Real life photography/photo editing

[Hornet85 0]

[Ares1978 0]

I recommend adding a watermark to your photos if you're a serious photographer, or if you value your work enough. It just takes 3 clicks of a mouse to copy and save a picture, and that's it gone... I don't have any image editing software on this laptop unfortunately, as if I did, I'd be posting more of my photography

Yeah, that's a good way to prevent unauthorized (commercial) use of your pictures.

The 100k rule on this forum works pretty well too, as most pictures will have low resolution or low quality. And it's easy to prove that you are the owner if you always post cropped pictures.

supah's picture sure is good enough to require a watermark.

[Supah 0]

Like this you mean?

This is probably better

[DBR_ONIX 0]

The 100k rule on this forum works pretty well too, as most pictures will have low resolution or low quality. And it's easy to prove that you are the owner if you always post cropped pictures.

I agree with the 100kb picture thing.. It's extremely unlikely that anyone is able to do anything with a <700x700px picture..

To prove you took the picture I think the full-res image would go quite a way, but honestly I doubt posting pictures here (particularly at such small resoulutions) would ever cause any problems (by which I mean people selling it)

- Ben

[Supah 0]

yet more testing of the watermark, looks ok though it's a bit annoying

[Messiah 2]

dont make it so annoying then

a watermark doesnt have to intrude over the entire picture, just enough so that it can't be easily cut out without removing the relevant parts of the photo...

[Shashman 0]

That's a perfect watermark, Supah. It actually doesn't distract from the content of the picture, but it's good enough to prevent unauthorized reproduction.

Also, you forget that a photo, even if it's under 100kb and of poor quality, can be used on a website which doesn't actually require a photo of the best quality, but which would still have to be purchased either from a photographer or a stock photography website, so watermarking even what you consider to be a poor quality photo, is still necessary, in my opinion. Those Corsair and Thunderbolt pictures are of good enough quality to use as simple illustations for a generic aviation-themed site for example, had they not been watermarked.

[dm 9]

Its less annoying than the GettyImages or Accociated Press watermarks. They're less watermarks and more glaring stamps all over "their" images.

Would have thought that in this day and age there would be a way to digitally "sign" an image without plastering a logo all over it. Something for the boffins to work on me thinks.

And to keep on topic - Supah, you really should post your full set of photos from Duxford, they really are great and should be shared here too

[Ares1978 0]

Would have thought that in this day and age there would be a way to digitally "sign" an image without plastering a logo all over it. Something for the boffins to work on me thinks.

Well, there are invisible watermarks too.

Sorry I don't have a better link right now:

Watermarks: Protecting the image

[Supah 0]

And to keep on topic - Supah, you really should post your full set of photos from Duxford, they really are great and should be shared here too

I might, dont feel like resizing ~90 pictures to go below 100kb

[BlackScorpion 0]

Nice pics supah - Flying Legends airshow last weekend?

Hornet, gimme that thing.

[Supah 0]

Nice pics supah - Flying Legends airshow last weekend?

Hornet, gimme that thing.

Yep

[j w 0]

Is that © yours, (watermark?) or does the plane have it?

          ^Looks something like that

[Supah 0]

hehehe just noticed it I see where you are coming from ! But no its an individual indentifier for the plane within its unit This is pbb the number three plane in a unit hence the C.

[j w 0]

Ah lol, K.

Would have been a sweet spot to put a watermark on.

[DBR_ONIX 0]

Would have thought that in this day and age there would be a way to digitally "sign" an image without plastering a logo all over it. Something for the boffins to work on me thinks.

There is

Photoshop, for example, has invisible watermarks under Filters > Digimark

How reliable it is I'm not sure (If it stays after cropping, or a small blur, say), but such things exist

If your extremely patient, you could use a steganography type thing to hide an other image with your copyright image

Quote[/b] ]I might, dont feel like resizing ~90 pictures to go below 100kb

Photoshop Actions!

Or, I've used FastStone Photo Resizer (FSResizer), and it's normally on my USB-drive (It doesn't need to be installed to run), it's good for basic resizing/adding simple watermarks, theres also a few other batch thingys it does, but resizing/watermarking are the most usefull

http://www.faststone.org/FSResizerDetail.htm

Free too

- Ben

[Peanut 0]

Sunset in Aotearoa (not edited except for size)

another one (big)

http://img65.imageshack.us/img65/7277/dscn10981xn.jpg

[Hornet85 0]

Hornet, gimme that thing.

what thing?

