Whats up with . . .

[ericschmerick]

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).

 

[night86mare]

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. :bsmilie:

 

[adamadam]

Here you go
http://www.clubsnap.com/display.php?file=articles/border/borders.htm

 

[adamadam]

Actually I also find that very funny

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!

 

[Deadpoet]

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!

 

[lamergod]

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

 

[RyuHendrabusa]

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? :dunno:

 

[terryansimon]

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.

 

[Zeddy]

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

 

[catchlights]

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

 

[raptor1988]

you always can do this when you see such images............................................. Alt F4

:thumbsup:

 

[night86mare]

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? :dunno:

let's use pictures to illustrate what is meant by weird..

this is not weird

but this, you have to admit, it is weird

 

[rgy1993]

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 :thumbsup:

/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

 

[catchlights]

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? :dunno:

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".

 

[RyuHendrabusa]

let's use pictures to illustrate what is meant by weird..

this is not weird

but this, you have to admit, it is weird

:bsmilie: Goats!

 

[RyuHendrabusa]

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!

 

[redstone]

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.

 

[catchlights]

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.

 

[adamadam]

 

[raptor1988]

win.. :sweat: