# Self portraits (C&C)



## TheKenTurner (Jul 10, 2012)

So today I got a haircut and I really like it, so I decided to take some self portraits. Unlike my other (and bad) self portrait, I decided to do some real selfies. I had my T3i on a tripod with the 50mm f/1.8, and I had my laptop on my lap with EOS utility so I could make adjustments and focus without having to move and guess what my photo will look like. I took more than ten photos, but ended up with four "good"  ones. Here they are! 

Also, I'm not good with poses, so I just kinda did what they tell me to do at school..

YOU CAN EDIT THESE IF YOU WANT! 
Please follow these simple rules:
DO NOT use these photos to make money. Please upload to a website such as Imageshack. If you upload to your own, personal site, then please credit http://kenturner.comli.com.


----------



## JoshuaSimPhotography (Jul 11, 2012)

Wow, u look way older than the age u told me. I like 1 and 2, they have a good background. But 3 and 4 have a distracting one, and there are a few shadows here and there


----------



## janineh (Jul 11, 2012)

Why do you take self portraits? Dont think you learn much doing that. Take photos of other ppl or things. You seem to have a weird blue light in your face, must be your computer screen. Especially in # 1.


----------



## TheKenTurner (Jul 11, 2012)

janineh said:
			
		

> Why do you take self portraits? Dont think you learn much doing that. Take photos of other ppl or things. You seem to have a weird blue light in your face, must be your computer screen. Especially in # 1.



I just take self portraits when I'm bored at 11pm. 

Wow, I didn't even notice that blue light, thanks for pointing out! Maybe I can just kind of close my laptop while taking the pictures next time!

-Ken Turner


----------



## TheKenTurner (Jul 11, 2012)

JoshuaSimPhotography said:
			
		

> Wow, u look way older than the age u told me. I like 1 and 2, they have a good background. But 3 and 4 have a distracting one, and there are a few shadows here and there



Really? I thought I look younger....
Yeah, I like that background too, But I think I had the best pose in #3. The shadows are hard to get around, but I'll try to gather different lighting from around the house. I still need to buy a light kit  along with a new laptop, a 70-200L, and a 28mm f/2.8, so it might be a while :/

Edit: nice signature, just noticed it now 

-Ken Turner


----------



## Sbuxo (Jul 11, 2012)

I think before you buy a 70-200L you learn to shoot properly first...:thumbup:

*by the way, not trying to discourage you or make you feel bad, just don't believe that you are ready for that kind of lens. I think you should still continue experimenting with your 50, learn some composition and how to focus properly for starters. Getting an L lens will not make you a pro photographer. Perhaps invest money in some books on photography and time and patience in shooting.


----------



## jake337 (Jul 11, 2012)

janineh said:


> Why do you take self portraits? Dont think you learn much doing that. Take photos of other ppl or things. You seem to have a weird blue light in your face, must be your computer screen. Especially in # 1.




This statement is just plain wrong.  There is sooooo much you can practice with self portraits.  Lighting and posing being on the top of the list.  Since the OP has his camera tethered he does not need to worry about focus as much.  I would suggest some sort of homemade hot light so he can see how the light will be laid on his face.  To the OP, google portrait lighting and poses and go from there.


----------



## TheKenTurner (Jul 11, 2012)

Sbuxo said:
			
		

> I think before you buy a 70-200L you learn to shoot properly first...:thumbup:
> 
> *by the way, not trying to discourage you or make you feel bad, just don't believe that you are ready for that kind of lens. I think you should still continue experimenting with your 50, learn some composition and how to focus properly for starters. Getting an L lens will not make you a pro photographer. Perhaps invest money in some books on photography and time and patience in shooting.



Come to think of it, I don't need an L lens right now. Maybe just a 70-300 or something. I just need more zoom. And eventually I'm going going to go from 17-85 to 17-70.

