• Hello Guest, welcome to the initial stages of our new platform!
    You can find some additional information about where we are in the process of migrating the board and setting up our new software here

    Thank you for being a part of our community!

1976 wagon: Doris gets some Glamour Shots

slow240 said:
Watermarks are common among professional photographers who want to prevent other people from using their work without consent. Perfectly reasonable imo
Click to expand...

thebornotaku said:
+1

plus these aren't even obtrusive.

heaven forbid a photographer want credit for their work. It's a lot more involved than most people realize.
Click to expand...

I know... I'm not a fan of them and I don't use them. I understand if they're prints that the photog. has for sale on a website. That makes sense to watermark because people could just print them off the internet(obviously no one would post full res anyway). But to put the name so large an obtrusively takes away from the shot IMO. Since you already own the shots no one is going to lose any sales or anything, and OP could have just mentioned photographer and then proceeded to post the car shots without it. I only mentioned it because its such a beautiful car, and I hate seeing that large print on an otherwise good photo. Its the first thing my eye goes to and that hurts my soul.

I am aware of the involvement, just a semi-pro photographer here.
 
900exdriver said:
Amazing. Makes me want to clean up my GTA's and throw them on mine. Love your stanceworks thread
Click to expand...

amerbritcan said:
Hot damn.
Click to expand...

TempleUWS6 said:
hhhnnnnnggggg, perfection.
Click to expand...
Thanks!

Old Iron said:
Nice, looks like a lot of fun! What did a session like that cost, looks like he traveled all over with you?!

We just got a few photos taken of our new born and us and it was a $650 for a couple hour session!?
Click to expand...
$150 for everything: about 2-3 hours of shooting, rolling shots and what not and then all the editing. And I got all the pictures back in one week, Trevor is an awesome guy!

Hodginsa said:
I know... I'm not a fan of them and I don't use them. I understand if they're prints that the photog. has for sale on a website. That makes sense to watermark because people could just print them off the internet(obviously no one would post full res anyway). But to put the name so large an obtrusively takes away from the shot IMO. Since you already own the shots no one is going to lose any sales or anything, and OP could have just mentioned photographer and then proceeded to post the car shots without it. I only mentioned it because its such a beautiful car, and I hate seeing that large print on an otherwise good photo. Its the first thing my eye goes to and that hurts my soul.

I am aware of the involvement, just a semi-pro photographer here.
Click to expand...
Yea I can see that, I just don't have any problem promoting the photographer because he knocked these pictures outta the park IMO
 
Nice wagon bro! CLEAN!
I rarely use my watermark on my images anymore as I get paid by the job I shoot and release the images to the client to do whatever they want with them. I do tons of weddings, senior shoots and products for companies. I get tons of referrals just by word of mouth...not too bad for not advertising anymore...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top