What's new
Photoshop Gurus Forum

Welcome to Photoshop Gurus forum. Register a free account today to become a member! It's completely free. Once signed in, you'll enjoy an ad-free experience and be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

girl on the beach


Sofi Kova

Active Member
Messages
26
Likes
15
Screen Shot 2017-02-19 at 9.43.17 PM.jpg
what u think what to correct?
what brightness on mac u use while u editing the picture, is it matter?
 
Last edited:
Messages
21
Likes
16
For me personally, watermarks should be subtle or not there at all. The watermark you have is distracting and if it has a presence just as big as the picture, then I believe it should be removed. I understand the fear of people stealing your images, that's why you can embed metadata into your image so no matter who saves it your information is still stored. I believe this might be upload defects but be careful with saturation because there is orangish tones that are bleeding out her arms. Keep working I do like how the curvature of the rocks communicate with her body posture and dress flow.
 

Argos

Guru
Messages
3,455
Likes
5,240
Nice picture, in my opinion to much brightness on the sea and dress, mostly the dress because the sun is behing her i adjust the sea colour too. If you took the picture, next time be carefull with the levitation impression XD, at least is what you were looking for, for some reason.

Cheers!
 

IamSam

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Messages
22,721
Likes
13,258
It may just be the way the original photo was taken, but she appears to be floating in the air.

I 100% agree about the watermark.
 

Sofi Kova

Active Member
Messages
26
Likes
15
what if people screenshot, does metadata still works i dont thinks so, plus im doing website with that name , if someone likes photo how did they find this photographer?i can make watermark smaller i guess
ps thank u i learn metadata
 
Last edited:
Messages
21
Likes
16
A screenshot doesn't keep allow the quality of the work to stay the same either. Where are you representing your work? If it is on social media your name is already associated with your work and people will find you. But if you want to keep a watermark definitely make it smaller as well as I suggest making your watermark design more simple. Simple and sleek designs will allow you to not distract the viewer. You want your photograph to be the first picture not your watermark. Hope this helps.
 

Tom Mann

Guru
Messages
7,223
Likes
4,343
...I understand the fear of people stealing your images, that's why you can embed metadata into your image so no matter who saves it your information is still stored. ...
Hi Jeffery - I hate to have to disagree with you, but this topic has been beaten to death in photo discussion groups for at least the past 5-10 years. The bottom line of these discussions is that including copyright, contact info, and similar metadata is essentially useless to prevent image theft. It is utterly trivial (ie, press one button) to remove such metadata using widely availble freeware programs (as well as PS, LR and more pro-oriented programs). Anyone who is serious about stealing images (eg, 3rd world microstock or postcard or t-shirt companies) has such programs. In addition, Facebook and some other social media companies completely remove ALL metadata (ie, both IPTC and Exif) on all images submitted and posted to their sites.

Relatively small watermarks are no better than metadata, because serious image thieves know how to use the clone stamp, content-aware fill, and patch tools as well as we do.

Large, intrusive watermarks certainly make it more difficult for such people, but, as you correctly point out, they can be visually intrusive.

The general concensus is that the only real way to prevent significant image theft is to down-rez images that you want to protect to only a few hundred pixels on the longest edge. This way, people can get a general idea of the content of your image, but will never be able to make money from marketing it under their name, either in digital or print form because the resolution is so low.

One final comment: Of course, there is a real benefit to wide-scale distribution of one's best images, particularly when one is just starting out and needs to build their reputation. In a perverse way, one can consider theft of a limited number of your images, particularly, if they have been widely sold, as just another way to build your reputation, since you can easily show true ownership when the time comes. When you are just starting out, the amount of revenue you will likely lose to image theft is negligible.

If you Google {watermark theft site:photo.net}, you will see a large number of discussions of this topic, but I think I have correctly summarized them.

Cheers,

Tom M
 

SepiaPhotographi

Well-Known Member
Messages
51
Likes
11
what if people screenshot, does metadata still works i dont thinks so, plus im doing website with that name , if someone likes photo how did they find this photographer?i can make watermark smaller i guess
ps thank u i learn metadata

Sofi,

Unfortuantely, there are A LOT of people who just hate watermarks, and would make all kinds of excuses as to not only why they hate them, but discurage others from using them. I do not percieve that watermark as distracting at all. In fact, the watermark itself is a trademark design. It's fine as far as I'm concerned. It would have been a different story, if you had put the watermark in the middle of the image, THEN that would have been distracting. In reality, it only took up a small fraction of real estate. The only ting I would say to you is, dial back the exposure a little bit, and play with the curve levels. Perhaps a tiny bit of sharpenss would not hurt.
 

SepiaPhotographi

Well-Known Member
Messages
51
Likes
11
Hi Jeffery - I hate to have to disagree with you, but this topic has been beaten to death in photo discussion groups for at least the past 5-10 years. The bottom line of these discussions is that including copyright, contact info, and similar metadata is essentially useless to prevent image theft. It is utterly trivial (ie, press one button) to remove such metadata using widely availble freeware programs (as well as PS, LR and more pro-oriented programs). Anyone who is serious about stealing images (eg, 3rd world microstock or postcard or t-shirt companies) has such programs. In addition, Facebook and some other social media companies completely remove ALL metadata (ie, both IPTC and Exif) on all images submitted and posted to their sites.

Relatively small watermarks are no better than metadata, because serious image thieves know how to use the clone stamp, content-aware fill, and patch tools as well as we do.

Large, intrusive watermarks certainly make it more difficult for such people, but, as you correctly point out, they can be visually intrusive.

The general concensus is that the only real way to prevent significant image theft is to down-rez images that you want to protect to only a few hundred pixels on the longest edge. This way, people can get a general idea of the content of your image, but will never be able to make money from marketing it under their name, either in digital or print form because the resolution is so low.

One final comment: Of course, there is a real benefit to wide-scale distribution of one's best images, particularly when one is just starting out and needs to build their reputation. In a perverse way, one can consider theft of a limited number of your images, particularly, if they have been widely sold, as just another way to build your reputation, since you can easily show true ownership when the time comes. When you are just starting out, the amount of revenue you will likely lose to image theft is negligible.

If you Google {watermark theft site:photo.net}, you will see a large number of discussions of this topic, but I think I have correctly summarized them.

Cheers,

Tom M

Don't assume that everyone that puts on their watermark on images their images thinks they're protecting against theft. There's another side to thins that people miss. That is, first off, not everyone who shares photos "steals them." Putting on my watermarks is a sense of pride, not always to inforce my copyright. Anybody with a bit of common sense should know that you don't need a copyright symbol anymore to exercise our copyrights. So it's dumb for them to try and remove the watermark, because it doesn't prevent them from getting sued.

There does exist technologies were you can create footprint for your images, however they are extremely expensive per image. Unless you are making a substantial amount of money from your images, it's not worth spending that money. But understand watermarks are personal to each individual; it is not anyone's place to discourage someone else from using them, because that's your opinion (unless there is a severe technical/design issue).
 

Top