-Ken Turner


----------



## TheKenTurner (Jul 11, 2012)

jake337 said:
			
		

> This statement is just plain wrong.  There is sooooo much you can practice with self portraits.  Lighting and posing being on the top of the list.  Since the OP has his camera tethered he does not need to worry about focus as much.  I would suggest some sort of homemade hot light so he can see how the light will be laid on his face.  To the OP, google portrait lighting and poses and go from there.



Thank you 

-Ken Turner


----------



## jake337 (Jul 11, 2012)

Portrait Lighting

Portrait Lighting - Portriat lighting set-ups

Benji's Studio Lighting and Posing Tutorial

The Rules Of Good Portraiture

Facial Analysis in Fine Portraiture- Corrective Techniques


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 11, 2012)

jake337 said:


> janineh said:
> 
> 
> > Why do you take self portraits? Dont think you learn much doing that. Take photos of other ppl or things. You seem to have a weird blue light in your face, must be your computer screen. Especially in # 1.
> ...



I agree, Jake! Self portraits are excellent practice! Also an excellent way to test new things, without having to deal with an impatient bored "subject"!


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 11, 2012)

Sbuxo said:


> I think before you buy a 70-200L you learn to shoot properly first...:thumbup:
> 
> *by the way, not trying to discourage you or make you feel bad, just don't believe that you are ready for that kind of lens. I think you should still continue experimenting with your 50, learn some composition and how to focus properly for starters. Getting an L lens will not make you a pro photographer. Perhaps invest money in some books on photography and time and patience in shooting.




I disagree! If a person can afford the lens... it definitely wont HURT his images, and it may just motivate someone to study harder and practice more (as well as being a great investment for future photography)! I agree that buying a body that is far beyond a purchasers skill set is not a good idea, and can even lead to a lot of frustration. I see a lot more people buying bodies that they can't use properly, than I see peoples with lenses they cant use....


----------



## Sbuxo (Jul 11, 2012)

And I'm going to buy a Lamborghini Murcielago because it will make me a better driver. :roll: What I see with most people is their illusion that their level of skill (or lack thereof) is going to change because of the acquisition of an expensive lens. I didn't say not to ever buy it, but given his photos, an L lens is pretty over the top. But sure, if mommy and daddy have money, why not? :thumbup:

All in all, just keep shooting, kid. And be inspired to learn by all means, not just dropping cash for expensive lenses. &#55357;&#56842;


----------



## TheKenTurner (Jul 11, 2012)

Can we please not have a big argument? One started on my last C&C thread, and the mods closed the thread


----------



## TheKenTurner (Jul 11, 2012)

Sbuxo said:


> And I'm going to buy a Lamborghini Murcielago because it will make me a better driver. :roll: What I see with most people is their illusion that their level of skill (or lack thereof) is going to change because of the acquisition of an expensive lens. I didn't say not to ever buy it, but given his photos, an L lens is pretty over the top. But sure, if mommy and daddy have money, why not? :thumbup:
> 
> All in all, just keep shooting, kid. And be inspired to learn by all means, not just dropping cash for expensive lenses. &#55357;&#56842;




A Lamborghini won't make you a better driver, but it will give you more speed than your (probably) Honda Civic, and teach you more about cars.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 11, 2012)

Sbuxo said:


> And I'm going to buy a Lamborghini Murcielago because it will make me a better driver. :roll: *What I see with most people is their illusion that their level of skill (or lack thereof) is going to change because of the acquisition of an expensive lens. *I didn't say not to ever buy it, but given his photos, an L lens is pretty over the top. But sure, if mommy and daddy have money, why not? :thumbup:
> 
> All in all, just keep shooting, kid. And be inspired to learn by all means, not just dropping cash for expensive lenses. &#55357;&#56842;



I see that more with bodies.. than lenses. But AUTO is AUTO no matter what, right?   All the MWAC PROS want a pro camera to replace their entry level camera, thinking that will improve their mediocre shots! LOL!


----------



## Sbuxo (Jul 11, 2012)

:roll: oh shooting on auto? Yea I'll let you guys keep it at c&c..:lmao:


----------



## o hey tyler (Jul 11, 2012)

janineh said:
			
		

> Why do you take self portraits? Dont think you learn much doing that. Take photos of other ppl or things. You seem to have a weird blue light in your face, must be your computer screen. Especially in # 1.



