Farewell Boston

[Robchaos]

A trip cut very short due to a family emergency Arrived 9 A.m., I got to see Chinatown, the commons and the night time view of the skyline from Cambridge, then ended up having to fly back to Baltimore early the next day
1. Longfellow Bridge

2. Farewell Boston

 

[o hey tyler]

Yeah... About that watermark...

You could probably do without it altogether. A common thing about amateur photographers is putting a very oversized or even uncessecary watermark that detracts heavily from the images.

 

[Robchaos]

yea...about that about that watermark, amateur or not, I’d rather my intellectual property be fair game for any image thief. I'm not that confident in my work, but a lot of bloggers will just grab the first pertinent image that pops up in the Google image search just as long as the topic suits their needs.. By putting that big stupid obtrusive watermark in the middle of my photo, I'm doing my part to try and ensure that the actual pros out there who WANT their work to be bought (or stolen), are not competing against one more "amateur" image on the market that would be free for the taking.
Thanks for your comment. If you can't wrap your head around the fact that I watermarked the image, just take that condescending attitude elsewhere. It is falling on deaf ears.

 

[Sebastian_Riel]

Yeah... About that watermark... You could probably do without it altogether. A common thing about amateur photographers is putting a very oversized or even uncessecary watermark that detracts heavily from the images.

It doesn't bother me. I like #2.

 

[Frequency]

Excellent images; somewhere in between pure aesthetics and fear of theft, i liked these images

 

[o hey tyler]

yea...about that about that watermark, amateur or not, I’d rather my intellectual property be fair game for any image thief. I'm not that confident in my work, but a lot of bloggers will just grab the first pertinent image that pops up in the Google image search just as long as the topic suits their needs.. By putting that big stupid obtrusive watermark in the middle of my photo, I'm doing my part to try and ensure that the actual pros out there who WANT their work to be bought (or stolen), are not competing against one more "amateur" image on the market that would be free for the taking.
Thanks for your comment. If you can't wrap your head around the fact that I watermarked the image, just take that condescending attitude elsewhere. It is falling on deaf ears.

Haha. Okay. Well don't expect any thoughtful C&C, or any C&C on your photos from me for that matter.

Trust me, you're an amateur photographer. Worry about the watermark when you get good enough to warrant one. There are tons of other images exactly like yours that people could steal. It's when your images are starting to look good, in a different way that would be actually desirable enough for someone to steal. This isn't meant to discourage you from photography, but to inform you that your photos would not stand out in a crowd.

Anyone with half a brain and a copy of CS5 could clone out your watermark in probably less than five minutes. Negating the "security measures" you put in place. If you really want to protect your images, you'd put your name and a copyright statement in the metadata/exif.

If you'd like though, I can critique your watermark, since it takes up the majority of your images.

The watermark in image #1 doesn't have enough padding from the top side of the frame. You need to move it in, and make it about 70% smaller. You also need to make the font less ugly, which shouldn't be too difficult, because you probably downloaded some free, sub-par font off of dafont.com.

The watermark in image #2 is right in your face. I see what you did there. Unfortunately it spans the entire length of the image, unnecessarily. Again, this one suffers from the same atrocious font issue, and the gargantuan size of it. I almost forgot there were images behind the watermark by the end of typing this.

Of course, I don't expect you to do any of this. Since I have a feeling you were expecting C&C along the same caliber as:

I like #2.

 

[RichardsTPF]

Take off or redesign your watermark.

 

[Robchaos]

It doesn't bother me. I like #2.

Thank you!

Excellent images; somewhere in between pure aesthetics and fear of theft, i liked these images

Thank you!

Haha. Okay. Well don't expect any thoughtful C&C, or any C&C on your photos from me for that matter.

Trust me, you're an amateur photographer. Worry about the watermark when you get good enough to warrant one. There are tons of other images exactly like yours that people could steal. It's when your images are starting to look good, in a different way that would be actually desirable enough for someone to steal. This isn't meant to discourage you from photography, but to inform you that your photos would not stand out in a crowd.

Anyone with half a brain and a copy of CS5 could clone out your watermark in probably less than five minutes. Negating the "security measures" you put in place. If you really want to protect your images, you'd put your name and a copyright statement in the metadata/exif.

If you'd like though, I can critique your watermark, since it takes up the majority of your images.

The watermark in image #1 doesn't have enough padding from the top side of the frame. You need to move it in, and make it about 70% smaller. You also need to make the font less ugly, which shouldn't be too difficult, because you probably downloaded some free, sub-par font off of dafont.com.

The watermark in image #2 is right in your face. I see what you did there. Unfortunately it spans the entire length of the image, unnecessarily. Again, this one suffers from the same atrocious font issue, and the gargantuan size of it. I almost forgot there were images behind the watermark by the end of typing this.

Of course, I don't expect you to do any of this. Since I have a feeling you were expecting C&C along the same caliber as:

I like #2.

I must have missed the part where I claimed to be a professional. Honestly, the attitude I get from some of you "pro" photogs kind of makes me happy that this is still just an enjoyable hobby for me and not a job.
I figure that your ****ty attitude is due to one of two things, either you really really wanted to critique my photos and are truly disappointed by the watermark, or you are just a plain and simple dick that feels validated by talking down on others. Which one is it?

Take off or redesign your watermark.

