Any photographers in the house?

Blotto The Clown wrote:

what are people's views on water marking and open access to photos? I just found a picture I took on about 4 different websites... its a bit annoying. I didn't water mark it cause I know I find that frustrating, but when you use a photo that either makes you money or drives significant traffic I feel used :(

Ask them to take it down or pay you.

There are various things you can do:

1. Reduce the photo quality/size. (eg. by layering it with an unobtrusive pattern in photo-editing software and i consider this different from watermarking, or by reducing the size of the picture from 3000+ to 500-1000 pixels)
2. Have a slight watermark
3. List your usage terms.

I leave all my photos at full size and don't include a watermark. I want people to share them so i release them under a creative commons share-alike licence though i tend to put mine on deviant art where this is easily supported. So i don't allow commercial uses but i allow other people to edit and alter the images as they see fit as long as they attribute my work.

Couple of photos I took while in Hong Kong/Shanghai last month. I had just switched from a dying D70S to a D90 (18-200vr) days before the trip and accidentally left some on-camera postprocessing options on during the whole trip, so it did some nasty stuff especially to some night shots.

IMAGE(http://lh5.ggpht.com/_kPcIah65IOI/TNfAPiH3GsI/AAAAAAAANCE/SpuPIGr33LQ/s288/DSC_0022%20%282%29.jpg) IMAGE(http://lh5.ggpht.com/_kPcIah65IOI/TNfhfejQXqI/AAAAAAAANUQ/6Pvbr-nQMhU/s288/DSC_0015%20%282%29.jpg) IMAGE(http://lh5.ggpht.com/_kPcIah65IOI/TNfHhm4nfFI/AAAAAAAANHg/d5-wBHv5nJI/s288/DSC_0310.jpg) IMAGE(http://lh5.ggpht.com/_kPcIah65IOI/TNfYU3OGf_I/AAAAAAAANPo/JIUBS6X5Q-k/s288/DSC_0624.jpg) IMAGE(http://lh6.ggpht.com/_kPcIah65IOI/TNfTgHY-wDI/AAAAAAAANM4/pXIeqWHPP70/s288/DSC_0534.jpg)

(can you tell I like shooting in portrait?)

Full album can be found here.

Duoae wrote:
Blotto The Clown wrote:

what are people's views on water marking and open access to photos? I just found a picture I took on about 4 different websites... its a bit annoying. I didn't water mark it cause I know I find that frustrating, but when you use a photo that either makes you money or drives significant traffic I feel used :(

Ask them to take it down or pay you.

There are various things you can do:

1. Reduce the photo quality/size. (eg. by layering it with an unobtrusive pattern in photo-editing software and i consider this different from watermarking, or by reducing the size of the picture from 3000+ to 500-1000 pixels)
2. Have a slight watermark
3. List your usage terms.

I leave all my photos at full size and don't include a watermark. I want people to share them so i release them under a creative commons share-alike licence though i tend to put mine on deviant art where this is easily supported. So i don't allow commercial uses but i allow other people to edit and alter the images as they see fit as long as they attribute my work.

I am like minded, I dont mind them being used nor do I want to be paid in most usage cases. I usually reduce it down in size as well. I just dont like my photos being reused else where without attribution. I think I will come up with a minimal watermark in one of the corners. Its likely that the takers of this photo are just fans of the content, not malicious in anyway.

jollyeskimo wrote:

Couple of photos I took while in Hong Kong/Shanghai last month. I had just switched from a dying D70S to a D90 (18-200vr) days before the trip and accidentally left some on-camera postprocessing options on during the whole trip, so it did some nasty stuff especially to some night shots.

IMAGE(http://lh5.ggpht.com/_kPcIah65IOI/TNfAPiH3GsI/AAAAAAAANCE/SpuPIGr33LQ/s288/DSC_0022%20%282%29.jpg) IMAGE(http://lh5.ggpht.com/_kPcIah65IOI/TNfhfejQXqI/AAAAAAAANUQ/6Pvbr-nQMhU/s288/DSC_0015%20%282%29.jpg) IMAGE(http://lh5.ggpht.com/_kPcIah65IOI/TNfHhm4nfFI/AAAAAAAANHg/d5-wBHv5nJI/s288/DSC_0310.jpg) IMAGE(http://lh5.ggpht.com/_kPcIah65IOI/TNfYU3OGf_I/AAAAAAAANPo/JIUBS6X5Q-k/s288/DSC_0624.jpg) IMAGE(http://lh6.ggpht.com/_kPcIah65IOI/TNfTgHY-wDI/AAAAAAAANM4/pXIeqWHPP70/s288/DSC_0534.jpg)

(can you tell I like shooting in portrait?)