Nice positive reinforcement, grandma. Why don't you give him constructive criticism rather than telling him what he should be shooting "in your opinion."

Self portraits can be challenging exercise in composition and posing.  I think you did pretty well overall, Ken. However an outdoor setting would have been pleasing.


----------



## TheKenTurner (Jul 11, 2012)

Sbuxo said:
			
		

> :roll: oh shooting on auto? Yea I'll let you guys keep it at c&c..:lmao:



Yes, I was using that auto mode where you adjust the aperture, shutter speed, and ISO and also put it into Lightroom. Full auto.

-Ken Turner


----------



## TheKenTurner (Jul 11, 2012)

o hey tyler said:
			
		

> Nice positive reinforcement, grandma. Why don't you give him constructive criticism rather than telling him what he should be shooting "in your opinion."
> 
> Self portraits can be challenging exercise in composition and posing.  I think you did pretty well overall, Ken. However an outdoor setting would have been pleasing.



Outdoor backgrounds sound tricky. I have a small backyard that's got a wood fence and plants everywhere, but I'm just not sure how I would execute an outdoor portrait. I can barely do one of me in front of a blank background  thanks though, I'll consider some outdoor portraits later down the road 

-Ken Turner


----------



## o hey tyler (Jul 11, 2012)

Large aperture, f/2.5 will work. Head and shoulders should be an ideal working distance while still allowing you to isolate yourself from the background, especially outdoors.


----------



## kundalini (Jul 11, 2012)

janineh said:


> Why do you take self portraits? Dont think you learn much doing that. Take photos of other ppl or things.


You know not 
of what you speak.


----------



## jowensphoto (Jul 11, 2012)

I can't imagine how difficult a self portrait would be... I've done quick ones, but nothing serious.

While I haven't much experience, I'm my own worst critic. I'd go to serious lengths to make myself look my best. That experience and gained technique would translate over to portraits of others. 

So yeah, completely pointless


----------



## TheKenTurner (Jul 12, 2012)

o hey tyler said:
			
		

> Large aperture, f/2.5 will work. Head and shoulders should be an ideal working distance while still allowing you to isolate yourself from the background, especially outdoors.



I just find that on the 50 1.8, the background starts to look weird after about f/2 because there's only 5 aperture blades, so everything starts looking like weird rounded hexagons... Maybe if I make a round custom bokeh shape for my lens?

-Ken Turner


----------



## o hey tyler (Jul 12, 2012)

TheKenTurner said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



OH right, the 50/1.8. Yeah. Sh!itty bokeh happens with that lens. You could try f/1.8, or f/2 for head and shoulders, but the DoF will be slim. I wouldn't try a round custom bokeh shape though, just my opinion.


----------



## TheKenTurner (Jul 12, 2012)

o hey tyler said:
			
		

> OH right, the 50/1.8. Yeah. Sh!itty bokeh happens with that lens. You could try f/1.8, or f/2 for head and shoulders, but the DoF will be slim. I wouldn't try a round custom bokeh shape though, just my opinion.



Yeah, I was using 1.8 for this pictures... I'm surprised there wasn't more blur in the background. It was 3 or 4 feet behind me and the camera was 3 or 4 feet away! But along with other, more important lenses, the 50 1.4 is on my list of lenses I want and could actually eventually get. 


Also a kind of random thought, canon's cheapest L lens should be a 50 f/2.8 for $500 or something...

-Ken Turner


----------



## JohnTrav (Jul 12, 2012)

As a word of advise as far as lenses go. If you are serious about photography and the sharpness and clarity of your pictures. I would save up and just buy the L lenses you want and not waste your money or time on cheaper "budget" lenses. Don't get me wrong. They are still decent and you can still get good images out of them. But from my own experience, I think you should just get what you really want. 

I bought the 55-250 f/4-5.6 IS lens for like 200$ at the time and ended up selling it because I want the 70-200L. And those cheaper lenses don't seem to hold as much value as the L lenses. 

