KOTS **Pics**

[Dom87SS]

Took a few pics out at KOTS yesterday. Didnt take as many as i thought i would (i get pretty lazy when the weather turns) so out of those i dont have a ton of good ones. But here are a few, the rest are in the gallery. Let me know what ya think.


Gallery - http://drd-photos.smugmug.com/Cars/GLD/KOTS-5512/22829061_v8s4n3

http://drd-photos.smugmug.com/Cars/GLD/KOTS-5512/i-gCsBvsJ/0/L/IMG4617-copy-L.jpg

http://drd-photos.smugmug.com/Cars/GLD/KOTS-5512/i-7x3HJ8J/0/L/IMG4627-copy-L.jpg

http://drd-photos.smugmug.com/Cars/GLD/KOTS-5512/i-CD44GvS/0/L/IMG4657-copy-L.jpg

http://drd-photos.smugmug.com/Cars/GLD/KOTS-5512/i-fVTTXGq/0/L/IMG4729-copy-L.jpg

http://drd-photos.smugmug.com/Cars/GLD/KOTS-5512/i-dPpzS4j/0/L/IMG4789-copy-L.jpg

http://drd-photos.smugmug.com/Cars/GLD/KOTS-5512/i-58TM6z9/0/L/IMG4832-copy-L.jpg

http://drd-photos.smugmug.com/Cars/GLD/KOTS-5512/i-L456FTk/0/L/IMG4918-copy-L.jpg

http://drd-photos.smugmug.com/Cars/GLD/KOTS-5512/i-x2s6W88/0/L/IMG4966-copy-L.jpg

[Boostaddct]

Nice pics!

[pOrk]

After the 2nd photo I stopped looking because of the retarded watermark all the way across the center.

[Dom87SS]

I feel about the same way every time I see someone take my pics and print them or use them for things I never gave permission to use.

[pOrk]

Why bother sharing them if you don't want them to be shared?

[Dom87SS]

Copying a web image and using it for advertisement or to print copies isn't sharing, it's stealing. I have zero issue with someone linking to an image to share it.

A little back story, I had stopped putting the copyright across images last year. Then recently I was "thanked" to my face by a guy that he copied my web image and printed them to have at his house and it looks great. It's something I've run into a bunch in the past and if that little thing that on the image prevents that, then I accomplished something.

[pOrk]

I agree to an extent, but once something is posted on the internet you can kind of expect it to be used for whatever. Either way, there is a better way to watermark photos and across the center of the image like you have done there not only takes away from the photos, but it turns people away from seeing what you have to offer. Just throwing it out there.

[Dom87SS]

I, nor anyone I know, expect thier online photos to be used without concent. Aside from the fact that it's illegal.

[loud91rs]

Great looking pics! I was going to go down to the event but didn't make it. Looked like a good time though.

[Wagonbacker9]

I, nor anyone I know, expect thier online photos to be used without concent. Aside from the fact that it's illegal.

I fully expect pics that I upload online to be used by whomever sees fit to do so wherever they see fit... Do I like it... no, but it is what it is. I don't make my albums public if I am worried about them being stolen.

[Dom87SS]

Great looking pics! I was going to go down to the event but didn't make it. Looked like a good time though.

thanks, appreciate it

[Dom87SS]

I fully expect pics that I upload online to be used by whomever sees fit to do so wherever they see fit... Do I like it... no, but it is what it is. I don't make my albums public if I am worried about them being stolen.

i guess thats where we differ, and the reason i paste that across the image. Because most people who would want a good copy of something, will go and ask how to go about getting one. Anyway, that is my reason for putting it there. I know it wont stop people from copying them, but hopefully it will stop someone from trying to use it for themselves.

[Wagonbacker9]

i guess thats where we differ, and the reason i paste that across the image. Because most people who would want a good copy of something, will go and ask how to go about getting one. Anyway, that is my reason for putting it there. I know it wont stop people from copying them, but hopefully it will stop someone from trying to use it for themselves.

Even the politicians supporting SOPA/PIPA had stolen pics on their websites... If the proponents of laws against it don't get it, I don't expect a lay-person to.

[-stew-]

There's a picture on my bookface of me using a tampon to stop a nose bleed. I better go watermark that before Playtex starts using it.

[wheelsofsteel]

I appreciate the sharing of photos.
People have to understand and in most cases the photographers are not getting paid to be at these events, therefore as a "side job" they take these awesome photos and sell them to whomever is interesting in owning a copy of it. Who is going to print a big as picture for their garage wall with that across the center?? And it's done that way for that exact reason. They should get paid for their work and the car owner/driver or whoever should pay for that memory if they wish to have it.

