- This topic is empty.
On the rocks….
-
I spent this evening in Portstewart. The weather was great, and the sky dramatic!
I have only had a chance to process two so far, and it would be great to hear any opinions on them.
Both are with a Canon 30D, Canon 17-85mm, Lee polariser and a Lee 0.6 ND Grad.
Thanks,
Steve :DAll super Steve…. particularly the second and third…. great sky and reflections… really nicely processed too…!
Talk to ye
Richie
I like the third one more than the other but they are all great.
Fantastic sky.Nice work :DI particularly like the colour in the second,
though the handrail is somewhat of a distraction-Maybe you could use it to your advantage
and place a figure there?An expressive one maybe,
long silks in the breeze spring to mind-Just a thought-
I understand the need for a watermark,
but I think these have been taking away from your pictures recently-I don’t know what is the best way to handle it though-
j
The first 2 are nice but I’m very fond of number 3. The sky is unusual and caps the photo off very well and is well matched by the colourful reflection.
I’m with JB7 on the whole watermark issue of late. I think it was Pete that said he’d be flattered for someone to steal his 150kb image from our site. Yours aren’t the only photos adorned with them but they detracting from the images. Any solutions would be more than welcome. Understandable, I suppose, but detracting.
Anyways, great shots. Given the multitude of sunsets from this time of year that are being presented these are rather good!
Alan.
I like no.2 best Steve. It’s a bit out of the normal run of stuff and the sky is very dramatic.
I hope you don’t mind Steve – just a quick demo and you do say it’s OK to edit your pics.
Premise: I want to steal a low-res image for a website. There’s not much else I could use it for at this resolution.
Method: find a suitable image and save to local drive.
1. Open in PS or similar and use clone tool to rub out watermark
2. Enlarge to twice the original size
3. USM
4. Resize to web size – usually less than 80kB for webpages
5. Flip to make pic less recognisable
6. Check in PS that there is no Digimarc signature
7. If there is, then take a screenshot of the photo while enlarged and then downsize – use this instead of original
8. If anyone says the photo belongs to them ….deny deny denyWhen they come to make a movie of this,
The Great Internet Image Heist,
I could see you played by David Niven, Michael Caine,
or at a push, Cary Grant.I can hear Cary Grant read your lines above,
and even make them sound convincing-
though a little re-writing might be necessary-Any ideas yourself?
irishwonkafan wrote:
I just want everyone to know that I’m not Robert55
Hmmm, sure??
Alan.
Talk about words coming back to haunt you! Did Robert55’s photo look any different from the original? I didn’t see it before it was removed. His theft was a bit different from the norm. I would imagine that most casual image stealing is done to fill little spaces on web pages. I could be wrong.
Once, when I was younger and brasher and less caring of these things, I “borrowed” an image for a website because the client’s photos weren’t much good and I thought no one would notice or care. It was a pretty crappy 4-500 pixel space filler and I thought no more about it. The client soon received an email from the owner of the photo asking for it to be removed, much to my embarrassment. I realized then that making an image untraceable(ish) – see above – is far more hassle than getting the client to pay for a stock photo.
Did Robert55’s photo look any different from the original? I didn’t see it before it was removed.
It was a copy/paste job – identical.
Your effort above does show that we aren’t safe if someone does want to steal our prized creations (maybe a little sharper BTW). Applications like PS, etc can prove that the camera does lie.
However, it does show that Steve can produce stunning landscapes such as those above and is warranted in placing his watermark to deter individuals not as skilled as your good self, Pete.
Alan.
Richie – Thanks, I’m glad you like them. I am working on a HDR version of the third one at the moment! I will post it when it is done.
S-man – Yeah the sky was pretty great, I just wish I had a wider lens to capture more of it!
AJ – Thank you!
jb7 – Thanks for taking the time to comment. I agree about the handrail and I had thought about cloning it out. Your idea of using a model is a good one, definitely something to look into. She will have to be able to swim though, the water is incredibly deep there :lol: In regards to the watermarks, it is problem. They certainly take away from photos, but I suppose it is a balancing act. Maybe I will stick to images no bigger than 600px wide and without a watermark. That way they are useful for very little, and people can still enjoy my photos.
irishwonkafan – Thank you for the feedback and kind comments!
petethebloke – I think the only real way to use watermarks effectively is to have a large one right through the centre of the image. How long did it take you to clone out the small ones?
SteveD wrote:
I think the only real way to use watermarks effectively is to have a large one right through the centre of the image. How long did it take you to clone out the small ones?
10 minutes maybe. You know yourself, it’s not hard and some images lend themselves to watermarking better than others. I spent another 5-10 minutes footering about trying to think of ways subtly to alter the look of the picture.
You’re right about the big watermark, but you’d be short of useful critique if you did that.
I once spent a day watching a pro doing a brochure shoot. He took his shots on a tethered Hasselblad with digital back. His own website had incredible photos on it at about 800-1000 pixels. I asked if he was worried about them getting robbed and he just said, “If anyone wants low-res JPGs then they’re welcome to them”. I suppose when you charge a grand a day for photos that can be printed 8 feet high (or more), then you can be dismissive about websnaps.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
