PICTARS! Hocking Hills Macros!

[fuzzybabybunny]

EDIT: Watermarks Removed

http://fuzzybabybunny.smugmug.com/gallery/1793421

This is my first time using watermarks. I've always had a tough time with watermarking my stuff because I didn't want anything to detract from the original image, but others have expressed that I should consider it nonetheless.

What do you think? Do the watermarks get in the way of the pictures?

Oh, and if anyone could ID these insects, I'd be really appreciative

 

[Acanthus]

Tremendous macro pictures.

I dont even notice the watermarks at 1st, very well done.

 

[nsafreak]

Holy COW! Nice pictures. That is one nice lens you have on that camera.

 

[GeekDrew]

Yes, in my opinion, those watermarks detract a lot from the picture, and they bother the hell out of me.

That said, I don't know of any other way to even attempt to maintain the picture as your own.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: GeekDrew
Yes, in my opinion, those watermarks detract a lot from the picture, and they bother the hell out of me.

That said, I don't know of any other way to even attempt to maintain the picture as your own.

You can increase the transparency of the watermark to make it less intrusive, but then its easier to be "fixed" by someone who steals it.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: GeekDrew
Yes, in my opinion, those watermarks detract a lot from the picture, and they bother the hell out of me.

That said, I don't know of any other way to even attempt to maintain the picture as your own.

You can increase the transparency of the watermark to make it less intrusive, but then its easier to be "fixed" by someone who steals it.

I set the opacity of the watermarks to 40%. I thought about making them smaller, but this would of course decrease security also

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: nsafreak
Holy COW! Nice pictures. That is one nice lens you have on that camera.

The lens?

Canon 50mm f/1.8 ($50) + ProOptic Extension Tubes here ($50 used)

 

[Acanthus]

I mean im not going to lie, the image would look better without the marks, but i have absolutely no doubt they need to be there, you might wanna try 30% to see if it looks better.

I think its about as good as its going to get as is.

 

[GeekDrew]

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: GeekDrew
Yes, in my opinion, those watermarks detract a lot from the picture, and they bother the hell out of me.

That said, I don't know of any other way to even attempt to maintain the picture as your own.

You can increase the transparency of the watermark to make it less intrusive, but then its easier to be "fixed" by someone who steals it.

I set the opacity of the watermarks to 40%. I thought about making them smaller, but this would of course decrease security also

Oh, I know. I've taken a few pictures that nobody but myself has ever accessed electronically, because I don't want them to be stolen (and I'm not even a great photographer).

I find watermarks unacceptable, so my choice is to not share the pictures, rather than share altered pictures. I'll inevitably change my mind, as it seems I do, but that's the opinion I've held for the last few years. I don't think that there IS a good solution to the problem right now. Those watermarks are probably as good as you can get.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

bump for the afternoon people

 

[Cattlegod]

that spikey one looks like the spider that bit spiderman.

 

[AnyMal]

Awsome pictures but watermarks are too obtrusive IMO.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

The overwhelming majority here, and on other forums, seems to be that the watermarks are too obstrusive. Should I even bothering adding a watermark then?

The photos that you see here are not the full res ones on my smugmug website. The ones on the smugmug are 1600x1200, and the ones shown here are the auto generated compressed sizes.

I'm finding it difficult to get a balance between security and good share-ability. IMO 1600x1200 is the minimum because some people may want to make desktop wallpapers of my images, and having no watermark makes viewing easier. But others have said that I should be more secure.

What should I do? Do you think the "copyright 2006 www.fuzzy..." at the top right is enough?

 

[ballmode]

smaller watermark that is more transparent

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: ballmode
smaller watermark that is more transparent

Well, that's the thing. A smaller watermark that is more transparent will be incredibly easy to remove. In fact, one of the mods at another photo forum did this to prove a point.

If they are so easily removed, then what's the point of even watermarking them? It looks like the only way to secure a photo is to provide it at a resolution that's commercially useless

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

OMG bump for the evening peeps

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
OMG bump for the evening peeps

hello!

 

[Baked]

Bunny, why don't you ask somebody to make a signature for you, or create a distinctive logo, so you can put it in the lower corner of your photos, sort of like a painter signing his painting. I think that's the most elegant way of sharing your photo while maintaining copyright.

 

[pontifex]

well, from what i've read, you technically don't need them because once you snap the photo, its copyrighted or whatever by you.

but the problem is finding the people who stole your photos and used them without paying you or getting your permission.

with the watermark, it lessens the chance of theft plus people will know who took the photo but then it messes up your photo.

you could put them in less obtrusive areas like the bottom or top, but then that makes it easier for people to remove i guess. they could just crop it out from what i understand.

 

[xanis]

Wow, great pictures as usual. I couldn't even see the watermarks at all on a first glance, good job!

 

[FeuerFrei]

Originally posted by: Baked
Bunny, why don't you ask somebody to make a signature for you, or create a distinctive logo, so you can put it in the lower corner of your photos, sort of like a painter signing his painting. I think that's the most elegant way of sharing your photo while maintaining copyright.

Yeah, like a totally opaque logo. And then put it in the center of the pic so it won't be cropped out.

 

[dighn]

I don't see the watermarks at all

edit: arggh n/m

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: dighn
I don't see the watermarks at all

They've been removed

 

[rootaxs]

If you're willing to pay for it, go for a digital watermark. It's not visible, but it's in the image itself. It even travels with the image after it's been altered. I've played with digitally watermarked images for years, some are so good that i had to literally "destroy" the integrity of the image to get rid of the watermark - although at that point you couldn't even recognize the photo, so it's useless.

Some programs even include monitoring services to let you know if the image was used elsewhere online.

It's not a foolproof method of securing your photos, but may work better as an alternative or in conjunction with your current efforts.

 

[dighn]

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

Originally posted by: dighn
I don't see the watermarks at all

They've been removed

I thought something was wrong with my monitor or my eyes