Personally think it's a nice gesture to "share" photos like this for those that may not have been able to make an event to see it.

Again, to each as own.

[PureSound15]

Wtf? How is there so much hate for a guy taking incredible pictures and expecting to get recognition and or income from said photos?

Do you guys work for free?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jbiscuit]

I agree to an extent, but once something is posted on the internet you can kind of expect it to be used for whatever. Either way, there is a better way to watermark photos and across the center of the image like you have done there not only takes away from the photos, but it turns people away from seeing what you have to offer. Just throwing it out there.



So if someone took your cool flamed mail box from your yard you would be 100% OK with that too right? Because you put it out there for others to see that means its free game then for someone to grab it and use it as they sit fit? Correct?

[Dom87SS]

There's a picture on my bookface of me using a tampon to stop a nose bleed. I better go watermark that before Playtex starts using it.

I know your just saying this as a mockery, but if you felt that someone would actually use it for that then yes. It is hardly a secret that companies frequently steal images from photobucket and other online sources to use for advertisement. Its one of those its easier to ask for forgiveness than for permission type deals. Though legally it could net a company in big trouble for copyright infringements amongst other things. I have had my pictures copied from my host site by a person who did design work on flyers/promotional items and they sold their work which included my pics to another person. So basically they put a bunch of text over my pics. Is it wrong that a person can make money off their work designing the flyers? no, but i do think it is wrong I wasnt asked about it and on top of that I was not compensated for it when the base of the flyer was my work. This is one of the many instances ive come across in the past few years that has lead up to me using watermarks.


Wtf? How is there so much hate for a guy taking incredible pictures and expecting to get recognition and or income from said photos?

Do you guys work for free?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


most people dont relate taking a picture with working since anyone can take a pic. Difference is the equipment used and the time in post process that is spent that people dont account for. its obvious you do get it, and guys like me are thankful that your out there.



So if someone took your cool flamed mail box from your yard you would be 100% OK with that too right? Because you put it out there for others to see that means its free game then for someone to grab it and use it as they sit fit? Correct?

i dont like getting into huge debates about this kinda stuff as ive winded myself many of times in the past on the subject. I appreciate the support and that some do understand the concept behind it. I did not get paid to shoot this event (in fact i paid to get in and paid extra for a wrist band to be out there just like every other person), only difference is i had a couple grand worth of photo equipment with me. I dont beg or push people to buy stuff from me ever. Would I like to sell a ton of pics? hell yeah, but I dont so the very few pics i do sell a year i greatly appreciate. Just like said above, no one works for free, hell I paid to "work" at this race which happens more often than not for me. I hear "its just a picture" a lot, and that it is. But it is my picture so I get to do with it as I please. If you want it to be your picture, there are 2 options. Pay the owner for it or invest a lot into equipment and more into time learning how to use it and take the pictures your self.

[-stew-]

My post was purely comical.

[Ricky Bobby]

awesome pics man seen some of the vids also on youtube looked like a good time, and they are ur propery do what u want with them.

[That_Guy]

My post was purely comical.
Agreed, I chuckled.

[Russ Jerome]

Before reading all this I was thinking the same thing while looking at first pix "these would probably look great less the banner". There realy isnt much sense in going thru the effort of taking high quality photos if your just going to wreck them while posting? My wife has pixs in nationbal magazines, nobody asked her, recent ads for yarn have my back yard, kind of a big pat on back for her hobbie she could certainly sell if she choosed too.

[srt4eh]

I understand the want to protect your "property" but maybe use/create a watermark that is a little less distracting. If it was my car and I was interested in purchasing the photo I wouldn't care but as someone who just wants to see what I missed from the event...it's irritating. Just my 2 cents

[Silver350]

Great photo's

Before I got into photography I thought the same as Eric. Until I posted a photo on the web later to find out that someone that I didn't know thanked me for the new background for their phone. Since then I have added Watermarks to all my images I have posted.

LOL @ J. I loved the mailbox reference.

Less distracting watermark you mean something that can easily be cropped from the image.

[srt4eh]

Great photo's

Before I got into photography I thought the same as Eric. Until I posted a photo on the web later to find out that someone that I didn't know thanked me for the new background for their phone. Since then I have added Watermarks to all my images I have posted.

LOL @ J. I loved the mailbox reference.

Less distracting watermark you mean something that can easily be cropped from the image.

