# Black Cat



## TJ_Photographer

Please tell me what you think


----------



## budget cruncher

There's some kind of reflection on the window glass.

First; you caught a nice pose, but the gate is distracting and you nearly clipped the paw with your frame.

Second; cat looking up is kind of strange, and there is extra space on the right that is not contributing to the composition.


----------



## timor

You have to clean your sensor. Something stuck to it right in the middle, it is hard to fully enjoy your creations.
Second thing your cat has hepatitis so strong, that it even shows in black and white picture.


----------



## robbins.photo

Like budget crunchers I like the pose in the first pic.  Selective coloring is something done to individual taste, me personally I'm not a big fan.  This image in particular, presented in color would have still provided plenty of contrast for the cats eyes because his fur is black.  So if it were me I'd have left this in color, ymmv of course.

As bc also mentioned the second crop seems a bit odd because we can't see what the cat is looking at.  We don't see the persons face or expression so it feels like something is missing.

Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk


----------



## Watchful

Well done. Very nice images. I would have backed out on the first shot just a hair.


----------



## katsrevenge

I like the second, cat is very expressive. I even like the selective color selection. But dude... the watermark.. Too much, too much. Maybe back it off a bit?


----------



## Watchful

If your watermark makes you happy, then to heck with everyone else.
Don't force yourself into someone else's box just because they are afraid to push boundaries.
Be true to you.


----------



## jsecordphoto

Watchful said:


> If your watermark makes you happy, then to heck with everyone else.
> Don't force yourself into someone else's box just because they are afraid to push boundaries.
> Be true to you.



Using a huge watermark is pushing boundaries now? Lol.


----------



## Watchful

jsecordphoto said:


> Watchful said:
> 
> 
> 
> If your watermark makes you happy, then to heck with everyone else.
> Don't force yourself into someone else's box just because they are afraid to push boundaries.
> Be true to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Using a huge watermark is pushing boundaries now? Lol.
Click to expand...

It must be, look at the outcry it's receiving. lol
Personally I don't think it matters one iota, but some folks evidently do.
I am able to look right past it as if it wasn't there.


----------



## snowbear

The only selective color I've done was of our black cat when he was alive (same as yours - the eyes).  I used oil paint on a silver print.

The location of the watermark is very distracting.  I think it degrades what could be an enjoyable photo.


----------



## timor

That is watermark ?!?! I was sure it was a smudge on the sensor. What the purpose of such a watermark ?


----------



## jcdeboever

Can't really get past the watermark to enjoy the photo. Very frustrating.


----------



## Watchful

Its so funny to me that for people with an artists trained eye, there are so many that can't control the way they see. Whenever the watermark issue is raised, it points out who is able to control their vision, and who just sees the first thing in front of them.
It's the Forrest and the trees debate and there's always a few tree seers. 
Next people will complain about the ghost image of their noses distracting them from enjoying anything. Or that their lashes are a problem.
Learn to see. 
Again, nice pics. The second shows how happy he is to be able to completely trust the person holding and protecting him.


----------



## robbins.photo

Watchful said:


> Its so funny to me that for people with an artists trained eye, there are so many that can't control the way they see. Whenever the watermark issue is raised, it points out who is able to control their vision, and who just sees the first thing in front of them.
> It's the Forrest and the trees debate and there's always a few tree seers.
> Next people will complain about the ghost image of their noses distracting them from enjoying anything. Or that their lashes are a problem.
> Learn to see.
> Again, nice pics. The second shows how happy he is to be able to completely trust the person holding and protecting him.


Well for those of us who post process pictures we actually train ourselves to spot imperfections and those things that detract from the photograph so they can be removed.

Not sure how training yourself to ignore them would be considered a benefit.

Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk


----------



## Watchful

Since when is something deliberately added to an image the same as a natural imperfection, that's what you need to train the eye to differentiate.


----------



## robbins.photo

Watchful said:


> Since when is something deliberately added to an image the same as a natural imperfection, that's what you need to train the eye to differentiate.


Nope, not really.  If it detracts from the image it detracts from the image, I don't see a benefit to learning to ignore it.

Whether or not one chooses to mention it in a critique is a separate issue entirely.

I generally chose not too, as the individual made the choice to watermark.  But even if I chose not to mention it I can't possibly imagine any benefit to pretending it doesn't exist.

Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk


----------



## jcdeboever

I can see through to the image but the watermark is smack dab in the composition zone. I just do not care to look that hard. 

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## timor

What, if this is not about imperfection or perfection. What, if  this is about, how the picture is presented to us ?
Placing this type of mark in the picture seem disrespectful, seems, that _THE ARTIST _consider us to be a bunch of crooks ready to steal his image, if one wants this straight. It is funny and gets deserved fire. Now I wonder, if TJ_Photographer is printing his gallery size pictures with this watermark in the middle. If he is printing at all. Such a big watermark right in the middle of the picture is a sign not of seriousness, but silliness.


