in before srika says they look like shit

 

That last pic is awesome!

 

Not too bad, although your watermark is a bit obnoxious.

 

Awwwww, are you trolling to stand for your boyfriend srika?

Very cute.

 

Sarlacc you're the most defensive and insecure person I've ever encountered on the internet. going back to 1990.

 

Holy shit, no kidding. I have never even talked to srika, only see him in the photo section for the most part.

Why do you get so mad?

Relating back to the pictures, your watermark is huge and is highly distracting and I believe a lot of people will agree. Go with something semi-transparent and make it a bit smaller.

 

BTW, I enjoyed your photos in this thread.

 

Thank you.

but insecure...hardly.

defensive...sure, I'll take that title.

None of it changes what I said about you in the other thread...from who you were on here to who you are now...I still think it.

 

Its the internet kid, I never get mad.

As for watermarks...you do understand what they are for right? And I will be the first to admit that I am very defensive about trying to protect my intellectual property. And I think everyone who shoots should.

 

ok, so you're not insecure. you know insecurity and defensiveness are tied together right. and, I don't know where you're getting what you said about me in the other thread. maybe it's because of things I bought recently (?). I don't know. what I do know is, if you knew me in person, you'd know that you're completely fucking wrong.

 

Sure seems that way...

Anyway, yes, you do have the right to protect your property but all I'm saying is you could make it a tad less noticeable to not distract from the pictures and the watermark will be just as effective.

But on another note I highly doubt you're trying to sell these photos so why make the watermark so big?

 

Works both ways buddy

 

Check the thread I started a few down from here..."how would you proceed" or whatever I named it.

You never know when someone might come across one of your pieces and have an interest. I just got off the phone this afternoon with that gentleman and we will be working out a deal.

Another example. I had one of my images used on Chrysler's corporate blog site that is seen by thousands. Someone alerted me that they were using one of my photos taken at an annual event they heavily sponsor. Because I had my watermark as visible as it is...I got the credit for the photo...because they sure didn't ask me permission nor did they give me credit in writing.

Personally, I don't find it that large or distracting. In some cases, Ive made it too easy to crop out.

 

I'd lost my bearings on my path; you (and anyone else) are welcome to think whatever you want about me, that is not my concern nor my business. Good day,

 

Im gonna stay on the sidelines and just say that while obnoxious watermarks are well...obnoxious, they are a necessary evil unfortunately. Srika has had several pictures hijacked for commercial use as well, no?

 

I don't think the water marks take away from the pictures, they are just statues. That being said, the hostility is so unnecessary, no matter how "not mad" you say you are.

 

the more photos you have out there the more likely it is to happen.

I stopped watermarking after 2009, mainly because I think watermarks take away from the appeal of photos. Also I think watermarking in this day and age is excessive for certain purposes; there are so many good photographers out there making so many good photos - I don't think it's as big a deal anymore. Basically, I kind of stopped caring about it. In regard to intellectual property or what it comes down to ($$$) - I don't feel any losses I've had due to people jacking my images would amount to anything substantial.