LOVE BEAT BOAT preparty

[digitalboyhr]

The exif is: s:1/25 ISO:3200 a:1/3,5

additional flash light (ETTL +1ev)

thanks for your coments.

[Colin Southern]

Would have been a great shot, but I'm afraid it's yet another example where it's ruined for me by my eye being yanked directly to the watermark in the bottom right hand area.

[digitalboyhr]

I have just answered which is my opinion about such in the related post.

thanks for your answer.

[FrankMi]

If the text doesn't getcha, the bright red object in the background that it's sitting on will!

[AndyB1975]

I prefer the girl on the right.................Oh sorry, we are judging the photo

[digitalboyhr]

Well the place was too dark (no ambient lights, neons and lasers) so the only light available was this one.

I don't like take photos for Discotheques with dark (almost black) backgrounds because it seems then that the photo was taken in a cave

thanks for your apreciation

(Andy I have other pictures of beauty girls hahahahaha)

thanks for your comments.

[bedantabd]

Hi David, great shot. Amazing IQ at 3200 ISO!!! What PP / noise reduction did you use? I do not have any experience of flash photography. Why did you use +1ev? Looks a bit harsh to me, particularly the blue hat looks blown......not sure just I felt.........

[Andrew1]

A good shot considering the environment. For me I'd tone down the red hot spot and drop the overall exposure a bit but perhaps it just looks too bright because of the dark background.

[Colin Southern]

Amazing IQ at 3200 ISO!!! What PP / noise reduction did you use?

Hi Bedanta,

So long as one doesn't under-expose or crop excessively at high ISO settings then one shouldn't need any noise reduction. High ISO modes don't cause noise per se - it's the post-processing that REVEALS noise when an under-exposed shot has it's levels adjusted upwards in post-processing (thus revealing the noise floor).

[digitalboyhr]

Collin this picture has been reduced to avoid uncontrolled copies ;-) as I also commented in the "watermark" post.

But noise apears when under-expose a photo as you say, the worse scenario is when there are blue lights and also when de light is too difuse then "dust" can't be avoidable. As I said before, if you have a good sensor at 3200 also at 6400 you can get great results (D7000 or MarkII and L2.8 lenses can do the work fine). Mine at 3200 works quite well but is not the best.

thanks for comment.

[Colin Southern]

Collin this picture has been reduced to avoid uncontrolled copies ;-) as I also commented in the "watermark" post.

Hi David,

It's a topic we've discussed ad-nausium here. The problem as I see it (speaking as a professional photographer, and one who has many relatively high resolution & unwatermarked images on my website) is that although publishing an image in low resolution and (to a lesser degree with a watermark) may help "avoid uncontrolled copies" - in the majority of cases, they also COMPLETELY ruin the image - in much the same way as a big scratch in the paintwork would completely ruin the appearance of an expensive car).

I think it's important for people to take a step back and take a look at what they're trying to achieve - which is more important - what the likelihood of an image being "copied uncontrollably" is - and what the consequences of that might be:

For me ...

- I want people to be able to enjoy my art - so I publish images without watermarks, and usually at 1200 x 800px resolution. I don't want to ruin the experience by putting distracting things on the image.

- How likely is it that the image will be used inappropriately? Hard to say - I will say though that there are a LOT of images out there on the internet, and a lot of those are a lot better than yours and mine. Regardless though, ...

- if someone DOES lift one of my images (and yes, it's happened a few times) - then (a) it doesn't take any money out of my pocket because they would never have paid for it in the first place anyway (b) With or without the watermark I still have full legal recourse (if I can be bothered) (c) Even with a watermark, it can usually be removed in a matter of seconds.

My personal attitude is that if someone wants to grab one of my images and make themselves a nice 7 x 5 print for themselves then they're more than welcome to it; I hope it brings them as much pleasure looking at it as it did to me when I created it. If they use one of my images on some commercial project then that's a bit naughty, but chances are I'll never find out about it ... and I'm not about to loose sleep over something I don't know about.

It seems to me that folks who watermark images possibly fall into two groups:

Group One are those who don't realise just how much people hate watermarks, and

Group Two are those who are so - what's the word? - "paranoid" perhaps? (Can't think of the right word) but none-the-less would rather ruin an image for EVERYONE rather than risk it being used inappropriately by ANYONE (which we call "cutting off ones nose to spite one's face" in this part of the world).

You might be interested to take a look at the poll results in this thread to get an idea of how folks feel about them ...

Question about Watermarks

In the real world, I honestly don't believe that folks who use watermarks / signatures on their images do themselves any favours. I've never seen an image here that I feel that anyone would steal and use in a way that would deprive the artist of serious amounts of money (so the artist isn't losing out). I have however seen MANY images where the watermark / signature completely ruined an image. In my case when I see an image like that, I often won't take the time to critique it (and I know that there are others who feel the same). So in reality the watermark / signature doesn't ensure that the artist gets money that they wouldn't have got otherwise, but it DOES ensure that they don't get the same amount of critique that they would have got that may well have helped them improve as an artist (and thus potentially helping them earn more money for their work). IMO watermarks are a lose/lose however one looks at it

[digitalboyhr]

Hi again Collin.