I am hosting the unwatermarked photos on a private server so I do not have to worry about them showing up on a Google search. Please check the updated first post to see them. I will work on making a less obtrusive watermark, but please understand, as I stated before, I am not a pro, and I do not want my photos that I post on flickr showing up as fair game to random bloggers. I figured a big obtrusive watermark is the most effective way to keep people from even thinking about stealing them, since I'm sure a photo or two down the Google search page they will probably find something easier to pass of as their own without having to use content fill or CS5.

 

[Sebastian_Riel]

yea...about that about that watermark, amateur or not, I’d rather my intellectual property be fair game for any image thief. I'm not that confident in my work, but a lot of bloggers will just grab the first pertinent image that pops up in the Google image search just as long as the topic suits their needs.. By putting that big stupid obtrusive watermark in the middle of my photo, I'm doing my part to try and ensure that the actual pros out there who WANT their work to be bought (or stolen), are not competing against one more "amateur" image on the market that would be free for the taking. Thanks for your comment. If you can't wrap your head around the fact that I watermarked the image, just take that condescending attitude elsewhere. It is falling on deaf ears.

Haha. Okay. Well don't expect any thoughtful C&C, or any C&C on your photos from me for that matter. Trust me, you're an amateur photographer. Worry about the watermark when you get good enough to warrant one. There are tons of other images exactly like yours that people could steal. It's when your images are starting to look good, in a different way that would be actually desirable enough for someone to steal. This isn't meant to discourage you from photography, but to inform you that your photos would not stand out in a crowd. Anyone with half a brain and a copy of CS5 could clone out your watermark in probably less than five minutes. Negating the "security measures" you put in place. If you really want to protect your images, you'd put your name and a copyright statement in the metadata/exif. If you'd like though, I can critique your watermark, since it takes up the majority of your images. The watermark in image #1 doesn't have enough padding from the top side of the frame. You need to move it in, and make it about 70% smaller. You also need to make the font less ugly, which shouldn't be too difficult, because you probably downloaded some free, sub-par font off of dafont.com. The watermark in image #2 is right in your face. I see what you did there. Unfortunately it spans the entire length of the image, unnecessarily. Again, this one suffers from the same atrocious font issue, and the gargantuan size of it. I almost forgot there were images behind the watermark by the end of typing this. Of course, I don't expect you to do any of this. Since I have a feeling you were expecting C&C along the same caliber as:

I like #2.

Not too discourage inputting data into the meta data; but why bother ? It doesn't take anyone with any skill to completely erase and input their own data. I've done it on my own images; e.g adding copyright/shutter fstop if not available.

 

[Robchaos]

Not too discourage inputting data into the meta data; but why bother ? It doesn't take anyone with any skill to completely erase and input their own data. I've done it on my own images; e.g adding copyright/shutter fstop if not available.

You can do it with opanda, you can do it in photoshop, you can do it in LR. Metadata is the next best thing to not even having a copyright or watermark at all.
What it basically comes down to is that NOTHING is 100% safe from theft, when I upload for flickr my stuff is watermarked in an obtrusive hard to remove area. anyone with "half a brain" can still see and appreciate the picture, but fact is, it is definitely harder to remove a translucent watermark through the middle of an image.
When I upload to my personal server I do not watermark, as the only access to those images are posts that I directly link to them.
When I first uploaded my images I used the Flickr versions, not thinking that it was going to cause such an issue with some people :/

 

[Majeed Badizadegan]

Rob, the images looked horrendous with the watermark. Let's be real. You couldn't even look at the image because the watermark was just that crazy bad.

they look better now without .

As far as you hosting the images on a private server and removing the watermark, what difference does that make? what's going to stop someone from googling any of the following in bold and this thread popping up where they simply right click, save as your image. Then they'll share it with the blogoverse and your war will be lost:

A trip cut very short due to a family emergency Arrived 9 A.m., I got to see Chinatown, the commons and the night time view of the skyline from Cambridge, then ended up having to fly back to Baltimore early the next day
1. Longfellow Bridge
2. Farewell Boston

 

[MacHoot]

Am I missing something...I don't see a watermark. But i do see water

 

[Netskimmer]

Am I missing something...I don't see a watermark. But i do see water

The watermarks in question have been removed. Rotanimod, I love that pic, the expression on that cat's face is priceless! http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/members/98899.html

 

[Robchaos]

I understand that either I have a big dumb obtrusive watermark, or I risk images being stolen, but I think its absurd to insinuate someone is crazy merely for trying to protect their property from something that happens fairly often. Just because I am a hobbyist and not a pro, does not mean my photos are ok to take. I still lock my doors when I leave my car unattended even though I drive a 20 year old Sentra, not a Ferrari, is that crazy?

Isn't it kind of a moot point now that I've posted up the images without a watermark? Time to get back on track with this thread. Either you liked the images or you didn't, there is no longer a watermark to complain about, so you all can start complaining about the images themselves.

 

[Majeed Badizadegan]

I understand that either I have a big dumb obtrusive watermark, or I risk images being stolen, but I think its absurd to insinuate someone is crazy merely for trying to protect their property from something that happens fairly often. Just because I am a hobbyist and not a pro, does not mean my photos are ok to take. I still lock my doors when I leave my car unattended even though I drive a 20 year old Sentra, not a Ferrari, is that crazy?

Isn't it kind of a moot point now that I've posted up the images without a watermark? Time to get back on track with this thread. Either you liked the images or you didn't, there is no longer a watermark to complain about, so you all can start complaining about the images themselves.

I actually really like the first one. Great work =)