Full album can be found here.

I really want to see the UK pavilion in person. Great photo set

All my stuff that's publicly-accessible on Flickr is under a Creative Commons (attribution / noncommercial / sharealike) license.

That has led to some weird and unexpected uses.
IMAGE(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2609/3727139609_67aa3dee81_m.jpg)

Also: my rebuttal.

For me, the fact that a CC license means having to accept that folks will use my photos in ways I'm less than enthusiastic about is a tradeoff worth making. If you're not okay with that, keep your stuff under a more restrictive license. Watermarking or only posting smaller versions will pre-empt some misuse, but there will still probably be times that you need/want to contact folks who have appropriated your work.

Dimmerswitch wrote:

All my stuff that's publicly-accessible on Flickr is under a Creative Commons (attribution / noncommercial / sharealike) license.

That has led to some weird and unexpected uses.
IMAGE(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2609/3727139609_67aa3dee81_m.jpg)

Also: my rebuttal.

For me, the fact that a CC license means having to accept that folks will use my photos in ways I'm less than enthusiastic about is a tradeoff worth making. If you're not okay with that, keep your stuff under a more restrictive license. Watermarking or only posting smaller versions will pre-empt some misuse, but there will still probably be times that you need/want to contact folks who have appropriated your work.

THAT, has defiantly not happened to me. I dont expect to make any money or even get recognition for what pictures I took, but I'd like to at least be asked/notified of there use

Blotto The Clown wrote:

what are people's views on water marking and open access to photos? I just found a picture I took on about 4 different websites... its a bit annoying. I didn't water mark it cause I know I find that frustrating, but when you use a photo that either makes you money or drives significant traffic I feel used :(

Can you ask for a photo credit? If they're going to use it, they may as well tell people who took the photo. Also, there are ways of monetizing your photos if you think you'll be getting more stock photo interest.

Funkenpants wrote:
Blotto The Clown wrote:

what are people's views on water marking and open access to photos? I just found a picture I took on about 4 different websites... its a bit annoying. I didn't water mark it cause I know I find that frustrating, but when you use a photo that either makes you money or drives significant traffic I feel used :(

Can you ask for a photo credit? If they're going to use it, they may as well tell people who took the photo. Also, there are ways of monetizing your photos if you think you'll be getting more stock photo interest.

Creative Commons is pretty flexible in this regard. You can limit your work to Attribution only, no other restrictions which will allow for commercial usage as well. Share-a-like is similar, but allows others to 'build upon' your works, whatever that means. Either of those can be enhanced with no commercial, no derivative clauses as well. For folks who want to get their work out, but don't want to see derivative works or commercial usage, I'd recommend going with Creative Commons Attribution, No Derivative, No Commercial license which allows for redistribution so long as you're attributed credit, it's not used for commercial work and no derivative works are created from it.

edit - Full run-down with links to the legalese can be found here

Dimmerswitch wrote:

For me, the fact that a CC license means having to accept that folks will use my photos in ways I'm less than enthusiastic about is a tradeoff worth making. If you're not okay with that, keep your stuff under a more restrictive license. Watermarking or only posting smaller versions will pre-empt some misuse, but there will still probably be times that you need/want to contact folks who have appropriated your work.

There often a "moral rights" clause in copyright law that can be used to prevent use of your work that you find "derogatory", at least according to the CC FAQ; since CC is based on copyright, such rights are entirely enforceable on CC works as well. I don't know what luck you'd have arguing it in court, though. I too think that these sorts of things are worth putting up with for the general good that comes from using a CC licence.

AnimeJ wrote:

Creative Commons is pretty flexible in this regard. You can limit your work to Attribution only, no other restrictions which will allow for commercial usage as well. Share-a-like is similar, but allows others to 'build upon' your works, whatever that means.