One more pic

[My_Shortcoming 0]

I really want to get into photography and see many beautifull things in my local area and out of my window that id love to take pics of, i have some money to spare after working a bit more recently so to get to the point

What is a good camera thats decent quality but decent price for a new (wanabe) photographer?

[DBR_ONIX 0]

Depends how much money you want to spend, not too sure about the mid-range-ish cameras (I'd just avoid the cheap cameras all together, they're pretty much terrible for all but really basic snapshots), but if you don't mind spending around Å500, get an SLR, like the Canon 350D (what I use, I'd recommend it), or the Nikon 50s (Same price, very similar features, the canon is 8MPixels, the Nikon is 6, but no huge difference, I largely went with the Canon because I had a few Compact Flash cards that only worked in the Canon camera)

It might seem a lot, but if you look in the long term, several mid-priced cameras, then an SLR is a lot more than straight to the SLR Kind of a big jump though..

As for mid-range cameras, there's bound to be better ones, but the only one I can recommend (since it's the only one I've used) is the Fuji S7000, which I used a lot before the 350D, it was a pretty good camera, only problem I can remeber is the lens took a while to go in/out when powering on/off

- Ben

[dm 9]

You can also find a lot of bargains on ebay.

I wanted to get into digital photography more seriously than my crappy Å50 digi cam, but I also didnt want to spend the Å700 or so it takes to get set up with a 350D, lenses, tripod, memory and so on.

Shopping around on ebay you can find a lot of 2nd hand 300D's (or equivalent cameras from other makes) with a lot of accessories, for around the Å300-400 mark.

My setup, which I paid Å365 for includes:

300D body ("limited edition" black)

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM lens

Hoya UV filter

Hoya Circular Polarising filter

Battery grip + 2 batteries

128Mb Compact Flash card (very basic, but good for starters)

and a camera bag (again basic, but great for starting)

Charger, leads, software CD's and manuals

All of which would cost ~Å900 if you bought it new from shops.

Ofcourse you run the risk of the camera being dirty (especially the sensor) but at Å50 for it to be sent to Canon and serviced (cleaned inside and out) you are still saving a huge amount over buying new.

[My_Shortcoming 0]

Ok thanks guys, ill search E-Bay for those cameras and read some reviews etc

Thanks for the help.

-Shorty

[POPKA 0]

St. Petersburg, It was a hot sunny day, you can see the light being reflected off the top of the spire of what I think is the naval acadamy.

[DBR_ONIX 0]

128Mb Compact Flash card (very basic, but good for starters)

I reaaally suggest you get atleast a 512mb card, I got mine over a year ago for < Å40ish, now you can get 1GB cards for very little.. One thing I discovered, some cards don't like certain cameras (One of my cards sometimes curroupts images, which is very annoying, so I tend to use it only if I have to)

I need to get another card or two at some point, but for now, two 512MB cards work (Or if I'm going to be taking a lot, I'll try and have my laptop, card reader and Microsoft's SyncToy setup, then clear the cards when they're full)

- Ben

[dm 9]

128Mb Compact Flash card (very basic, but good for starters)

I reaaally suggest you get atleast a 512mb card, I got mine over a year ago for < Å40ish, now you can get 1GB cards for very little.. One thing I discovered, some cards don't like certain cameras (One of my cards sometimes curroupts images, which is very annoying, so I tend to use it only if I have to)

I need to get another card or two at some point, but for now, two 512MB cards work (Or if I'm going to be taking a lot, I'll try and have my laptop, card reader and Microsoft's SyncToy setup, then clear the cards when they're full)

- Ben

2 x 1GB SanDisk Ultra II Compact Flash cards and a Sigma 70-300 APO arrived in the post this very morning

And yeah, my laptop is a godsend too, since its essentially an 90 Gb mobile hard disc and image editing tool. Should proove very handy once I start getting out to photograph (only other thing I need is a tripod, which I will be getting on wednesday ) Just wish the laptop had a built in CF reader, having the external USB one is rather clumsy