Pretentious Newb Photographers.

[ksmattfish]

Personally I don't like flashy signatures and frames, and a big copyright watermark ruins the photo (which I guess is the intention). I have always relied on keeping my photos low res to keep them safe. But, whenever I find one of my photos used without permission or credit (over a dozen times now), I definately think about plastering my low res files with watermarks.

 

[hot shot]

my oppion is that on here i can trust you guys but with some of my stuff where people would be quite willing to nick it rarther than buyin it i often just put a small watermark in a place that doesnt detract from the image but is still noticable, i realy dont do the whole SAMPLE thing across the middle

JMHO

 

[Arch]

the trouble with small watermarks is they can easily be photoshopped out. I for one have taken alot more than a tiny signiture off a picture before, like a big white van spoiling the bg or an unattractive fence, and still managed to keep the picture looking good. If your going to watermark, use it across as much of the centre of the image as possible, or not at all, that way people with ps skills cant take it off without ruining the image. :thumbup:

 

[Hertz van Rental]

I've said it before but I'll say it again.
If you really want to protect your on-line images then you should use a dedicated system. Digimarc have just about the best and it works as a Photoshop pug-in.
http://www.digimarc.com/

 

[AprilRamone]

yeah i guess ive stopped being patient with people that cant take criticism. when i first started to try to take nice photos a pro photographer friend told me they were crap and told me why. i think that was probably the most helpful thing she could have done. i learned quickly that just because i like it doesnt mean its good. it helped me to be more objective with my own photos. to this day i still like to hear that my photos suck because i see something i can work on:mrgreen:

I can totally relate to this post. When I was still in college, I went up to Red Rocks (beautiful spot in Colorado) to take a whole series of photographs. When I showed them to the gallery owner where I was interning he and his assistant had all kinds of criticism for me. They weren't mean, but they weren't showering me with all kind of praise over my images either. Their honest criticism helped me way more than any overabundant praise would have in the long run. I am always so much more appreciative of helpful criticism than I am of compliments. (Although I do appreciate those too!) I never know what to say to someone who gets hurt over a criticism that I gave them on a piece of their art. I just never took that sort of thing personally myself. I always felt that it was there to make me a better artist.

 

[Andrea K]

Personally, when I do put borders on photos I only put black ones around them. I think I do this because I think it makes the photo more "official" or professional. The same reasoning applies to when I put a sig in the corner of a photo. I sign an image when I think it is good, regardless of what others think, and signing it just makes me feel that since I like it, perhaps others will too (not sure if that makes sense).

It's funny that I've noticed a pattern to the images that I put sigs and borders on, not so much on content but on timing. It seems that I go through cycles. I'll post most pictures that I take the time to edit, this in itself showing that I like the image, and every so often I come upon a picture and I say to myself, "wow, this is fantastic," obviously in light of my recent work. This photo that I say wow to is the one that I take the most time to put a border/sig on, while at the same time relishing in my apparent success. As I look back through my signed images, the ones I say wow to, I usually end up realizing that past signed photos are not up to my current standards. In this sense, it seems as if I have gone through stages where my "wow" pictures are getting better, at least to me.

So, in a nutshell, I think the reason I sign a photo is to show to myself and the rest of the world that this particular photo is my "best" so far.


Thanks for reading, tell me if I don't make sense.

 

[JamesD]

the trouble with small watermarks is they can easily be photoshopped out. I for one have taken alot more than a tiny signiture off a picture before, like a big white van spoiling the bg or an unattractive fence, and still managed to keep the picture looking good. If your going to watermark, use it across as much of the centre of the image as possible, or not at all, that way people with ps skills cant take it off without ruining the image. :thumbup:

I've said it before but I'll say it again.
If you really want to protect your on-line images then you should use a dedicated system. Digimarc have just about the best and it works as a Photoshop pug-in.

The purpose of a copyright notice is not to "protect" a work, and it never has been. All works are automatically protected by law at the moment of creation--meaning, in the case of photographs, when the latent image is formed in the emulsion of the film or stored in the digital memory bits of the memory-thingy.

The purpose of a copyright notice is simply to eliminate the possibility of the plagiarist using the "Oh, I didn't realize it wasn't protected by copyright" argument. If they use your image (or other work) without your permission, copyright notice or no, then they have violated the applicable laws and are liable. If they photoshop out your copyright notice, then they are even more obviously wrong. It makes it easier to prosecute and/or sue.

As for borders: I believe they're an aesthetic element, suitable in some cases, and less so in others. I've got a bunch of photos hanging on my walls that are matted but not framed. That's how I choose to display them--because it's a bit different from what I usually see, and I like it, and I think it looks less tacky than a photo merely tacked up (although I think my matts are kinda tacky, and I intended them that way... sort of a goofy theme thing going on--It amuses me, so leave me alone! LOL). Online, I include borders (if I want to) because I want to set the image apart from the background, or simply because doing so makes it more attractive to my eye.

I don't think I've ever looked at someone's photograph and said "Wow, that border is horrible and completely destroys the image." If anything, I've occasionally, for just a brief moment, though "Hmm, interesting," or "I wonder how they do that." Mostly, though, I look at the image. After all, I'm here to look at pictures, not fret over their presentation.

And now, I'm going to go create some copyright-protected latent images. :camera:

-JamesD

 

[Arch]

The purpose of a copyright notice is not to "protect" a work, and it never has been. -JamesD

yea sure it is. You think everyone knows how to remove a copyright watermark in ps? the majority of people using your images would just take them and use them at will.... if they have lettering across them and they dont know how to effectivly use the stamp tool, they're not going to get very far. They shouldn't be able to make a decent print out of them anyway because the rez should be too low. Yea, an image is rightfully yours when you produce it, but people arn't going to let that stop them.
Also the plugin hertz is refering to, doesnt just write something on your image, it tracks distribution and usage of images and is able to produce a usage report.
So yes they do protect images, i personally dont watermark, but if you see an image on here or on like a stock photog site with a watermark, it is a clear sign that the image is protected and the producer of the image will take action if its used inappropriately.

 

[Hertz van Rental]

The Digimarc system is not removable and it is not immediately visible. It also remains in the image if it is cropped or manipulated.
It's purpose is twofold:
Publishers are supposed to check for Digimarc and if it is there and they still use the image then you can sue them and win.
If you claim that someone has stolen part of one of your images, or manipulated it to produce their 'own' work, or used your image in any way, you can quickly prove ownership.

 

[JamesD]

Even so, it's the law that protects your work, not the mark. The mark merely makes it easier to prosecute. If an image is used without permission, even if it isn't marked, the plagiarist is still liable. The mark serves only as a reminder of protection, not as protection in and of itself.