"Share-Alike" implies the CC licence on any derivative works; that is, if you take something that's CC with the SA clause, and you use it as part of a work of your own, that work must also be licenced under the CC licence with SA clause. Put simply, if someone takes your work and builds upon it, they must allow others to do the same, just as in GPL-style open-source licences.

I'm not much of a photographer, but I licence my music under a CC-BY-SA (ie: Attribution and Share-Alike) licence. I did use the NC (Non-Commercial) clause for a while, too, but after reading up on the ambiguity around what's considered commercial in terms of CC licences, I decided to drop that -- I'd rather have people use my work and give me exposure instead of worrying about whether they were using it commercially or not. Create Digital Music had a good discussion on this topic (surprisingly, around photography more than music):

http://createdigitalmusic.com/2009/1...

There's two other things about CC licences that are often overlooked or misunderstood that I think are worth mentioning:

* As soon as someone uses your work in a way that violates the CC licence, they are infringing your copyright. If someone uses your work without attributing it, or ignoring the NC clause, then hopefully an email will resolve things, but if they fail to, you have every right to chase them up for copyright infringement.

* CC licences are non-exclusive; you're free to also licence your work under any other licence you like. For instance, If someone wants to use one of your NC works for commercial purposes, or they want to use one of your SA works in their own work without using the CC licence themselves, you can negotiate a commercial contract with them that's separate to your CC licence.

Newegg just has a deal on the Canon 60D for $899 that I just went for. Its going to a huge jump from my 300D and I am very excited.

Ooh, nice! I didn't even realize there was a 60D out. I'd sure like to upgrade from my 350D one of these days.

Good news for me: the upside of a long week of overtime is that I think I finally have enough saved to pick up one of these in the very near future. I originally wanted to save up for a 70-200 2.8, but with a trip to Belize on the horizon I figured this would make a great walk around lens.

Double bonus, it looks like B&H has it on sale!

Nice DF7, enjoy! That deal is tempting, though I think I'm going to hold off for awhile and upgrade to the 7D down the road a year or so.

What do you use for your walking around lens now fleabagmatt? I use the ugly cousin of the lens you link (the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 kit lens) for general use. It's a nice lens, covers a decent range of focal lengths, and that's even without the IS or extra speed of the nicer version.

I have the kit lens right now as well. It is decent, but I tend to shoot in lower light a lot, so the 2.8 will be really handy, as will the IS. I also have one of the 50mm 1.8 lenses. I actually use that more often than the kit lens.

fleabagmatt wrote:

I have the kit lens right now as well. It is decent, but I tend to shoot in lower light a lot, so the 2.8 will be really handy, as will the IS. I also have one of the 50mm 1.8 lenses. I actually use that more often than the kit lens.

I carry the kit and a 70-300mm for most of my shooting. I do carry the same 50mm 1.8 for low light, though I don't shoot low light as often as it sounds like you do. If I do I typically have a tripod handy.

The other thing I've been experimenting with is higher ISO. I came from the school of never ever shoot ISO higher than 400 unless you absolutely, positively had no other option. And back then it was film, so you couldn't easily change up if you did go to a high ISO. On the trip to Disney World we just got back from I found myself having no other option quite a bit. I was able to bump the ISO up to 800 and even 1600 in some cases and keep shooting with my 18-55mm without too much image degradation. Don't get me wrong, I'd still prefer to have a faster lens, but I was pleasantly surprised with my results. Some of those animal shots are at 800/1600 even in daylight, as I needed to get the shutter speed on my 70-300mm way up there to compensate for the bouncing jeep.

Blotto The Clown wrote:

what are people's views on water marking and open access to photos? I just found a picture I took on about 4 different websites... its a bit annoying. I didn't water mark it cause I know I find that frustrating, but when you use a photo that either makes you money or drives significant traffic I feel used :(

Read this and the ensuing conversation while I was away, almost forgot to come back and respond. For what it's worth I put my images up with copyright information in the meta data. I've watermarked some, but I don't have a consistent behavior established yet.

I'm curious though, how do you find your photos on other sites? Sheer dumb luck, or tracking back somehow? I've been playing around with my Flickr and Wordpress stats, and have found some interesting referrers - some that go to password protected sites when I click back to them for instance. I'd imagine someone truly lifting your images wouldn't leave them linked back to you though, would they?

