Some panning shots I did

Thanks for looking!

It would be nice if i could actually see the image behind the godawful watermark. look like great shots, i just cant really tell.

aemravan wrote in post #11617064
It would be nice if i could actually see the image behind the godawful watermark. look like great shots, i just cant really tell.

AGREED!!

If i remove the watermark then ill never make a sale. People will just print these (even with crappy resolution). I am targeting the car owners to buy these.

Love the purple roadster shot

Good ones! But you need to be aware of the poles in the background when you're setting up to shoot these. Or else get very friendly with the clone tool.

Didn't realize you were trying to sell em, makes it different and i understand

Way to make panning look easy. I'm too damned twitchy

really nice shots, from what i can see underneath those huge watermarks. gotta do what you gotta do i suppose.

Can't really tell either, they look like good shots but those watermarks kill the image for me, just awful and unnecessary IMHO. Low res images are good for just viewing on the web, I wouldn't fear anyone making prints and selling them anywhere but that's just me. Also, don't you need property and or model releases to profit from these images? I'm not implying the OP doesn't.... just asking?

NormanRC51 wrote in post #11617139
AGREED!!

I agree as well. The shots look great, but the watermark...

I display these images to pretty high resolution (1200 pix wide). People can easily print these on 4x6 with good quality (200 dpi). That is what a "watermark" is for. I am not understanding why you guys are bashing me for putting watermark?

enrigonz, why do you think I need a model release to profit? I think you dont fully understand what model release is all about. Most of the things you understand are just bunch of myths. Do you think paparazzis have model release when they shoot stars at public places? I dont think so.

SchwettyLens wrote in post #11617586
I display these images to pretty high resolution (1200 pix wide). People can easily print these on 4x6 with good quality (200 dpi). That is what a "watermark" is for. I am not understanding why you guys are bashing me for putting watermark?

enrigonz, why do you think I need a model release to profit? I think you dont fully understand what model release is all about. Most of the things you understand are just bunch of myths. Do you think paparazzis have model release when they shoot stars at public places? I dont think so.

Never said you needed model or property releases, I'm simply asking the question. The way I understand it, if you're on public property is not an issue but how about property such as automobiles? If you profit from a photograph taken of a car that belongs to someone else, would the owner be entitled to compensation?

I'm sincerely asking, not implying anything by these questions, don't take it the wrong way. And yes, the watermarks are overkill, I wouldn't do that to my images but that's me and my opinion.

I guess you missed the part where Enrigonz stated " I'm not implying the OP doesn't.... just asking?"
which means he wasnt sure and was asking.
decent shots, much better panning than I can do thats for sure

Edit: Looks like Enrigonz beat me to it....

SchwettyLens wrote in post #11617586
I am not understanding why you guys are bashing me for putting watermark?

We are necissarily bashing you, but we can't tell the image quality of the cars behind the watermark. It is as if you are just using these pictures to advertise your photographs to sale, not for the enjoyment of us car guys to admire and drool over your work/cars. It reminds me of going into the tattoo palor and looking at the generic imagines that everyone gets, compared to looking at the artist portfolios of the nice work the actual artist does.

Just my $.02