First timer with Macro, please C&C

Well, not really a "true" macro lens but using the macro setting on my Sigma 70-300 APO DG I took some shots at Epcots Flower and Garden Festival with weekend. First time really trying this and I really like the results. I think they can be a lot better, and thats where you all come in. Please critique these for me and any suggestions are always appreciated. These were all hand held...

Thanks
Cory

1.

The massive watermarking sucks.

3+4 are nice and they all have wonderful colour and DoF

Lovely set. Shame about the watermark very distracting.

Thanks, On the watermarks, I dont like giving images away so it stays. Sorry if its distracting.

If you put up low resolution shots, they won't be useful for much except web use. Nobody's going to make money off of them. If they are used, make sure you've got your data and copyright notice in the EXIF data. Then you can contact the web master and threaten all dastardly things. Many photographers appreciate the publicity. Do a Google search on pink rose. It comes up with more than 11 million images. Do you really think somebody is going to steal yours?

That's my take on watermarking.

joedlh wrote in post #5555608
If you put up low resolution shots, they won't be useful for much except web use. Nobody's going to make money off of them. If they are used, make sure you've got your data and copyright notice in the EXIF data. Then you can contact the web master and threaten all dastardly things. Many photographers appreciate the publicity. Do a Google search on pink rose. It comes up with more than 11 million images. Do you really think somebody is going to steal yours?

That's my take on watermarking.

Thanks for the lesson in internet use...I am well educated on how it works.

So give them away for free publicity? I will pass on that. Care to critique them at all?

They all look very good with lovely light and compositions but the watermark is just too distracting.
Brian V.

#1 - nice hues, but the closer petals are OOF and it's distracting, other than that, quite nice
#2 - Nice butterfly, looks a bit oversharpened to make for a slightly soft shot, but could easily just be due web resizing, hard to say without seeing a full size image. Perhaps a bit tighter crop as well, not too sure.
#3 - I quite like this shot, but would be tempted to crop it a bit more tightly to lose anything else that is distracting from the main subject. You have a good angle to work here. Nicely exposed, very pretty caterpillar
#4 - Nice shot, composition doesn't work for me, but the rest is good - lighting, focus looks OK.
#5 - I quite like this shot as well, lovely pink flowers, very well exposed. My only thoughts are the two green leaves distract (at the bottom of the frame), and a portrait shot might have been better (hard to tell though)
#6 - Nicely exposed, but not enough to keep the interest. OOF petals in the bottom left hand corner are distracting.

The watermarks are very distracting to be entirely honest - I do echo joedlh's comments on this. Better to put smaller copyright notices in the shots, place a copyright pixel in the mix (google how to do this), contain your detail in the exif, and digimarc them. You're automatically protected under copyright laws (at least in the moment in the US, that might change though pending the passing of certain laws). Even if someone decides to illegally use your image, it's hard to do anything about it, other than very costly legal action. Better to send a DMCA take down notice to their ISP, citing that the offender is infringing on your copyright. Even that might not work, since some ISPs will challenge that you legally own the rights of the image in question, and force you to take legal action, again, costly.

As an aside, even artists like Artie Morris publish their images online (or via Email) without huge copyright notices, and they stand to lose a lot more money than you or I do.

Don't take this the wrong way please, just offering some honest advice.

Dave

The transparency of the watermark is fantastic.

dpastern wrote in post #5559126
#1 - nice hues, but the closer petals are OOF and it's distracting, other than that, quite nice
#2 - Nice butterfly, looks a bit oversharpened to make for a slightly soft shot, but could easily just be due web resizing, hard to say without seeing a full size image. Perhaps a bit tighter crop as well, not too sure.
#3 - I quite like this shot, but would be tempted to crop it a bit more tightly to lose anything else that is distracting from the main subject. You have a good angle to work here. Nicely exposed, very pretty caterpillar
#4 - Nice shot, composition doesn't work for me, but the rest is good - lighting, focus looks OK.
#5 - I quite like this shot as well, lovely pink flowers, very well exposed. My only thoughts are the two green leaves distract (at the bottom of the frame), and a portrait shot might have been better (hard to tell though)
#6 - Nicely exposed, but not enough to keep the interest. OOF petals in the bottom left hand corner are distracting.

The watermarks are very distracting to be entirely honest - I do echo joedlh's comments on this. Better to put smaller copyright notices in the shots, place a copyright pixel in the mix (google how to do this), contain your detail in the exif, and digimarc them. You're automatically protected under copyright laws (at least in the moment in the US, that might change though pending the passing of certain laws). Even if someone decides to illegally use your image, it's hard to do anything about it, other than very costly legal action. Better to send a DMCA take down notice to their ISP, citing that the offender is infringing on your copyright. Even that might not work, since some ISPs will challenge that you legally own the rights of the image in question, and force you to take legal action, again, costly.

As an aside, even artists like Artie Morris publish their images online (or via Email) without huge copyright notices, and they stand to lose a lot more money than you or I do.

Don't take this the wrong way please, just offering some honest advice.

Dave

Thanks for the comments, I greatly appreciate the true feedback.
1. With macro being such a limited DOF, should I have focused on the pedals in the foreground instead? Thats one thing I wasnt sure of...

2. I didnt add any sharpening, but I did boost the colors a bit, maybe too much?

3. I agree, Will tighten it up on the crop

4. Will try and fix the comp, will be tough though without severely cropping it down...maybe this one isnt a keeper...

5. Honestly, it didnt bother me until you said something, now it does...will clone those out...

6. I agree, was on the fence with this one..

Everyone - If I wanted a critique on the watermarks, I would start a thread about it...along with the 100 or so other threads already started about watermarks. If all you are going to do is leave a sarcastic comment about them, please dont bother posting as it means nothing to me. I do appreciate everyones comments.