Teneman wrote:

I'm curious though, how do you find your photos on other sites?

http://www.tineye.com/

DF7 wrote:
Teneman wrote:

I'm curious though, how do you find your photos on other sites?

http://www.tineye.com/

Sweet, very helpful. Thanks.

fleabagmatt wrote:

Ooh, nice! I didn't even realize there was a 60D out. I'd sure like to upgrade from my 350D one of these days.

Yeah, I am upgrading from a 300D so it is going to be a huge jump.

I'm trying to decide between a Tokina 11-16 f/2.8, a 20mm f/2.8 Prime, and a 70-200 f/4L as my next lens purchase. I think wide angle would be better to have for travel photography, rather than a zoom. Right now the only thing I use is my 50mm f/1.4, which is a little tight, especially on a crop body. What do you guys think?

That 20 2.8 is a little odd...not too wide, and not very fast, but still almost $500? For the same price you can do a 28 1.8, or a 30 1.4 from Sigma. These are your 50mm equivalents for crop sensors. I have the 30 and bought it precisely because I was always pressed against walls trying to use the 50 indoors (its intended use), and I love it.

As for the other 2 choices, I think you should look to what you want to shoot to make the choice. Ultrawide and telephoto are 2 totally different beasts.

Another choice that I find people often neglect is a hot shoe flash. Of all my purchases I think that one has made the biggest difference in my keeper percentage. This is what I use, and it's a whole lot of fun.

edit: one more thought if all you really have is a 50, is the 28-135 that comes as the kit lens on the higher end packages. You can find these by the dozen "used" for about $250. That's used as in people buy the kit for the extra $200 and try to turn a small profit flipping the lens. Got mine this way, its pristine, and gave me a lot more reach than I had at that point. It's my walk around and I quite enjoy it.

I think pol's suggestion is dead on DF7. If all you have is the 50mm, I'd go for a short to mid zoom before a wide angle prime, unless you really really shoot a lot of wide angle. I find I personally shoot a lot at the mid range focal lengths, and having the ability to recompose with the zoom is very handy. In fact I'd been looking at either a wide angle or macro prime as my next lens, but I like my cheap 70-300mm so much that I'm considering upgrading to a better quality walking around zoom first.

Pol, that's the flash I've got on my Amazon list. Might have gotten it for my birthday, but I prioritized my new tripod over it. I'm hoping to pick it up for Christmas. One question though, have you found any situations where the 430 isn't enough and you wish you had the 580? My research says unless you need to use multiple flashes in a master/slave configuration - which I don't anticipate - the 430EX ought to be enough.

The 430 has been great. It's the most I've ever had though. I'm sure some one going from a 580 to the 430 would find plenty to complain about (and I bet it would start with having buttons instead of a wheel). Really trying not to play the game that way though. I could afford it with the flash, but the L glass that mindset would require would eat me alive

As for the master/slave thing I figure that if I wanted to get a 580 to control a slave, I would still need the slave...bingo 430 still in use.

pol wrote:

As for the master/slave thing I figure that if I wanted to get a 580 to control a slave, I would still need the slave...bingo 430 still in use.

Yeah, my thoughts exactly. And I agree with the L glass comment. My wife had enough sticker shock when I showed her the price tag on the 7D I want, let alone the higher end bodies. I tremble to think what she'd say about a lens costing 3 grand

I have had that happen too, and it's kind of a double edged sword. I feel like it's being stolen from me, but it is also an affirmation that what I did was good, and worthwhile to others. I have sold a few photos to stock photography sites, so I feel that makes up for it.

On a side note, I got a Canon 18-200 last week and man is it a great walking around lens. It's the epitome of a "jack of all trades, master at none".

Happytime Harry wrote:

I have had that happen too, and it's kind of a double edged sword. I feel like it's being stolen from me, but it is also an affirmation that what I did was good, and worthwhile to others. I have sold a few photos to stock photography sites, so I feel that makes up for it.

On a side note, I got a Canon 18-200 last week and man is it a great walking around lens. It's the epitome of a "jack of all trades, master at none".