----------



## limr

Oh for crying out loud. The watermark wasn't an artistic choice to enhance the visual aspects or enjoyment of the image. It's not editing, it's branding - and quite unavoidable branding at that. Informing the OP that his mark was distracting is not stifling his creativity.


----------



## timor

limr said:


> Oh for crying out loud. The watermark wasn't an artistic choice to enhance the visual aspects or enjoyment of the image. It's not editing, it's branding - and quite unavoidable branding at that. Informing the OP that his mark was distracting is not stifling his creativity.


Yup...


----------



## robbins.photo

limr said:


> Oh for crying out loud. The watermark wasn't an artistic choice to enhance the visual aspects or enjoyment of the image. It's not editing, it's branding - and quite unavoidable branding at that. Informing the OP that his mark was distracting is not stifling his creativity.


----------



## Watchful

I still find it funny when a person can't look beyond a watermark.
Don't like it? Don't look.


----------



## timor

Watchful said:


> Don't like it? Don't look.


Thank's for advice. But... how without looking I should know, if I like it or not ?


----------



## robbins.photo

Watchful said:


> I still find it funny when a person can't look beyond a watermark.
> Don't like it? Don't look.



Well I guess I find it funny that one person bringing it up counts as an outcry, or that adding a watermark is somehow pushing an artistic boundary, or the entire notion that somehow training yourself to ignore a distracting element of an image is a standard practice or even a good idea.  

But for the record, and to the OP - if you want to add watermarks, feel free, it's your choice.  If someone mentions it, just keep in mind it's a consequence of that choice.  Should you decide not to add them in later or continue to watermark each image, again entirely your prerogative.


----------



## Watchful

Don't judge a photo by the watermark.
That has a nice ring to it.


----------



## limr

Y'know folks, we should totally take his advice: ignore the distracting noise.


----------



## waday

So, umm.... if the OP has stuck around despite the noise in this thread...

I think the first is ok, but may help from a better crop?

Eh? (I chose to crop the arm, because I didn't like the crop with the paw in it. It's also all I can do using MS Paint.)


----------



## robbins.photo

limr said:


> Y'know folks, we should totally take his advice: ignore the distracting noise.



Wow.. no kidding.  But now I'm kicking myself, I already used the golfer clap on another post.


----------



## Watchful

Exactly, view the image only, nothing else.
Thank you for that.


----------



## limr

Watchful said:


> Exactly, view the image only, nothing else.
> Thank you for that.



Wrong again.


----------



## timor

Watchful said:


> Exactly, view the image only, nothing else.
> Thank you for that.


Something tells me, it is your picture placed here with second account. So far no word from OP, but you sound like OP's advocate. Especially that it is not any remarkable picture. Apart from watermark.


----------



## Watchful

timor said:


> Watchful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly, view the image only, nothing else.
> Thank you for that.
> 
> 
> 
> Something tells me, it is your picture placed here with second account. So far no word from OP, but you sound like OP's advocate. Especially that it is not any remarkable picture. Apart from watermark.
Click to expand...

Because anyone offering any supportive comments must be somehow cheating... That's very cynical, or you understand the users of this forum well.
I am just a person trying to help grow the hobby and business of photography by being supportive, no ulterior motive. No self serving.
Sorry to disappoint.


----------



## timor

Watchful said:


> timor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Watchful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly, view the image only, nothing else.
> Thank you for that.
> 
> 
> 
> Something tells me, it is your picture placed here with second account. So far no word from OP, but you sound like OP's advocate. Especially that it is not any remarkable picture. Apart from watermark.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because anyone offering any supportive comments must be somehow cheating... That's very cynical, or you understand the users of this forum well.
> I am just a person trying to help grow the hobby and business of photography by being supportive, no ulterior motive. No self serving.
> Sorry to disappoint.
Click to expand...

No cynicism here, only lifetime of experience with peoples behavior.
As for the help, we expressed our opinions. It is only you, who fight them with vigor worth better cause. So far no word from OP. Maybe our voices not so nice, but still something to consider for the future. Or to show us  .


----------



## Tim Tucker

We might have also scared the OP away?

Anyway, away from the distracting noise...

I think the B&W conversions are very good. But I would tone down the selective colour. Even muted colour will contrast against B&W so you can make it subtle rather than obvious. Give your viewer the benefit, don't act on the assumption they may miss it.

The compositions are a little off and, well, confused and random. Why is the first one tilted in relation to the frame? It's almost as though you're trying to divorce any relationship between the two. Even tension requires a relationship, the lack of it is just disorder.
In the second image the cat really is on the wrong side of the frame. His eyes and the lady's hair all suggest movement to the left so he should be further to the right. The cat's line of sight is really a strong diagonal.