Thanks

Cory - people are just saying their honest feelings. Many things make up an image - exposure, composition, subject matter and finally, presentation. Yes, presentation. As a photographer, I can wholly understand your wanting to protect your images and make sure that people don't rip them off - let's just say if someone was really desperate, they'd clone out the watermark (it isn't that hard to do). We both know that that just adds to the copyright violation, but there are people out there that sadly do so.

I've had one of my images used on a website, and it was, as per my request, accredited to me as the copyright owner. This was an Australian birding website that helped me ID a bird. I told them it was OK, especially since it was a uncommon to rare bird, and he didn't have any image of this bird on his site. I'm happy, he's happy. In the end, as a photographer, you have to make some decisions on helping others out who help you and allowing them to use your images (usually gratis).

My personal thoughts are that I don't have any issues with a educational institution wanting to use my images gratis - but they must first ask me for my permission, secondly attribute copyright to me, thirdly, give a link to my website, and last - not sell it for profit. If some of my images help children (or adults) learn more about Insects & Arachnids, then I've done my bit for nature. Of course, I'd love to sell some of my images, but then, I have to be *good* enough to warrant customers buying them.

Anyways, that diatribe out of the way...

#1 - it's a tough call this one. Why not consider taking the shot at smaller magnifications, giving yourself more DOF, and cropping? This will depend on the camera of course, and how much MP you have to play with. It's an ugly hack, but it does work.
#2 - Ah OK, it's probably just the resizing for web that makes it look like that. Not a biggie.
#3 - Sounds good to me.
#4 - It's hard to say, one man's gold, is another mans fools gold.
#5 - Sorry! I'm particularly hard on myself as a critic, and sometimes I do that to others. I don't mean offense, just offering my honest advice.
#6 - Same as point 5!

In the end, these are just my thoughts. They are not set in concrete. Just thoughts and suggestions. That's the beauty of these forums - so many talented photographers, and most of them are always willing to try and help you. I'd be doing you a grave disservice if I didn't return the favours that others on this forum (LordV, Bald Eagle, Hatch 1927 and so forth, too many to name, apologies to any that I left out) have given me by helping me out when I was a newb.

Dave

dpastern wrote in post #5559978
Cory - people are just saying their honest feelings. Many things make up an image - exposure, composition, subject matter and finally, presentation. Yes, presentation. As a photographer, I can wholly understand your wanting to protect your images and make sure that people don't rip them off - let's just say if someone was really desperate, they'd clone out the watermark (it isn't that hard to do). We both know that that just adds to the copyright violation, but there are people out there that sadly do so.

I've had one of my images used on a website, and it was, as per my request, accredited to me as the copyright owner. This was an Australian birding website that helped me ID a bird. I told them it was OK, especially since it was a uncommon to rare bird, and he didn't have any image of this bird on his site. I'm happy, he's happy. In the end, as a photographer, you have to make some decisions on helping others out who help you and allowing them to use your images (usually gratis).

My personal thoughts are that I don't have any issues with a educational institution wanting to use my images gratis - but they must first ask me for my permission, secondly attribute copyright to me, thirdly, give a link to my website, and last - not sell it for profit. If some of my images help children (or adults) learn more about Insects & Arachnids, then I've done my bit for nature. Of course, I'd love to sell some of my images, but then, I have to be *good* enough to warrant customers buying them.

Anyways, that diatribe out of the way...

#1 - it's a tough call this one. Why not consider taking the shot at smaller magnifications, giving yourself more DOF, and cropping? This will depend on the camera of course, and how much MP you have to play with. It's an ugly hack, but it does work.
#2 - Ah OK, it's probably just the resizing for web that makes it look like that. Not a biggie.
#3 - Sounds good to me.
#4 - It's hard to say, one man's gold, is another mans fools gold.
#5 - Sorry! I'm particularly hard on myself as a critic, and sometimes I do that to others. I don't mean offense, just offering my honest advice.
#6 - Same as point 5!

In the end, these are just my thoughts. They are not set in concrete. Just thoughts and suggestions. That's the beauty of these forums - so many talented photographers, and most of them are always willing to try and help you. I'd be doing you a grave disservice if I didn't return the favours that others on this forum (LordV, Bald Eagle, Hatch 1927 and so forth, too many to name, apologies to any that I left out) have given me by helping me out when I was a newb.

Dave

I understand what your saying and truly appreciate it. The images are linked to my zenfolio account where the watermark is present. I didnt take the time to export to jpg, resize, upload to my hosting site and then link to POTN. Will work on that. Already had some images taken before the watermarks were present on some concert and motorcycle photos...so that is why I am hestitant with removing them, I saw them on myspace. Yes they can be cloned out, but it makes it a PITA to do and most I find wont bother.

Thats the key right there. I dont mind giving something away but like you point out, there are restrictions. Just ask first, thats all...

I dont mind any of the criticisms, just looking for constructive criticisms. I just find comments like Scopios, pointless.

I turned the watermarks off until I create a new smaller more image friendly one...

Good lad. As to myspace, I personally dislike that, and facebook. Tonnes of images being used without permission, and most of the users don't give a ****. But then again, that's the issue with the Internet and piracy. It's so normal now for users to just download pirate movies, or music (or both), without any thought as to what they're doing is illegal. Whilst I don't agree with the RIAA/MPAA tactics (or losses awarded to them by corrupt US courts), I would like to see regular pirates legally punished.

And we come back again to images...people asking for permission. I don't know if any of my images have been used by others, I personally don't think my images are good enough to warrant this.

Dave