast majority of this kind of theft is just people sharing photos they like, without the notion that they are actually stealing entering their heads. The other ~10% are those who might be real thieves. Real thieves may be smart enough to remove a watermark from the very peripheral edge of a photo, but most won't bother if the watermark is even relatively centered. It's just too much work, so it cuts out the majority of potential theft.

Then there are the top 1-2% of viewers who are dedicated thieves. Those are the ones you would really have to worry about...except that it really doesn't matter what you do, because if they are intent on stealing your work, they are going to find a way to steal your work. These days, it isn't all that difficult to entirely eliminate semi-translucent watermarks like you have. There are even actions and plugins for photoshop that can automate the process, automatically identify watermarks and automatically "scrub" them out of the image while leaving behind no obviously visible artifacts of their prior presence. There are also other tools, like EXIFTool, which allow hardcore thieves to either obliterate the exif data, or change any of it to whatever they want...exif is the "hard coded" details about the camera used and all that, as well as photographer copyright and the like, so a clever thief could change the photographer name and copyright and even change information about what camera was used to take the shot. The top 1-2% of thieves who are hell bent on taking your work and presenting it as their own WILL figure out how to do this. It's been done. One of the worst places on the net for this kind of thing is DeviantArt.com, a place where I used to hang out for over a decade...I saw a lot of theft like that, there were countless forum threads on the subject, people discussed the means by which they tried to protect their work with watermarks, etc. and most fail.

There is also the point where you consider theft of a photo posted online to be an actual issue. If you were sharing very large scale versions, say wallpaper sizes (1280x720, 1920x1200, etc.) then watermarking is definitely more meaningful. Given the size you've shared your photo here...I honestly don't see the point of watermarking at all. As mentioned before, and by others...it really just kills any viewing pleasure for the photo, the watermark is INCREDIBLY intrusive, and it just screams "DON'T YOU EVEN THINK ABOUT THINKING ABOUT STEALING MY TINY LITTLE PHOTO!!!! AAARGGG!! BACK! BACK! NOOO, STOP THINKING IT!" That's what a lot of people are going to see when they see photos with giant watermarks right in the center. It's just an unpleasant thing for someone who wants to admire it for it's beauty (and honestly, it's one of the best waterscapes shared here so far! It's amazing! I want to see more of your work!), and who could care less about stealing it period, let alone an itsy bitsy 300x450 pixel image.  ;) So, it boils down to...are you really so hell bent on protecting even tiny replications of your work that you insist on putting such a huge watermark over it? Or might it just be worth reducing the watermark to a small, less intrusive size that is still primarily as effective (according to studies) against the vast majority of theft as a large watermark, so that your viewers can truly appreciate your photographic eye and the amazing scenes you photograph?

I don't mean for this to sound harsh, I simply wanted to offer my honest opinion of what your watermarks do to your work, and maybe offer you an option for keeping your watermarks without deadening the impact of your work to viewers. Without really opening the door to tons of theft (assuming that the "theft" of a tiny 300x450 pixel version is even something to worry about in the first place. ;P)
« Last Edit: May 10, 2014, 12:28:40 PM by jrista »
My Photography
Current Gear: Canon 5D III | Canon 7D | Canon EF 600mm f/4 L IS II | EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS | EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L | EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro | 50mm f/1.4
New Gear List: SBIG STT-8300M | Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L II

Valvebounce

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 898
  • Still can't use most of it to it's full potential!
    • View Profile
Re: Waterscapes
« Reply #365 on: May 10, 2014, 08:06:21 PM »
Hi Eldar.
I'm with you there, in fact there are some watermarks that are quite subtle, much more so than this one but their placement will mean I just pass the picture by because I can't be trying to look behind the watermark for an image.
I'm sure we all understand the desire to protect our property, after all we lock our cars and houses, but there are places and ways to watermark without destroying the image.

Cheers Graham.

There are lots of people here, with watermarks. But most of them put it in the periphery to make sure the image is worth viewing. To be honest, even though I may agree with jrista that your image seem to be a good one, I did not even consider spending time on it because you watermark ruins it completely.
7D + Grip, 40D + Grip, 20D, EF-S 17-85 Kit lens, EF 70-200 f2.8 L IS II USM, EF 2x III, Sigma 150-500, Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 C, 50mm f1.8, 550EX some Filters Remotes Macro tubes Tripod heads etc!
20D, BG-E2N, 17-85mm, 50mm are pre loved. :)
(300D Saved a holiday, E-FS 18-55 Cosina 100-300 retired)

jannatul18

  • Power Shot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 27
    • View Profile
Re: Waterscapes
« Reply #366 on: May 14, 2014, 05:08:51 AM »
All of the waterfall pictures look like beautiful  wallpapers.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Waterscapes
« Reply #366 on: May 14, 2014, 05:08:51 AM »

siegsAR

  • Canon AE-1
  • ***
  • Posts: 77
    • View Profile
Re: Waterscapes
« Reply #367 on: May 14, 2014, 07:01:58 AM »
kinda sorta waterscape. I got really lucky with the time of day on this tour at Hearst Castle.