Just as alternate suggestions and not presented as correct:










The watermark is well placed on a valuable image, but distracting on one that isn't. There are hundreds of thousands of cat/dog/puppy/kitten shots around, even got a few myself...


----------



## bribrius

not really that big a fan of the photo to be honest but i like the watermark


----------



## bribrius

timor said:


> What, if this is not about imperfection or perfection. What, if  this is about, how the picture is presented to us ?
> Placing this type of mark in the picture seem disrespectful, seems, that _THE ARTIST _consider us to be a bunch of crooks ready to steal his image, if one wants this straight. It is funny and gets deserved fire. Now I wonder, if TJ_Photographer is printing his gallery size pictures with this watermark in the middle. If he is printing at all. Such a big watermark right in the middle of the picture is a sign not of seriousness, but silliness.


it is actually pretty standard procedure from my experience i have known a number of photographers that do the same especially those that do it for a living and sell prints. Often they will post photos of someones child in a account, email them, etc and let them chose which prints they would like to purchase and all will be watermarked similar to this. The photographers that shot my kids karate tournaments did the same all watermarked similarly. On even our local artists facebook site the conditions state there is no responsibility for photos and all artists are encouraged to watermark all images. Similar with the art association though some chose not to all are suggested too. Basically, its pretty standard procedure.


----------



## bribrius

jsecordphoto said:


> Watchful said:
> 
> 
> 
> If your watermark makes you happy, then to heck with everyone else.
> Don't force yourself into someone else's box just because they are afraid to push boundaries.
> Be true to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Using a huge watermark is pushing boundaries now? Lol.
Click to expand...

how you prolly should watermark a image honestly. The few and far between times i bothered i usually put it in a corner small print but realistically it just takes a mild crop to make it disappear and depending on the photo that can easily be done in some cases and still have a composition-ally fine photo even cropped. For anyone with any intention of doing it for a living and selling prints (this isn't a living for me) then yes, a nice large watermark and they should get used to the idea when sending photos to clients especially. Chances are if someone can post process a large obvious watermark out covering near the entire image then they were capable of taking their own. Small ones, can be just cut off in a crop or more easily shopped out.


----------



## DanOstergren

I agree with Watchful on this topic. You can look past the watermark, and there are plenty of people who responded to this topic offering feedback without mentioning the watermark to prove this.



timor said:


> What, if this is not about imperfection or perfection. What, if  this is about, how the picture is presented to us ?
> Placing this type of mark in the picture seem disrespectful, seems, that _THE ARTIST _consider us to be a bunch of crooks ready to steal his image, if one wants this straight. It is funny and gets deserved fire. Now I wonder, if TJ_Photographer is printing his gallery size pictures with this watermark in the middle. If he is printing at all. Such a big watermark right in the middle of the picture is a sign not of seriousness, but silliness.


Saying it ruins the image is over dramatic in my opinion, but accusing the OP of being disrespectful because of it  is absolutely crazy, and why on earth would anyone jump to the conclusion that the photographer would actually print their image in gallery size with this watermark on it? That's absurd, and THAT is disrespectful.

I'm all about supporting an artist's right to mark their online work for whatever reason they choose (although personally I feel the smartest way to do it is with a link to your website, but that's just one man's opinion). Giving feedback on a watermark is perfectly acceptable in my opinion too, but unless it completely blocks the image out or makes something impossible to see, the watermark and the image should be critiqued separately, and ultimately the photographer's decision to keep it should be respected no matter the reason.



timor said:


> Watchful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly, view the image only, nothing else.
> Thank you for that.
> 
> 
> 
> Something tells me, it is your picture placed here with second account. So far no word from OP, but you sound like OP's advocate. Especially that it is not any remarkable picture. Apart from watermark.
Click to expand...

Timor, so by your logic because I am supporting the OP's decision, does that mean it's a second account of mine now? How absolutely ridiculous. It's strange to me that instead of being civil with those who disagree with you, you instead make outlandish accusations to try and discredit their opinion. It's also ironic that you would accuse someone of being disrespectful by adding a watermark to their photo, yet then you turn around and accuse someone else of pretending to be the OP simply because they support the OP's decision, and then you even go on to act as if the person you are accusing should be ashamed of having taken these photos. I think the only reason you're posting here is simply to be disrespectful to others.


----------



## timor

bribrius said:


> it is actually pretty standard procedure from my experience i have known a number of photographers that do the same especially those that do it for a living and sell prints.


I know that practice and I am completely alright with it. But here is not OP website, nor a market place and we are not his clients. Plus picture placed here are usually of such small resolution (Op's are 722x481) that are useless for printing anything else but maybe 4x5. That is a defence by itself. That is the tactics of many, many selling photographers with theirs websites. I just don't see a need on our website for such an obsessive protection.