No...I mean something that doesn't immediately draw my attention to it. The watermark caught my eye first on nearly every photo. And then...at what point is the watermark overboard? Is it necessary on a photo of some random guy laying on a car? Or a guy holding a camera?

[-stew-]

Great photo's

Before I got into photography I thought the same as Eric. Until I posted a photo on the web later to find out that someone that I didn't know thanked me for the new background for their phone. Since then I have added Watermarks to all my images I have posted.



Damn. Mufuckas takin food right off your plate. And no one can use that joke without paying me.


Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2

[Dom87SS]

No...I mean something that doesn't immediately draw my attention to it. The watermark caught my eye first on nearly every photo. And then...at what point is the watermark overboard? Is it necessary on a photo of some random guy laying on a car? Or a guy holding a camera?

random guy on car is me, guy holding camera is either john Fore from Drag Illustrated or boomer from GLD both buddies of mine. I batch process all my images so i open them up in groups of 20-40 and hit "play" where it adds my name, watermark, re-sizes, saves, and closes it then moves to the next image. it would take me far too long if for me to go through each image to do this plus it doesnt hurt me to have it on all my images. I do not do this for all of my pictures, i only do this when i know how the pictures will be treated, and that being in a negative way. I know not 1 person from that event was going to buy a pic from me, which i have no problem with. But i also know, nearly everyone in those pics would gladly copy that pic for their Facebook profiles, twitter pages, phones, or whatever else at the drop of a hat. Hell its only 10% opacity as well so, to me, its really not that distracting and there are more than a handful that you actually have to look for it to know it there. It hardly a problem for, but again that my opinion. I see pics with WM on them all the time and it has rarely ever bothered me to the point where i would say it was a issue.

[jakedrew]

My post was purely comical.

As are all of your other posts here.

Anyways, very nice pictures. Thanks for sharing. I didnt take notice to the watermark till someone complained about it. Chances are your camera is worth more then most our digital camera's combined.

[theavenger333]

no mas!

enjoy the pics. If you don't like them, or his choice to mark them, keep it to yourself. someone's always gotta shit in someone's cereal

[HITMAN]

Did you seek the permission of the cars owners to take their pictures? For as much money as you think you have in your camera equipment, those cars are far more expensive. If they thought the way you you do, Johnny Mercenary, they would easily get just as pissed at you for using their car's image to make money for yourself. If I'm posting those pics on a internet message board for free, then I have to expect that they're out their for anyones consumption. Now, if you only had them on your own business website and you received permission/paid royalties to the owners of the cars whose images you took, well then, by all means, watermark away.

[wrath]

The only photograph that is any semblance of good is the one of the red Cobra. The rest suck. Sure, they're better than no pictures but that's about it. The only reason anyone would pay you for those pictures is because everyone else took pictures with their idiotPhone. The incredibly blurry guy in the background of the thirdgen picture probably got a better picture.

You spent way too much time post-processing them. It's pretty clear because they literally all suck because the colors have gone myspace-ghetto-princess-trying-to-hide-her-double-chin.

I see a $500 camera. You probably have it hooked to some shitty Tamron lens. So, if you have a couple grand tied up in it then you must have a diamond pave bag you put your spare memory card in.

You probably sit there, all smugmug entrepreneur like, thinking someone should be paying you for your time and energy to take those pictures. It's because of people like you that structures have copyrights on them, so architects get paid for hosers like you that want to make money taking pictures of another person's work. I'm sure you never compensate anyone else for the fine specimens you take pictures of. It probably never even crossed your mind.

I also wouldn't be surprised if you illegally used software to manage and manipulate your photos (even if you are a student you can't use student-licensed software for business ventures). It doesn't really matter to me if you are, but going by your posts I'm sure you're a hypocrite. It doesn't really matter if you aren't because you already seem like a walking contradiction. It's about perception. Somebody who thinks their mediocre-on-a-good-day photographs need two watermarks is clearly nuts. I don't think even Domokun did that, and that guy was clearly nuts and took better pictures.

Lastly, someday, when you can afford a better setup maybe you can be a camera snob. However, since you clearly haven't learned the basics (like the rule of thirds) I doubt you will ever be able to be a camera snob even if you get out of the low-rent consumer equipment. The platinum blond soccer moms at Mike Crivello's would probably sneer at you if you showed up with your crappy equipment and crappy pictures. "Oh look Virginia, he has a camera that my 4 year old plays with in the sandbox and he has pictures that look like he took them with a Fujifilm disposable camera. Isn't it adorable?".

