Home › Forums › Am I a Fauxtog? › I'm new to YANAP, dont know where to ask for CC
- This topic has 26 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 1 month ago by nesgran.
May 1, 2014 at 5:05 pm #18565
Thank you all so much I really appreciate it. The reason I had to put that watermark in the ugly spot is because I have had several of my images stolen and posted on websites or claimed as a photographers own I even got in an argument with a photon from Australia who said I should expect my photos to get stolen if I post them onlineMay 1, 2014 at 5:06 pm #18566
I’ll have to check the master on this image to see if the blur is on there but I don’t believe it isMay 1, 2014 at 5:18 pm #18567
Thank you all so much I really appreciate it. I’m not sure about the weird smudge on her hand all I have to look at the master to see if it’s on there too. For the watermark I had to post that on there because I have had several websites take my photos and use them for advertising or I had a photographer from Australia use the photos as her own photography business I confronted her about it she said that I should expect you have my Photo stolen if I post them online, pepole are insane! Someone on here asked to see more of my work so they can give me a better CC of my work, you can go to http://www.Adamklempke.com to see moreMay 1, 2014 at 5:18 pm #18568
Sorry it wouldn’t load so I had to write it 5 times and it ended up posting all :/May 2, 2014 at 2:54 am #18570inkh3art3dParticipant
This is the blur/cloning we’re talking about. I’ve circled it in blue.
Let me know when you see it so I can take it down.May 2, 2014 at 3:24 am #18575
the blur is caused by a super low res version of the photo, maybe this one will be betterMay 2, 2014 at 6:14 am #18576Worst Case ScenarioParticipant
Just to be clear, I wasn’t saying that you hadn’t taken the shot. But as we all agree that the pic is head and shoulders above our normal contributors, I tried to find your site. Unfortunately I didn’t see the “K” in the water mark and couldn’t get to your site. That plus the blur that looked like it could have been the remains of a water mark, raised my suspicions.
I only mentioned it as CC had commented how easy it would be to remove the water mark. Which I totally agree with , I could get rid of it in seconds. As it stands your water mark is just an annoyance, if you really want to protect your images it needs to be much bigger and more complicated.May 2, 2014 at 7:34 am #18579cameraclickerParticipant
I picked up a copy of your post from youpic.com and made some adjustments. Mostly I ran a burn tool over her hand because it was a little too bright and was competing with her face for my attention. I also replaced your watermark.
I’m not sure a bigger, more complicated watermark is a solution. It does depend on why you are watermarking. I used to hate watermarks. My thinking about them has “evolved” with the discovery that sites like Facebook remove EXIF data. There is a company that sells invisible watermarks that can be traced over the Internet and even in printed and photocopied materials if they are scanned again. What no one can see, no one is likely to remove. On the other hand, if we see an image we think might be stolen, it is easier to report it if there is a clear unobtrusive watermark. The challenge is to put it somewhere it won’t be cropped off, yet does not affect the overall effect of the image.
Oh, and since you are new, I will mention if you click the thumbnail, it will take you to Flickr where you can see the full sized image. Let us know you have seen it and I will take it down in a day or two.May 2, 2014 at 8:39 am #18581fautox1977Participant
You can always add a digital signature to your photos and therefore it would be very easy to spot if stolen.May 2, 2014 at 10:54 am #18582
I ask that you please don’t edit my photo without my permission seeing how you misspelled my name so that could throw some people off and yes I usually do a digital watermark as wellMay 2, 2014 at 11:43 am #18583cameraclickerParticipant
Apologies! I thought I copied your watermark correctly. There is a lesson there, though. I’m the second person to have trouble with that watermark. Clean and simple is better.May 2, 2014 at 3:49 pm #18585nesgranParticipant
The higher res version was certainly a lot better with better colour.
As for a couple of small crits, like others have said the catch lights are distracting and I’d say get rid of the bottom catch lights.
The watermark is not in a good place. What you could do which would also make it much harder to get rid of is to place it on the darker section of her scarf under her chin. Curve it to let it follow the shape of the scarf and it will both blend in better but also be more visible but less intrusive. If this doesn’t make sense I’ll show you what I mean.
As for the photo in technical terms, I would say that you could have stopped down a little more than f5 as the tassels on the scarf are slightly soft.
I had a look at some of the other photos and they are all technically sound and well composed. You are probably at a stage where you need to sit down with someone for a one to one crit with the images printed 8×10 or so.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.