# B&W Digital- Cemetery Photography



## jilleenphoto (Apr 18, 2008)

I had gotten into documenting cemeteries almost two years ago now.  History draws me to them, preservation urges me to document them.  Hope you enjoy.







^ Mt. Carmel Cemetery, Hillside, IL.  






^ Lake View Cemetery, Cleveland, OH.​


----------



## Alex_B (Apr 18, 2008)

I do like them both.

Exposure seems nice and they work well in black and white. I am not sure though, if I like the way you cut the stone to the left and right in the first one though.

Your logo on those images destroys them. in particular since it is a coloured logo with an intense style, which does not match the style of the images.


----------



## jilleenphoto (Apr 18, 2008)

My copyright does not leave my photos unless someone pays for them.  That's just my rule, and it's meant to be distracting.

I've seen way too many people steal images and try to pass them off as their own, and the copyright isn't so distracting that you can't see the picture.  If it's a crap photograph, it's gonna be a crap photograph no matter what the copyright looks like.

As for the pictures, thank you for the feedback.


----------



## Antithesis (Apr 18, 2008)

jilleenphoto said:


> My copyright does not leave my photos unless someone pays for them.  That's just my rule, and it's meant to be distracting.
> 
> I've seen way too many people steal images and try to pass them off as their own, and the copyright isn't so distracting that you can't see the picture.  If it's a crap photograph, it's gonna be a crap photograph no matter what the copyright looks like.
> 
> As for the pictures, thank you for the feedback.



I think the watermark destroys them, I think you could find a subtler way of branding them. I understand your logic behind it, but it's hard to make a proper judgement.


----------



## Sarah23 (Apr 18, 2008)

yeah, the bright watermark really takes away and is very very distracting. Kinda ruins it.


----------



## jilleenphoto (Apr 18, 2008)

Two more just for fun.  Even though no one can see past the copyright.  haha

I find that to be ridiculous, but I will agree to disagree.  :mrgreen:​


----------



## Roger (Apr 19, 2008)

I really like your photos, good digital b&w work enables a connection to the subject.....however I agree about the copyright sign, it does take away significantly from the enjoyment. I have worked as a pro and semi-pro photog for 20 years and have never used a copyright mark on any of my images. The images I show on forums are for mutual enjoyment....if someone steals one of them so be it, I am enjoying myself that is the most important thing to me. It is very difficult to make money from genre images, I suggest stop worrying and enjoy yourself .


----------



## LaFoto (Apr 19, 2008)

What could any photo thief possibly do with a 450x600px photo? Make a poster of it and sell it for big money? I much doubt that.

That said, I can only appreciate as well that they are very sound technically, compositions are mostly straightforward, and I personally like the subject as such quite much.


----------



## jilleenphoto (Apr 19, 2008)

Roger said:


> I suggest stop worrying and enjoy yourself .



I am enjoying myself.    My copyright doesn't bug me at all.  I don't think it takes away from the photos so much that it matters, and if it does then I'm fine with that.  It's a very narrow minded view point that someone would suggest something as silly as a copyright can make them miss the point of a photograph, and I've seen copyrights that are way more distracting than mine.  Hell, I've seen people put a stamp diagonally across their whole photograph.

But yeah, as for my own personal expression and enjoyment, the copyright doesn't take away at all for me.  That and it let's people know that I have a site.  That's important to me because there are so many people out there that take pictures, and say they want to make money off of it, then only have a myspace that they call their website.  Plus, it doesn't hurt the traffic.  Not many photography sites have an Alexa ranking, as mine does.  Improving upon the traffic to my site only makes the ad space on my site go up in value, not down.  It's a different spin to the same money game.




LaFoto said:


> What could any photo thief possibly do with a 450x600px photo? Make a poster of it and sell it for big money?



I've had a few clients take my uncopyrighted images and use them without my permission on their myspace's, to get paying model jobs..etc...

Truth of the matter is, especially with model photography, if a model is making money because of a picture I snapped for her, I'm legally supposed to have a pay day as well.  If the model uses an unstammped photo, and doesn't feel like sharing the money, then I'm working for free.

