To launch the page, here's a panoramic photo I took earlier this year of the Tantalus mountain range, from the Tantalus Lookout on the Sea to Sky Highway, between Squamish and Whistler.
This was an excellent night for star photography, and although the Milky Way was mostly out of shot to the north, with just the faint beginnings visible on the right of the photo, the Beehive Cluster, part of the constellation Cancer, was clearly visible above the mountain range.
To the left of the shot, the bright lights of Squamish can be seen, lighting up the sky, and also being reflected from the snow on the mountains. The two red lights on the right of the photo are from a cell tower located on a ridge between the viewpoint and the mountain range.
This is a four-photograph blended panorama with the star shots taken at f/2.8, ISO 4000, 25 seconds, and the ground shots taken at f/2.8, ISO 800, 5 minutes.
I'm a British software developer and photographer living in Vancouver, BC. I mainly photograph landscapes, cityscapes, night scenes, and water.
If you're interested in any...
@humphreyhippo It's all part of a general effort I'm making to give my photography a more business-like appearance. While I'm not personally a huge fan of watermarks, there is definite value in giving my work a 'brand', which with it being shared more and more is a valuable way to raise awareness -- a consistent logo on the photo itself that people keep seeing will make them realise that this is the same photographer's work they keep seeing in different places (so hey, let's go see if he sells prints!), far more than a small name credit at the bottom of a blog or Facebook post will. (This can be seen by the number of people who ask on Facebook where a photo was taken, despite that information being in the text associated with the photo!)
This can also be reinforced by me posting comments on Facebook (where a lot of my work is shared) under the name of Alexis Birkill Photography, rather than as an individual. Additionally, while I do allow people to follow my individual Facebook profile, my impression is that people are more willing to follow a photography-specific page, rather than a profile where they might be subjected to what I had for lunch that day or the rapid recession of my hairline, even though I don't personally share things like that.
I've tried to make the watermark fairly inconspicuous so that it doesn't drag attention too much from the actual photo -- of course, opinions will differ as to how successful I've been!
I'm also working on launching a proper website and blog (rather than my current website, which just links to other places to see/buy my work). The aim of the website is not only to provide a more consistent and professional appearance to anyone searching for me, but also to allow me to start to rank for search keywords unrelated to my name in search engines (the ideal goal being that search terms like 'vancouver skyline canvas' will bring my website up on the first page -- where currently it's nowhere).
I'll also be using the blog to feature some of the guides, advice and how-tos that I share in my photo descriptions and discussion posts here. This is again with the aim of getting my name known wider in the photographic community, with the benefits in publicity and SEO that this can bring. I'm not expecting to end up being the new Trey Ratcliff or anything, but at the moment I'm not capitalising on the knowledge I have and share (and that people seem to appreciate) in a way that has any realistic way of resulting in more sales.
Of course, this kind of work is targeted at the 'client' audience, rather than the 'photographer' audience. Understandably, the vast majority of people on this site fall squarely into the second category -- I'm not expecting many people here to buy prints, in the same way that I don't typically buy prints from other photographers -- I have more of my own work I would like to display than I have wall space to display it! I'll try and make the transition as unnoticeable as possible for people on this site (my photographer audience), but there will be small changes visible, such as the watermarking, which I hope people will put up with. I'll also probably be linking to blog posts in some of my descriptions (once I get my blog up and running), but I'll always aim to make sure that I only link to posts that are relevant to the photo, and that I think would be interesting to an audience of photographers.
@abirkill Spooky. I said to Ant this morning you should do some training videos & get picked up by Kelby or Adorama.
Did you see Matt Kloskowski's article about watermarks?
@humphreyhippo I'm not sure, which one did you have in mind? I read quite a lot on watermarking and the pros and cons, there's definitely an argument that if you develop a sufficient 'style', people should be able to recognise your work without one. I'm just not sure that necessarily translates beyond other photographers (and I'm certainly not claiming I have that level of recognition, either!)
@humphreyhippo OK -- I thought that's what you were referring to, but I wasn't sure if you were saying the watermark was ugly ;)
In terms of any 'copy protection', as you say, there's virtually no value at all -- I've not seen a watermark that wasn't easily removable that hasn't totally ruined the image. In my case I plan for them always to be in the corners and always in the least 'interesting' corner, so they would be very easy to remove by someone even slightly determined -- in the case of this photo, it could probably be very acceptably removed in MS Paint with a black brush!
