Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Florida Wildflowers  (Read 5358 times)
JohnKoerner
Guest
« on: September 13, 2009, 10:00:16 AM »
ReplyReply

Went on a hike in the light/misting rain yesterday and took a whole host of shots of Florida's beautiful wildflowers, gleaming with fresh raindrops. Here are a few of them




Blue Curl



False Foxglove



Primrose



Spanish Needles



Enjoy,

Jack


.
Logged
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #1 on: September 19, 2009, 06:25:20 AM »
ReplyReply

Here are a few more




Indica Morning Glory



? Wild Pea



Common Primrose Willow



Cordato Morning Glory



Enjoy,

Jack


.
Logged
DanPBrown
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 125



WWW
« Reply #2 on: October 07, 2009, 06:51:42 AM »
ReplyReply

Your wild pea is called groundnut, apios americana.
Dan
http://www.danbrownphotography.com

Quote from: JohnKoerner
Here are a few more




Indica Morning Glory



? Wild Pea



Common Primrose Willow



Cordato Morning Glory



Enjoy,

Jack


.
Logged
kikashi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4084



« Reply #3 on: October 07, 2009, 12:33:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Jack, they seem beautiful.

But

Have you had a bad experience with photos you've posted here being ripped off? You didn't wreck them with copyright banners before, as far as I recall, and for me the banners spoil each image to the extent that it makes it almost impossible to evaluate and certainly impossible to appreciate. At least keep them off the flower (although I'm aware of the possibile futility of that approach!).

Jeremy
Logged
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #4 on: October 12, 2009, 02:52:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: kikashi
Jack, they seem beautiful.
But
Have you had a bad experience with photos you've posted here being ripped off? You didn't wreck them with copyright banners before, as far as I recall, and for me the banners spoil each image to the extent that it makes it almost impossible to evaluate and certainly impossible to appreciate. At least keep them off the flower (although I'm aware of the possibile futility of that approach!).
Jeremy


Hey Jeremy;

Ya know, I think this thread has gone into the Twilight Zone  

Thank you for your kind words on my photos! Regarding your question and statements, I answered your question a few days ago (and I also thanked Dan Brown for his tip), but somehow both of my responses were deleted (though I myself did not delete them   ) I also saw posts by EricM and DarkPengi ... and when I tried to respond to those I couldn't log in ... and now their posts too are gone ... so I don't know if I have my own personal poltergeist or what

Anyway, I guess I can login again now, so I will once again try to answer you. My response to you is I simply disagree that the watermarks make the photos "impossible to appreciate or evaluate" ... IMO what they do is make them impossible (or at least a big hassle) to pilfer and use. The reason I never really thought much about putting watermarks on my images before, was because (1) I was using a point-n-shoot camera and (2) I was just learning with my DSLR. However, now, as my photos have improved (and as the time I have put into capturing them has increased), I just don't think I want to place them up for grabs, unprotected.

On the one hand, I realize there isn't much a person can do with an 800 x 533 image, but on the other they would be perfect for a book, a website, or even a run of postcards. I realize most of the members here can just get their own photos, but there are no telling how many lookie-loos popping by here who can just right-click what they want of people's posted images. Maybe my images are not good enough for anyone to bother with, but I happen to think some of them are, and at the end of the day a person who doesn't protect his work runs a risk of getting it pilfered by some crumb-grabbin' mofo ... as the "Copyright Infringement" thread down below indicates ... so I have made the decision to protect mine.

Here are a couple more:



Goldenrod Crab Spider atop Spanish Needles



Red Spider Lily


I have been working on my website, and updating each photo with gold borders and watermarks, and it is my honest opinion that anyone with eyes to see can appreciate the beauty of the subjects in these photographs, and at the same time that anyone who has put in the time taking their own photos can appreciate a man's desire to protect his work.

Thanks again!