That's just my opinion on lenses if you are planning on purchasing more in the near future.

Other than that keep snapping away. Looks like your on the right path to creating nice photos.


----------



## o hey tyler (Jul 12, 2012)

TheKenTurner said:


> Also a kind of random thought, canon's cheapest L lens should be a 50 f/2.8 for $500 or something...
> 
> -Ken Turner



Haha. What purpose would that serve? They've already got a 50/1.2, 1.4, and 1.8? What would be different about a 50/2.8 other than the fact that it would be the slowest 50mm available, and cost almost twice as much as the 50/1.4. The only plus side would be the optical quality of the glass, but even then it would natively be slower than all the other 50's. 


I just don't see the logic, homie.


----------



## TheKenTurner (Jul 12, 2012)

o hey tyler said:
			
		

> Haha. What purpose would that serve? They've already got a 50/1.2, 1.4, and 1.8? What would be different about a 50/2.8 other than the fact that it would be the slowest 50mm available, and cost almost twice as much as the 50/1.4. The only plus side would be the optical quality of the glass, but even then it would natively be slower than all the other 50's.
> 
> I just don't see the logic, homie.



It would be "slow", but not too bad considering right now of I want to take a picture at 85mm, then it has to be at 5.6... AND IT WOULD BE AN L LENS! It would also fit in nice with the low priced 17-40 and 70-200 L lenses. But probably not gonna happen. Or at least especially not when I can barely pay for lenses.

-Ken Turner


----------



## TheKenTurner (Jul 12, 2012)

JohnTrav said:
			
		

> As a word of advise as far as lenses go. If you are serious about photography and the sharpness and clarity of your pictures. I would save up and just buy the L lenses you want and not waste your money or time on cheaper "budget" lenses. Don't get me wrong. They are still decent and you can still get good images out of them. But from my own experience, I think you should just get what you really want.
> 
> I bought the 55-250 f/4-5.6 IS lens for like 200$ at the time and ended up selling it because I want the 70-200L. And those cheaper lenses don't seem to hold as much value as the L lenses.
> 
> ...



Trust me, I would do it if I could afford it.

-Ken Turner


----------



## kundalini (Jul 12, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> Large aperture, f/2.5 will work. Head and shoulders should be an ideal working distance while still allowing you to isolate yourself from the background, especially outdoors.



:crazy:    You'll have to nail focus dead on its nuts, which is not that easy with SPs. I was gonna suggest f/5.6 to f/8 to give yourself some leeway for hitting focus, at least in the begining to get some decent results until you have done it enough to feel comfortable before tightening the screws down.


----------



## o hey tyler (Jul 12, 2012)

kundalini said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> > Large aperture, f/2.5 will work. Head and shoulders should be an ideal working distance while still allowing you to isolate yourself from the background, especially outdoors.
> ...



I've hit focus on a self portrait between f/2 and f/3.5. As long as you set up some good blocking (I believe that's the movie term) of where to stand and focus the lens properly, it shouldn't be too big of an issue. Might be some trial and error involved, but it's doable.


----------



## TheKenTurner (Jul 12, 2012)

o hey tyler said:
			
		

> I've hit focus on a self portrait between f/2 and f/3.5. As long as you set up some good blocking (I believe that's the movie term) of where to stand and focus the lens properly, it shouldn't be too big of an issue. Might be some trial and error involved, but it's doable.



Also, I can auto focus from my laptop, so I don't really have to guess at all where I have to focus...

-Ken Turner


----------



## luvmyfamily (Jul 12, 2012)

I totally agree that self portraits are a great way to practice. Done a few myself. So many different opinions here.


----------



## TheKenTurner (Jul 12, 2012)

luvmyfamily said:
			
		

> I totally agree that self portraits are a great way to practice. Done a few myself. So many different opinions here.



Yeah, I also like them because you can do them whenever you want instead of having to figure out a time and go by somewhat of a schedule...

