Beginner A little eyecandy - Jake Quickenden

[rusticblonde]

So everyone has to love a little eyecandy right

 

[UaeExile]

Framing is obviously off and you've caught him at a time where most of his face is covered. And I'd lose the watermark, but I have a thing about them so maybe ignore me...

 

[rusticblonde]

Framing is obviously off and you've caught him at a time where most of his face is covered. And I'd lose the watermark, but I have a thing about them so maybe ignore me...

Totally know this. Baring in mind this was at a stage with over 1000 people pushing me lol, Taking it from below also didnt help haha. I got one where he was grinding, similar angle, but wasnt sure if it was suitable in this part of the forum LOL! As for watermark its from my page so i forget these things LOL!

 

[juggler]

What Adam said.. if a snap is obviously a snap and you're not wanting critique then the 'photos for pleasure' group is probably the best place..,

IF you're going to use a watermark then reduce the opacity.. and perhaps pop it in the blank space at the top?

 

[rusticblonde]

What Adam said.. if a snap is obviously a snap and you're not wanting critique then the 'photos for pleasure' group is probably the best place..,

IF you're going to use a watermark then reduce the opacity.. and perhaps pop it in the blank space at the top?

ah ok, fair point. Wrong section. Oh ok, will do that. I saw alot with it positioned over the photo to stop deterence from editing out by people lol, I will turn this down for future

 

[juggler]

ah ok, fair point. Wrong section. Oh ok, will do that. I saw alot with it positioned over the photo to stop deterence from editing out by people lol, I will turn this down for future

I haven't tried but I reckon I could do an ok job of getting rid of it in 1-2 minutes and a good one in 5.

But.. if someone wants to steal your photo then they will do so regardless of watermark, and may not even bother editing it. You could put a really intrusive mark on but ask yourself - who's going to steal it?

It's probably different for low margin, high volume, fast turnaround event photographers who rely on web sales, and you might want to do something obvious when sharing a proofing gallery with a client.

otoh I reckon watermarks are useful for brand building, I do sometimes contemplate one myself - but virtually none of the folk I admire ever use one so I haven't yet.

 

[rusticblonde]

I haven't tried but I reckon I could do an ok job of getting rid of it in 1-2 minutes and a good one in 5.

But.. if someone wants to steal your photo then they will do so regardless of watermark, and may not even bother editing it. You could put a really intrusive mark on but ask yourself - who's going to steal it?

It's probably different for low margin, high volume, fast turnaround event photographers who rely on web sales, and you might want to do something obvious when sharing a proofing gallery with a client.

otoh I reckon watermarks are useful for brand building, I do sometimes contemplate one myself - but virtually none of the folk I admire ever use one so I haven't yet.

That is the best justification i have ever seen. Such a valid point. I guess Ive seen some mates get scoldered on other forums. Prime example, friend of mine did an awesome shot of Staithes. Someone stole it and claimed it as his own. No mention of him. I would get pretty peeved with that

 

[juggler]

That is the best justification i have ever seen. Such a valid point. I guess Ive seen some mates get scoldered on other forums. Prime example, friend of mine did an awesome shot of Staithes. Someone stole it and claimed it as his own. No mention of him. I would get pretty peeved with that

I was intending it to come across as a reason NOT to use one

 

[Sir SR]

I haven't tried but I reckon I could do an ok job of getting rid of it in 1-2 minutes and a good one in 5.

But.. if someone wants to steal your photo then they will do so regardless of watermark, and may not even bother editing it. You could put a really intrusive mark on but ask yourself - who's going to steal it?

It's probably different for low margin, high volume, fast turnaround event photographers who rely on web sales, and you might want to do something obvious when sharing a proofing gallery with a client.

otoh I reckon watermarks are useful for brand building, I do sometimes contemplate one myself - but virtually none of the folk I admire ever use one so I haven't yet.

I used to have one, almost invaraibly in the negative space that I so love in portraits but I've not used them for a while now, mainly for the reasons described

 

[rusticblonde]

Fair point. I may consider dropping it

 

[Deleted member 34016]

shot is ok, Slightly out of focus- look at the name on his shorts for example and you cut off his arm the watermark is pointless, anyone with any knowledge in Photoshop could remove that in minutes as already stated ( me included) lol

No one is going to steal a photo snap to be honest and your details are electronically embedded in the image anyhow if you use Photoshop, so ownership can be quickly proved in such an event.

Also, you say you are a beginner, yet slap a watermark stating "Kirsty Marks Photography" on an image- seems a little odd to me

Les

 

[ancient_mariner]

With watermarks for the kinds of image that people will copy & paste, it may be helpful to keep them small and faint so that they remain on the image rather than causing people to want to shop them out. If it ever comes down to a serious dispute about ownership then if you have the RAW file you can demonstrate providence.