[Dom87SS]

Did you seek the permission of the cars owners to take their pictures? For as much money as you think you have in your camera equipment, those cars are far more expensive. If they thought the way you you do, Johnny Mercenary, they would easily get just as pissed at you for using their car's image to make money for yourself. If I'm posting those pics on a internet message board for free, then I have to expect that they're out their for anyones consumption. Now, if you only had them on your own business website and you received permission/paid royalties to the owners of the cars whose images you took, well then, by all means, watermark away.

if you are in a public place, such as a park or beach, you do not need anyone's permission to take a pic of them. And as the owner of the pic you can do with it as you please. Some people have fought this through the legal system, and it can get very touchy depending how the people were depicted, and the setting it was in. But the majority of the time it comes back down to being in a public venue and if it not illegal to be taking pics there. Now in the case like the track, which is a private venue its a different case. If the owner of the venue allows you to come in and freely photograph the grounds, and you are there by your own will then its basically the same as being out in public.

Does every photographer at a packers/brewers/bucks/badgers game ask each player if they have permission to sell that photo they took that day? Do they also ask the thousands of fans in the background of the shots, or fans that are the subject of the shot? No they do not, and do you know why? Because they don't have to since they are the owner of the photo, its on private grounds, and they are being allowed by the owners of the grounds to do so. Same difference as being a photog for the NHRA, or ADRL, or anything else.

[Dom87SS]

The only photograph that is any semblance of good is the one of the red Cobra. The rest suck. Sure, they're better than no pictures but that's about it. The only reason anyone would pay you for those pictures is because everyone else took pictures with their idiotPhone. The incredibly blurry guy in the background of the thirdgen picture probably got a better picture.

Wow, I dont know where all your hate and anger stems from here but thanks for the personal attacks. I dont think Ive been anything but civil to the other members in the conversation had, but to each his own. So i guess ill start at the top to try to address this post the same way. The only good pic being 1 and the rest suck is your personal opinion so i dont have much to say there. As for anyone wanting to buy a pic im assuming your thinking from a photography stand point, because I myself would also never buy any of these pics for that reason. But for the people that are the subject of the pics, there is a difference. Its a visual reminder of an event they were in and want to hold on to that memory.



You spent way too much time post-processing them. It's pretty clear because they literally all suck because the colors have gone myspace-ghetto-princess-trying-to-hide-her-double-chin.

I dont have much time in editing there, especially in color or saturation. The rain clouds and and bright sun behind then provided me with the top of the cars being covered in highlights if exposed properly or made the lower half of the pic extremely dark if you tried to compensate for the horrible blown out hoods/windshield/roof areas. On top of that I forgot my CPL so i couldnt do much about it till post process. which is where the majority of the little time was spent to just reduce the highlights some and take up the shadows a little. other than checking white balance and then sharpening they then were batch processed for the watermark and save. So maybe my monitor is jacked up or yours is but i dont see a ton of funky out of the ordinary overly saturated heavily contrasted pics.



I see a $500 camera. You probably have it hooked to some shitty Tamron lens. So, if you have a couple grand tied up in it then you must have a diamond pave bag you put your spare memory card in.

You see a $500 camera, but dont even know what i was shooting with. I could hand my mom a $50,000 camera, that doesn't mean the picture will be any good so i don't see any point to this statement. The gear is only as good as the person behind it and Ive never once claimed I was a pro, better than anyone, or sat on any high horse regarding the subject. As for the lens, Tamron does make some decent glass but i do not own any.



You probably sit there, all smugmug entrepreneur like, thinking someone should be paying you for your time and energy to take those pictures. It's because of people like you that structures have copyrights on them, so architects get paid for hosers like you that want to make money taking pictures of another person's work. I'm sure you never compensate anyone else for the fine specimens you take pictures of. It probably never even crossed your mind.

Im not really sure what "sit there, all smugmug entrepreneur like" means. But I do agree that if someone wants property owned by myself, I should be able to say ok here you go or ok that will be $XX. And your right i never think about paying the people who are the subject of the picture, because I don't have to.



I also wouldn't be surprised if you illegally used software to manage and manipulate your photos (even if you are a student you can't use student-licensed software for business ventures). It doesn't really matter to me if you are, but going by your posts I'm sure you're a hypocrite. It doesn't really matter if you aren't because you already seem like a walking contradiction. It's about perception. Somebody who thinks their mediocre-on-a-good-day photographs need two watermarks is clearly nuts. I don't think even Domokun did that, and that guy was clearly nuts and took better pictures.

