|
Forums >
General Industry >
No better way of ruining a great image than....
JNB Photography wrote: Stamping "proof" on the pictures was always a negative with me. I worked for a portrait business, for a long time, and once they shifted to putting "proof" across the pictures, the costs of doing business went up, since there was no way to sell those images any more. What that showed, was they didn't "cost" money, but actually helped the bottom line. Feb 08 06 04:36 pm Link Hmmmm, I am just not a big fan of anything over the image.So Iput mine unerneath. There are services you can use to track your images. I havent had any problems that I know of yet. It's something to keep your eye on, thats for sure. V Feb 08 06 04:41 pm Link I think a lot of people are missing the point... I have had several of my images stolen and then used without my permission only to find out someone else made money rather than the model and I. How is that right? I think its up to the photographer... if you personally dont like putting your watermark or "ego trip" as some would say on your images than dont. All i know is that for the net I prefer to mark my images, but my real life book on the other hand doesnt. Feb 08 06 04:49 pm Link Seriously, I have no complaint about photographers putting their name or logo all over the image where it's a bit obtrusive because I've had my images stolen already and someone has them in their port on like dbase or dpreview or something. I haven't found it yet but another photographer has and has told me. I'm not even professional yet and only just really starting and someone is doing this! Feb 08 06 04:54 pm Link My perspective is different, but I am not a photographer. As a MUA, any photos I use have a photographer credit discreetly displayed in one of the lower corners. I feel like it's the least I can do....in most cases, if any images I have gets them work, then I'll have work. And creating a great image is a group effort. I couldn't not give credit...my conscience wouldn't let me. Now, I do have some images up from photographers who haved moved away and I have lost touch with. I give them credit for the same reasons listed above and as a courtesy since I haven't cleared it with them. If they were to ever have a problem, I'd have no issues about taking the image down. Now, I have occasionally right-clicked images. But I find it very frustrating when the images are used in their portfolios and I can't get a print to save my life! Sometimes I feel like that's the only way I can get an image of my work. Again, creating the image is a group effort. When I think about some of the superior work I've done (better than what's in my port) and I have nothing to show for it (and believe me, it's not from a lack of trying)...it really upsets me. Bear in mind, any images I have right-clicked, I don't post them anywhere and I wouldn't without speaking to the photographer. I just keep them as a record of my work. I realize that it gets frustrating for photographers when their work is pirated and used without permission. And I don't know what the solution is. I can only refer to the wise words of Sly and the Family Stone..."Different strokes for different folks". If it makes someone feel somewhat secure to have a watermark splashed over their pic, how does that hurt you? And if someone doesn't have a watermark, are they going against some code among the brotherhood of photographers? PS--To clarify for the literal sticklers...I don't see Sly and the Family Stone as a fountain of wisdom...I was simply being sarcastic. I just want to get along! (to quote The Breeders from the cd Last Splash) Feb 08 06 05:11 pm Link here's an observation from the peanut gallery...  its not ego ? .. cmon now.. look in the announce section right now.. the photogs with the biggest names splattered across their pics are the ones who are in there every 20 minutes begging and pleading for comments and tags... actually it's kinda sad..  Feb 08 06 06:22 pm Link As an art buyer, could you really not tell whether this would be the right image for you?  Or this?  Feb 08 06 06:32 pm Link markEdwardPhoto wrote: Oh, so you've seen Israel Colon's photography. Feb 08 06 06:36 pm Link AMartin wrote: Yes...He is a friend of mine. Feb 08 06 06:48 pm Link MikeyBoy wrote: I'm sure there's that too Feb 08 06 07:00 pm Link Here is a place that will protect you work better than a watermark. http://www.picscout.com/Photo/index.aspx Mark Feb 08 06 07:12 pm Link Or airbrushing the life out of it. That's always been a pet peeve of mine. Who ever gave anyone the idea that it's sexy to look like a wax figure? I apologive for the off-topicness. Feb 08 06 07:13 pm Link Eric S. wrote: Lighten up! Feb 08 06 07:15 pm Link markEdwardPhoto wrote: I like that service, and am contemplating signing up -- but that won't protect me from the misappropriation that I went through a few years ago with the company that put my pics in the 1-900 ads of the local weekly. That is my greater concern. Feb 09 06 12:19 am Link |