 

[nickEnackEnoo]

Also, you say you are a beginner, yet slap a watermark stating "Kirsty Marks Photography" on an image- seems a little odd to me

It's a very common thing to do amongst beginners and hobbyists.

 

[Turbo-G]

I assume you were in the crowd, rather than being there as a photographer?

Unsure who the subject is, and I'm not a concert photography expert - but up the nose shots whilst the subject is "eating the mic", is not a great look. The framing is not ideal, and it is too tightly cropped. A wider shot showing more context would perhaps work better, in this situation.

As above, watermarks are totally unnecessary.

 

[rusticblonde]

shot is ok, Slightly out of focus- look at the name on his shorts for example and you cut off his arm the watermark is pointless, anyone with any knowledge in Photoshop could remove that in minutes as already stated ( me included) lol

No one is going to steal a photo snap to be honest and your details are electronically embedded in the image anyhow if you use Photoshop, so ownership can be quickly proved in such an event.

Also, you say you are a beginner, yet slap a watermark stating "Kirsty Marks Photography" on an image- seems a little odd to me

Les

Les, i am a beginner, however trying to start a business and may as well. As for the watermark, my mate learnt the hard way by some loon nicking his image and claiming it as his own. It was only through eagle eyes that someone pulled it up. Its a harsh reality that it does happen. Hence why i put something on it, i know its probably idiotic like. I am very much a beginner and only been really doing it a year

As for photoshop removal completely agreed, it could be removed by someone with knowledge. I tend to be more forthcoming on client stuff XD

 

[rusticblonde]

I assume you were in the crowd, rather than being there as a photographer?

Unsure who the subject is, and I'm not a concert photography expert - but up the nose shots whilst the subject is "eating the mic", is not a great look. The framing is not ideal, and it is too tightly cropped. A wider shot showing more context would perhaps work better, in this situation.

As above, watermarks are totally unnecessary.

I assume you were in the crowd, rather than being there as a photographer?

Unsure who the subject is, and I'm not a concert photography expert - but up the nose shots whilst the subject is "eating the mic", is not a great look. The framing is not ideal, and it is too tightly cropped. A wider shot showing more context would perhaps work better, in this situation.

As above, watermarks are totally unnecessary.

Hi Turbo, yes i was a bystander and merely pointing and clicking imho. Jake liked the photo on Twitter so he must have liked it, although your points are duely noted.

As for watermarks i have made some comments on this. These are there for FB, purely because i and a few people have been scolded for image nicking. It does happen

 

[rusticblonde]

It's a very common thing to do amongst beginners and hobbyists.

It is, tbf i am much more a hobbyist and beginner. This is not a full time job and i have a long way to go to be perfect or at least reasonable. You are right with the watermark thing.

 

[sunnyside_up]

Watermarks... oh good grief, this old nut again? You'll always have your 'fors' and 'opposed'.

Kirsty - I don't find anything wrong with your watermark - I look at it like branding... in fact, I'm actually not all that bothered about it's position either. I use one pretty much everytime. I like mine, it says 'Hey, I took this'. I have two sets of four presets out of lightroom upon export grey or white left/right/top/bottom, and use whatever one works best for the photo. If I were to say one thing about yours, it would be to perhaps make it a tad bit smaller, that's it. You can see mine in the image below. I started using it from the time I started this photography malarky and continue to use it now. Doesn't matter if you're just starting out or not, if you're trying to develop your brand, then there's no time like the present.

Bump by Beth Botterill, on Flickr

It's true - if someone wants to remove your watermark they can... that's something that I accept. But I don't use it to prevent theft. I use it as I mentioned above. And I think that's the right attitude to have about it.

I'm sure there's loads that will say I'm totally wrong.

 

[rusticblonde]

Watermarks... oh good grief, this old nut again? You'll always have your 'fors' and 'opposed'.

Kirsty - I don't find anything wrong with your watermark - I look at it like branding... in fact, I'm actually not all that bothered about it's position either. I use one pretty much everytime. I like mine, it says 'Hey, I took this'. I have two sets of four presets out of lightroom upon export grey or white left/right/top/bottom, and use whatever one works best for the photo. If I were to say one thing about yours, it would be to perhaps make it a tad bit smaller, that's it. You can see mine in the image below. I started using it from the time I started this photography malarky and continue to use it now. Doesn't matter if you're just starting out or not, if you're trying to develop your brand, then there's no time like the present.

Bump by Beth Botterill, on Flickr

It's true - if someone wants to remove your watermark they can... that's something that I accept. But I don't use it to prevent theft. I use it as I mentioned above. And I think that's the right attitude to have about it.

I'm sure there's loads that will say I'm totally wrong.