I guess get ready to be surprised then because I bought the software's i have after the trail was up. I dont know what posts i have that give the impression im a hypocrite, but as for this thread in particular i think ive had the same view the whole time. So i dont know what you perceive me to be other than a amateur photographer, but that goes along the lines of personal opinion so i dont have much to say on it. I dont know who Domokun is or what he does, but im sure there are again people in their opinion love his stuff and people who absolutely hate it.



Lastly, someday, when you can afford a better setup maybe you can be a camera snob. However, since you clearly haven't learned the basics (like the rule of thirds) I doubt you will ever be able to be a camera snob even if you get out of the low-rent consumer equipment. The platinum blond soccer moms at would probably sneer at you if you showed up with your crappy equipment and crappy pictures. "Oh look Virginia, he has a camera that my 4 year old plays with in the sandbox and he has pictures that look like he took them with a Fujifilm disposable camera. Isn't it adorable?".

Again not knowing what i have makes this kinda an oddball statement as the equipment anyone has doesn't automatically make them a better photographer or give you the automatic right to be a snob. If you actually knew me you would think 180* of this as i am the furthest thing from a snob, let a lone a camera snob. I dont claim to know it all and never will because its a ever evolving thing for myself. If you had looked at previous threads of mine in this section, you would see i dont always use the center watermark on them. I generally only do it for races for reasons Ive explained already in this thread. I dont know how involved you are in photography but when was the last time you picked up a magazine like RPM, Drag Illustrated, Hot Rod, or Car Craft magazine and see action pictures of cars that had a focal point that was not almost completely on center of the pic? It doesnt happen. Heck, even the static shots of cars that the magazines do 90% of the time are dead center. If they are not its usually because the center was on the car when they took it and they cropped it to be off center so they can add text to it. If you look back at the pics, most of them have a focal area near the center but not usually dead on center. The pics have the subject slightly off center which would fall into that rule of thirds composition. Also the rule of thirds is usually one of the last things anyone shooting drag racing is thinking of while clicking off an image as your panning across track. Again back to equipment, i dont have top notch gear but it also isnt bargain basement items i picked up at salvation army last week. If anything all i get from this is you have undermined everything i did in a way that has portrayed you as the person you have described here. A photo snob who is doing nothing but attacking other people with no evidence of truth behind what you have said. And im the hypocrite....I guess this is where i say thank you for your highly opinionated "constructive" criticism with no technical explanation of my pics.


I do have one question though for you. If the root of all the backlash is over the low opacity centered watermark, If it was removed would you feel the same way about the pictures?

Personally I feel you would, which then presents a whole different situation because all the pointless ranting and raving mumbo jumbo over it has no weight on the fact that you didnt like the pics from the start. So removing the watermark, again the subject that got this started, would not do me any good in getting you to like them any more because they "suck". And if you say No all this came from your hate of a watermark, then I don't think you have any ground to stand on when calling someone out as being the crazy one here.

[Irish]

Ugh... This thread turned into something annoying...

Hopefully one of the many mods will clean it up.

[wrath]

Wow, I dont know where all your hate and anger stems from here but thanks for the personal attacks. I dont think Ive been anything but civil to the other members in the conversation had, but to each his own. So i guess ill start at the top to try to address this post the same way. The only good pic being 1 and the rest suck is your personal opinion so i dont have much to say there. As for anyone wanting to buy a pic im assuming your thinking from a photography stand point, because I myself would also never buy any of these pics for that reason. But for the people that are the subject of the pics, there is a difference. Its a visual reminder of an event they were in and want to hold on to that memory.

It's not hate, it's honesty. They aren't good pictures. They're pictures that someone with a point and shoot could manage. It's nice of you to share pictures of the race but you asked for opinions.


I dont have much time in editing there, especially in color or saturation. The rain clouds and and bright sun behind then provided me with the top of the cars being covered in highlights if exposed properly or made the lower half of the pic extremely dark if you tried to compensate for the horrible blown out hoods/windshield/roof areas. On top of that I forgot my CPL so i couldnt do much about it till post process. which is where the majority of the little time was spent to just reduce the highlights some and take up the shadows a little. other than checking white balance and then sharpening they then were batch processed for the watermark and save. So maybe my monitor is jacked up or yours is but i dont see a ton of funky out of the ordinary overly saturated heavily contrasted pics.

Yes, a filter would have solved a lot of those problems. Any filter. A B+W makes nice Kaesemann MRC coated slim circular polarized filters. They're expensive. But if you buy slim ones and adapters you really only need a couple.


You see a $500 camera, but dont even know what i was shooting with. I could hand my mom a $50,000 camera, that doesn't mean the picture will be any good so i don't see any point to this statement. The gear is only as good as the person behind it and Ive never once claimed I was a pro, better than anyone, or sat on any high horse regarding the subject. As for the lens, Tamron does make some decent glass but i do not own any.

