So I went to Howth Summit. This is the result.

ps3man

_ANY0747 by Aindriu MacEoghain, on Flickr


_ANY0717 by Aindriu MacEoghain, on Flickr


_ANY0712 by Aindriu MacEoghain, on Flickr


_ANY0645 by Aindriu MacEoghain, on Flickr


_ANY0733 by Aindriu MacEoghain, on Flickr


_ANY0709 by Aindriu MacEoghain, on Flickr

lisatiffany

They are quite nice and I like the lighting but the watermark is too distracting to really take the whole image in properly.

ps3man

True about the watermark. I upload them to Facebook too and have had image theft before from there so they are necessary kinda.

lisatiffany

Yeah that's happened me a lot especially from facebook, in the end I've legally gotten my photos back but I generally don't post anything of importance on facebook anymore. It's a shame really but that's the internet for you.

AnimalRights

Watermark is heavy handed.

ValueInIreland

AnimalRights wrote: »

Watermark is heavy handed.

I think the logo is fine, I would not call it a Watermark as this would usually be more central and semi transparent. The logo is no more obtrusive than a TV channel's logo, which the viewer ignores after a few moments. As a tool to protect the images it is not effective at all as it can easily be cropped out of each image without any real loss to the image.
-Just my tuppence worth.

Ricky91t

It may be heavy handed but in this day and age it's unfortunately required. I really like the last one!

colblimp

What bothers me more than an over-bearing watermark is a sloping horizon...

pearljamfan

i quite like them, the first one most of all but he others dont have any detail in the sky and that puts me off them.

i dont mind the watermark, i have the same problem having had photos stolen, i hate to put a watermark right across the middle of the photo so id like to know what the alternative is, instead of having something in the corner that can be cropped out. use metadata??

AnimalRights

ValueInIreland wrote: »

I think the logo is fine, I would not call it a Watermark

I meant to call it a sig/logo and not a watermark....:o

Ricky91t wrote: »

It may be heavy handed but in this day and age it's unfortunately required. I really like the last one!

I disagree....percentage wise a minute amount of pictures would be 'lifted' illegally....I find most amatuer photographers get carried away by how 'valuable' their works actually are.

Shiny

AnimalRights wrote: »

I disagree....percentage wise a minute amount of pictures would be 'lifted' illegally....I find most amatuer photographers get carried away by how 'valuable' their works actually are.

Don't know about that, I was talking to a friend who works for a company that routinely use large amounts of images promoting different subjects for frequent presentations to clients.

I was asking them what stock agencies they use, the answer...."Oh we just use Google Image Search". I asked if they saw anything wrong with this and I got a genuinely confused look. I think a robust logo/watermark, albeit a bit intrusive, would deter this type of activity. A photographers work doesn't need to be a super sexy artistic masterpiece to have commercial value.

ScumLord

Shiny wrote: »

Don't know about that, I was talking to a friend who works for a company that routinely use large amounts of images promoting different subjects for frequent presentations to clients.

I was asking them what stock agencies they use, the answer...."Oh we just use Google Image Search". I asked if they saw anything wrong with this and I got a genuinely confused look. I think a robust logo/watermark, albeit a bit intrusive, would deter this type of activity. A photographers work doesn't need to be a super sexy artistic masterpiece to have commercial value.

I wouldn't really see office workers using images for fairly internal presentations as a big commercial loss. They're showing the images to a room full of people and I don't know any company outside of companies working on large scale projects that would seriously consider paying for the images they use in a company presentation.

ps3man

Any c+c on the images. lighting compisition etc instead of the logo.

AnimalRights

The pics seem a bit flat and need a bit more 'pop'
Also I would go back and retake them what with the wonderful pure blue skies we have now...they'd enhance the landscapes immensely.