I do post my pictures to my website at 800px (long side) and 72ppi because of I told before.

Please a didn't start this "war" about watermarks. And please don't criticize watermarks or signatures when you use them in a different way but use them in your pictures:

https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/fo...6&d=1298905113

https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/fo...2&d=1285105871

As every picture I have and I would share with you have the same "signature" I won't share anymore, I don't want people lost time reading again and again the same comments about watermarks.

thanks for all a C Ya.

[AndyB1975]

Ahhh don't be like that David. Everyone is allowed a different opinion, thats what forums are for. Life would be very boring if we all thought the same.

Just make the pictures a small size then surely there is not really anything usefull anyone can do with them. I am certain that if someone wanted to 'use' one of your images then a watermark will not make any difference and could be removed very easily.

[digitalboyhr]

It doesn't matter. I just uploaded this picture to learn for the next time (as someone has said the red light could be anoying and this is a critique, also the one that says it could be blown, but the "watermark"....., when the person who said that uses big ones and the size of his pictures that I've seen here are smaller than this one...).

I'm sorry but I have enough with my working day to stay here listening if a watermark yes o not, this doesn't tell anything about any picture shown.

I'll continue reading and participating in other pics uploads, but as I sayd it has no sense to publish more photos because all of them have "signatures" and are the same size.

Thanks for your replies

[Splatsworth]

David, I do think you are missing the point and Colin's comment about the watermark does tell you quite a lot about the picture shown, it tells you that the majority of people don't like seeing an image with a watermark on it and I am one of those, the difference between yours and colins is that Colins doesn't detract from the image whereas yours does. Anyway, enough about watermarks (I haven't read the related post) I like the image but agree with Frank about the bright red in the bottom right hand corner, other than that I like it very much.

[Sahil]

Hey David,

Nice capture & send me the pics of beautiful girls on the boat you are talking about
You have got all the best feedbacks you could have got for this image. But I feel those red lights in the background , though VERY distracting, give a sense/feel of the place & mood of the event.

And please don't be offended by Colin's feedback. Keep sharing your pics. It will take you some time to realize what he meant. I am sure, a time will come when the watermarks, right on the image, will start irking your eyes too

[Colin Southern]

Hi again Collin.

Hi again Davvid.

I do post my pictures to my website at 800px (long side) and 72ppi because of I told before.

Images don't have a "ppi" until they're printed; they're always displayed at whatever the native ppi of a monitor is.

Please a didn't start this "war" about watermarks.

Not sure who's starting any war - certainly not me. You asked for feedback - I gave you my honest opinion. Others have done the same.

And please don't criticize watermarks or signatures when you use them in a different way but use them in your pictures:

I don't use them. Period. The two images you quote don't have them -- they simply have titling in the matte. Completely different. I might add that this is a style I no longer care for nor use anymore.

As every picture I have and I would share with you have the same "signature" I won't share anymore, I don't want people lost time reading again and again the same comments about watermarks.

Totally up to you.

thanks for all a C Ya.

Bye bye.

[Andrew1]

David, I would urge you to keep posting your photos and include whatever you want on them. This site as well as others is aimed at sharing, exploring and learning as much as we can about photography in what is supposed to be a supportive environment. (sometimes, not so much) They are your photos and you are the only one to decide what they contain.

Obviously some have phobias regarding signatures, which they are entitled to, but that certainly doesn't override your preference to include them. Many viewers have the intelligence to look past them and appreciate your photos in the good spirit you present them to us. Please let the rest of us enjoy what you have to offer. Those that choose to dislike your photos can hopefully treat them with the same respect as any other one they don't care for, and quietly move on.

[Splatsworth]

Obviously some have phobias regarding signatures

Not a phobia, just a dislike, but as you say everyone is entitled to their opinion, why ask for comments if you don't like what is written?

[digitalboyhr]

Not a phobia, just a dislike, but as you say everyone is entitled to their opinion, why ask for comments if you don't like what is written?

Because include or exclude wattermark/signature comments won't help me take better photos (and I don't consider this a comment on a photo). I'm tired os such unsustancial comments about photography, this is why I entered here (I read the tutorials, and I found them interesting), I'm member of other forums, and most of them have the same people, instead of comment what composition/color/etc... could be better in a pic, they comment how the borders of the picture and the fonts used in the watermark are..

well I think I've said all what I had to say. I'll learn from your picts, but it makes no sense to include more of my photos with the same format because I'll get the same responses/coments and that won't make me improve my photos.