Its his picture. He can put his watermark where ever he wants. I think its creative.

 

Thanks! I appreciate all the comments.

Thanks, Kev.

Thanks. I appreciate the suggestion, but I think I'll keep them the way they are for now. I've had problems in the past with people stealing my pictures. Yes, I could take it as some form of flattery, but it's hard to appreciate that kind of compliment when no credit is given. I at least want to make it more difficult than cropping out my watermark.

*Edit* On second thought, I should learn how to electronically & permanently watermark the image...

You're way more dumped than both Johnny and I... I don't know how the heck you park there. Some of the speedbumps are absolutely unavoidable.

 

Nice shots rides lookin mighty clean!

 

And that was my opinion. I can give it when I want, and you can dislike it as you please. Take it with a grain of salt, it was merely a suggestion.

You expect that to keep others from stealing your pictures? That was my whole point, your watermark as is does absolutely nothing to protect your pictures. I can clone all of those watermarks out in a couple minutes and no one would have ANY clue they were ever there. If you were really concerned with people stealing your pictures, then you'd put the watermark on something that isn't "solid."

What do you mean electronically watermark the image? Clarification? You can add watermarks using the Actions function in Photoshop..

Edit:

peace out watermark



at least make it more challenging for people to remove it if you insist on doing it. for example, it'd be a PITA to clone this out...



another option...you can adjust the opacity to your pleasing...



Another example of the last method:
http://modelmayhm-2.vo.llnwd.net/d1/...1249bc7a96.jpg

It's going to be pretty difficult to remove that watermark...it's clear that he doesn't want anyone but him to claim that photo as their own.

Personally...I used to watermark my images, too. did it for a variety of reasons. One, because I thought it would deter people from "stealing" my images. And two, because I wanted to be appreciated for my images. But I've come to learn that less is more. Reduce the clutter and let the picture speak for itself.

 

Thanks for showing me those alternate methods of watermarking, but I think I understand that putting my watermark on something that isn't solid obviously makes it more difficult. However, if I did that, then it obviously "ruins" the picture, and I'm sure I'd get negative feedback for that, especially from you, too... Thinking about it more now, what I first quoted from you somewhat states why I put a watermark: not only to hinder people trying to "steal" my pictures (more so then just placing it in the corner where it's way easier to crop out) and show that it was I who took the picture, but also to be creative, like yangster said.

Your last example seems to have more commercial intent (maybe that girl paid the photographer for a photoshoot, and he is sending her samples); mine is more to share with the community, which is why my watermarks are relatively small. On the same note, "clutter" is subjective; one could simply ignore the watermark and the picture would still speak for itself.

I understand your point, though; my watermark does appear in different places on each image that could be thought of as distracting. Maybe one day when I've just graduated from college, I'll feel the way you do/be too lazy to put on watermarks. But for now, as you "insist" on not putting watermarks, I'll "insist" on the opposite.

*Edit* By electronic watermark, I'm referring to what appears in the EXIF data. For example, if you look at Marcus' EXIF data, you'll see "User Comment = Copyright Marcus Cooke 2009."

 

damn you calvin!

 

Sic pics man. With or without the watermark. :-P

 

Clutter is relative. An image with a watermark is unarguably more cluttered than one without. Whether that clutter is significant enough to distract is another thing.

Any watermark is going to be a distraction and "ruin" (for the record, I never said it ruins the picture, just distracts) the picture. It's going to be distracting whether it's on the ground or anywhere else. If you're going to use one, then you might as well make it functional. That is, more difficult for people to clone out.

I'm not insisting you remove it, I'm suggesting you make it more functional since you insist to use it.

Again, I was just making a simple suggestion...

 

Thanks for the re-iteration [in more ways than one]. Lol, you make me sound like a bad guy for using it.

I already told you why I am using it/will continue to use it and why I won't make it more "functional."

Again, I'm making a simple response to your simple suggestion.


(I know you'll be shaking your head when you read this. )


*Edit* Thanks for the comments!

 

2 clean g's. the post processing on some of them is overdone. i miss the days without all the special effects sigh.

ps thats just my opinion.

 

^ Thanks, I appreciate your opinion.

That's why I don't do the special effects on all the pictures.

 

As a web designer myself, there's no way photos can be 100% protected from people stealing them. There's rubber-stamping, screen-capture, etc..

A true watermark can be a semi-transparent layer, dominantly placed across the photo. Or can be data hidden within the image file, which is not visible on screen. What Kevin did was just a signature to get credit for his work. They are strategically positioned so they don't affect overall view of the photo. I stamp my works the exact same way, but for copyright purposes.

 

lol, Kevin. No hard feelings, I hope. I didn't mean to come off the way I may have (it's hard to judge tone on the internet).

jlin65 - yah, what Kevin does isn't really watermarking. I just call all forms of signatures watermarking. And it's true that you can't prevent anyone from stealing your pics. You can make it more difficult, though. You can even capture images on flash websites.

Web designer, eh? Do you do any flash work? If so, PM me! I'm looking to get a flash site up soon.

Anyway, sorry for the threadjack, Kevin!

 

^ No worries, man.

 

T1s ftw. Pictures look great!