Originally posted by awa355 Yesterday I posted a photo to a bird photography FB page. A lot of people have commented on it and one suggested I should watermark my photos so no-one could take the image. If it is posted at 900 x 580 I assume it is too small for anyone to do anything with it anyway.
Would you bother? No, not with the K50,
I agree with all of this...
Originally posted by richandfleur Awa355, I don’t bother with watermarks as they don’t stop people simply cloning them out if they really want to.
Google shows how easy it is for software to remove watermarks from photos - The Verge
If you’re uncertain, don’t share in the first place. Hope that doesn’t read as rude.
Not sure what your last comment was in reference too, but it’s the quality of the final image that determines its worth to me, not the camera it was taken on at all.
I like these shots. Great colours
Yes, especially including that last comment. Beaut shots!
I've had one shot stolen that I am aware of. It was simply posted on some site like (but a lot less popular than) Flickr and when I emailed the address given for reporting abuse, I got no reply at all. I do watermark my photos that go on Flickr, but it is done in a quite subtle way. There is simply a thin translucent banner across the bottom with a Creative Commons license graphic and my website. The theory I subscribe to here is that nothing I can do will stop someone who wants to steal, but I may as well make it easy for an honest person to ask permission. Also, putting something on the shot creates
some work to be done for the thief, so you do stop those who don't know more than copy and paste. (See Flickr link in sig if you want to check out my banners.)
My brother stopped posting his photos online when someone who hangs out in the same forum he does started claiming some of his pictures as their own and even
argued the point with him in said forums, where he is a respected member.
I have been approached twice to purchase a photo. One time I was offered and paid a couple hundred dollars but as far as I know, the product never saw the light of day. The other time I was asked my price and after consulting with my brother, who is a graphic designer, asked what he thought was a very reasonable price and... never heard back from them either. I'm a wee bit gutted about the latter one, as it was a very well known company and one of my favourite shots. I guess they thought that they'd be getting a bargain by going to an amateur. That just points back at Rich's comment for me: "...it’s the quality of the final image that determines its worth to me."
Originally posted by awa355 I had a play with the 200mm f4 M prime at Raglan today. For most shots, I left the Tv at 4/500 & f8 . It was a dull overcast day and I really didn't have a clue where to set the exposure.
zkarj,,, If you want this lens, pm me. I find a zoom function with AF and auto exposure far more convenient. Manual primes are interesting, but not my first choice. .
Will do.