New Camera
- Thread starter JGAdams
- Start date
PNWPhotos.com a friendly and growing community of photographers with an interest in the Pacific Northwest region.
We feature a Photography Discussion Forum and Pacific Northwest Photo Gallery. It's a fun and friendly place to talk with other photographers, ask questions, share you knowledge, view and post photos and more!
ditto! Very difficult to see the photos . . .
Ditto. After looking at the first, I just scrolled past them all. I do the same for any images like that at any gallery or site so it is nothing personal. Sorry.
I will say it looks a bit like the first shot focused/locked onto the butt and not the head. The head seems soft in comparison to me. Other than that, the color and clarity seems very nice. Congrats.
the 7D is next on my upgrade list, specifically for wildlife.. my 5D may be getting a bit dated, but it still takes amazing pictures with top-notch image quality, so any upgrade to the Mk II will have to wait till i get the 7D paid off...
Affiliate Disclosure: We may receive a commision from some of the links and ads shown on this website (Learn More Here)
Digital Latte
Rob and Tracy
looking good, It took me a bit to get used to my 5Dmkii, but I am so in love with it now. The files sizes are HUGE huh? LOL
"What do you think."
i think the watermark interferes so much with the images that it's very difficult to offer any critique...
that being said, at these image sizes, it's tough to tell the difference between shots from a 5D2 and my 40D with the same lens... but i hear tell the 5D2 is a pretty good camera! congrats!
i think the watermark interferes so much with the images that it's very difficult to offer any critique...
that being said, at these image sizes, it's tough to tell the difference between shots from a 5D2 and my 40D with the same lens... but i hear tell the 5D2 is a pretty good camera!
congrats!
Last edited:
climbbike
New Member
ditto! Very difficult to see the photos . . .
You will love your 5d mkII. I have both that and the 7D. The 5D is my go to for most of my landscape but the 7D is my go to for wildlife both for its burst speed and that it is not a full frame camera. Although there are some here would not have a 7D if you paid them. . . (you know who your are LOL)
Ditto. After looking at the first, I just scrolled past them all. I do the same for any images like that at any gallery or site so it is nothing personal. Sorry.
I will say it looks a bit like the first shot focused/locked onto the butt and not the head. The head seems soft in comparison to me. Other than that, the color and clarity seems very nice. Congrats.
Last edited:
the 7D is next on my upgrade list, specifically for wildlife..
my 5D may be getting a bit dated, but it still takes amazing pictures with top-notch image quality, so any upgrade to the Mk II will have to wait till i get the 7D paid off... 
I have to agree, the watermarks make it hard to get a good feel for the images.
I totally understand the need to protect your work. But let's consider this for a moment. The images are only 800 pixels. They're really not much practical use. At 300 DPI, they're a whopping 3 inches tall. Maybe the risk is small enough to consider a smaller watermark.
That said, the images are very nice. Great color, nice lighting, look very sharp. Looks like you got a winner!
I totally understand the need to protect your work. But let's consider this for a moment. The images are only 800 pixels. They're really not much practical use. At 300 DPI, they're a whopping 3 inches tall. Maybe the risk is small enough to consider a smaller watermark.
That said, the images are very nice. Great color, nice lighting, look very sharp. Looks like you got a winner!
Enought Said
Ok, I think I've got the message, no more full face watermarks. Of course the concern is copyright, and people choosing to download and not pay for the pictures. It's not fair to all of the forum members who I have asked for opinions.
Oh by the way, I do love the 5D2 just like I thought I would. The big surprise is the storage devices. I have a pocket full of SD cards, which I will still use in my XSi, but the 5D2 takes CF cards. Oh well the cost of progress...
Thanks for everybody's input.
Ok, I think I've got the message, no more full face watermarks. Of course the concern is copyright, and people choosing to download and not pay for the pictures. It's not fair to all of the forum members who I have asked for opinions.
Oh by the way, I do love the 5D2 just like I thought I would. The big surprise is the storage devices. I have a pocket full of SD cards, which I will still use in my XSi, but the 5D2 takes CF cards. Oh well the cost of progress...
Thanks for everybody's input.
Jim, sorry that everyone piled on like that.
Copyright is an issue that just about everyone here deals with. There are folks here shooting for fun, but many of us are trying to sell our work to some extent, though just how much varies widely from shooter to shooter.
We all struggle with the exact same issue. Do we watermark our work with our copyright info or not? If you do watermark it, where should we put the watermark? On the subject, whcih distracts from the image, or on the fringes, where it's easily cropped, cloned out, or otherwise removed. Take your photos above for example. If you put it in the water, it can probably be cloned out by a 10 year old. Still, with new content aware fill in CS5, even the watermarks you have on the ducks could probably be cloned out too.
Here's my suggestion. First of all, make the images a size that's not real useful. A photo that's only 1000 pixels wide isn't going to make much of a print. If you've ever submitted something for publication, you know the usual request, 300 dpi or higher, so 1000 pixels will only print 3 inches wide.