----------



## timor

DanOstergren said:


> Timor, so by your logic because I am supporting the OP's decision, does that mean it's a second account of mine now? How absolutely ridiculous. It's strange to me that instead of being civil with those who disagree with you, you instead make outlandish accusations to try and discredit their opinion. It's also ironic that you would accuse someone of being disrespectful by adding a watermark to their photo, yet then you turn around and accuse someone else of pretending to be the OP simply because they support the OP's decision, and then you even go on to act as if the person you are accusing should be ashamed of having taken these photos. I think the only reason you're posting here is simply to be disrespectful to others.


Civil ? Me and others, who don't like this watermark and had the courage to voice it were sent by "Watchful" to " heck". (Post #7) If that for you a polite way to treat your interlocutors opinions...  The rest is just life. Put the blame on the fact, that I am not even a human, but a machine.


----------



## pixmedic

wow. 
tough crowd tonight. 
so look, heres the deal. im not really a fan of selective color OR B&W, but these actually came out pretty nice. (though I like the edit with the eyes muted a little better)
personally, I think (and this is just my opinion) the watermark is a double edged sword...yes, its big, imposing, and distracting...
_*but*_, its opaque enough for me to see the image behind it, so I can work around that. six of one, half dozen of another. 

I will also say this...
if an image is posted with a watermark in a gallery that is open for critique (basically all galleries except "just for fun" FYI)
then you should expect that any part of the image is open for critique....and that includes the watermark, since from our point of view, thats part of the finished product as posted. 
now, _*obviously*_ this is not an ideal situation given the varying opinions...*however*, depending on ones expectations for the pictures uses, critique involving the watermark may (or may not) be relevant.
lets just keep the critique as relevant and civil as possible please. 
lets not let something silly like a watermark debate scare the OP off.


----------



## limr

pixmedic said:


> lets just keep the critique as relevant and civil as possible please.
> lets not let something silly like a watermark debate scare the OP off.



Fair point, although considering the OP has posted several image threads but not come back to respond to any of the comments on those either, I'm not sure the tone of this one had anything to do with his absence here.


----------



## mgblunt

Good photos selective color is a good touch but thats a  distracting watermark


----------



## TJ_Photographer

Okay, so I didn't notice any of this going on cause I didn't get any notifications, But the reason for such a big watermark is so that people can't just take my image and use it as their own. Right now I'm still only in high school so I have a lot to learn, but my photo teacher told me that if I am using a watermark to put it in the center and big, so that no one can crop it out. And I'm smart enough to know to keep a version of the image without watermark so I can print it and such. I put a watermark on all my images if you look close enough, I try to blend it as much as possible with it still being there. I'm sorry if this has become a disturbance and is taking away from the photo.


----------



## TJ_Photographer

I would also like to say I enjoyed reading all these comments, and I wish I could have been apart of the discussion. It taught me lot on how people react and different ways of portraying photos. I only wish the site would have notified me of all this activity, I only saw because it was under the most act threads.


----------



## limr

TJ_Photographer said:


> I would also like to say I enjoyed reading all these comments, and I wish I could have been apart of the discussion. It taught me lot on how people react and different ways of portraying photos. I only wish the site would have notified me of all this activity, I only saw because it was under the most act threads.



Yes, this thread was a true introduction to the site, warts and all! 

For future reference, notifications are usually sent for things like Likes or if your post is quoted, or if your username is tagged with @(username) but otherwise, you'd need to subscribe to get notification of replies to any threads, even your own. I've actually never done it, so folks can correct me if I'm wrong, but up at the top under the "Post New Thread" button, there is a "Watch Thread" link. I believe that will then send you notifications any time there is a new reply in a thread.


----------



## TJ_Photographer

limr said:


> TJ_Photographer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would also like to say I enjoyed reading all these comments, and I wish I could have been apart of the discussion. It taught me lot on how people react and different ways of portraying photos. I only wish the site would have notified me of all this activity, I only saw because it was under the most act threads.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this thread was a true introduction to the site, warts and all!
> 
> For future reference, notifications are usually sent for things like Likes or if your post is quoted, or if your username is tagged with @(username) but otherwise, you'd need to subscribe to get notification of replies to any threads, even your own. I've actually never done it, so folks can correct me if I'm wrong, but up at the top under the "Post New Thread" button, there is a "Watch Thread" link. I believe that will then send you notifications any time there is a new reply in a thread.
Click to expand...

Okay, yeah, I didn't expect to cause this much of a ruckus, but I just downloaded Tapatalk, and am able to do this all easily on my phone and it seems to be giving me notifications, as the fast response to your reply. And it should now keep me in the loop and I can help settle some disputes.

Sent from my SGH-S970G using Tapatalk


----------



## annamaria

I like the expression of the cat's eyes on number two, but can't really enjoy the photos because of the watermark placement.


