Flickr Gallery

[cwindle1]

What do you think?? https://www.flickr.com/photos/125164079@N05/with/15096116312

 

[Overread]

You'll find you get more feedback if you post a few here for comments/crits. Most are unwilling to give viewpoints on whole galleries because it can take a huge amount of time to do well. Check the link in my signature for some pointers on how to post for getting critique/comments if you're after them.


On the whole looks like you're making a solid start in equine photography!

 

[TCampbell]

I think you need to minimize the distracting nature of that watermark.

I try to look at an image and all I see is watermark.

 

[cwindle1]

I think you need to minimize the distracting nature of that watermark.

I try to look at an image and all I see is watermark.

I have no choice but use this watermark as I have issues with people stealing images

 

[pthrift]

But even a watermark doesn't stop a thief. It doesn't even slow one down really. I could have it gone completely from 85% of your images with a 5 second crop, and photoshop it out in a minute or two of work for the ones I couldn't just crop out

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S4; probably while slacking off at work

 

[CameraClicker]

I think you need to minimize the distracting nature of that watermark.

I try to look at an image and all I see is watermark.

I have no choice but use this watermark as I have issues with people stealing images

Like pthrift, I could make your watermarks disappear in a minute or two. Almost all of us who use Photoshop or a similar editor frequently can make your watermark disappear with little effort.

If you post on Facebook, a watermark makes sense. Less so when posting on Flickr. I say that because Flickr retains EXIF data and Facebook strips EXIF data. If you put your copyright notice into EXIF data, people will be able to see it if they are interested, but it will not appear on the face of the image so it won't distract.

If you think there is some economic loss to you, you could get invisible watermarks, which can be tracked even if the image is printed or photocopied. As it is hidden, it does not distract. You still have to figure out that the image was used, and that the use goes against copyright or model rights. If someone took a copy of your photo and put it on another web page with text stating it was a good photo or a bad photo for whatever reason, that is not a violation of copyright and your permission is not required, for instance. If you decide your rights have been violated, you still have to have a lawyer start an action, which will cost you money if you are unsuccessful.

 

[cwindle1]

Thank you for clearing everything up. I post previews or fav images on facebook for clients ect and the occasional horse event so thats why I use a watermark. However, I did upload the resized files to flickr (which happen to be my media sized files for facebook hence the watermark still on them)