-Ken Turner


----------



## JohnTrav (Jul 12, 2012)

TheKenTurner said:
			
		

> Trust me, I would do it if I could afford it.
> 
> -Ken Turner



I don't doubt you. 

Just letting you know my thoughts. Wouldn't like a fellow photographer making the same mistakes as me if they can avoid it.


----------



## TheKenTurner (Jul 12, 2012)

JohnTrav said:
			
		

> I don't doubt you.
> 
> Just letting you know my thoughts. Wouldn't like a fellow photographer making the same mistakes as me if they can avoid it.



Yeah, but I have a feeling I'll be playing around with Signa EX lenses before buying Canon L lenses. They have great prices, and apparently good quality glass too! But I think my next lens will probably be a Sigma DC :/

-Ken Turner


----------



## KmH (Jul 12, 2012)

Two words - Raccoon eyes. 

AKA dark eye sockets. The eyes are a very important element in a portrait.

Your light source was to high, which also caused shadows under your eyes.


----------



## pixmedic (Jul 12, 2012)

KmH said:
			
		

> Two words - Raccoon eyes.
> 
> AKA dark eye sockets. The eyes are a very important element in a portrait.
> 
> Your light source was to high, which also caused shadows under your eyes.



See, you say raccoon eyes and I think periorbital ecchymosis. Which is indicative of a basilar skull fracture. Probably not the case though on a photography forum.


----------



## jake337 (Jul 12, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> kundalini said:
> 
> 
> > o hey tyler said:
> ...



I hung a string, with a weighted end, at eye level.  Focused on that, then stood with my eyes in the same focus plane.  You could also hang a large enough picture frame that barely is in the frame on all four edges.  Then just put your head in the frame! I also used AF with a remote trigger and chose the focus point where my eyes would rest. 

Since you have a tethered screen for focusing these are not necessary though.


----------



## KmH (Jul 12, 2012)

I wear a HANs device for prevention of a basilar skull fracture and other neck related injuries.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 12, 2012)

pixmedic said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Oh.. I don't know! Of the married couples here, if one half knew what the other half was spending on lenses and whatnot... I think skull fractures would be the least of our problems!    LOL!


----------



## KmH (Jul 14, 2012)

TheKenTurner said:


>


This photo has potential even with the under exposure, color balance error, focus sharpness, and lighting issues, but you don't allow edits, so no one can show you any editing possibilities.


----------



## JoshuaSimPhotography (Jul 14, 2012)

TheKenTurner said:


> JoshuaSimPhotography said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...









Haha, thx, I also took time to look at yours... great site!


----------



## TheKenTurner (Jul 14, 2012)

KmH said:
			
		

> This photo has potential even with the under exposure, color balance error, focus sharpness, and lighting issues, but you don't allow edits, so no one can show you any editing possibilities.



Would I have to change that, or can I just tell people that they're allowed on this thread?

-Ken Turner


----------



## TheKenTurner (Jul 14, 2012)

JoshuaSimPhotography said:


> Haha, thx, I also took time to look at yours... great site!



Thanks! I still have to work on it a bit. I have a few updates, but just haven't published them yet.


----------



## KmH (Jul 14, 2012)

TheKenTurner said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No. You do not have to change your chosen preference in your profile, and can grant permission limited to this thread only by clearly stating your permission is limited to only this thread.


----------



## TheKenTurner (Jul 14, 2012)

KmH said:


> TheKenTurner said:
> 
> 
> > KmH said:
> ...




Thank you! I'm uploading the RAW files now!


----------



## KmH (Jul 14, 2012)

You can't upload the Raw files to TPF. Raw files aren't images.

The JPEGs you have already uploaded are sufficient for the purposes of illustrating what could be done by editing the photos. They are so large as it is, they take some time to load.

So does that mean that in this thread only, you approve editing the photos you have posted in this thread?


----------



## TheKenTurner (Jul 14, 2012)

KmH said:
			
		

> You can't upload the Raw files to TPF. Raw files aren't images.
> 
> The JPEGs you have already uploaded are sufficient for the purposes of illustrating what could be done by editing the photos. They are so large as it is, they take some time to load.
> 
> So does that mean that in this thread only, you approve editing the photos you have posted in this thread?



