-=Rebel XS / 1000D users, lets join forces!

Cliffs wrote in post #9524645
And how many posters do you think sell their images?

How many people do you think steal images across the internet?

mouettus wrote in post #9520340
there is not a mode better than another. depends of what you're shooting and what effects you'd like to achieve

usually, at night, ppl do landscapes. So a long exposure is required. something between 15-30 secs would be good with low iso (tripod has to be used). If you're shooting ppl or moving subjects, bump up the iso and stop down the aperture. then good luck on keeping your camera rock steady!

thank you for the reply.
what lens should i get, i like walking around and taking pictures but my price range is around $100- 300 for now.

A 55-250 to go with your kit lens.

cdahl wrote in post #9523916
You do realize a watermark is used to deter theft, right? It's a protective measure only. When the photo is sold the watermark is removed.

Amatuer photographers on this site that are posting in this thread, probably don't need to worry about anything. I'm not ignorant, watermarks exist for a reason; but on this place? With your practice stock photos? Really? I don't think so....

STEALING a photo is pointless anyway, they can take credit for it; and you still have the original stock; you can also copyright any of your images, find someone else stealing them and unleash an unholy civil suit.

Take a look at "real" photographers websites, not covered with watermarks are they?

Just joined the site, did my first model shoot this past weekend, what do you guys think? These are single off camera flash ISO 200, 125/sec 50mm lens

http://www.flickr.com …/46791175@N04/4​326088622/

http://www.flickr.com …/46791175@N04/4​326088606/

^^ linky no worky


EDIT: Fixed

Syntaxxor wrote in post #9525524
Amatuer photographers on this site that are posting in this thread, probably don't need to worry about anything. I'm not ignorant, watermarks exist for a reason; but on this place? With your practice stock photos? Really? I don't think so....

STEALING a photo is pointless anyway, they can take credit for it; and you still have the original stock; you can also copyright any of your images, find someone else stealing them and unleash an unholy civil suit.


Take a look at "real" photographers websites, not covered with watermarks are they?

My comment wasn't directed towards you. I totally agree with you.

My point was a watermark does not sell a photo. That's not its purpose. The photo sells the photo watermarked or not. And as you pointed out the professionals don't even use them! Which is why I find pointing out someone's font pointless and rude when it's unsolicited.

Kekumba wrote in post #9525516
A 55-250 to go with your kit lens.

but isnt that too close up?

What?

Kekumba wrote in post #9527765
What?

Agreed!

What do you mean by too close up? the 18-55mm's big brother IS the 55-250mm; basically the same lens with a longer focal length. (Very good lens I might add)

What kind of photos are you trying to do? Macro? Portrait?

lewkyle wrote in post #9526143
Just joined the site, did my first model shoot this past weekend, what do you guys think? These are single off camera flash ISO 200, 125/sec 50mm lens

http://www.flickr.com …/46791175@N04/4​326088622/

http://www.flickr.com …/46791175@N04/4​326088606/

The first one seems very blurred, or smudged from pp. Was this an effect you were going for?

stripdshirt wrote in post #9533878
The first one seems very blurred, or smudged from pp. Was this an effect you were going for?

looks pretty much like clone stamp to me

yeah I am still working on my photoshop skills

I just place watermarks in my images to let other people know I took the shot. I know it's a bit vain Ü but that is just me.

Images are going to be re-used wherever and whenever. It's a fact of life. It's like having dust in your sensor Ü it's something you don't want but it just happens.

just on the topic of watermarks I think it's HILARIOUS when people watermark obviously bad pictures (blurry, super under or over exposed, "myspace" pictures)