Circa Survive on tour with Thrice 2008

[Rock Photo Star]

1 15mm
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2001/2507276234_dc09682001.jpg

2 15mm
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3287/2507276380_2d7abb70b1.jpg

3
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3128/2507276544_902355ce75.jpg

4
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2321/2506448825_8b369d6194.jpg

5
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2375/2506449179_198a4b776e.jpg

[Rock Photo Star]

6
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3136/2507277306_c2c547f4d5.jpg

7
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3101/2507276912_9b922fac04.jpg

8
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2171/2507277402_36a5ebddf8.jpg

[thelightofsound]

your watermark is very distracting. my eye goes straight to it in every image.

number 5 is great though.

[Rock Photo Star]

your watermark is very distracting. my eye goes straight to it in every image.

number 5 is great though.


I've heard too many horror stories of frustrated people dealing with having their images used without permission to change.

I find that after a while, one can get use to it and should still be able to appreciate the image. After all, everyday we are bombarded with plenty of images with prominent text - book covers, magazine covers, cd covers, billboards, etc.

I would encourage you and other photographers to use prominent marks so that it would be so commonplace that people would get use to seeing them so that it would not only not be a big deal but would be expected that the photog should have prominent credit.

[thelightofsound]

i understand your intentions, and i think we have all been burned before. however, anything you put on the web is subject to this. i could photoshop that watermark out easily, and i'm not that good with photoshop.
i use a more subtle watermark, or logo really, because i want the subject to be the focus of the image. i also want people to know where it came from and i hope that my watermark stays intact; however, i realize that it is almost impossible to keep people from stealing images that i put on the interwebs.

[gary88]

Great shots! I really like 2 and 5.

[Woodja]

you really can't go wrong when it comes to shooting circa especially anthony green his movements are so photogenic!!! i love it

[caatherinne]

5 is my favorite.
This is my all time favorite band. I can't even begin to count how many times I've seen them. Was this in pa?

[Dexstar]

love cirva

[brettjrob]

Great shots, and great band!

[Rock Photo Star]

5 is my favorite.
This is my all time favorite band. I can't even begin to count how many times I've seen them. Was this in pa?

yes, this was in pittsburgh at Club Zoo.

[letsmakeart]

noone is going to BUY your shots if they look like **** because of a bad watermark, so why worry about people stealing them?

Your policy is focused on negative rather than being proactive and making something of them.

[Rock Photo Star]

noone is going to BUY your shots if they look like **** because of a bad watermark, so why worry about people stealing them?

Your policy is focused on negative rather than being proactive and making something of them.

Can you explain your actual experience/examples or research or parallels on this as this is not my experience, research, or consideration of parallels [branding, advertising, titles and text on book covers, record covers, products, etc.].

Here are some of the research, considerations and experience that I am drawing from which your absolute assertions directly contradict:

First, wedding photographers often [or at least, to be specific I have seen or read dozens plus] place "proof" or other marks on the photos they present to clients yet are still able to sell photos. I have several times seen threads about a wedding photog sending pic files for the couple to view or printing out some sample pics for the couple and the couple taking them and printing and copying them, even enlarging them. All those times, the photog was admonished as to why they did not print proof or other mark right across the middle of the photo. Never once on the threads I read did I see even one person say not to do so because they would not be able to sell photos.

Second, I am working on a plan to commercialize photos via other channels which does not involve selling to general public or display which these are for.

Third, your advice directly contradicts the concept of branding, advertising and graphic art [products, book covers, cd covers, magazine covers, billboards, etc.] ... all involve making use of text, even large text with photos/art/images. Based on your broad assertion, advertisers, marketers, publishers, etc. for all these years have been intentionally sabatoging their commercial interest .... OR .... the conflict of text with images is not as dramatic as you make it.

Fourth, your comments directly contradict my own experience of viewing photos, adveritising, product art, etc. with marks on them, as well as concert photos, and still being able to perceive the quality and action of the photo just fine. I agree that sometimes the watermark will truly be so intrusive that it makes if difficult to appreciate the photo. THAT's Sometimes, not every time or even a majority time let alone all the time. Frankly, I straight out speculate that if it is a significant minority or majority of time for you, then it's either 1) your eye and ability to analyze or 2) your pre-conceived bias of thinking marks should not be there then it's the photo.



p.s. how many pics have you sold and who's your target market?

[jcp2000]

love circa and anything anthony does really really great vocalist. like your shots man good stuff

[blackshadow]

Seriously that watermark is very distracting - should be reading killedbandphotos.com IMHO.

I agree with watermarking and watermark my own but a little subtlety and judicious placement goes a long way.

If people are serious about ripping off your work they will regardless of watermarks, so why not use a watermark that is less detracting from the image you want the viewer to see?

As for the photos most look a little soft/underexposed to me but #5 is a great image.

[Rock Photo Star]

Seriously that watermark is very distracting - should be reading killedbandphotos.com IMHO.

1) I agree with watermarking and watermark my own but a little subtlety and judicious placement goes a long way.

2) If people are serious about ripping off your work they will regardless of watermarks, so why not use a watermark that is less detracting from the image you want the viewer to see?

3) As for the photos most look a little soft/underexposed to me but #5 is a great image.

1) If the mark is little and at the edges of the pic, it's extremely easy to just crop it out OR ignore when viewing, which == zero publicity value.

If the mark is away from the bottom of the pic, it is much harder not to notice/read and much harder to get around. Yes, it can be done but the person really needs to know what they are doing and usually a person that has that skill to do so with photoshop is more likely/hopefully an artist themselves and more willing to observe another creators work. I would prefer to just have the brand/site - KillerBandPhotos.com - but copyright law is maximized by adding the copyright notice.

2) This is a common [ends justify means] argument that is seriously flawed. Just think about . . . stop lights and stop signs, for ex. [you can easily find many more, like locking doors].

If people really are determined not to stop they won't. Nonetheless, I kind of like having traffic signs and stop lights despite their "ultimate futility" and how they clutter the streets and interfere with the view of the sky and landscape, architecture and street photography ....

In short, if we only did things because they were 100% successful then very few things would get done. In the end, traffic lights and stop lights are not made to 100% prevent violations ... they are made to put people on notice and it's their peril and accountability to follow or ignore. Same with copy right marks.

Likewise, I still lock my car door and house door despite a skilled thief being quite able to break into them if they want to. I would suggest you would do the same despite the hassle.

3) Thanks.



Check the Day of Fire thread and let me know if you like that mark any better.

[caatherinne]

yes, this was in pittsburgh at Club Zoo.



Yeahh I was supposed to go to that :[ But It happened to be the same day as prom. Oh well.