Off the cuff

VikingPhotography · 20-05-2007, 04:04

More than a snapshot but less than a portrait; my wife had her hair cut & coloured today by a salon stylist that is also a good friend of ours. I took my camera along for the day (a good PJ is never without one no matter what the situation!) and noticed that the salon had some lovely diffuse light coming in from some frosted windows to the side of their reception desk.

When my wife was finished getting her new look, I took this quick shot using the aforementioned window as the backdrop

D2X, 17-55DX lens @ 50mm, ISO 400, f/4, 1/60 sec, SB-800 bounced flash +2/3 EV

Overall, this shot took around 5 seconds to setup and execute, and the stylist liked it so much he wants a copy for his portfolio... so, with this in mind, I thought I'd open it up to a bit of critique instead of just posting in the photo sharing section.

Boofers · 20-05-2007, 05:17

The colors are quite touching, the light in the background works good as a soft glow effect,,I hope the rings from center outward are just from posting,,other then that, it has a sweet smile on it. nice shot

**Markulous** · 20-05-2007, 10:40

'Tis a lovely shot. Think I'd prefer a touch more detail from the eyes (easy enough to dodge in) - downside of the bounce shot, I guess.

Carry on like that and you could become a Venture 'tog!

Rob Barron · 20-05-2007, 16:59

Yup, lovely shot Martin and not at all surprised the stylist wanted a copy to show others. The eyes are too dark for the rest of the picture but that is the only minus point to me. I know you like putting your huge copyright C across the image but I must admit it does make it harder to fully appreciate the image. Side issue really though, the pic is very well worked

Cheers,
Rob

VikingPhotography · 20-05-2007, 18:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob Barron

I know you like putting your huge copyright C across the image but I must admit it does make it harder to fully appreciate the image

Truth be told I don't like watermarking them, but it's a necessary evil - I'm currently engaged in a bit of a tussle with someone who has ripped off some of my work and is claiming it as their own.

They somehow managed to get hold of some shots that were syndicated via CameraPress... probably purchased them under false pretenses. The key issue is that they've placed their own watermarks on the shots and put them all over the web, hosting them on Photobucket.

So - as much as I can't stop issues like that happening, I'm going to be damn sure that every image I post myself has a visible watermark to make it that bit more difficult for folk to rip them off.

skipper954 · 21-05-2007, 01:46

Lovely spur of the moment image. If the studio wants it for their portfolio, you might consider decreasing the highlights because her hair isn't shown at it's maximum best.

Does your wife like her new "do"?

skip

Rob Barron · 22-05-2007, 17:05

I entirely understand your purpose in putting the copyright info on Martin, entirely so. I am just not sure that the way you are doing it is offering a whole lot of protection. The (c) superimposed as a watermark does not attribute it to yourself and the line that puts your own name, etc. is easily cropped from the bottom of the picture so would not help.

I am absolutely not saying this as criticism, I think your work is excellent and exactly the kind that could easily get 'ripped off' so protection is very important. There are other non-destructive ways of applying encrypted copyright information to an image (admittedly the software to apply it is not cheap!) but as a professional it might be worth considering. Anyone else have specific ideas of how Martin and others could protect their work. We all know there is no 100% method but something that strongly deters is definitely better than nothing.

I rely on the fact that my pic is small (you might notice I never put my pics on here so that they take up the full screen but keep them to about 20-22cms wide) and low res as well as compressed and at 72 dpi and only 8 inches across, the equivalent image printed at 300 dpi would only be 2 inches wide and therefore almost useless for practical usage.

Admittedly some might say I am also relying on the fact mine aren't good enough to nick anyway but if they do I'll have to slap them.... HARD <stern looks all round!>

Cheers,
Rob

fionaB · 22-05-2007, 17:14

lovely image Martin! and one that would look good on the wall of the salon as well as in his portfolio. i do see the point of watermarking, but i have to admit that i tend to do the same as Rob and down size them to make them virtually useless unless posted on the internet. AND unlike Rob and yourself there is little likely hood of anyone wanting to pinch my work! lol

Fi

Rob Barron · 22-05-2007, 17:47

Fi....
.
.
.
Come 'ere.....
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
closer!....
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
<SLAP> Now be'ave!

fionaB · 22-05-2007, 17:48

OWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW.......... flaming eck is no place safe ! heheheh

Fi

VikingPhotography · 23-05-2007, 13:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob Barron

I entirely understand your purpose in putting the copyright info on Martin, entirely so. I am just not sure that the way you are doing it is offering a whole lot of protection. The (c) superimposed as a watermark does not attribute it to yourself and the line that puts your own name, etc. is easily cropped from the bottom of the picture so would not help.

Sure, they can crop my name right out, but the watermark itself requires a fair bit of editing work to remove. There's also a host of hidden data embedded in the image that identifies it as mine

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob Barron

I rely on the fact that my pic is small (you might notice I never put my pics on here so that they take up the full screen but keep them to about 20-22cms wide) and low res as well as compressed and at 72 dpi and only 8 inches across, the equivalent image printed at 300 dpi would only be 2 inches wide and therefore almost useless for practical usage.

All you need to make a visually acceptable 6x4" print is an image around 432 x 288 pixels; it won't be sharp or yield a lot of detail but it'd be more than good enough for casual placement on a wall, in an album etc. Anything larger than that simply yields sharper results and/or could be printed bigger. The dpi setting that you've saved it at has no bearing on output, since it is the absolute number of pixels that is determining factor.

The only 100% proof positive way of preventing someone from nicking your shots is not to share them online... but what would be the point in that??