HOME | DD
hougaard — Iconic
Published: 2009-05-24 10:52:40 +0000 UTC; Views: 14052; Favourites: 937; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
The most photographed landscape in S.A. The view of table mountain from Bloubergstrand. I thought I would go get some stock shots yesterday and the sky did this...5D mk II
16-35mm @ 21mm
F16
1.6s
Lee 0.9 soft grad nd
I thought I would treat my supporters with a 900px resolution which I rarely do, but unluckily the 3 watermarks. This is like a suitcase filled with gold for image thieves in the local media.
All rights reserved. this may not be used or repoduced in any way
Related content
Comments: 163
I've seen some pretty intense resampling algorithms, but I doubt image thieves could derive anything useful even from this size. Some small prints maybe, but that sort of theft is inevitable for every photographer and I'm not sure it would really affect you from a business standpoint.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Lovely work, fantastic sky (never seen one like that in my entire life)
And the watermarks don't detract in any way...I can't believe people make such a fuss about them
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You can always rely on the unwritten laws of deviantart to create a non-understanding whirlwind about the necessity of watermarks. Whether they're easy to remove or not, they are still a preventative measure of some form...
We both live in mediterranean regions so we don't see these kind of skies. A warm, windless day in the start of the rain season resulted in this...but this weather sure doesn't belong in South Africas Western Cape.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Man those watermarks are beautiful. Truly make the picture mate.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Hey, you can see my house on in the photo. 
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Very nice work.
Oh, and btw, not to keep you paranoid, but the watermarks are really easy to take out. What a world we live in eh?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
yip, but the 3 will scare off most people into searching for another shot without the watermarks
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I love the mix of red and purple, it's so fantastic.....
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Great scene with an amazing sky! I don't mind the watermarks it's about the image so
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
for someone like myself, it might take 1min or so to get these watermarks removed and you wouldn't even know that they were there.
watermarks kill an image but if you're going to do it, at least do it in a way to discourage, where the effort to get rid of them is much more difficult.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The watermarks just being there will encourage most thieves to look for another image without them
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
not most thieves, just some.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Stunningly beautiful! Wonderful colours and lovely silky water. Amazing work!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Can't add this to favorites because of badly placed watermarks, sorry.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No, You placed the watermark on your main motive, it draws attention and distracts the view. The one in the left corner is fine, although photography doesn't really need watermarks in my honest opinion.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"although photography doesn't really need watermarks in my honest opinion."
Explain?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
What is the point of watermarks? It will protect your photography from being stolen to some extent, but for that you are paying the price of making your photos less appealing and usually removing huge parts of impact (much like your photo, which without the watermark in the middle is fantastic). In my opinion, I would rather have my photo stolen, but keep it clean of distracting marks. Another point of a mark is to let people know its your photo, in case they find it on some internet corner and wonder who the photographer is - but then you put your name on the edge, so it doesn't stand in the way. It's like the protection stuff put on computer games and music - it makes the honest consumer of it pay, through the fault of those who misuse it.
And in the end, you lose nothing you didn't have otherwise by not having a watermark and eventually having your photo stolen.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well I have to say that I disagree with you and I will keep using the watermarks that I do
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Your loss. And other's loss as well, who don't reach the impact of your photo as it should have been.
We agree to disagree then
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
because some people have not been in the situation where their photos are used illegally on the web and even in print.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I have, and I don't give a damn
As I said - you are not losing anything out on someone trying to steal from you. It's not like a stolen photo means that you if it wasn't stolen, you would have gained money from it. On the other hand, you are losing the impact of your photo as it is now.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I honestly don't know what you are on about with the watermarking. The ones you are using are a bit distracting but why would someone want to edit them out when they can just buy the image from a stock site for 25 cents and use it in any case???
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
The colours are seriously stunning, and it really makes the scene unforgettable! :3
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
because i want to buy a wide angle for my 5D mark II and I can't choose between the 16-35 Mark I or II and the 17-40. Have you any advice ? (In fact, I have all filters for a 77mm...).
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
why not 16-35, if you can afford it - many people consider it to be at lest as sharp as primes, and f/2.8 cannot be a bad point)))
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
yes it's true but btw the mark I and II, is there a big difference ?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Sharpness and CA is worse, but of course it will be a very small difference...and the 77mm vs 82mm filter thread
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
so all in all, what would you do at my place ?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
hmmm....Well the mk II and a new ring adapter, nd400 and polarizer will cost you about $1000 more than just buying the mk i...so it comes down to $1000?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
in europe, it's more expensive :s
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
lol 
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
The filters is the only big problem, but when I got my 5D II the first thing about the camera that hit me was that the sharpness from the 17-40mm was substantially lower than it was on the old 5D. I had a 24mm f/1.4 for 3 weeks and then I got a 16-35mm II at about half price, did some tests, saw the zoom was better than the prime and sold the 24mm. So...get the 16-35mm, you won't regret it.What filters do you have that you would have to upgrade to 82mm?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
a hoya ND400, my cokin Z-Pro GND121 and ND124.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
ah okay the nd400 will be expensive
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Great. Those watermarks are so gentle that could be removed in photoshop with no problem. I don't know if it will stop art thieves.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
The 2 in the corners are easily removable, but the one on the mountain should stop most people.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
)))) the one on the moutain is the second easiest here - it has monotone background
anyway i really like that even deeply concerned about robbery you still upload well-sized pics with gently and unobtusively placed copirights, unlike those awfull dA watermarks, ruining the whole image
keep up!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thanks for that
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I have the same problem. I used watermarks but people hate me for this. I don't know which method is correct
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
<= Prev | | Next =>