Jack

.
Logged
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #5 on: October 12, 2009, 03:07:56 PM »
ReplyReply

That's a good point.  Why I myself have a profitable business creating tattoos and billboards using photos I pull from the front page of this very website.  Look for a billboard near you signed by Lance Lipschitz.  I wouldn't get too close to it, tho.  With the size of the images I'm forced to work with I find the billboards look best from a highway at least one over from the one alongside which the billboard is placed.

If someone makes a calendar using an 800x500px image they'll get more returns than sales.  That isn't even good enough for monitor backgrounds or screen savers.

Edit:  BTW, it is the big copyright in the center of the image that I object to.  It really does hose viewing.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2009, 03:12:49 PM by DarkPenguin » Logged
gdwhalen
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 162


WWW
« Reply #6 on: October 12, 2009, 07:05:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: DarkPenguin
That's a good point.  Why I myself have a profitable business creating tattoos and billboards using photos I pull from the front page of this very website.  Look for a billboard near you signed by Lance Lipschitz.  I wouldn't get too close to it, tho.  With the size of the images I'm forced to work with I find the billboards look best from a highway at least one over from the one alongside which the billboard is placed.

If someone makes a calendar using an 800x500px image they'll get more returns than sales.  That isn't even good enough for monitor backgrounds or screen savers.

Edit:  BTW, it is the big copyright in the center of the image that I object to.  It really does hose viewing.


I think the watermarks are annoying and frankly there are many many flower pics on the internet without them.  The pics are ok.  The watermarks, not so much.
Logged

Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8205



WWW
« Reply #7 on: October 12, 2009, 07:21:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: DarkPenguin
That's a good point.  Why I myself have a profitable business creating tattoos and billboards using photos I pull from the front page of this very website.  Look for a billboard near you signed by Lance Lipschitz.  I wouldn't get too close to it, tho.  With the size of the images I'm forced to work with I find the billboards look best from a highway at least one over from the one alongside which the billboard is placed.

If someone makes a calendar using an 800x500px image they'll get more returns than sales.  That isn't even good enough for monitor backgrounds or screen savers.

Edit:  BTW, it is the big copyright in the center of the image that I object to.  It really does hose viewing.

I agree with Dark. I have enjoyed your images a lot (yet I haven't downloaded any of them!), but I can't really look at them with the watermark plastered right across the middle. A watermark somewhat less obtrusive and nearer one edge would be less offensive to me, and I might try looking at your lovely photos again.


Eric
« Last Edit: October 12, 2009, 07:23:39 PM by EricM » Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
kikashi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4084



« Reply #8 on: October 13, 2009, 02:51:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: JohnKoerner
Hey Jeremy;

Ya know, I think this thread has gone into the Twilight Zone  

Thank you for your kind words on my photos! Regarding your question and statements, I answered your question a few days ago (and I also thanked Dan Brown for his tip), but somehow both of my responses were deleted (though I myself did not delete them   ) I also saw posts by EricM and DarkPengi ... and when I tried to respond to those I couldn't log in ... and now their posts too are gone ... so I don't know if I have my own personal poltergeist or what
There were problems with the hardware a few days ago, I gather, and a number of posts went missing when things were restored from backup.

Quote from: JohnKoerner
Anyway, I guess I can login again now, so I will once again try to answer you. My response to you is I simply disagree that the watermarks make the photos "impossible to appreciate or evaluate"
Well, I accept that that's your view, but with respect, it's not your view that matters: what counts is the opinion of people (in general, not just me) who look at your images and whom you want to look at your images. For me, the watermarks in the centre of the frame ruin the shot. I can look at it and understand that it's technically good (since I can see sharp edges), but I can't look at it and enjoy it.

Quote from: JohnKoerner
... IMO what they do is make them impossible (or at least a big hassle) to pilfer and use. The reason I never really thought much about putting watermarks on my images before, was because (1) I was using a point-n-shoot camera and (2) I was just learning with my DSLR. However, now, as my photos have improved (and as the time I have put into capturing them has increased), I just don't think I want to place them up for grabs, unprotected.

