Skaters

David_S85

Had about a second, so focus is not spot on.

lensmole

Focus is way over rated . I am wondering about the water mark ... do you really think they are necessary? I have a friend who is an very successful international photographer and he does not use a water mark and a lot of his images are stolen off the web all the time but he does a reverse search on images from time to time . He finds the images that have been stolen and then sends the culprits a bill for copyright infringement and the bill is paid 90% percent of the time with no questions asked. Hey says it is usually worth an extra $ 3000.00 to $5000.00 a year to him for his troubles.dunno

David_S85

lensmole wrote: »

Focus is way over rated . I am wondering about the water mark ... do you really think they are necessary? I have a friend who is an very successful international photographer and he does not use a water mark and a lot of his images are stolen off the web all the time but he does a reverse search on images from time to time . He finds the images that have been stolen and then sends the culprits a bill for copyright infringement and the bill is paid 90% percent of the time with no questions asked. Hey says it is usually worth an extra $ 3000.00 to $5000.00 a year to him for his troubles.dunno

I would think the award for damages would be even larger when an image is stolen with a watermark.

And yes, I do think it is necessary these days. We've seen this entire forum cloned along with all our images a half dozen times over the years, so anytime I post something, I pretty much know it will be stolen. Makes the take-down process almost assured -- proving what is my image and not theirs. Not as much worried about the loss of any income, just want to help taking down the sites that steal everything.

Anyway, about the actual image… Should I clone out the lamp poles in the distance that seem to be growing out of a couple of the subjects? The original shot was level - I altered it to keep the closest skate boarder upright, but I think it might work either way. Level or horizon pitched as in the posted pick.

Another fun thing was I've had this image since 2008 and never posted it. Richard was next to me and might also have one like it (?). I just noticed the guy up to the right looking down just last night. That was a good discovery and helps the shot a bit.

Richard

No, don't think I have one. I like the composition a lot. I wouldn't bother cloning out the light poles. In general, I only tilt stuff intentionally when I need the full length of the diagonal to capture what I need. Otherwise, I prefer level. As for the watermark, at first I thought it was a sign attached to the building...then I read it . You could actually have some fun with it in this one by shrinking and angling it slightly so that it would have the right perspective for a sign.

David_S85

Richard wrote: »

No, don't think I have one. I like the composition a lot. I wouldn't bother cloning out the light poles. In general, I only tilt stuff intentionally when I need the full length of the diagonal to capture what I need. Otherwise, I prefer level. As for the watermark, at first I thought it was a sign attached to the building...then I read it . You could actually have some fun with it in this one by shrinking and angling it slightly so that it would have the right perspective for a sign.

Making a watermark into a street or building sign, thus hiding it in plain sight, would be the ultimate watermark, wouldn't it? Dang, that would be quite a project series in itself!

I tilted it for two reasons. 1) I often tilt "motion" shots purposely disorienting the viewer for a second and to force action into a still and 2) The guy in the second story would be more visible (hopefully) when above the main subject. As it was shot, he'd be way over to the right and might not be noticed at all. Heck, I never noticed the guy until a day ago.

This image was horribly underexposed. I had to use some forced HDR tricks just to bring the front of the skaters out, otherwise they'd just be silhouettes.

BTW, Richard, I just last night put up a gallery at my smugmug of your 2008 visit. I get around to things, eventually.

lensmole

David_S85 wrote: »

I would think the award for damages would be even larger when an image is stolen with a watermark.

And yes, I do think it is necessary these days. We've seen this entire forum cloned along with all our images a half dozen times over the years, so anytime I post something, I pretty much know it will be stolen. Makes the take-down process almost assured -- proving what is my image and not theirs. Not as much worried about the loss of any income, just want to help taking down the sites that steal everything.

Anyway, about the actual image… Should I clone out the lamp poles in the distance that seem to be growing out of a couple of the subjects? The original shot was level - I altered it to keep the closest skate boarder upright, but I think it might work either way. Level or horizon pitched as in the posted pick.

Another fun thing was I've had this image since 2008 and never posted it. Richard was next to me and might also have one like it (?). I just noticed the guy up to the right looking down just last night. That was a good discovery and helps the shot a bit.

I would keep it as original as possible. Since it is a street shot.

Earache

Fun shot David... I like the tilt here, it helps emphasize the action of the subjects.
The guy looking down is a great addition!

David_S85

Thanks! I rather like the tilt too.

Earache wrote: »

Fun shot David... I like the tilt here, it helps emphasize the action of the subjects.
The guy looking down is a great addition!

CCoop

Striking image! Don't mind the blown out background, as it brings more attention to the -faces- of the skaters. Great. Thank you.