Just Some Of My Stuff....

[magkelly]

 

[FattyMcJ]

Boy, those watermarks are incredible! Great work!

A suggestion, if I may, maybe include some photos with your watermarks? Run with it...

 

[magkelly]

Well, given your comment I'm a little confused. I'm guessing that either you think my photos just plain suck period, or that maybe like some people here you simply don't like the use of watermarks and this is your "cute" way of saying so? I'm rather hoping it's the latter, but whatever...

For the record I do my best not to make them too blatant and obstructive, but no, I will not just give up using them. I have good reasons for doing so, and ego has nothing to do with it. I don't have too many photographs that I consider sale worthy, yet, but I've actually had one good photo lifted and put up for display and sale under someone else's name.

To their credit the site hosting it took it down immediately once they realized it was stolen. But that little lesson really stung and I have not forgotten it. I never used them much till then, but you can sure bet I do it routinely now, whether the photo truly deserves one or not.

A watermark is only of limited help that way, I know, but it's better than nothing. I don't object to them myself if the photographer is careful about placement. I do try not to make them too obvious, but I also have to try to make it as hard to clone out as possible. It's a bit of a delicate balance and it's admittedly one I haven't gotten completely right sometimes.

I'm very sorry if my using them bugs you, but as much as I'd like to oblige folks who dislike them, I'm afraid I like keeping what little control I can have over my photos that are posted on the web just a bit more.

:er:

Boy, those watermarks are incredible! Great work!

A suggestion, if I may, maybe include some photos with your watermarks? Run with it...

 

[FattyMcJ]

Well, given your comment I'm a little confused. I'm guessing that either you think my photos just plain suck period, or that maybe like some people here you simply don't like the use of watermarks and this is your "cute" way of saying so? I'm rather hoping it's the latter, but whatever...

It's the latter, I couldn't get past the obnoxious watermark to look at the photos constructively. But hey, to each their own.

For the record I do my best not to make them too blatant and obstructive, but no, I will not just give up using them. I have good reasons for doing so, and ego has nothing to do with it. I don't have too many photographs that I consider sale worthy, yet, but I've actually had one good photo lifted and put up for display and sale under someone else's name.

To their credit the site hosting it took it down immediately once they realized it was stolen. But that little lesson really stung and I have not forgotten it. I never used them much till then, but you can sure bet I do it routinely now, whether the photo truly deserves one or not.

A watermark is only of limited help that way, I know, but it's better than nothing. I don't object to them myself if the photographer is careful about placement. I do try not to make them too obvious, but I also have to try to make it as hard to clone out as possible. It's a bit of a delicate balance and it's admittedly one I haven't gotten completely right sometimes.

I'm very sorry if my using them bugs you, but as much as I'd like to oblige folks who dislike them, I'm afraid I like keeping what little control I can have over my photos that are posted on the web just a bit more.

:er:

We've heard this time and time again, "my photo was stolen!" ...

Ok, buck up and get over it. Cars get stolen, houses get broken into, songs get pirated, etc.

The ONLY sure way to not have your photos stolen is to never put them on the internet for public viewing in the first place. Adding an obnoxious watermark only serves to deter lazy thieves, good critique, and many views of your work.

Just my opinion, do what makes you feel good.

 

[magkelly]

Well, laugh, I do think I've seen a lot more obnoxious watermarks out there than mine!

In most cases unless a very complicated bit of background precludes it, as was the case with the squirrel above, I don't even hardly make them visible enough to disturb really. I deliberately lower the fill percentages to make the thing almost transparent.

Short of choosing to not use one at all it's as good as I can really do it right now. Maybe I'll find a better way eventually to do them that's at least semi-effective and that's even less obtrusive for viewers. But for right now, this is about the only way I know of to make one, short of paying for a very expensive license to use a commercial Photoshop plug that does the job for you.

I don't think most of mine are that bad really. I mean anyone seeing it will know it's there, sure, but 99% of the time I doubt that it would be THAT distracting to most people viewing. The only people I've had any comments from to date on that score are the ones who despise watermarking completely for whatever reason.

If my photographs having a discreet watermark makes some people not want to critique them, or view them simply for having one, then so be it. I just chalk it up to preference and figure that obviously they are not really that interested in looking at my work if they are so easily deterred.

So there's a watermark there that you just might notice a little. Big deal. You go on any large stock photo site and you're going to see millions of them. It's a pretty standard practice from what I've seen. So what's the big deal really except that for artistic reasons some people just seem to not care for them?

I understand that some people don't like it, and sometimes I feel bad that I do have to use them. I much prefer my shots viewed sans watermarks too. Watermarks are ugly, but that doesn't mean I am going to stop. Yes, images get stolen on the web every day. Yes, the watermarks are of limited use on that score, and yes, determined people will still find a way to use them if they want to.

But saying I shouldn't even try? That's like saying a software company shouldn't even try to protect it's programs by using a serial number or whatever because there are crackers out there who will make it freely available no matter what the company does. Software protection schemes that's pretty pointless too but you don't see the folks at Adobe, Microsoft, etc just releasing their programs "bare" of any protection now do you? It clearly does them little good, but at least they try.

Sure someone who is dedicated enough to sit there for a long while trying can eventually clone out a watermark. But a person like that I can't stop anyway. I'm not really trying to. It is the "lazy" ones running picture harvesters that I mostly do have to worry about. Fortunately most of them are too lazy to even bother with a photograph that is watermarked because it's simply too much work and trouble to lift. Why sit there and work that hard on the one photo that does have a watermark when you can collect 200 that don't?

