Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 46

Thread: Whats up with . . .

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Singapore, River Valley area
    Posts
    82

    Default Whats up with . . .

    I will get flamed for this.

    <rant>. . . all of the excessively complicated photo borders. I guess I'll get flamed for this, but I'm finding more and more people who post images post them with really complicated/weird/distracting borders around the images. I'm all for a nice framing if it's really simple, but man I think I just saw an image with something like a leaf wreath around the edge. Couldn't see the image itself through the "forest" around the edge.

    Also, I feel like many of the images posted on here, even for critique, and awfully small. Maybe it's a factor of the hosting service, but it's hard for me to form an opinon/learn from/enjoy a 500px image. Even on flickr it seems like many are posting the same smallish size image only, with no link to larger sizes or originals. Is there a high level of paranoia about what might happen if someone gets hold of a usefully large image? I have no such worry, perhaps my images are not as good and therefore unlikely to be used by someone else.

    Finally, I'm also seeing a disturbing trend of gigantic and complicated watermarks/signatures on images. Even more, it seems like often someone who (apparently) just bought their first DSLR are including not only their "name" in the watermark, but appending the word "photography". Like "Bubba's Photography". Really? I mean I guess if you're actually making money, getting published, or otherwise exhibiting your work, that's justified. But if you're just a guy walking around on the weekend snapping photos, appending "photography" to the end of your name doesn't mean you're gonna rake in the bucks or have your work shown in the Louvre any time soon.

    * phew * I feel better.

    I'm new here, so I have no right to rant. But I did anyway.
    </rant>

    Eric (aka crusty old man).

  2. #2

    Default Re: Whats up with . . .

    well , there is nothing wrong with watermarks, the problem is most people who do it badly do it really badly.

    i agree with you, simple borders are the best. you are showcasing the photograph, not how good your border making skills are, even if it is nice.. and in most cases they are not.

  3. #3

    Default Re: Whats up with . . .

    It is the camera, not the photographer.
    my flickr - adamloh.com

  4. #4

    Default Re: Whats up with . . .

    Actually I also find that very funny :P

    They put their name and then the word "photography" at the end of it HAHAHA.... self PRO-motion!
    and then they'll write the camera they used (because it matters more than what the image shows).

    and then a HUGE watermark, because they are scared that someone will STEAL their so-PRO image!

    I haven't really had much issue with what is said in your first paragraph, but always have been thinking the same about the rest! I think the same!
    It is the camera, not the photographer.
    my flickr - adamloh.com

  5. #5

    Default Re: Whats up with . . .

    More time and efforts were spent is designing and creating the border and the watermark than in photography. Maybe, it is an attempt, to create a distracting border, to distract the viewers!
    deadpoet
    my portfolio

  6. #6
    Member lamergod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Fratton Park, Portsmouth
    Posts
    1,511

    Default Re: Whats up with . . .

    LOL i stopped putting watermarks already.If ur pics have been used,congratz u are a good photographer

  7. #7
    Member RyuHendrabusa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    663

    Default Re: Whats up with . . .

    Actually, I don't find people who put ' *** photography' as signatures weird at all.
    Ben took a photo. He watermarked it as Ben's Photography, which literally means Ben's Light Painting. What's wrong with that?

  8. #8
    Member terryansimon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Quahog, Rhode Island
    Posts
    95

    Default Re: Whats up with . . .

    I find myself being mystified and in awe of the border designs for some photos. even if the model is Ana Ivanovic (or her look alike), I still get magically drawn towards them elaborate borders.
    chicken fight!

  9. #9

    Default Re: Whats up with . . .

    I always wanted to put watermark but always too lazy to put.

  10. #10
    Moderator catchlights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Punggol, Singapore
    Posts
    21,902

    Default Re: Whats up with . . .

    the fancy borders and huge names are very nice.............................................. especially to the creators

    these mainly for one sole purpose........................................... ........................to compensate what the image leaking of.


    you always can do this when you see such images............................................ . Alt F4
    Shoot to Live, Live to Shoot
    www.benjaminloo.com | iStock portfolio

  11. #11

    Default Re: Whats up with . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by catchlights View Post
    you always can do this when you see such images............................................ . Alt F4
    Kodak Easyshare C875
    flickr

  12. #12

    Default Re: Whats up with . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by RyuHendrabusa View Post
    Actually, I don't find people who put ' *** photography' as signatures weird at all.
    Ben took a photo. He watermarked it as Ben's Photography, which literally means Ben's Light Painting. What's wrong with that?
    let's use pictures to illustrate what is meant by weird..