----------



## TJ_Photographer

annamaria said:


> I like the expression of the cat's eyes on number two, but can't really enjoy the photos because of the watermark placement.


I'm sorry, if you would like I can post the ones without a watermark, 

Sent From Galaxy S4 using Tapatalk


----------



## snowbear

TJ_Photographer said:


> I would also like to say I enjoyed reading all these comments, and I wish I could have been apart of the discussion. It taught me lot on how people react and different ways of portraying photos. I only wish the site would have notified me of all this activity, I only saw because it was under the most act threads.





limr said:


> TJ_Photographer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would also like to say I enjoyed reading all these comments, and I wish I could have been apart of the discussion. It taught me lot on how people react and different ways of portraying photos. I only wish the site would have notified me of all this activity, I only saw because it was under the most act threads.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this thread was a true introduction to the site, warts and all!
> 
> For future reference, notifications are usually sent for things like Likes or if your post is quoted, or if your username is tagged with @(username) but otherwise, you'd need to subscribe to get notification of replies to any threads, even your own. I've actually never done it, so folks can correct me if I'm wrong, but up at the top under the "Post New Thread" button, there is a "Watch Thread" link. I believe that will then send you notifications any time there is a new reply in a thread.
Click to expand...


There is also a check box in settings to automatically get notifications for posts you in threads you post in or start.  This could get to be a pain, though, if you post a lot to others' threads,


----------



## TJ_Photographer

snowbear said:


> TJ_Photographer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would also like to say I enjoyed reading all these comments, and I wish I could have been apart of the discussion. It taught me lot on how people react and different ways of portraying photos. I only wish the site would have notified me of all this activity, I only saw because it was under the most act threads.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> limr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TJ_Photographer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would also like to say I enjoyed reading all these comments, and I wish I could have been apart of the discussion. It taught me lot on how people react and different ways of portraying photos. I only wish the site would have notified me of all this activity, I only saw because it was under the most act threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, this thread was a true introduction to the site, warts and all!
> 
> For future reference, notifications are usually sent for things like Likes or if your post is quoted, or if your username is tagged with @(username) but otherwise, you'd need to subscribe to get notification of replies to any threads, even your own. I've actually never done it, so folks can correct me if I'm wrong, but up at the top under the "Post New Thread" button, there is a "Watch Thread" link. I believe that will then send you notifications any time there is a new reply in a thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is also a check box in settings to automatically get notifications for posts you in threads you post in or start.  This could get to be a pain, though, if you post a lot to others' threads,
Click to expand...

Tapatalk has really made it all Easy, I think I have it handled

Sent From Galaxy S4 using Tapatalk


----------



## TJ_Photographer

Here are the un watermarked images, if it makes it any better. Enjoy!!











(Sorry this took so long, but I had troubles uploading them)


----------



## TJ_Photographer

Sorry, the quality really downgraded, my apologies


----------



## DarkShadow

As soon as a water mark  gets pasted smack in the middle of image its ruined for me as a viewer.Sorry. The second version is much better but i would be tempted to clone out the metal bar.


----------



## DGMPhotography

Coming in fresh here...

I will say this: a watermark as obnoxious as yours will definitely stop most people from stealing your photo. 

But if you are posting for critique purposes, especially on The Photo Forum, it's probably best to leave the watermark out, or make it subtle. It all depends on your goals here.

That aside, I've learned that selective color is almost always a no-no. If you keep shooting, you'll probably learn that as well. But it's always good to experiment and find out what works for you. Compositionally, I don't think it's too shabby. I'd probably crop or clone the metal bar out, and the image is a little fuzzy. But good start. Keep shooting, and don't get too deterred from the reaction here. Just learn from it and keep posting.

Good luck.


----------



## TJ_Photographer

DGMPhotography said:


> Coming in fresh here...
> 
> I will say this: a watermark as obnoxious as yours will definitely stop most people from stealing your photo.
> 
> But if you are posting for critique purposes, especially on The Photo Forum, it's probably best to leave the watermark out, or make it subtle. It all depends on your goals here.
> 
> That aside, I've learned that selective color is almost always a no-no. If you keep shooting, you'll probably learn that as well. But it's always good to experiment and find out what works for you. Compositionally, I don't think it's too shabby. I'd probably crop or clone the metal bar out, and the image is a little fuzzy. But good start. Keep shooting, and don't get too deterred from the reaction here. Just learn from it and keep posting.
> 
> Good luck.


