Beach Money

[R-NAGE Photography]

Lone sand dollar on Lido beach in Sarasota FL.


RJJ_9602CR by RJesnen Photography, on Flickr

 

[Radical]

What the heck is a lone sand dollar?

 

[Tee]

I feel like the exposure/ background needs to be a little more lighter. Additionally, the copyright directly above the subject is a major distraction. Perhaps lower the opacity of the watermark and move it to the top?

 

[R-NAGE Photography]

What the heck is a lone sand dollar?

Sand dollar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[R-NAGE Photography]

I feel like the exposure/ background needs to be a little more lighter. Additionally, the copyright directly above the subject is a major distraction. Perhaps lower the opacity of the watermark and move it to the top?

I agree I should prob bump the exposure a stop or so. I try to put my watermarks in places that are more difficult to PS out. To your point it is distracting.

 

[Tee]

You do realize I could use the lasso tool, right click 'fill', select 'content aware' and poof...your watermark is gone?

 

[R-NAGE Photography]

You do realize I could use the lasso tool, right click 'fill', select 'content aware' and poof...your watermark is gone?

Yes I do, but the avg person on flickr trolling pics does not....for that reason I do it. But yes to your point you can steal virtually anything on the interwebz lol.

 

[Pallycow]

You do realize I could use the lasso tool, right click 'fill', select 'content aware' and poof...your watermark is gone?

one of many many ways. lol. I give up talking about watermarks anymore for security. For identifying yourself on your work as a signature for use online, sure...why not. but for security, it's silly.

 

[R-NAGE Photography]

You do realize I could use the lasso tool, right click 'fill', select 'content aware' and poof...your watermark is gone?

one of many many ways. lol. I give up talking about watermarks anymore for security. For identifying yourself on your work as a signature for use online, sure...why not. but for security, it's silly.

To your point its a waste to do it for ID or a sig as well. If someone wants it gone or wants credit for it all they have to do is take it out and add their own. I have often thought why do it at all, but so many do. The great watermark debate continues (pisses into wind).

 

[Pallycow]

You do realize I could use the lasso tool, right click 'fill', select 'content aware' and poof...your watermark is gone?

one of many many ways. lol. I give up talking about watermarks anymore for security. For identifying yourself on your work as a signature for use online, sure...why not. but for security, it's silly.

To your point its a waste to do it for ID or a sig as well. If someone wants it gone or wants credit for it all they have to do is take it out and add their own. I have often thought why do it at all, but so many do. The great watermark debate continues (pisses into wind).

I don't feel it is a waste in that sense, a person says "nice image..who did it" and they see the name, then they know. It has zero to do with people removing it for malicious purposes. Taking that out of the equation, to me it's fine for identifying works on web shares such as facebook or whatever.

 

[pixmedic30 1]

one of many many ways. lol. I give up talking about watermarks anymore for security. For identifying yourself on your work as a signature for use online, sure...why not. but for security, it's silly.

To your point its a waste to do it for ID or a sig as well. If someone wants it gone or wants credit for it all they have to do is take it out and add their own. I have often thought why do it at all, but so many do. The great watermark debate continues (pisses into wind).

I don't feel it is a waste in that sense, a person says "nice image..who did it" and they see the name, then they know. It has zero to do with people removing it for malicious purposes. Taking that out of the equation, to me it's fine for identifying works on web shares such as facebook or whatever.

its all about the SEO baby!

 

[foster2]

i guess you can get used to evaluating/admiring photos with watermarks, after some time. but for me, though, it takes a lot away from the artistic presentation and detracts from the feeling that the picture is supposed to create. if monet would have stamped a big watermark across water lilies i dont think it would present the same mood or creative effect that it has without. he did sign his work, but its pretty small and off to the side.

given that the technology is so advanced in removing the watermarks, it begs the question why do it at all? good people are annoyed by the reduction in enjoyment and bad people just clean it off and use it for nefarious uses anyway. i think you may just be annoying your potential fans and nothing else. just my 2 cents.

 

[amolitor]

This is another photograph where the watermark is actually essential to the balance of the frame.

I like the exposure, dark and moody is kind of a thing for me, and the darkness is concealing nothing of any importance at all. The sand dollar itself seems to be rendered in a pleasing range of tones.

But anyways, mentally zap the watermark and the picture changes substantially and becomes to my eye quite a bit less.

 

[Tony S]

What the heck is a lone sand dollar?

That would be one that's not in a huge group of sand dollars. lol