But I'm uploading RAW files to another domain to make it easy to download... 

Yes, people can edit my photos from this thread only and post them in this thread only.

-Ken Turner

EDIT: My website isn't working for some reason, but you can just save the jpeg files and edit them.


----------



## TheKenTurner (Jul 14, 2012)

YOU CAN EDIT THESE IF YOU WANT! 
Please follow these simple rules:
DO NOT use these photos to make money. Please upload to a website such as Imageshack. If you upload to your own, personal site, then please credit http://kenturner.comli.com.


----------



## o hey tyler (Jul 14, 2012)

TheKenTurner said:
			
		

> Please follow these simple rules:
> DO NOT use these photos to make money.



Lol


----------



## TheKenTurner (Jul 14, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> TheKenTurner said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



 Just wanted to make it clear


----------



## gsgary (Jul 14, 2012)

Did they cut it with lawn mower ?


----------



## TheKenTurner (Jul 14, 2012)

... My hair?


----------



## KmH (Jul 14, 2012)

TheKenTurner said:


>


This photo has potential even with the under exposure, color balance error, focus sharpness, and lighting issues, but you don't allow edits, so no one can show you any editing possibilities.

Two versions. First a normal edit, them a high contrast, gritty style that is popular these days.


----------



## JoshuaSimPhotography (Jul 14, 2012)

TheKenTurner said:


> JoshuaSimPhotography said:
> 
> 
> > Haha, thx, I also took time to look at yours... great site!
> ...


True, I would recommend using that empty space u have a bit more. And maybe a smoother transition of pictures and words when clicking on pages


----------



## KmH (Jul 14, 2012)

TheKenTurner said:


> YOU CAN EDIT THESE IF YOU WANT!
> Please follow these simple rules:
> DO NOT use these photos to make money. Please upload to a website such as Imageshack. If you upload to your own, personal site, then please credit http://kenturner.comli.com.


The cat was out of the bag as soon as you put the photos on the internet.

Besides, if you don't register your copyrights with the Library of Congress - US Copyright Office, you have no legal traction to enforce your copyrights. Copyright is federal law and federal law actions are only heard in federal court. Federal court will not accept the filing of an infringement action until the intellectual property allegedly being infringed is registered, or in the process of being registered with the federal Copyright Office. See United States Code, Title 17, section 411 in chapter 4 - http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap4.pdf.

There are time limits involved relative to when an image(s) are registered and when an infringement occurs that have a major bearing on the type and amount of damages/awards that can be sought in federal court.

U.S. law no longer requires the use of a copyright notice, although it is often beneficial.

The copyright statement you have put on your photos does not conform to federal requirements. See page 4 - http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf

If you want to be fully informed I recommend you also read and study the US Copyright Office - factsheet 102 - U.S. Copyright Office - Fair Use

At any rate all of the sources I have linked you to are here - U.S. Copyright Office


----------



## TheKenTurner (Jul 14, 2012)

KmH said:


> TheKenTurner said:
> 
> 
> > YOU CAN EDIT THESE IF YOU WANT!
> ...



Hmm thanks for that! I'll have to read all the specifics and stuff. You learn something new everyday!


----------



## MTVision (Jul 14, 2012)

TheKenTurner said:
			
		

> Hmm thanks for that! I'll have to read all the specifics and stuff. You learn something new everyday!



And even though you don't give permission to edit (except in this thread) - people can still download and save your images. I think it was KmH who mentioned that your files were large - you should resize them so they are smaller. That way if you post an amazing shot on the internet people can only steal a crappy low-res one.


----------



## KmH (Jul 14, 2012)

Yep! 1224 x 1836 pixels is way to much resolution to be putting online. I have my TPF settings maxed at 800 px for the long side.

I should also mention that you can put Copyright Management Information (CMI) in the image EXIF data fields and in the image IPTC data fields at upload. Unfortunately, it's pretty easy to strip all that CMI data.
But, if you can prove it was stripped buy an infringer, you would have a stronger case.