Totally get that also, and thanks for the suggestion. Im in two minds as per

 

[Deleted member 34016]

I would suggest you get yourself a Web site in that case. Post only low resolution images on Facebook and as said copyright remains with the photographer and exit is embedded in the image. So theft is easy to prove

 

[Deleted member 34016]

I would suggest you get yourself a Web site in that case. Post only low resolution images on Facebook and as said copyright remains with the photographer and exif is embedded in the image. So theft is easy to prove

 

[Deleted member 34016]

I would suggest you get yourself a Web site in that case. Post only low resolution images on Facebook and as said copyright remains with the photographer and exif is embedded in the image. So theft is easy to prove

 

[rusticblonde]

I would suggest you get yourself a Web site in that case. Post only low resolution images on Facebook and as said copyright remains with the photographer and exit is embedded in the image. So theft is easy to prove

I have a website (well, FB, website is in progress currently). Low res, good point, i will consider this. As for Exif data there is also plenty of programs that can remove this, its a sad reality. Ive seen numerous pieces of work with Exif data removed

 

[Deleted member 34016]

Exif not exit. Bloody phone lol

 

[rusticblonde]

Exif not exit. Bloody phone lol

Hahahah i saw it several times. God bless predictive and all that XD

 

[Deleted member 34016]

 

[rusticblonde]

Seriously thanks for the feedback however. Im still very new and trying new things. I will get there

 

[Deleted member 34016]

Have a look for a free Web site I started out with one. They are in my opinion better than Facebook. I have a go daddy one now for around £100 a year. Does all I need it to.
Best advice is keep at it

Les

 

[rusticblonde]

Have a look for a free Web site I started out with one. They are in my opinion better than Facebook. I have a go daddy one now for around £100 a year. Does all I need it to.
Best advice is keep at it

Les

Wow £100 a year! Holy crap!! Thats expensive!! Im a webdesigner by trade (this is more a hobby right now). I pay £8 quid a month, ok so thats nearly 100 XD... i never think about it like that. Tbh i just havent had a chance to get something knocked up, but im sure i will get something done shortly. I certainly will, i can only improve (i hope XD)

 

[ancient_mariner]

You could always host on photobucket/flickr in private albums and then create a free blog to post images using blogger.

 

[Deleted member 34016]

Wow £100 a year! Holy crap!! Thats expensive!! Im a webdesigner by trade (this is more a hobby right now). I pay £8 quid a month, ok so thats nearly 100 XD... i never think about it like that. Tbh i just havent had a chance to get something knocked up, but im sure i will get something done shortly. I certainly will, i can only improve (i hope XD)

Hmm....... £8 per month that equates to £96 a year when I went to school

Facebook has always been, in my opinion, a dodgy place to display any image that "is worthy of being stolen",

Do advertise on Facebook by all means &, DIRECT TRAFFIC TO YOUR INDIVIDUAL SITEwhich I'm guessing you already have if you pay £8 per month which confused me as you state "Tbh i just havent had a chance to get something knocked up" So what are you paying £8 a month for then??????

Les

 

[Deleted member 34016]

Any chance of a response to my post above, I'm a tad confused

 

[Deleted member 34016]

I guess not.

 

[Deleted member 34016]

Still NO response I see

 

[Phil V]

Hmm....... £8 per month that equates to £96 a year when I went to school

Facebook has always been, in my opinion, a dodgy place to display any image that "is worthy of being stolen",

Do advertise on Facebook by all means &, DIRECT TRAFFIC TO YOUR INDIVIDUAL SITEwhich I'm guessing you already have if you pay £8 per month which confused me as you state "Tbh i just havent had a chance to get something knocked up" So what are you paying £8 a month for then??????

Les

The OP is a web designer. Which is probably what her website is for.

 

[Deleted member 34016]

Yes I did think that- but having no confirmation, I was a little confused

 

[snap-happy]

Fair point. I may consider dropping it

Keep the watermark! If anyone removes it then your compensation can be much higher as they can't claim they didn't know who owns the copyright!! Too many pictures being stolen or given away for free as it is.

 

[snap-happy]

I have a website (well, FB, website is in progress currently). Low res, good point, i will consider this. As for Exif data there is also plenty of programs that can remove this, its a sad reality. Ive seen numerous pieces of work with Exif data removed

Low res doesn't stop others using the picture on a website/Facebook. Keep the watermark!!

 

[Deleted member 34016]

Low res doesn't stop others using the picture on a website/Facebook. Keep the watermark!!

do you really envisage anyone stealing that particular (out of focus image) , Get real

Les

 

[rusticblonde]

do you really envisage anyone stealing that particular (out of focus image) , Get real

Les

You never know Les.... (just a thought).... i know my image isnt perfect in the slightest. I have found 2 people using 2 pink tribute images i shot once, and they refused to credit or comment my name. They as well werent the greatest, but it could happen.

I guess a watermark is a matter of choice?