It's a 50d according to the EXIF data. Which is a $500 body on craigslist. Even an expert can't take great pictures with subpar camera and glass. I've never seen a professional use Tamron glass.


Im not really sure what "sit there, all smugmug entrepreneur like" means. But I do agree that if someone wants property owned by myself, I should be able to say ok here you go or ok that will be $XX. And your right i never think about paying the people who are the subject of the picture, because I don't have to.

That's pretty amusing.


I guess get ready to be surprised then because I bought the software's i have after the trail was up. I dont know what posts i have that give the impression im a hypocrite, but as for this thread in particular i think ive had the same view the whole time. So i dont know what you perceive me to be other than a amateur photographer, but that goes along the lines of personal opinion so i dont have much to say on it. I dont know who Domokun is or what he does, but im sure there are again people in their opinion love his stuff and people who absolutely hate it.

You take mediocre pictures with mediocre equipment and are trying to make money off it by selling pictures of other people's stuff. What you have there are not works of art. I bet you use news aggregate sites because you don't like ads. You are stealing from journalists when you do that because you aren't compensating them for their work through ad impressions.


Again not knowing what i have makes this kinda an oddball statement as the equipment anyone has doesn't automatically make them a better photographer or give you the automatic right to be a snob. If you actually knew me you would think 180* of this as i am the furthest thing from a snob, let a lone a camera snob. I dont claim to know it all and never will because its a ever evolving thing for myself. If you had looked at previous threads of mine in this section, you would see i dont always use the center watermark on them. I generally only do it for races for reasons Ive explained already in this thread. I dont know how involved you are in photography but when was the last time you picked up a magazine like RPM, Drag Illustrated, Hot Rod, or Car Craft magazine and see action pictures of cars that had a focal point that was not almost completely on center of the pic? It doesnt happen. Heck, even the static shots of cars that the magazines do 90% of the time are dead center. If they are not its usually because the center was on the car when they took it and they cropped it to be off center so they can add text to it. If you look back at the pics, most of them have a focal area near the center but not usually dead on center. The pics have the subject slightly off center which would fall into that rule of thirds composition. Also the rule of thirds is usually one of the last things anyone shooting drag racing is thinking of while clicking off an image as your panning across track. Again back to equipment, i dont have top notch gear but it also isnt bargain basement items i picked up at salvation army last week. If anything all i get from this is you have undermined everything i did in a way that has portrayed you as the person you have described here. A photo snob who is doing nothing but attacking other people with no evidence of truth behind what you have said. And im the hypocrite....I guess this is where i say thank you for your highly opinionated "constructive" criticism with no technical explanation of my pics.

You came on here with two watermarks on mediocre pictures. Mediocre being nice. You'd be better off reducing the size of the one in the corner and getting rid of the one in the middle if you want to be "known" and have people look for your images. If someone is actually going to buy it, they will want a high resolution image without the crap in the corner. If someone is going to steal it, they're going to steal it. I could steal it and I'm not even good at it, even with the centered watermark.

Car and sports magazines have centered pictures because printing is expensive. And most people that browse through those magazines don't know a good picture when they see one. If you look in National Geographic, it's entirely different. You have Intarnet Picatures, there is no ink. Let someone else do the cropping if you just want to show four tires and scratched paint.

I don't need to explain to you why those pictures aren't very good, you already know they're not very good.


I do have one question though for you. If the root of all the backlash is over the low opacity centered watermark, If it was removed would you feel the same way about the pictures?

Personally I feel you would, which then presents a whole different situation because all the pointless ranting and raving mumbo jumbo over it has no weight on the fact that you didnt like the pics from the start. So removing the watermark, again the subject that got this started, would not do me any good in getting you to like them any more because they "suck". And if you say No all this came from your hate of a watermark, then I don't think you have any ground to stand on when calling someone out as being the crazy one here.

I wouldn't care, especially if you didn't ask for an opinion. However, in the first paragraph of your first post you did ask for an opinion. Yes, it's nice of you to take pictures of the event and to share with us. The pictures aren't very good though.

I don't know much about cameras or photography. However, I have learned a fair amount by being in proximity to my spouse who is fairly good at it. For her, it comes natural. I have to work at it. I don't care that much though, I'm fine with our crappy 7d pointing in the general direction with a decent lens. Learning how to use a crappy camera to take decent pictures does make it easy to take good pictures with a better camera. Much the same way that if you learn how to weld with a crappy 110 70amp mig welder then stepping up to a 185 Handler makes welding easy. This is of course, as opposed to starting out with an awesome camera/welder and then using an even more awesome camera/welder later.