I don't like working for free, and I've learned to use a copyright to not only let people who haven't had any contact with me beyond seeing a random photo of mine posted somewhere know where my site is, which is key to them contacting me for a job, but also to know that some scrub on the internet isn't using my shot as their own.

It's personal preference, and for someone to suggest that it ruins a photograph is simply absurd.

We're artists here.  For an artist to suggest that they don't get it simply due to a stamp covering an unimportant part of a photograph, well, I find that really silly.

I mean, the last two images I posted the copyright is over grass and leaves.  I'm sure that centimeter of shrubbery would have really changed your view on the subject, which is the gravestone.  How silly.


----------



## LaFoto (Apr 19, 2008)

Right, you do place your big, yellow copyright sign on the left and right (both sides!), on 600x450 px size photos, and we CAN see the subject, indeed, there is no doubt about that. But these are *gravestones*. I doubt your stony models HERE are going to post their pic on MySpace... 

Anyhow... what most people want to say, and only that, is that there are subtler ways to copyright one's photos and that - particularly with black and whites - a yellow copyright mark DOES take away. No matter where it is placed. 

As you can see, it is *so* distracting to most that it DOES take away from the photo, else the overall reaction would not have been more about the watermarks than the photo itself. That alone should tell you something. 

And after I have said this, I just want to quote myself from my previous post:



			
				LaFoto said:
			
		

> That said, I can only appreciate as well that they are very sound technically, compositions are mostly straightforward, and I personally like the subject as such quite much.


----------



## ScottS (Apr 19, 2008)

One could easily save the images you post, and crop your watermark out...and claim them as their own. 
Just a thought. 

( see, nothing is perfect. ) 

As for the photos, ( I had to cover the yellow blob ) they are very nice!


----------



## hhjjhh (Apr 19, 2008)

thanks  alot


----------



## ScottS (Apr 19, 2008)

hhjjhh said:


> thanks alot


 
And who might you be...noob?


----------



## dab_20 (Apr 19, 2008)

Nice photos... good exposures and compositions. 

As for the copyright, in my opinion, it does take away from the photo a bit, but does not completely ruin it. They're YOUR photos so whatever you like for a copyright, that's what you should put. And as for someone stealing a photo and claiming it as their own, that's always a risk for any photo that is put on the internet.


----------



## Renair (Apr 19, 2008)

Nice photos. the only thing I can see negative is the copyright too, but easy solution, put it right across the image, and do it as a layer with transparent oppacity and it works better.  See sample. Below:


----------



## jilleenphoto (Apr 19, 2008)

People, I didn't post them for you to critique my copyright.  hahaha  Chill.  I like it, it's not changing, and it has had little to no negative effect on my business from any serious clients.

Wow.  Talk about blowing things out of proportion.


----------



## jilleenphoto (Apr 19, 2008)

Oh, here are a few more since you all love the my style so much.  lmao


















Anyway, it's just how I like doing things, and I don't think it's a big enough deal for this whole *photo* post to be about my c.r.

Honestly I feel it's a bit disrespectful to me as an aspiring artist to critique something I've already explained nicely.  I've definitely seen the "forum niche gang up on the noob" game before though, so I'm not surprised.

Be well, and I hope you all had a great day.


----------



## ScottS (Apr 19, 2008)

We are not ganging up on you, Its just that we are all voicing our opinions on it...

That's it. There is no hazing on TPF


----------



## lena5538 (Apr 22, 2008)

hmm. nice work.. any photoshop effects on it?


----------



## Early (Apr 22, 2008)

jilleenphoto said:


> I had gotten into documenting cemeteries almost two years ago now.  History draws me to them, preservation urges me to document them.  Hope you enjoy.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I can't believe Capone doesn't have a bigger stone.

And why didn't ya trim the grass for the man?:er:


----------



## JackCooper92 (Apr 26, 2008)

> People, I didn't post them for you to critique my copyright. hahaha Chill. I like it, it's not changing, and it has had little to no negative effect on my business from any serious clients.
> 
> Wow. Talk about blowing things out of proportion.



Nice logo, but whats the black and white stuff behind it? 
Oh well it probably isn't anything important, the logo is the main feature.


----------



## sarallyn (Apr 26, 2008)

I really didn't see a photo.

My attention went right to the watermark.


----------