Okay I'll keep that in mind. But it might be hard to keep the watermark off since I post on DeviantArt and I use the link to that image over there to post it here, cause I notice my images if I try to just upload them in this forum they are too big and won't load, that's why I had so much trouble to get my unmarked images up

Sent From Galaxy S4 using Tapatalk


----------



## DGMPhotography

TJ_Photographer said:


> DGMPhotography said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coming in fresh here...
> 
> I will say this: a watermark as obnoxious as yours will definitely stop most people from stealing your photo.
> 
> But if you are posting for critique purposes, especially on The Photo Forum, it's probably best to leave the watermark out, or make it subtle. It all depends on your goals here.
> 
> That aside, I've learned that selective color is almost always a no-no. If you keep shooting, you'll probably learn that as well. But it's always good to experiment and find out what works for you. Compositionally, I don't think it's too shabby. I'd probably crop or clone the metal bar out, and the image is a little fuzzy. But good start. Keep shooting, and don't get too deterred from the reaction here. Just learn from it and keep posting.
> 
> Good luck.
> 
> 
> 
> Okay I'll keep that in mind. But it might be hard to keep the watermark off since I post on DeviantArt and I use the link to that image over there to post it here, cause I notice my images if I try to just upload them in this forum they are too big and won't load, that's why I had so much trouble to get my unmarked images up
> 
> Sent From Galaxy S4 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


I do the same thing as you. One way is just to not upload large images. I always export my images to 1700x1700 before uploading and that works just fine. 

And look at all the first pagers on deviantArt. Do you see any of them using the built in watermark? I use deviantArt as well, but learned awhile ago, it's just going to deter the already few people who are going to look at your post away.


----------



## TJ_Photographer

DGMPhotography said:


> TJ_Photographer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DGMPhotography said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coming in fresh here...
> 
> I will say this: a watermark as obnoxious as yours will definitely stop most people from stealing your photo.
> 
> But if you are posting for critique purposes, especially on The Photo Forum, it's probably best to leave the watermark out, or make it subtle. It all depends on your goals here.
> 
> That aside, I've learned that selective color is almost always a no-no. If you keep shooting, you'll probably learn that as well. But it's always good to experiment and find out what works for you. Compositionally, I don't think it's too shabby. I'd probably crop or clone the metal bar out, and the image is a little fuzzy. But good start. Keep shooting, and don't get too deterred from the reaction here. Just learn from it and keep posting.
> 
> Good luck.
> 
> 
> 
> Okay I'll keep that in mind. But it might be hard to keep the watermark off since I post on DeviantArt and I use the link to that image over there to post it here, cause I notice my images if I try to just upload them in this forum they are too big and won't load, that's why I had so much trouble to get my unmarked images up
> 
> Sent From Galaxy S4 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do the same thing as you. One way is just to not upload large images. I always export my images to 1700x1700 before uploading and that works just fine.
> 
> And look at all the first pagers on deviantArt. Do you see any of them using the built in watermark? I use deviantArt as well, but learned awhile ago, it's just going to deter the already few people who are going to look at your post away.
Click to expand...


Okay I see that, but as of right now I have 135 watchers and it's been rising fast, I just don't want people to just take it as their own without my consent, it's not like I don't get barely any viewers I get plenty, and I used to use the DeviantArt watermark, but my friend made a cool one for me so I use that. If people like the image enough and want to see it without the watermark ID be glad to show them, but this is the first anyone has said anything about it.

Sent From Galaxy S4 using Tapatalk


----------



## DGMPhotography

Welcome to The Photo Forum.


----------



## Ysarex

TJ_Photographer said:


> DGMPhotography said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TJ_Photographer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DGMPhotography said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coming in fresh here...
> 
> I will say this: a watermark as obnoxious as yours will definitely stop most people from stealing your photo.
> 
> But if you are posting for critique purposes, especially on The Photo Forum, it's probably best to leave the watermark out, or make it subtle. It all depends on your goals here.
> 
> That aside, I've learned that selective color is almost always a no-no. If you keep shooting, you'll probably learn that as well. But it's always good to experiment and find out what works for you. Compositionally, I don't think it's too shabby. I'd probably crop or clone the metal bar out, and the image is a little fuzzy. But good start. Keep shooting, and don't get too deterred from the reaction here. Just learn from it and keep posting.
> 
> Good luck.
> 
> 
> 
> Okay I'll keep that in mind. But it might be hard to keep the watermark off since I post on DeviantArt and I use the link to that image over there to post it here, cause I notice my images if I try to just upload them in this forum they are too big and won't load, that's why I had so much trouble to get my unmarked images up
> 
> Sent From Galaxy S4 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do the same thing as you. One way is just to not upload large images. I always export my images to 1700x1700 before uploading and that works just fine.
> 
> And look at all the first pagers on deviantArt. Do you see any of them using the built in watermark? I use deviantArt as well, but learned awhile ago, it's just going to deter the already few people who are going to look at your post away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay I see that, but as of right now I have 135 watchers and it's been rising fast, I just don't want people to just take it as their own without my consent, it's not like I don't get barely any viewers I get plenty, and I used to use the DeviantArt watermark, but my friend made a cool one for me so I use that. If people like the image enough and want to see it without the watermark ID be glad to show them, but this is the first anyone has said anything about it.
> 
> Sent From Galaxy S4 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Welcome to TPF.