    this is not weird



    but this, you have to admit, it is weird


  13. #13
    Deregistered rgy1993's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    994

    Default Re: Whats up with . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by ericschmerick View Post
    Finally, I'm also seeing a disturbing trend of gigantic and complicated watermarks/signatures on images. Even more, it seems like often someone who (apparently) just bought their first DSLR are including not only their "name" in the watermark, but appending the word "photography". Like "Bubba's Photography". Really? I mean I guess if you're actually making money, getting published, or otherwise exhibiting your work, that's justified. But if you're just a guy walking around on the weekend snapping photos, appending "photography" to the end of your name doesn't mean you're gonna rake in the bucks or have your work shown in the Louvre any time soon.
    THANKYOUU!!!
    I applaud you good sir

    /begin rant
    i've been on the case for this for quite a while as honestly it annoys me as well...
    unless a person is a legit photographer who's spent time, money, and actually creates quality work they dont have any real reasons to stick big, huge, annoying, distracting watermarks on what is usually an otherwise ordinary image...

    another thing is the ridicolous amount of postprocessing some people put into their ärtwork... its barely about taking the damn photo anymore.. just how awsome you can make it look on your copy of photoshop elements that came with your 1000D...
    /end rant


    i think i'll probably get flamed for this too... haha

  14. #14
    Moderator catchlights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Punggol, Singapore
    Posts
    21,902

    Default Re: Whats up with . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by RyuHendrabusa View Post
    Actually, I don't find people who put ' *** photography' as signatures weird at all.
    Ben took a photo. He watermarked it as Ben's Photography, which literally means Ben's Light Painting. What's wrong with that?
    nothing wrong with that actually, but after awhile, or should I say become more mature, photographer should aware what is important and tend to make things more simplified.

    anywhere, one of the key of making good photograph is "simplified".
    Shoot to Live, Live to Shoot
    www.benjaminloo.com | iStock portfolio

  15. #15
    Member RyuHendrabusa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    663

    Default Re: Whats up with . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by night86mare View Post
    let's use pictures to illustrate what is meant by weird..

    this is not weird



    but this, you have to admit, it is weird

    Goats!

  16. #16
    Member RyuHendrabusa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    663

    Default Re: Whats up with . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by catchlights View Post
    nothing wrong with that actually, but after awhile, or should I say become more mature, photographer should aware what is important and tend to make things more simplified.

    anywhere, one of the key of making good photograph is "simplified".
    Agreed!

  17. #17
    Senior Member redstone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Beyond the outer limits
    Posts
    2,898

    Default Re: Whats up with . . .

    I just don't understand why people cannot look beyond the watermark of the photo when making a critique.

    It's a security feature, a deterrence. Not meant to be part of the photo. Just like many photo hosting/ stock image sites would put a watermark on it. So are you saying those stock images are all very bad photos because of watermarks?

    And don't anyone say "because they are a company, for commercial purposes". So people taking photos as a hobby have no right to prevent their works from being leeched? It's like wearing a mask during the height of SARS. It doesn't guarantee you 100% that you'll be safe from the disease, but it cuts down the risk of getting it, same with watermarking a photo.

  18. #18
    Moderator catchlights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Punggol, Singapore
    Posts
    21,902

    Default Re: Whats up with . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by redstone View Post
    I just don't understand why people cannot look beyond the watermark of the photo when making a critique.

    It's a security feature, a deterrence. Not meant to be part of the photo. Just like many photo hosting/ stock image sites would put a watermark on it. So are you saying those stock images are all very bad photos because of watermarks?

    And don't anyone say "because they are a company, for commercial purposes". So people taking photos as a hobby have no right to prevent their works from being leeched? It's like wearing a mask during the height of SARS. It doesn't guarantee you 100% that you'll be safe from the disease, but it cuts down the risk of getting it, same with watermarking a photo.
    not only talking about watermark on images here, if it is, I don't think TS will want to start this thread.

    Please refer to the initial post by TS and the sample images post by night86mare.

    anyway, the watermark we see on stock images are created by the stock agency, photographers are not allowed to add border or names on images.
    Shoot to Live, Live to Shoot
    www.benjaminloo.com | iStock portfolio

  19. #19

    Default Re: Whats up with . . .



    It is the camera, not the photographer.
    my flickr - adamloh.com

  20. #20

    Default Re: Whats up with . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by adamadam View Post


    win..
    Kodak Easyshare C875
    flickr

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •