This guys work blew me away

[cloudhands69]

Are you really serious? I have gotten my own images stolen so many times, it is insane. I have had to fight businesses thinking they can take them right off the web and use them. I have also had people use them in very BAD ways all over the internet. I have also had someone take my images and claim them as their own. I also have photographed people that are pretty well known and I don't need them taken and used for anything else.

One you are in business for a few years, you get pretty sick of it, and sometimes a watermark is the best thing you can do to remind people that the images ARE NOT theirs for the taking.

Do I feel self important? If that is your definition of it, so be it.

If someone wanted to steal his image, wouldn't they just crop out all the border stuff? Or to remove a watermark, take a screenshot then crop?

do you feel self important? I dunno, it doesn't sound like it. On the other hand, having "Your Name, Copyright 2008" in big, colored script (and a silly font) along the side of your pic (sometimes inside, also)... That doesn't sound at least a little self-important? I guess I just value subtlety.

Let's see what you've got....?

Since I just joined and that was my first post, I knew I would get this kind of bonehead response. Does it matter what kind of art I make, or how good it is, when it comes to critiquing someone elses? That's just my opinion. You, sir, can sit and spin.

I didn't say the guy was a bad photographer. I said I didn't like his heavy use of post processing and gaudy "signature."

 

[shed301]

nice work

 

[JodieO]

If someone wanted to steal his image, wouldn't they just crop out all the border stuff? Or to remove a watermark, take a screenshot then crop?

do you feel self important? I dunno, it doesn't sound like it. On the other hand, having "Your Name, Copyright 2008" in big, colored script (and a silly font) along the side of your pic (sometimes inside, also)... That doesn't sound at least a little self-important? I guess I just value subtlety.

Well, I put my name big right in the center of the images (except for my family snapshots) - right on my blog. And that is the way it will stay. Nothing like finding links on statcounter to my blog where customers are saying "Why don't you just print the image right off her blog, so then you don't have to buy it..."

!!!????!!!!

The watermark is a REMINDER to people that these are copyrighted. Sure, someone good at PS probably could still remove, but at least it is a deterrant.

Oh, I have had my images taken for all kinds of reasons, and I don't care if some people think a border or a big watermark right in the center of the image ruins it. That is why I have a studio with nice-sized 30x40 images all over it with NO watermark

 

[DRoberts]

do you feel self important? I dunno, it doesn't sound like it. On the other hand, having "Your Name, Copyright 2008" in big, colored script (and a silly font) along the side of your pic (sometimes inside, also)... That doesn't sound at least a little self-important? I guess I just value subtlety.

Part of it might be that he wants people to know who took the shot....kinda like a painter signs his paintings.
But the main reason is he doesn't want it stolen. Kinda like Jodie was trying to tell you.
I guess you might figure this out if you ever get half the experience and knowledge that Jodie, or any 100s of other people on here.

 

[cloudhands69]

Part of it might be that he wants people to know who took the shot....kinda like a painter signs his paintings.

Exactly, which is what I find irritating.
I don't think there's any reason to paste your name across the side of your digital images. Maybe you would sign (with a pen) if you printed one for someone, or in a series of prints that you will sell.
On the other hand, I can definitely understand putting a watermark centered in the pic, like JodieO does. You still get to see the photographer's chops, but you are left with an image that you couldn't actually use yourself. This is totally fine in my opinion. JodieO (and many others) may use a watermark to protect your artistic/intellectual property. I don't think that's what I was talking about.

I guess you might figure this out if you ever get half the experience and knowledge that Jodie, or any 100s of other people on here.

Why you gotta be a prick like that? I just said I didn't like the guy's post processing and giant "signature." That doesn't mean I presume to know so much more than "any 100s of other people," where at all do you get that from my post?

 

[Monaco]

The only time I mind the watermarks is when it takes away from the picture.In Some of this guys work it's the first thing that catches my eye.I don't mind watermarks.I think they are necessary nowadays.But don't make them so big haha.

He indeed does have some great photo's even if they are PP'd or not.I think I could get pictures like that if I traveled the amount that this guy does to get them.

 

[JerryPH]

do you feel self important? I dunno, it doesn't sound like it. On the other hand, having "Your Name, Copyright 2008" in big, colored script (and a silly font) along the side of your pic (sometimes inside, also)... That doesn't sound at least a little self-important? I guess I just value subtlety.


Since I just joined and that was my first post, I knew I would get this kind of bonehead response. Does it matter what kind of art I make, or how good it is, when it comes to critiquing someone elses? That's just my opinion. You, sir, can sit and spin.

1 - You are OBVIOUSLY not someone that knows much about business, much less being a professional photographer. You see, your tone would change real fast the moment someone starts stealing your pictures and making money with your hard work and you get squat. However, since it has never happened to you, obviously, it cannot be that great in the first place... so don't worry about it.

2 - Jodie is a well respected member here, an established professional, a damn fine photographer... and a lady... so YOU sir, can use your own finger and follow your own advice.

