Some family portraits

[JuhJuicy]

Thank you for the honest feedback everyone. I usually only use watermarks on my portraits and not my artistic photography. More for advertising when the customer passes them around on Facebook. Obviously, that's not a need on here.

 

[texkam]

Nothing wrong with aggressively watermarking something that is posted on a public forum. Pics for a client's viewing would be a different story, and pics for a client's purchase would be yet another.

 

[kundalini]

I'll settle with the camp of ostentastious watermark, thanks for the subsequent removal.

When you are shooting a group of three or more, think of the pyramids and the geometrical shape they form as a foundation. You have gaps that could easily be filled with a little direction..... peering through the viewfinder before triggering the shutter release, for instance.

Not too bad. Thanks for sharing.

 

[manaheim]

Thank you for the honest feedback everyone. I usually only use watermarks on my portraits and not my artistic photography. More for advertising when the customer passes them around on Facebook. Obviously, that's not a need on here.

Wait... You leave those on the pictures when you give them to your customers?

 

[amolitor]

Man, I just had a thought.

There's LOTS of consumer products where the label matters, there are always fads and fashions about tags and labels. It occurs to me that if it becomes a "thing" on facebook to have a giant watermark on the portraits you had taken, the pros on TPF are going to catch fire from the apoplectic fury. Heck, for all I know it's already a "thing" and you can't actually sell into that market without a large watermark.

If JLo can make tons of money selling hot pink sweats with the word JUICY across the butt, I don't see why there shouldn't be a market for digital images with juhJUICY written across them pretty large as well.

 

[MLeeK]

Man, I just had a thought.

There's LOTS of consumer products where the label matters, there are always fads and fashions about tags and labels. It occurs to me that if it becomes a "thing" on facebook to have a giant watermark on the portraits you had taken, the pros on TPF are going to catch fire from the apoplectic fury. Heck, for all I know it's already a "thing" and you can't actually sell into that market without a large watermark.

If JLo can make tons of money selling hot pink sweats with the word JUICY across the butt, I don't see why there shouldn't be a market for digital images with juhJUICY written across them pretty large as well.

Oh, for Christ's sake, get over it. JLo isn't making her millions off of the people who are spending big dollars on photography, she's making it off the teeny boppers. NOT a target audience for a photographer. Especially not a family portrait photographer. THINK about what you are saying. You are relatively immersed in the photography world. At least enough to know that the giant watermarks are a huge joke among photographers. You just love picking a pissing match with anyone who has any skill while you sit back under your little hat and think yourself superior. It's called Oppositional Defiant Disorder and you love to be oppositional no matter what anyone says. We could say the sky is blue and you'd give us all of the reasons why it's not.

Giant watermarks are the #1 sign of an AWAC/MWAC (whatever you want to call it) and tell us to start looking on YouAreNotAPhotographer for your work. If you feel the need to watermark, have at it. Every sports photo I post for the kids on facebook has a big semi transparent watermark slapped across it. If you feel the need to brand for advertising in a giant way? Have at it. The photography industry will crack jokes at every convention and get together we have about all of those giant watermarks. And you know what? For someone it may just be working to sell themselves, so the joke is probably on us a few times here and there. WHATEVER. But, for God's sake, do wee REALLY need to have a pissing match everytime we ask someone to take off a huge distraction as a courtesy to the people you are asking for something FREE from? Oh, wait... you are of that entitled generation aren't you?

The problem comes when trying to give CC on an image and it has this giant watermark slapped over it that takes over the image. It's a serious draw away from the image. An unobtrusive form of it? Well, that's sure easier to get past than a giant smack in the face. It's also a bit of class, however I don't think class is what juhJUICY is aimed at... I digress.

 

[manaheim]

He has a point, though.

I just made an assertion that the "facebook photographers" would effectively wind up replacing ALL the mid-tier photographers in time.

If leaving the watermark on the image is what these folks do more than anything else, then it will become the norm and accepted.

Whether it's right or wrong to us is irrelevant. Market demands and tendencies are what will control these things.

Sure, from a "photography" standpoint it's abhorrent... a total mess... a distraction from the work... (and frequently gaudy and gauche to boot)... but this person isn't taking pictures to hang on the wall of The Louvre... they're taking pictures to go up on facebook pages and to awe grammie and grampie with their lovely grandchildren.

*shrug*

 

[amolitor]

Much as I disapprove of derailing, I should point out that it only appears that I oppose everything because I tend to post mostly when I have an alternative viewpoint to offer. If I agree with all that has been said, I tend to remain silent. I disapprove of "+1" posts almost as much as I disapprove of derailing posts.

 

[JuhJuicy]

Thank you for the honest feedback everyone. I usually only use watermarks on my portraits and not my artistic photography. More for advertising when the customer passes them around on Facebook. Obviously, that's not a need on here.

Wait... You leave those on the pictures when you give them to your customers?

Noooooo. I show the customers the originals, the edited, and the filtered. But reading a lot of these conversations, I'm actually leaning toward not having the watermark on the ones I post on FB either.

Check out this article, "What if The Master of Photography Used Horrendous Watermarks?" I'm sure some of you have read it, but it was just posted on my school's photography group page and thought it would be interesting to share.


The Afghan Girl just breaks your heart with that watermark.

 

[kathyt]

Thank you for the honest feedback everyone. I usually only use watermarks on my portraits and not my artistic photography. More for advertising when the customer passes them around on Facebook. Obviously, that's not a need on here.

Wait... You leave those on the pictures when you give them to your customers?

Noooooo. I show the customers the originals, the edited, and the filtered. But reading a lot of these conversations, I'm actually leaning toward not having the watermark on the ones I post on FB either.

Check out this article, "What if The Master of Photography Used Horrendous Watermarks?" I'm sure some of you have read it, but it was just posted on my school's photography group page and thought it would be interesting to share.


The Afghan Girl just breaks your heart with that watermark.

I would NEVER post client images to facebook without a watermark EVER especially before they have seen their gallery and placed their order. Why? Because they will right click, save that image that I have sized at 72dpi and 720 on the longest side, and take it to walgreens and have it printed in a nice 11x14 and it will look like **** balls! Then who ever comes to their home and asks who took that lovely picture your name will be spewed out of their mouth over and over again. I want control of what gets printed and the quality of how it gets printed.