FYI, it's not such a small thing to have a photograph stolen if it happens to you. Some guy posting one of my pictures on Facebook as a background, or using it as his desktop wallpaper, I tend to just shrug. I really don't care, much, but the person who took my photo, which incidentally was one of the maybe 10 photos I've ever taken in my life that WERE commercially viable, not only "borrowed" it, he claimed it as HIS photo. He also from what I understand may have sold at least two copies for someone's use IN HIS NAME before they caught him.

Now, I'm in no way a pro. I've actually only sold one particular photo 2X so far, back in 2002, and I only made like $250 doing that. I'm not really sure how much money this guy cost me considering it was only a 75 dpi photo. It couldn't have been used for much more than a graphic on a web page, but that was still money that didn't go into my pocket, that I didn't get to me for the work I actually did.

The way I look at it that was money that I could have really used to buy some better gear so I could continue to take even better pics to perchance sell someday and maybe, just maybe someday make a living with.

When you think of it that way?

It's not so insignificant that guy just lifting my photo sans watermark.

20 contracts for someone to use that photo down the line and that's my DSLR, that's my lenses, that's the advanced level classes I am not taking because some guy decided MY photograph was good enough to put HIS name on and sell.

It's not like I sell a shot every day...

Well, given your comment I'm a little confused. I'm guessing that either you think my photos just plain suck period, or that maybe like some people here you simply don't like the use of watermarks and this is your "cute" way of saying so? I'm rather hoping it's the latter, but whatever...

It's the latter, I couldn't get past the obnoxious watermark to look at the photos constructively. But hey, to each their own.

For the record I do my best not to make them too blatant and obstructive, but no, I will not just give up using them. I have good reasons for doing so, and ego has nothing to do with it. I don't have too many photographs that I consider sale worthy, yet, but I've actually had one good photo lifted and put up for display and sale under someone else's name.

To their credit the site hosting it took it down immediately once they realized it was stolen. But that little lesson really stung and I have not forgotten it. I never used them much till then, but you can sure bet I do it routinely now, whether the photo truly deserves one or not.

A watermark is only of limited help that way, I know, but it's better than nothing. I don't object to them myself if the photographer is careful about placement. I do try not to make them too obvious, but I also have to try to make it as hard to clone out as possible. It's a bit of a delicate balance and it's admittedly one I haven't gotten completely right sometimes.

I'm very sorry if my using them bugs you, but as much as I'd like to oblige folks who dislike them, I'm afraid I like keeping what little control I can have over my photos that are posted on the web just a bit more.

:er:

We've heard this time and time again, "my photo was stolen!" ...

Ok, buck up and get over it. Cars get stolen, houses get broken into, songs get pirated, etc.

The ONLY sure way to not have your photos stolen is to never put them on the internet for public viewing in the first place. Adding an obnoxious watermark only serves to deter lazy thieves, good critique, and many views of your work.

Just my opinion, do what makes you feel good.

 

[magkelly]

Just some shots I took of the cats. I so happened I was up very early. There was some interesting light going on while the cats were having their playtime out in the screen room and I decided I wanted to play with light and shadows a bit.

 

[magkelly]

I've decided to leave and have so deleted my stuff. Bye.

 

[FattyMcJ]

k bye

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

I've decided to leave and have so deleted my stuff. Bye.

I just came to see what was added.

Magkelly, you could have just ignored Fatty.

I don't remember your watermark to be too intrusive.

 

[FattyMcJ]

Magkelly, you could have just ignored Fatty.

Indeed, many do. No offense taken, some people like me, some don't...such is life.

 

[magkelly]

It wasn't Fatty. Someone else from here privately said something not so nice to me about my pics in general and also about using watermarks. It upset me. I nearly did leave. I stayed away for a few days, thinking hard about it all. I eventually decided not to leave because that person would probably enjoy it too much, shrug. It might be a while I think before I post anything of mine on here again though. I'm not feeling too okay about that, right now, sorry. Someone offering constructive criticism I can take, but this just wasn't that.

 

[vtf]

I personally think using a pm system to tear apart another person shows a true ugly side of that person.:x
Although I know it bothers you (it would me) know that there are those of us who enjoy seeing you on here.
Its unfortunate there will always be that one in every crowd. Keep your head up. We like seeing you here.

 

[magkelly]

Well as to that it wasn't the PM system. Someone had my public email. I'm not exactly sure how they got it, actually, but I just found out they're on 2 other photo forums with me as well so I guess it could have been given out on one of those too. I don't know. I don't go out of my way to really hide it usually. I've given out my public one here and there. I'm not sure, if here or not. I'm pretty new here still so probably not yet.

I'm on several photo forums and I have probably gotten a dozen emails from people on them over time. No problems, but that person really wasn't nice and when I got the email I just mainly just recognized them as being from here. It didn't even click that they were on the other two as well until I saw another post by them elsewhere. They did specifically reference this forum in the email I got though and I definitely got the impression that they really wanted to discourage me from even being here. Apparently I'm too much of a rank amateur for some people to enjoy seeing my photos and they don't much like the tone of my "know it all" posts besides.

(Somebody was definitely in a bad mood that day. ;P)

In any case I'm pretty much intent upon just ignoring them, unless they try to email me again unsolicited in which case I will probably send it back to the forums management as outright harassment. I have mentioned doing as much, so far no response, so I am hopeful that whatever mind games they were intent upon playing it's over and done with.

Thanks though, the kind words meant a lot. I was feeling a bit unwelcome here for a sec. Probably I just overreacted but still, it's nice.

I personally think using a pm system to tear apart another person shows a true ugly side of that person.:x
Although I know it bothers you (it would me) know that there are those of us who enjoy seeing you on here.
Its unfortunate there will always be that one in every crowd. Keep your head up. We like seeing you here.