A watermark is only a mild deterrent. Especially on a site like Deviant Art where lots of people have the skill to remove it easily. This took me ten minutes:



 

The real bottom line is: If you put it on the web and someone wants it, they can take it. The one thing they can't do is increase the resolution. So just keep the images at or below 1000 pixels on the long side and at least they won't be able to make a large print or professional quality reproduction.

Joe


----------



## TJ_Photographer

Ysarex said:


> TJ_Photographer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DGMPhotography said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TJ_Photographer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DGMPhotography said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coming in fresh here...
> 
> I will say this: a watermark as obnoxious as yours will definitely stop most people from stealing your photo.
> 
> But if you are posting for critique purposes, especially on The Photo Forum, it's probably best to leave the watermark out, or make it subtle. It all depends on your goals here.
> 
> That aside, I've learned that selective color is almost always a no-no. If you keep shooting, you'll probably learn that as well. But it's always good to experiment and find out what works for you. Compositionally, I don't think it's too shabby. I'd probably crop or clone the metal bar out, and the image is a little fuzzy. But good start. Keep shooting, and don't get too deterred from the reaction here. Just learn from it and keep posting.
> 
> Good luck.
> 
> 
> 
> Okay I'll keep that in mind. But it might be hard to keep the watermark off since I post on DeviantArt and I use the link to that image over there to post it here, cause I notice my images if I try to just upload them in this forum they are too big and won't load, that's why I had so much trouble to get my unmarked images up
> 
> Sent From Galaxy S4 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do the same thing as you. One way is just to not upload large images. I always export my images to 1700x1700 before uploading and that works just fine.
> 
> And look at all the first pagers on deviantArt. Do you see any of them using the built in watermark? I use deviantArt as well, but learned awhile ago, it's just going to deter the already few people who are going to look at your post away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay I see that, but as of right now I have 135 watchers and it's been rising fast, I just don't want people to just take it as their own without my consent, it's not like I don't get barely any viewers I get plenty, and I used to use the DeviantArt watermark, but my friend made a cool one for me so I use that. If people like the image enough and want to see it without the watermark ID be glad to show them, but this is the first anyone has said anything about it.
> 
> Sent From Galaxy S4 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Welcome to TPF.
> 
> A watermark is only a mild deterrent. Especially on a site like Deviant Art where lots of people have the skill to remove it easily. This took me ten minutes:
> 
> View attachment 119191
> 
> The real bottom line is: If you put it on the web and someone wants it, they can take it. The one thing they can't do is increase the resolution. So just keep the images at or below 1000 pixels on the long side and at least they won't be able to make a large print or professional quality reproduction.
> 
> Joe
Click to expand...

Okay, I think I'll start doing that then, thanks for the advice


Ysarex said:


> TJ_Photographer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DGMPhotography said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TJ_Photographer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DGMPhotography said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coming in fresh here...
> 
> I will say this: a watermark as obnoxious as yours will definitely stop most people from stealing your photo.
> 
> But if you are posting for critique purposes, especially on The Photo Forum, it's probably best to leave the watermark out, or make it subtle. It all depends on your goals here.
> 
> That aside, I've learned that selective color is almost always a no-no. If you keep shooting, you'll probably learn that as well. But it's always good to experiment and find out what works for you. Compositionally, I don't think it's too shabby. I'd probably crop or clone the metal bar out, and the image is a little fuzzy. But good start. Keep shooting, and don't get too deterred from the reaction here. Just learn from it and keep posting.
> 
> Good luck.
> 
> 
> 
> Okay I'll keep that in mind. But it might be hard to keep the watermark off since I post on DeviantArt and I use the link to that image over there to post it here, cause I notice my images if I try to just upload them in this forum they are too big and won't load, that's why I had so much trouble to get my unmarked images up
> 
> Sent From Galaxy S4 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do the same thing as you. One way is just to not upload large images. I always export my images to 1700x1700 before uploading and that works just fine.
> 
> And look at all the first pagers on deviantArt. Do you see any of them using the built in watermark? I use deviantArt as well, but learned awhile ago, it's just going to deter the already few people who are going to look at your post away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay I see that, but as of right now I have 135 watchers and it's been rising fast, I just don't want people to just take it as their own without my consent, it's not like I don't get barely any viewers I get plenty, and I used to use the DeviantArt watermark, but my friend made a cool one for me so I use that. If people like the image enough and want to see it without the watermark ID be glad to show them, but this is the first anyone has said anything about it.
> 
> Sent From Galaxy S4 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Welcome to TPF.
> 
> A watermark is only a mild deterrent. Especially on a site like Deviant Art where lots of people have the skill to remove it easily. This took me ten minutes:
> 
> View attachment 119191
> 
> The real bottom line is: If you put it on the web and someone wants it, they can take it. The one thing they can't do is increase the resolution. So just keep the images at or below 1000 pixels on the long side and at least they won't be able to make a large print or professional quality reproduction.
> 
> Joe
Click to expand...



