*Official* Post Your Pictures Thread

[spirit]

Oh damn that sucks

Yeah I'll probably look into another font later

What do others think about this watermark?

I personally wouldn't bother. They are distracting and people always find ways of removing them unless you have a big watermark going across the whole image, which you don't wan't.

 

[Geoff]

The average viewer may not spot it, but I immediately saw that smudge in the corner of the first photo where the watermark was The second photo I cant tell at all from a glance though.

Obviously, I spent 30 seconds total editing both photos. Here's 30 seconds on just one photo:

Oh damn that sucks

Yeah I'll probably look into another font later

What do others think about this watermark?

I personally wouldn't bother. They are distracting and people always find ways of removing them unless you have a big watermark going across the whole image, which you don't wan't.

I have to agree, if you really don't want someone to take it easily you need a watermark on the entire image, like PROOF in big bold letters. Sometimes the logo can add to the photo if done right, and fewer people would attempt to edit it out.

 

[Punk]

I personally wouldn't bother. They are distracting and people always find ways of removing them unless you have a big watermark going across the whole image, which you don't wan't.

I put my email address so that if someone wants to contact me to buy/use my photos they can find a contact email. Happened once already

 

[Ramodkk]

I don't get why people get so protective with their photos. It's art, I would be pleased if people shared my photos (credit or not). And even if they claimed them as theirs, does it really matter in the end? In the end you know it's not their art, and they have no way of doing something similar or proving that it's theirs, no that it matters, you KNOW it's your art.

That's how I see it. That's not to say I don't have a watermark. I think, like Geoff said, a nice, elegant watermark adds to the picture if done right.

 

[G80FTW]

I don't get why people get so protective with their photos. It's art, I would be pleased if people shared my photos (credit or not). And even if they claimed them as theirs, does it really matter in the end? In the end you know it's not their art, and they have no way of doing something similar or proving that it's theirs, no that it matters, you KNOW it's your art.

That's how I see it. That's not to say I don't have a watermark. I think, like Geoff said, a nice, elegant watermark adds to the picture if done right.

I agree. I put watermarks on my graphic design but not my photographs. As far as I know, only one photograph I have ever taken was used on a website where they sent me an email telling me they were using it. They didnt ask, just told me haha. But they credited me and left my name on the bottom I had put there so I didnt care.

 

[Punk]

I don't get why people get so protective with their photos. It's art, I would be pleased if people shared my photos (credit or not). And even if they claimed them as theirs, does it really matter in the end? In the end you know it's not their art, and they have no way of doing something similar or proving that it's theirs, no that it matters, you KNOW it's your art.

That's how I see it. That's not to say I don't have a watermark. I think, like Geoff said, a nice, elegant watermark adds to the picture if done right.

I don't mind at all, just a heads up at the email adress I provide is enough. The thing I can't accept (although I have never seen it yet) is people making money with one of my pictures, hence the watermark.

 

[Geoff]

From skiing last night.

 

[spirit]

Nice shot there Geoff. Liking the lighting. :good:

Reprocessed these photos from March, April, May, June and July 2013 today because I had to make a portfolio explaining how I edited photos for a school project. Thought I'd share the reprocessed photos. Click for full res on Flickr.



Original: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jasonbrown2013/9314724933/in/set-72157634729608371




Original: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jasonbrown2013/8574777483/in/set-72157635238935179 (yeah had to show 'heavy manipulating' skills, so I changed the colour of the sky).




Original: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jasonbrown2013/8646833142/in/set-72157633078706994




Original: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jasonbrown2013/8905206877/in/set-72157633401330395




Original: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jasonbrown2013/9050738471/in/set-72157633314648968

 

[Geoff]

Love them all Jason!

 

[spirit]

Love them all Jason!

Cheers Geoff. It was fun processing them again. Hopefully I can go and get some more new shots soon, but I've got a busy week ahead (even though I'm off school).

 

[Geoff]

Cheers Geoff. It was fun processing them again. Hopefully I can go and get some more new shots soon, but I've got a busy week ahead (even though I'm off school).

I really need to start processing my photos more, I only do basic editing like WB, exposure, crop and straighten, NR, levels, etc. I don't do any selective coloring, major saturation changes, etc.

Do you find Lightroom to be a lot easier to use than Photoshop? I have both, but only use CS6.

 

[Punk]

. I don't do any selective coloring, major saturation changes, etc.

And that's a good thing!

 

[spirit]

I really need to start processing my photos more, I only do basic editing like WB, exposure, crop and straighten, NR, levels, etc. I don't do any selective coloring, major saturation changes, etc.

For this project I had to do, I had to demonstrate some 'heavier' manipulation skills, so I used selective colour and also edited that sky a little bit.

Do you find Lightroom to be a lot easier to use than Photoshop? I have both, but only use CS6.

Yes, far easier and faster. Only the things you need are there and they are all on the right hand side. In Photoshop, everything's buried in menus. After having used Lightroom to edit my RAW files for over a year, going back to Photoshop just feels so clunky. Camera RAW in CS5 doesn't actually my D3200 RAW files anyway.

All of those were processed in Lightroom 5 without having to go into Photoshop CS5 once.

 

[voyagerfan99]

I usually use Bridge and Camera Raw in CS6 to edit my pictures. No issues with that, and it's plenty quick :good:

And that's a good thing!

Not always. You're picky about things like that. But if something comes out under-saturated, I'm not gonna leave it looking like crap. I'm gonna increase the color and saturation as needed. I'll post an example tomorrow when I get back to my desktop at school.

 

[Punk]

Not always. You're picky about things like that. But if something comes out under-saturated, I'm not gonna leave it looking like crap. I'm gonna increase the color and saturation as needed. I'll post an example tomorrow when I get back to my desktop at school.

As long as it looks natural I'm ok (and that only involves me), I use to over-saturate photos in Autumn because the D40 wasn't very effective at getting that orange dynamic.
The selective color editing is the thing I can't stand, those kind of editing.

 

[Geoff]

As long as it looks natural I'm ok (and that only involves me), I use to over-saturate photos in Autumn because the D40 wasn't very effective at getting that orange dynamic.
The selective color editing is the thing I can't stand, those kind of editing.

It depends on the person. A lot of photos that come out of the camera, while natural, lack any sort of emotion or drama and tend to be boring. Editing them can bring a lot more life and a sense of emotion to the photo. People who take photos straight from the camera and say they don't edit because it ruins the photo, are just lazy and don't care to learn how to properly edit a photo.

It's just like people who say they are natural light photographers, when in reality they just don't know how to properly use artificial light.

 

[Punk]

People who take photos straight from the camera and say they don't edit because it ruins the photo, are just lazy and don't care to learn how to properly edit a photo.

I don't agree with this. I do edit a little bit but to some people editing is cheating, and it has nothing to do with knowing how to do it properly.

 

[Geoff]

I don't agree with this. I do edit a little bit but to some people editing is cheating, and it has nothing to do with knowing how to do it properly.

How is editing cheating? You know that many people edited photos back in the film days right? Burning, dodging, creating a higher or lower contrast photo, using a lower or higher exposure, etc. to a photo when developing them help bring out more of the photo and give the photo that "pop" that creates a good photo.

 

[Geoff]

Here's an example.

Here is a macro shot I took, this is straight out of the camera without any editing:



Now I decided to edit it, adjust the contrast, exposure, saturation, add some effects, etc. Can you honestly say the original photo is better?

 

[voyagerfan99]

The original photo is crap, boring, and bland. It's got almost the same color throughout the entire photo. The edited one is much more interesting.