In terms of the watermark design (I'd like to call it a logo, but I think that would be a considerable stretch!), I'm not a big fan of it -- I didn't mind it when I designed it last week, but I'm already going off it ;) I'd like to be able to pay a semi-decent graphic designer $300 to do a real (but discreet) logo, but that's not a sensible investment to make at the moment -- this watermark is at least (I hope) relatively unobjectionable, even if it doesn't look amazing.
@abirkill As watermarks go, it's fine. ;)
My two 'favourite' watermarks - if I have such a thing - are probably Lisa's - http://365project.org/psychographer/365 - which is so discreet that last time this came up on the forum I had to go check she had one as I don't even 'see' it any more.
And Adrian Court's - http://www.flickr.com/photos/adriancourt/ - I think the dial idea is clever - not the ribbon part so much.
I must admit - I did laugh when I saw it, mainly because I normally see "xx xx Photography" plastered across some really horrible pictures. It's quite nice to see a proper photographer 'taking it back'. :)
This can also be reinforced by me posting comments on Facebook (where a lot of my work is shared) under the name of Alexis Birkill Photography, rather than as an individual. Additionally, while I do allow people to follow my individual Facebook profile, my impression is that people are more willing to follow a photography-specific page, rather than a profile where they might be subjected to what I had for lunch that day or the rapid recession of my hairline, even though I don't personally share things like that.
I've tried to make the watermark fairly inconspicuous so that it doesn't drag attention too much from the actual photo -- of course, opinions will differ as to how successful I've been!
I'm also working on launching a proper website and blog (rather than my current website, which just links to other places to see/buy my work). The aim of the website is not only to provide a more consistent and professional appearance to anyone searching for me, but also to allow me to start to rank for search keywords unrelated to my name in search engines (the ideal goal being that search terms like 'vancouver skyline canvas' will bring my website up on the first page -- where currently it's nowhere).
I'll also be using the blog to feature some of the guides, advice and how-tos that I share in my photo descriptions and discussion posts here. This is again with the aim of getting my name known wider in the photographic community, with the benefits in publicity and SEO that this can bring. I'm not expecting to end up being the new Trey Ratcliff or anything, but at the moment I'm not capitalising on the knowledge I have and share (and that people seem to appreciate) in a way that has any realistic way of resulting in more sales.
Of course, this kind of work is targeted at the 'client' audience, rather than the 'photographer' audience. Understandably, the vast majority of people on this site fall squarely into the second category -- I'm not expecting many people here to buy prints, in the same way that I don't typically buy prints from other photographers -- I have more of my own work I would like to display than I have wall space to display it! I'll try and make the transition as unnoticeable as possible for people on this site (my photographer audience), but there will be small changes visible, such as the watermarking, which I hope people will put up with. I'll also probably be linking to blog posts in some of my descriptions (once I get my blog up and running), but I'll always aim to make sure that I only link to posts that are relevant to the photo, and that I think would be interesting to an audience of photographers.
Did you see Matt Kloskowski's article about watermarks?
He's basically making the same point as you - use them for branding not a misguided belief they protect you from misuse.
In terms of any 'copy protection', as you say, there's virtually no value at all -- I've not seen a watermark that wasn't easily removable that hasn't totally ruined the image. In my case I plan for them always to be in the corners and always in the least 'interesting' corner, so they would be very easy to remove by someone even slightly determined -- in the case of this photo, it could probably be very acceptably removed in MS Paint with a black brush!
In terms of the watermark design (I'd like to call it a logo, but I think that would be a considerable stretch!), I'm not a big fan of it -- I didn't mind it when I designed it last week, but I'm already going off it ;) I'd like to be able to pay a semi-decent graphic designer $300 to do a real (but discreet) logo, but that's not a sensible investment to make at the moment -- this watermark is at least (I hope) relatively unobjectionable, even if it doesn't look amazing.
My two 'favourite' watermarks - if I have such a thing - are probably Lisa's - http://365project.org/psychographer/365 - which is so discreet that last time this came up on the forum I had to go check she had one as I don't even 'see' it any more.
And Adrian Court's - http://www.flickr.com/photos/adriancourt/ - I think the dial idea is clever - not the ribbon part so much.
I must admit - I did laugh when I saw it, mainly because I normally see "xx xx Photography" plastered across some really horrible pictures. It's quite nice to see a proper photographer 'taking it back'. :)