Sent From Galaxy S4 using Tapatalk


----------



## timor

TJ_Photographer said:


> DGMPhotography said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coming in fresh here...
> 
> I will say this: a watermark as obnoxious as yours will definitely stop most people from stealing your photo.
> 
> But if you are posting for critique purposes, especially on The Photo Forum, it's probably best to leave the watermark out, or make it subtle. It all depends on your goals here.
> 
> That aside, I've learned that selective color is almost always a no-no. If you keep shooting, you'll probably learn that as well. But it's always good to experiment and find out what works for you. Compositionally, I don't think it's too shabby. I'd probably crop or clone the metal bar out, and the image is a little fuzzy. But good start. Keep shooting, and don't get too deterred from the reaction here. Just learn from it and keep posting.
> 
> Good luck.
> 
> 
> 
> Okay I'll keep that in mind. But it might be hard to keep the watermark off since I post on DeviantArt and I use the link to that image over there to post it here, cause I notice my images if I try to just upload them in this forum they are too big and won't load, that's why I had so much trouble to get my unmarked images up
> 
> Sent From Galaxy S4 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Try to disable your firewall just for the time of upload. All images posted on this forum go first to certain Microsoft server and not directly to TPF. Maybe somehow your FW is blocking that. My do. Not sure, why TPF is set up like this, other photo forums I am member of don't.


----------



## Designer

TJ_Photographer said:


> I'm sorry if this has become a disturbance and is taking away from the photo.


I think you might use this experience as a valuable learning opportunity.  Contrary to your teacher's advice, a watermark is no guarantee that your image won't be stolen, as Joe has illustrated.

As an artist (albeit a beginner) you should try to make the one most important thing about your image to garner the most comment.  If it's the cat's eye color, then that is what you want the majority of comments to be about.  (Or the pose, the frame, the overall composition, etc.)  When most of the comments seem to be about the watermark, and you haven't intended that reaction, then your presentation has failed (your intent).


----------



## TJ_Photographer

Designer said:


> TJ_Photographer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry if this has become a disturbance and is taking away from the photo.
> 
> 
> 
> I think you might use this experience as a valuable learning opportunity.  Contrary to your teacher's advice, a watermark is no guarantee that your image won't be stolen, as Joe has illustrated.
> 
> As an artist (albeit a beginner) you should try to make the one most important thing about your image to garner the most comment.  If it's the cat's eye color, then that is what you want the majority of comments to be about.  (Or the pose, the frame, the overall composition, etc.)  When most of the comments seem to be about the watermark, and you haven't intended that reaction, then your presentation has failed (your intent).
Click to expand...

Okay, that's good advice, thank you

Sent From Galaxy S4 using Tapatalk


----------



## robbins.photo

TJ_Photographer said:


> Sent From Galaxy S4 using Tapatalk



I think you'll also find people in general are a lot more honest than you might think.  I post here on occasion, and I also post a bit on facebook.  I don't sell my images, however I have had a few people contact me and ask me if they could buy prints.  On those occasions I've simply sent them a full sized image so they could print it themselves, since for me photography is a hobby and not a profession.

So it's been my experience at least that the vast majority of people who are interested in your images will be honest and contact you and offer remuneration.  Those who aren't, well as it was mentioned previously a watermark really isn't a huge deterrent for those folks anyway.

Now granted opinions on watermarking vary widely, and certainly there is nothing wrong with watermarking your images if you feel the need to do so.  I've never really seen it to be necessary myself personally.  I figure the images I do post are only one or two of the thousands that most people see everyday.  I guess I've just never considered my images to be so far and above the thousands of others that someone would be likely to rush out and want to print it, and truth is since I don't make a living selling pictures I'm really not all that bothered if someone does.    YMMV of course.


----------



## DGMPhotography

^ what he said. For me, my watermark is more used for marketing. So the people who aren't going to remove the watermark people can look at the image and in the corner is my name so they know who made the photo.


----------



## jsecordphoto

DGMPhotography said:


> ^ what he said. For me, my watermark is more used for marketing. So the people who aren't going to remove the watermark people can look at the image and in the corner is my name so they know who made the photo.



exactly. Take a look online at the some of biggest names in landscape photography (think Chris Burkard, Ted Gore, Michael Shainblum, etc.), they all just put a small watermark somewhere in the corner or bottom of their images. People can, and will, steal the images if they want, watermarks are typically very easy to clone out in photoshop. Now I just use pixsy to send them a bill when the images get stolen


----------