As a new poster, you already distinguished yourself very poorly... keep it up and get distinguished right into the banned group, which I can see happening very quickly unless you wise up fast.

 

[cloudhands69]

1 - You are OBVIOUSLY not someone that knows much about business, much less being a professional photographer. You see, your tone would change real fast the moment someone starts stealing your pictures and making money with your hard work and you get squat. However, since it has never happened to you, obviously, it cannot be that great in the first place... so don't worry about it.

2 - Jodie is a well respected member here, an established professional, a damn fine photographer... and a lady... so YOU sir, can use your own finger and follow your own advice.

As a new poster, you already distinguished yourself very poorly... keep it up and get distinguished right into the banned group, which I can see happening very quickly unless you wise up fast.

Banned?? Are you serious?! Take a moment and read over the actual words thatI wrote. Where did I say anything offensive? Aside from deflecting a few distracting comments like "let's see what you've got" and "if you ever learn half..." I did not step up with that bull****. Your well respected members did.

Secondly, I did not direct any criticism at all to JodieO.. I don't know where you're coming from.

Just because I'm a new member that doesn't immediately step in line with the jock ride that you've got going on here, doesn't mean I don't have valid opinions, which are, in case you missed them:

- I find overly postprocessed pictures distracting and unappealing
- I find big displays of ego - Like including a big "signature" along the side of a photo - distasteful.

I think both of these arguments are valid, no matter what my history as an artist is.

I do not have anything against people protecting their work. I did not mean to infer that. What I did mean to infer is that a person who splashes a big "signature" across the side of their photo is not in fact attempting to protect their artistic or intellectual property. They are stroking their own ego.

This post started out with "this guy's work blew me away," and I offered a counter-point. I said I didn't like it, and why.

 

[shed301]

anyone got jerry springers number?. i think we may have a new comeback show for him !

 

[sabbath999]

Does it matter what kind of art I make, or how good it is, when it comes to critiquing someone elses?

Actually, yes it does.

If I haven't seen your work, how on earth am I supposed to know if your opinion is worth listening to?

There are a lot of no-nothing blow hards on the internet, and the only way to distinguish people is by their work.

You can see mine posted here, or at my website listed in my sig... and take any opinion I give appropriately by looking at what I do and evaluating my skill level.

I don't bother listening to people who don't do the same.

But that's me.

 

[abraxas]

...
This post started out with "this guy's work blew me away," and I offered a counter-point. I said I didn't like it, and why.

Crap. A baby troll. They're not as cute when they're young as you'd think they'd be. Anyway, let's not make this about you.

It looks like the guy puts a lot of thought/work into his images. I looked at a few of them. Some I liked. What's fun is to check these out in about a year and see if you still feel as strongly about his work.

 

[sabbath999]

As far as the original post goes, the guy's images are good for what they are...

There are not what I would do, but that's OK... he's got his thing and I have my thing.

 

[cloudhands69]

I think you all need to take a breath and relax.
It's ok if someone disagrees with you. Really, it is.

 

[shed301]

I think both of these arguments are valid, no matter what my history as an artist is.

I wasn't actually going to comment on this but i have to concerning this comment here

critique is fine and dandy etc.. BUT as far as i know don't you have to have the photographer actually answering towards his critisimn?.... i mean look at you guys. your officially backstabbing the guy who does good photo's yet he's not even here to defend himself. your tearing the guy to bits over some little watermark which is a real clever marketing tool in my eyes and he's not even here to watch even.. wow your real brave. there have been both good and bad points in this discussion but the main fact is he's not here to offer his defence... maybe someone could invite him in to offer his defence

as everyone puts on here
my .02 cents worth.

except we don't have that in our currancy anymore so i'm putting .05 cents

 

[DRoberts]

I think you all need to take a breath and relax.
It's ok if someone disagrees with you. Really, it is.

This got way off topic and I for one would like to apologize if my response was abit overboard, and welcome you to the forums.
Yes we can disagree with no hard feelings. I understand your point of view on how adding signatures and watermarks can in some instances be tacky or take away from photos.
I did not have a problem with that. It just seemed to me when an explination of why this is done (outside of ego) was given, you regected that thought and turned towards the one giving the explination with attitude. As Jerry stated, Jodie is a well respected and established professional who has alot of information that could help alot of people.
Here lately there has been quite a few new people coming on and disrespecting our more experienced and knowledgable contributors with a know it all attitude. As I said, I apologize if that was not your intent.

I don't think there's any reason to paste your name across the side of your digital images. Maybe you would sign (with a pen) if you printed one for someone, or in a series of prints that you will sell.

That would be ideal to be able to hand sign each copy but, in this digital age most prints are purchased online and then a higher resolution copy is downloaded. Which of course makes the handsigned idea less than practible in a business point of view.
In addition, most of the purchased prints will not have that signature on it. Usually they are on the samples just as a marketing tool.