Very nice shot

Very nice indeed, good use of color and light.


Three Kings by Le ARchie, on Flickr
Tsk! Come on son..

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4729
  • POTATO
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: Waterscapes
« Reply #368 on: May 14, 2014, 01:23:04 PM »

Three Kings by Le ARchie, on Flickr

Very nice. Love that long-exposure fogging of coastlines like that. Nice, rich contrast, too!
My Photography
Current Gear: Canon 5D III | Canon 7D | Canon EF 600mm f/4 L IS II | EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS | EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L | EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro | 50mm f/1.4
New Gear List: SBIG STT-8300M | Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L II

Eldar

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1534
    • View Profile
Re: Waterscapes
« Reply #369 on: May 14, 2014, 02:08:05 PM »
Very nice. Love that long-exposure fogging of coastlines like that. Nice, rich contrast, too!
And a lovely watermark ;)
5DIII, 1DX, 8-15/4L, 16-35 f4L IS, 24-70/2.8L II, 70-200/2.8L IS II, 70-300/4-5.6L IS, 200-400/4L IS 1.4x, Zeiss 15/2.8, 17/4L TS-E, Zeiss 21/2.8, 24/3.5L TS-E II, Sigma 35/1.4 Art, Zeiss Otus 55/1.4, 85/1.2L II, 100/2.8L IS Macro, Zeiss 135/2, 600/4L IS II

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4729
  • POTATO
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: Waterscapes
« Reply #370 on: May 14, 2014, 02:41:41 PM »
Very nice. Love that long-exposure fogging of coastlines like that. Nice, rich contrast, too!
And a lovely watermark ;)

LOL. That too. :D
My Photography
Current Gear: Canon 5D III | Canon 7D | Canon EF 600mm f/4 L IS II | EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS | EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L | EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro | 50mm f/1.4
New Gear List: SBIG STT-8300M | Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L II

siegsAR

  • Canon AE-1
  • ***
  • Posts: 77
    • View Profile
Re: Waterscapes
« Reply #371 on: May 15, 2014, 01:36:15 AM »
Very nice. Love that long-exposure fogging of coastlines like that. Nice, rich contrast, too!
And a lovely watermark ;)

LOL. That too. :D

Aha, LOL.  ;D

Thanks Eldar, jrista. I've got mostly coastlines to shoot for now. Its the peak of the summer/sunny season here and color is good but contrast can be harsh sometimes.
Tsk! Come on son..

Sporgon

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1923
  • 5% of gear used 95% of the time
    • View Profile
    • www.buildingpanoramics.com
Re: Waterscapes
« Reply #372 on: May 16, 2014, 05:03:08 PM »
Shot on a misty morning in the English Lake District.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Waterscapes
« Reply #372 on: May 16, 2014, 05:03:08 PM »

Eldar

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1534
    • View Profile
Re: Waterscapes
« Reply #373 on: May 16, 2014, 05:13:36 PM »
Shot on a misty morning in the English Lake District.
Lovely image Sporgon! I love the colors, mist and mood of the English (and Scottish) countryside.
5DIII, 1DX, 8-15/4L, 16-35 f4L IS, 24-70/2.8L II, 70-200/2.8L IS II, 70-300/4-5.6L IS, 200-400/4L IS 1.4x, Zeiss 15/2.8, 17/4L TS-E, Zeiss 21/2.8, 24/3.5L TS-E II, Sigma 35/1.4 Art, Zeiss Otus 55/1.4, 85/1.2L II, 100/2.8L IS Macro, Zeiss 135/2, 600/4L IS II

Sporgon

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1923
  • 5% of gear used 95% of the time
    • View Profile
    • www.buildingpanoramics.com
Re: Waterscapes
« Reply #374 on: May 17, 2014, 09:08:23 AM »
Shot on a misty morning in the English Lake District.
Lovely image Sporgon! I love the colors, mist and mood of the English (and Scottish) countryside.

Many thanks Eldar !

The Romans are on record as having called England 'the land of mist and rain'. Guess some things don't change !

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Waterscapes
« Reply #374 on: May 17, 2014, 09:08:23 AM »