This guy has a ton of information, and good non-jerk reviews (dpreview is full of snobs):
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/

[Dom87SS]

well at least this post was a little more rational than the last.



It's not hate, it's honesty. They aren't good pictures. They're pictures that someone with a point and shoot could manage. It's nice of you to share pictures of the race but you asked for opinions.

that i did. Its usually followed by i dont like this or that (like the watermark) instead of they all suck but 1 pic. I guess to me its like saying I hate all beers except this one, and when asked why Id say because they suck. No real reason there, just personal vague opinion on what your taste likes.



Yes, a filter would have solved a lot of those problems. Any filter. A B+W makes nice Kaesemann MRC coated slim circular polarized filters. They're expensive. But if you buy slim ones and adapters you really only need a couple.

something we agree on, shocking. As said i have filters just forgot to pack them in that bag.



It's a 50d according to the EXIF data. Which is a $500 body on craigslist. Even an expert can't take great pictures with subpar camera and glass. I've never seen a professional use Tamron glass.

So pro-sumer bodies cant be used to take professional type pictures? News to me seeing as nearly everyone i know who shoots has a crop body. Even if they have a full frame most will still have and use a crop body. The 2 year old 50D i have is still well above what most have to shoot with and from what i can tell a bit better than my old sony cybershot. And while you can get a body only used for that price, i still have a grip, good CF card, decent glass attached it to, and had i not forgotten them a decent filter set on the end. So is it a $500 body only, maybe, but as for what I have into the setup its far beyond that. If you know how to pull EXIF data you would have also seen what lens i was using so i dont know where the Tamron thing came from. Again I dont have any Tamron glass, its all Canon glass in my bag.



That's pretty amusing.

truth is not an assumption.



You take mediocre pictures with mediocre equipment and are trying to make money off it by selling pictures of other people's stuff. What you have there are not works of art. I bet you use news aggregate sites because you don't like ads. You are stealing from journalists when you do that because you aren't compensating them for their work through ad impressions.

I've never claimed to be a pro, so i guess im fine with people thinking my pics are under pro spec and not works of art. I also do not have anything in here trying to push sales, price lists, or anything along those lines. In fact i dont even have anything saying these pics are even for sale. If people only sold pics of "stuff" they owned there would be no profession known as photographer. Im far from taking food out of anyone's mouth with with as you said my mediocre work. Photo journalists and freelance photographers are 2 very different things. Photo journalists have already been hired on and paid to document something. If they get 5 or 500 good shots to turn in is up to them, they get paid the same for the coverage as long as they meet contractual guidelines. They do not make their earnings on selling pics after the fact unless they are allowed to sell to other sources like newspapers, etc. They also are taking pics of other people and people stuff to sell to a publication or web site, so what makes that ok and this not? Is it because they are professionals with professional gear hired by someone who knows point n shoot pics will not due for them? There is no one person that was hired to cover this event, and i spoke with the organizers to make sure that i was allowed to take pics of the event and use them online or for sales if it were to happen.



You came on here with two watermarks on mediocre pictures. Mediocre being nice. You'd be better off reducing the size of the one in the corner and getting rid of the one in the middle if you want to be "known" and have people look for your images. If someone is actually going to buy it, they will want a high resolution image without the crap in the corner. If someone is going to steal it, they're going to steal it. I could steal it and I'm not even good at it, even with the centered watermark.

you honestly dont think i wouldnt have a full res copy of each picture saved without watermarks do you? I would never sell a watermarked low res web image to someone. As for my name in the corner, if it is event coverage it usually stays on the pic. If it was pictures of people or was a portrait type automotive shoot it would be void of any marks. I know people will take pics regardless, which is the whole point of the WM, i thought that was established. I dont put that stuff on there because i think it makes it look better. Its to deter people from coping a low res web sized image and print a 8x10 for themselves at walgreens or blow it up for whatever other reason.



Car and sports magazines have centered pictures because printing is expensive. And most people that browse through those magazines don't know a good picture when they see one. If you look in National Geographic, it's entirely different. You have Intarnet Picatures, there is no ink. Let someone else do the cropping if you just want to show four tires and scratched paint.

i dont know if you noticed or not, but these arent shot for national geographic or are nature shots. A guy wanting a pic of his car doesnt generally want the picture to be composed in a way where 80% of the picture has people/garbage/other cars in it and his car is in off to the side of the picture. It doesnt cost a magazine any more or less money to print a portrait picture that is centered or has the thirds applied to it. Im talking a picture with zero text on it. If the car is all the way to the left of pic and its a 4x6 picture, or if its centered and its a 4x6 picture it will cost the same every time. Plus any and every car and sport mags frequently place text across the actual subject on the covers and throughout the articles. So the printing cost statement makes no sense, at least to me it doesnt.