On the one hand, I realize there isn't much a person can do with an 800 x 533 image, but on the other they would be perfect for a book, a website, or even a run of postcards. I realize most of the members here can just get their own photos, but there are no telling how many lookie-loos popping by here who can just right-click what they want of people's posted images. Maybe my images are not good enough for anyone to bother with, but I happen to think some of them are, and at the end of the day a person who doesn't protect his work runs a risk of getting it pilfered by some crumb-grabbin' mofo ... as the "Copyright Infringement" thread down below indicates ... so I have made the decision to protect mine.

I have been working on my website, and updating each photo with gold borders and watermarks, and it is my honest opinion that anyone with eyes to see can appreciate the beauty of the subjects in these photographs, and at the same time that anyone who has put in the time taking their own photos can appreciate a man's desire to protect his work.
As others have observed, there's not much anyone can do with such small photos. The answer, if you're really concerned about theft and feel you must do something, is to put a watermark towards the edge. Putting it across the very part of the image you want us to look at is simply self-defeating.

Jeremy
Logged
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #9 on: October 13, 2009, 12:18:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: kikashi
There were problems with the hardware a few days ago, I gather, and a number of posts went missing when things were restored from backup.

Aha, I thought something was awry    




Quote from: kikashi
Well, I accept that that's your view, but with respect, it's not your view that matters: what counts is the opinion of people (in general, not just me) who look at your images and whom you want to look at your images.

Thanks for your comments Jeremy, and I understand what you are saying, and I can agree with it in part, and yet I disagree in part also. Regarding the 'only' worthy opinions being that of other people, I guess that happens only under the condition that the opinions of others are what's most critical to me. Only if I care about everybody's opinions do they then 'matter' to me. By contrast, if the only thing that matters to me is my opinion, and the opinions of those people I really know and care about (as opposed to the opinions of every Tom, Dick, and Harry online), then the random opinions of other people I don't even know are of no consequence to me. I have always believed that a person whose own opinion shifts with the endless tide of "others people's opinions" is a pretty weak and weak-minded individual.

That being said, in the end, since the truth is I am trying to share my images with others for fun, I must simply weigh the equation of what is most important to me---sharing my images online for fun online or protecting my efforts? I don't want to be paranoid, but yet I don't want to be naive either. Regarding big watermarks, the truth is, I have seen plenty of artists put big copyright marks over their online works, with the idea that if a person wants that photo/painting-rendition "mark-free" they can hit their hip pocket and buy it. And if they have no such intent, then who cares if they like the mark or not?

I am pretty new at all this, but I do believe I am getting better and better images, and I have read enough posts where people have had their images ripped-off from their sites (because they weren't protected) to feel concerned. Maybe someone couldn't make a wall-hanging image with a smaller image, but they can do the things I mentioned previously. The paradox is, the weaker and less-intrusive any watermark is the easier it is to Photoshop out of the image for the right-clickers out there ... yet the prettier the image for the online viewers. In exactly the opposite fashion, the stronger and more intrusive the watermark on the image the harder it is to Photoshop out of there ... yet the more difficult it is for your online friends to enjoy unfettered. So which is most important and where is there a "sliding scale" as that can determine where one watermark is 'acceptable' and another is not?

Clearly, my big, fat watermarks emblazoned across the center of my images have gotten a lot of tomatoes thrown at me ... and it seems to be by unanimous vote ... so I musta violated this unwritten code (  ) ... but where is there a universally-agreed-upon consensus?




Quote from: kikashi
For me, the watermarks in the centre of the frame ruin the shot. I can look at it and understand that it's technically good (since I can see sharp edges), but I can't look at it and enjoy it.
As others have observed, there's not much anyone can do with such small photos. The answer, if you're really concerned about theft and feel you must do something, is to put a watermark towards the edge. Putting it across the very part of the image you want us to look at is simply self-defeating.
Jeremy

Thank you for the suggestion Jeremy and maybe I will try to tone them down a bit ... after I wipe all the tomato paste off for my violations of watermark subtlety  

Jack


.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2009, 12:19:42 PM by JohnKoerner » Logged
Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8205



WWW
« Reply #10 on: October 13, 2009, 04:49:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote

There were problems with the hardware a few days ago, I gather, and a number of posts went missing when things were restored from backup.