If somebody does grab a shot like this, they can do a couple things with it. Use it as a desktop background. (Is that really so bad? Every time they look at the screen they're reminded of your work? Talk about product placement ads!) Possibly stash in a folder for inspiration and ideas. (Personal use, I'm OK with that), or maybe post the shot to their Facebook page without your permission. Not cool, but again, you get some exposure and it's not like you're losing money on the deal. I don't think there's a big market for "pretty photos to put on my FB profile..."
It's a choice every photographer has to make, and it will vary from person to person. Got a once in a lifetime shot that's begging to be stolen? OK, maybe you don't put that one online, or if you do, watermark it and put it up small. On the other hand, why not spend a day shooting some "throw-away" shots? Stuff you probably won't sell anyway, but it's good enough to prove you're good. Consider it "free samples" of your work, and tell yourself you don't care what folks do with it.
That's my suggestion anyway... And it's not directed at Jim specifically, it's a generic comment that applies to any photographer who posts photos anywhere online.
:: Bob steps down off of his soapbox, thanks the few folks who actually read all of that, and wanders off... ::
Copyright is an issue that just about everyone here deals with. There are folks here shooting for fun, but many of us are trying to sell our work to some extent, though just how much varies widely from shooter to shooter.
We all struggle with the exact same issue. Do we watermark our work with our copyright info or not? If you do watermark it, where should we put the watermark? On the subject, whcih distracts from the image, or on the fringes, where it's easily cropped, cloned out, or otherwise removed. Take your photos above for example. If you put it in the water, it can probably be cloned out by a 10 year old.
Still, with new content aware fill in CS5, even the watermarks you have on the ducks could probably be cloned out too.Here's my suggestion. First of all, make the images a size that's not real useful. A photo that's only 1000 pixels wide isn't going to make much of a print. If you've ever submitted something for publication, you know the usual request, 300 dpi or higher, so 1000 pixels will only print 3 inches wide.
If somebody does grab a shot like this, they can do a couple things with it. Use it as a desktop background. (Is that really so bad? Every time they look at the screen they're reminded of your work? Talk about product placement ads!) Possibly stash in a folder for inspiration and ideas. (Personal use, I'm OK with that), or maybe post the shot to their Facebook page without your permission. Not cool, but again, you get some exposure and it's not like you're losing money on the deal. I don't think there's a big market for "pretty photos to put on my FB profile..."
It's a choice every photographer has to make, and it will vary from person to person. Got a once in a lifetime shot that's begging to be stolen? OK, maybe you don't put that one online, or if you do, watermark it and put it up small. On the other hand, why not spend a day shooting some "throw-away" shots? Stuff you probably won't sell anyway, but it's good enough to prove you're good. Consider it "free samples" of your work, and tell yourself you don't care what folks do with it.
That's my suggestion anyway... And it's not directed at Jim specifically, it's a generic comment that applies to any photographer who posts photos anywhere online.
:: Bob steps down off of his soapbox, thanks the few folks who actually read all of that, and wanders off...
::
Last edited:
Irene
New Member
I've decided on a stripped down version of my watermark for this forum and am using a more intrusive watermark on Facebook. My thinking is that another photographer is much less likely to misuse an image than the public.
Copyright abuse is a concern I have been thinking about for when/if I go pro, as my livelihood would then depend on the value of my work. Here's my plan:
I will register every image I intend to publish with the US Copyright Office at least quarterly. Every displayed image will include a visible ©. I will establish a professional relationship with an attorney who understands the law as it applies to intellectual property. I will pay for a service such as Copyscape, to detect online abuse. I will manage my clients' expectations so that they know better. I will not allow an infringement to pass without challenge.
Even though copyright is established upon creation of an original work, proving compensable damages in court is going to be too much work/expense until I can demonstrate that it's harming me and that I've been diligent about protecting my work. So until the day comes that I am making a living from my work, it's all worry without pay.
Alright, I am off the soap box.
I didn't find your images impossible to read past the watermark. I think you led with your strongest image. I've never seen that view of a duck before and it made me chuckle. I liked that the duck's head was in profile, but the tail seemed to be the point of your image, so the head is a nice supporting detail that didn't need to be in sharp focus for me to enjoy the image as a whole. I also liked how the light plays with the water and the orange of the duck's right foot.
Copyright abuse is a concern I have been thinking about for when/if I go pro, as my livelihood would then depend on the value of my work. Here's my plan:
I will register every image I intend to publish with the US Copyright Office at least quarterly. Every displayed image will include a visible ©. I will establish a professional relationship with an attorney who understands the law as it applies to intellectual property. I will pay for a service such as Copyscape, to detect online abuse. I will manage my clients' expectations so that they know better. I will not allow an infringement to pass without challenge.
Even though copyright is established upon creation of an original work, proving compensable damages in court is going to be too much work/expense until I can demonstrate that it's harming me and that I've been diligent about protecting my work. So until the day comes that I am making a living from my work, it's all worry without pay.
Alright, I am off the soap box.
I didn't find your images impossible to read past the watermark. I think you led with your strongest image. I've never seen that view of a duck before and it made me chuckle. I liked that the duck's head was in profile, but the tail seemed to be the point of your image, so the head is a nice supporting detail that didn't need to be in sharp focus for me to enjoy the image as a whole. I also liked how the light plays with the water and the orange of the duck's right foot.
Last edited:
PNWPhotos.com is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to amazon.com