I don't need to explain to you why those pictures aren't very good, you already know they're not very good.

Personal opinion again. If i really thought they were as horrible as being described i would not have shared them here or anywhere else.



I wouldn't care, especially if you didn't ask for an opinion. However, in the first paragraph of your first post you did ask for an opinion. Yes, it's nice of you to take pictures of the event and to share with us. The pictures aren't very good though.

this goes along with the above statement.


I don't know much about cameras or photography. However, I have learned a fair amount by being in proximity to my spouse who is fairly good at it. For her, it comes natural. I have to work at it. I don't care that much though, I'm fine with our crappy 7d pointing in the general direction with a decent lens. Learning how to use a crappy camera to take decent pictures does make it easy to take good pictures with a better camera. Much the same way that if you learn how to weld with a crappy 110 70amp mig welder then stepping up to a 185 Handler makes welding easy. This is of course, as opposed to starting out with an awesome camera/welder and then using an even more awesome camera/welder later.

So your not a pro photographer but know someone who takes pics, sounds like the story of my life right there. I can be fairly certain if I were to see your spouses pics and just tell her they suck and reason being is because you know they suck she probably wouldnt take that all too well. She may brush it off, but guaranteed to think im a dick for doing so and that I wouldn't know what I was talking about anyway. Im guessing your down playing the ability of the 7D just because its a crop sensor high end pro-sumer body and she probably shoots with a Full frame on the regular. When in reality the 7D is a very nice body, and will be next body I get for myself. I never said learning the ropes with average gear cant lead to perfecting with pro gear. But simply saying pro-sumer gear cant hold a candle to pro gear in a environment like drag racing (which is what i mainly shoot) is more than far fetched. I said just because you have expensive gear doesnt mean you can shoot anything good with it. I can buy a canon 5D (full frame pro body) used for $800 or less does that make it sub-par because its not the newest of the newest technology? Because its a $200-300 bucks more than my junk equipment it surely cant be any good, but it was used by many professionals for years till new bodies came out. Just like whatever your spouse shoots with now, it will too be a dinosaur unit in 5 years. Does that not make it a good camera today in whatever she is shooting? Not one bit, because you obviously think highly of her pictures. Are you going to look back in a few years and say ya know hunny, those pics from 2012 were really garbage and I cant believe you got those shots off with that $1000 camera.

[loud91rs]

Wow...ok so here's how I see it. I have a $500 camera, and I still use the lens that came with it (nikon d60). When I go to the grove to spectate, I don't feel like lugging around a camera to take pictures (I really enjoy looking at pictures of cool cars, and can do it all day...ask my wife) so I appreciate it when somebody else takes the time to do it. I consider it an art.

That being said, and I don't want to offend anybody here, but really, this is a CAR WEBSITE. We are all here to talk about, and see car stuff (as well as some other stuff thrown in here and there). If this were a photography website, then critique his work up and down, tear it apart, whatever, but it's not. Don't piss the guy off and have him stop taking these pictures for everybody who doesn't give a shit about a watermark being there.

Dom87ss, as a owner of a car that goes to the grove, I would love to see what kind of shots you could take of me if I am ever there when you are. Post them, and do whatever YOU want with them. (I am sure many other racers feel the same way...) If I see something I like, I wouldn't hesitate to PM you and find out if I could have a copy of it, and obviously compensate you for your time. (Just like any of us would have to do with Boomer...) I cannot be taking pictures of my car, and racing at the same time...so thank you to all of you who take pictures at events. Even those of you with a little point and shoot. You are doing something I don't take the time to do.

[Dom87SS]

Appreciate it man. I don't mind people not liking my pics, people have their opinion whats ok good or great. I'm one of my biggest critics and don't like most pics I take. But do appreciate compliments and constructive criticism alike.

[UnderPSI]

I think its funny the mustang in the first picture still has the sticker on his rear tire. You would think he would want to peel that off before the race. Doing a burnout with the sticker embeds a bunch of small sticker pieces all over the tire. I suppose though, he is driving a mustang, can't be that fast anyway...

[theavenger333]

i closed this shit once. not sure who or why it was reopened