Quote from: )--
[div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE ( @ Oct 13 2009, 01:18 PM) [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=316850\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]Aha, I thought something was awry  

And I thought the hardware simply reacted to your overly intrusive watermarks.  


[!--quoteo(post=316850:date=Oct 13 2009, 01:18 PM:name=JohnKoerner]Thanks for your comments Jeremy, and I understand what you are saying, and I can agree with it in part, and yet I disagree in part also. Regarding the 'only' worthy opinions being that of other people, I guess that happens only under the condition that the opinions of others are what's most critical to me. Only if I care about everybody's opinions do they then 'matter' to me.

...



That being said, in the end, since the truth is I am trying to share my images with others for fun, I must simply weigh the equation of what is most important to me---sharing my images online for fun online or protecting my efforts?[/quote]

If you don't care that much about the opinions of others, why post them?


Remember: you can look at your lovely images without the watermarks (at least I assume you keep a secret stash under lock and key for private viewing). The rest of us only see them the way you post them.

Yes, indeed, there are some big-name "Artists" with big-name Egos who can count on the wealthy being able to bribe them substantially to get a look at the "clean" version. But that seems a far cry from posting your imgaes "online for fun."

-Eric
« Last Edit: October 13, 2009, 04:52:23 PM by EricM » Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #11 on: October 13, 2009, 09:10:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: EricM
And I thought the hardware simply reacted to your overly intrusive watermarks.

 




Quote from: EricM
If you don't care that much about the opinions of others, why post them?

I just wanted to share and get feedback on the images ... I didn't think so many would have their panties get in a wad over the watermarks. To me, I don't even pay attention to them ... on my shots or on other peoples' shots ... when I see them I simply understand why they're there.




Quote from: EricM
Remember: you can look at your lovely images without the watermarks (at least I assume you keep a secret stash under lock and key for private viewing). The rest of us only see them the way you post them.

Thank you for calling my images lovely  

I do keep the original RAW files, true, and I also keep the modified .tiffs off of them, true again. But honestly the .jpgs on my website are the images I see most myself. Again, I simply ignore the watermarks, and I can see through them.




Quote from: EricM
Yes, indeed, there are some big-name "Artists" with big-name Egos who can count on the wealthy being able to bribe them substantially to get a look at the "clean" version.

I don't know if protecting one's work with watermarks has anything to do with "ego" or seeking "wealth" ... it's just common sense to clarify that one's efforts are not just up for grabs.




Quote from: EricM
But that seems a far cry from posting your imgaes "online for fun."
-Eric

I am still wondering how posting an image online for fun has anything to do with a watermark. How does a watermark change the fun? And I am still waiting for someone to show me a universal "standard" for where watermarks should be placed, how many are allowed per image, and at what intensity they must be placed to be considered "okay" ...

Any help would be appreciated,

Jack


.
Logged
Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8205



WWW
« Reply #12 on: October 14, 2009, 09:33:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: JohnKoerner
I am still wondering how posting an image online for fun has anything to do with a watermark. How does a watermark change the fun?
IMHO a large, central watermark is a little like having Marge Simpson sitting in the seat directly in front of you blocking your view at a play or concert. Having to crane my neck to see around her blue hair kind of takes the fun out of it for me. But i don't think a universal canonic specification for hair style is the right solution.

A watermark near the edge of the photo sends the message just as clearly as one in the middle and doesn't get in the way nearly as much.

I'm glad you have trained your eyes to ignore the central watermark, but I don't want to put in the hours of practice necessary to learn the trick.


And i do think your photos have been lovely.