----------



## KmH (Jul 14, 2012)

Yep! 1224 x 1836 pixels is way to much resolution to be putting online. I have my TPF settings maxed at 800 px for the long side.

I should also mention that you can put Copyright Management Information (CMI) in the image EXIF data fields and in the image IPTC data fields at upload using DPP or other software. Unfortunately, it's pretty easy to strip all that CMI data, as is removing a copyright notice or logo.
But, if you can prove it was stripped/removed buy an infringer, you can show an infringement was 'willful'. (Cha-Ching)


----------



## TheKenTurner (Jul 14, 2012)

KmH said:


> Yep! 1224 x 1836 pixels is way to much resolution to be putting online. I have my TPF settings maxed at 800 px for the long side.
> 
> I should also mention that you can put Copyright Management Information (CMI) in the image EXIF data fields and in the image IPTC data fields at upload using DPP or other software. Unfortunately, it's pretty easy to strip all that CMI data, as is removing a copyright notice or logo.
> But, if you can prove it was stripped/removed buy an infringer, you can show an infringement was 'willful'. (Cha-Ching)



Well on my camera, I have my copyright settings and author set to my full/legal name, and I assume when I put photos through Lightroom, it still keeps that information?

How do I set the max size?


----------



## MTVision (Jul 14, 2012)

TheKenTurner said:
			
		

> Well on my camera, I have my copyright settings and author set to my full/legal name, and I assume when I put photos through Lightroom, it still keeps that information?
> 
> How do I set the max size?



I don't use Lightroom but I'm assuming it's somewhere in the export options.  Google/YouTube could help better then me. 

I'm not sure if I size right but I usually do 650 pixels on the long side with 72 PPI for forums. You should resize for web on your website too. I do know you can create a preset in LR so it will do it automatically for you.


----------



## MTVision (Jul 14, 2012)

TheKenTurner said:
			
		

> Well on my camera, I have my copyright settings and author set to my full/legal name, and I assume when I put photos through Lightroom, it still keeps that information?
> 
> How do I set the max size?



http://digital-photography-school.com/how-to-resize-images-in-lightroom-2.


----------



## TheKenTurner (Jul 14, 2012)

MTVision said:


> TheKenTurner said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thanks, I already know how to do that, but I like to still export full size unless I know I'm going to use the photos for a specific reason that doesn't need resizing.


----------



## MTVision (Jul 14, 2012)

TheKenTurner said:
			
		

> Thanks, I already know how to do that, but I like to still export full size unless I know I'm going to use the photos for a specific reason that doesn't need resizing.



Ok but that means your going to post full size images online. Can't you export multiple copies of the same image? One websized and one full size??


Edit: I'm using the app for the forum but it let's me choose attachment settings and you can change it so it attaches a lower res picture. Assuming you can do the same on the forum


----------



## TheKenTurner (Jul 14, 2012)

MTVision said:
			
		

> Ok but that means your going to post full size images online. Can't you export multiple copies of the same image? One websized and one full size??



Hmm, I guess I should do that! For my website I end up doing that in photoshop so I can add a perfect watermark.

-Ken Turner


----------



## KmH (Jul 15, 2012)

MTVision said:


> I usually do 650 pixels on the long side with 72 PPI for forums.


PPI is meaningless online (electronic display), because there are no inches, only pixel dimensions.


----------



## MTVision (Jul 15, 2012)

KmH said:
			
		

> PPI is meaningless online (electronic display), because there are no inches, only pixel dimensions.



Good to know!


----------



## KmH (Jul 15, 2012)

MTVision said:


> I usually do 650 pixels on the long side with 72 PPI for forums.


PPI is meaningless online (electronic display), because there are no inches, only pixel dimensions. 

To set upload3ed image size limits (not Attachment limits) here at TPF, at the top of each page click on *Forum Actions > General Setting*. Scroll down to *Thread Display options - **Image Resizer - Width* - ​*Image Resizer - Height.
​*


----------