That's pretty much how I feel about my Nikon variant. It has its flaws, but I'm sure glad that I don't have to carry extra gear and mess with it when I'm trying to travel light.

Sooo... anyone care to talk me out of picking up the Sony Nex-5? I've had a lot of fun with my Canon 10D, but it's a little bulky. I know this is heading to the other extreme, but man... Auto 3D panorama shots sound REALLY sexy and I'm heading to the Bahamas in December.
Current deal is Body + 18-55mm (F/3.5 -5.6) + 16mm (f/2.8) for $799.98

Am I selling my soul to the devil? Am I overpaying for sex appeal? Could I just get an oatmeal can and some film and get the same results?

And just for fun... here's a link to some of my favoriter pics of the past few months: Linky link

Rezzy wrote:

Sooo... anyone care to talk me out of picking up the Sony Nex-5? I've had a lot of fun with my Canon 10D, but it's a little bulky.

Looks like a good alternative if you want lower weight and a smaller footprint. From what I've read the focus system tends to be as slow as the typical P&S camera, but for travel shots that might not make much difference.

Funkenpants wrote:

Looks like a good alternative if you want lower weight and a smaller footprint. From what I've read the focus system tends to be as slow as the typical P&S camera, but for travel shots that might not make much difference.

Yeah, that's basically what I'm looking for. The Canon was an experiment to see if my casual interest would blossom. And it kind of did, but I found out that I have little interest in micro-managing individual camera settings. Once I found some good average settings I just sort of stuck with them, only making small adjustments when necessary. This has probably tainted quite a few of my shots, but I'm generally happy with the outcome.

Part of me thinks that $800 is too much, but then I do the math and realize that I spent close to $600 on the Canon so far and haven't regretted that one bit.
Swapping to the Sony I would:
Lose:
some zoom (28-135mm IS EF vs 18-55mm E)
about 6lbs of kit
in-body flash (which was a little annoying at times in auto mode when I wanted to shoot a darker image)
Gain:
a better sensor
a bunch of megapixels
video shooting at 1080/60i
panorama mode
a little more discreet body

I really like the idea of a lower-profile camera that I could slip into my jacket-pocket without looking like I'm smuggling a coconut and still be able to enjoy the high-quality images that come from the bigger sensors.

EDIT:
On the flip side, I'm a little cautious about losing THAT many buttons... Does anyone here had any hands-on time with the Olympus or Panasonic mirrorless SLRs?

You're going to have to make sacrifices for the smaller camera. I've considered the 4/3rds system because I don't like carrying equipment around, and in the past I've tended to use a crappier P&S while on vacation rather than lug around the SLR. But right now I tend to shoot a bunch of my kid's sports, and a long lens, fast drive, fast focus and shutter release are critical to getting the shots I want. So I don't have a lot of choice.

You have to ask yourself what you are willing to negotiate away in exchange for the smaller, lighter camera?

jollyeskimo wrote:
Happytime Harry wrote:

I have had that happen too, and it's kind of a double edged sword. I feel like it's being stolen from me, but it is also an affirmation that what I did was good, and worthwhile to others. I have sold a few photos to stock photography sites, so I feel that makes up for it.

On a side note, I got a Canon 18-200 last week and man is it a great walking around lens. It's the epitome of a "jack of all trades, master at none".

That's pretty much how I feel about my Nikon variant. It has its flaws, but I'm sure glad that I don't have to carry extra gear and mess with it when I'm trying to travel light.

My problem has been mostly shooting my 1 year old niece since you cant keep that girl still. I would typically use the 18-55 or the 50mm, but sometimes she motors away and then is too far. Shooting her between 100-170mm is outstanding for a short depth of field as well, making a really nice background blur.

If my next lens is going to be a midrange zoom maybe I should just go with a 17-40 f/4L. It is a little slow but it would probably be super sharp, and it is cheap for an L lens. And if I need a fast lens I can use my 50mm. I have been wanting to do some super wide architecture and landscape stuff, but that might be harder to do than I think. Plus, you can always do it with a panorama.

Just got the 60D from the UPS guy. It looks awesome, I am still charging the battery so I don't know about how it actually works. I need to find a suitable subject for its maiden shot too.

I just upgraded from my old XT to a T2i, and honestly for the price, it has been outstanding.