Eric
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
PeterAit
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1970



WWW
« Reply #13 on: October 14, 2009, 04:44:57 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: JohnKoerner
Anyway, I guess I can login again now, so I will once again try to answer you. My response to you is I simply disagree that the watermarks make the photos "impossible to appreciate or evaluate" ... IMO what they do is make them impossible (or at least a big hassle) to pilfer and use. .

The watermarks do, in fact, greatly detract from your lovely photos. Anyway, who exactly would want to pilfer low-resolution web images?

Peter
http://www.peteraitken.com
Logged

Peter
"Photographic technique is a means to an end, never the end itself."
View my photos at http://www.peteraitken.com
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #14 on: October 15, 2009, 02:21:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: EricM
IMHO a large, central watermark is a little like having Marge Simpson sitting in the seat directly in front of you blocking your view at a play or concert. Having to crane my neck to see around her blue hair kind of takes the fun out of it for me. But i don't think a universal canonic specification for hair style is the right solution.

Heh-heh, that was cute Eric  




Quote from: EricM
A watermark near the edge of the photo sends the message just as clearly as one in the middle and doesn't get in the way nearly as much.

The flipside to this truth you've spoken is nor does it really do as much to deter cropping/manipulation ...




Quote from: EricM
I'm glad you have trained your eyes to ignore the central watermark, but I don't want to put in the hours of practice necessary to learn the trick.

Well, that's just it Eric: I didn't have to 'train' my eye at all. It didn't take hours of practice. I just am not so uptight about watermarks that I bother to have a snit about them when present. I simply understand why they're there and see through them. No training necessary  





Quote from: EricM
And i do think your photos have been lovely.
Eric

Thanks again,

Jack


.
Logged
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #15 on: October 15, 2009, 02:32:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: PeterAit
The watermarks do, in fact, greatly detract from your lovely photos.

Thanks Peter. Oh, I am certainly aware that these watermarks are not an "enhancement" ...  ... but I just don't think they're as big a deal as what is being made here.





Quote from: PeterAit
Anyway, who exactly would want to pilfer low-resolution web images?

Them!

LOL

(1) They're not that low-res and (2) how the hell would I know?

In truth, those images could very well be put to the uses I have (twice now) mentioned above ... but there is no way I could possibly know 'who' could be doing the right-clicking ... if anyone would be at all. But that is not the point. The point is to simply hike my leg on them and mark them as 'mine'  

I did not think these watermarks would put so much sand in everyone's va-jay-jays like this, but I think it's pretty damned funny that it has

Much ado about nothing really ...

Jack

.
« Last Edit: October 15, 2009, 02:33:58 PM by JohnKoerner » Logged
ArunGaur
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 57


« Reply #16 on: October 15, 2009, 11:40:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: JohnKoerner
Went on a hike in the light/misting rain yesterday and took a whole host of shots of Florida's beautiful wildflowers, gleaming with fresh raindrops. Here are a few of them




Blue Curl



False Foxglove



Primrose



Spanish Needles



Enjoy,

Jack


.



An interesting variety of colors.


Arun Gaur

http://tripolia-indianlandscapeimages.com
Logged
ArunGaur
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 57


« Reply #17 on: October 15, 2009, 11:43:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: JohnKoerner
Thanks Peter. Oh, I am certainly aware that these watermarks are not an "enhancement" ...  ... but I just don't think they're as big a deal as what is being made here.







Them!

LOL

(1) They're not that low-res and (2) how the hell would I know?

In truth, those images could very well be put to the uses I have (twice now) mentioned above ... but there is no way I could possibly know 'who' could be doing the right-clicking ... if anyone would be at all. But that is not the point. The point is to simply hike my leg on them and mark them as 'mine'  

I did not think these watermarks would put so much sand in everyone's va-jay-jays like this, but I think it's pretty damned funny that it has

Much ado about nothing really ...

Jack

.

Watermarks do not detract in my opinion. They are fine.
Arun Gaur

http://tripolia-indianlandscapeimages.com

Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad