# Shrimp PIX with my new watermark!



## wicca27 (May 3, 2009)

all i can say about the first one is WWWOOOOWWW
its a shame you have to do it but really i dont notice it in the pics. its a shame people take with out asking


----------



## CatB (Jan 29, 2012)

yeah, it's not bad! not too intrusive, but not where it makes people able to crop it out or anything. plus, i like the font xD.


----------



## speedie408 (Jan 15, 2009)

Thanks guys!

I just found another person on Ebay using my Blue Tiger group shot to sell his shrimp, yesterday. I keep finding these on accident only so who knows how many of my pics are floating out there being used the same way. :/


----------



## pejerrey (Dec 5, 2011)

Good move man! Looks great! 

That Also gets some respect and recognition to your talent as a photographer!

...Im sorry that happened to you, there is nothing left but to have compassion for such lame people. Although compassion should not be confused with tolerance.


----------



## HiepSTA (Aug 23, 2011)

amazing photo of those eggs!!!!
its so awesome that you can see the little red pigments through the eggs. 

i once had a CRS with eggs die, when i pulled the eggs out of her body to try and save them, i could see through a magnifying glass which egg was gonna be a CRS and which egg was gonna be a CBS because you can see the red or black pigments through the clear egg "shell"


----------



## Bananariot (Feb 28, 2012)

Nice pics a shame you have to watermark, I sometimes save your pictures off the site for my own viewing pleasure....hehe xD

But you gotta do what you gotta do


----------



## HiepSTA (Aug 23, 2011)

^ he riots on his banana to your pictures speedie


----------



## aznartist34 (Nov 19, 2010)

Great macro shots speedie. For the pics that people are using without your permission try changing the image to something ridiculous but keep the same image location. Some of those sellers are so lazy that they don't even copy your image and rehost it.


----------



## akdylpickles (Feb 21, 2011)

Wow that really sucks that people are taking your pics  
Btw what camera/lens fI you use?


----------



## speedie408 (Jan 15, 2009)

pejerrey said:


> Good move man! Looks great!
> 
> That Also gets some respect and recognition to your talent as a photographer!
> 
> ...Im sorry that happened to you, there is nothing left but to have compassion for such lame people. Although compassion should not be confused with tolerance.


Thanks Carlos. Lame indeed. I've tolerated this problem long enough. 



HiepSTA said:


> amazing photo of those eggs!!!!
> its so awesome that you can see the little red pigments through the eggs.
> 
> i once had a CRS with eggs die, when i pulled the eggs out of her body to try and save them, i could see through a magnifying glass which egg was gonna be a CRS and which egg was gonna be a CBS because you can see the red or black pigments through the clear egg "shell"


Thanks brotha. I'm getting some new toys in the mail soon to add to my camera gear so be on the lookout for some even better shots, at least that's what I'm hoping. hehe MOAR magnification!!! 



Bananariot said:


> Nice pics a shame you have to watermark, I sometimes save your pictures off the site for my own viewing pleasure....hehe xD
> 
> But you gotta do what you gotta do


That's totally fine with me .



HiepSTA said:


> ^ he riots on his banana to your pictures speedie


haha that just doesn't sound right. 



aznartist34 said:


> Great macro shots speedie. For the pics that people are using without your permission try changing the image to something ridiculous but keep the same image location. Some of those sellers are so lazy that they don't even copy your image and rehost it.


Thanks azn. Believe it or not they have to load it manually on Ebay. Aquabid you can link, yes. That could be a pretty funny situation however lol. :thumbsup:



akdylpickles said:


> Wow that really sucks that people are taking your pics
> Btw what camera/lens fI you use?


Nothing special bro... Canon 60D w/100mm f/2.8 macro non IS


----------



## Bananariot (Feb 28, 2012)

HiepSTA said:


> ^ he riots on his banana to your pictures speedie


That would be the appropriate response lol


----------



## Kunsthure (Aug 2, 2010)

I hate watermarks personally. I think they really detract from the picture. It's the risk you take by putting your photos online, the good ones will be stolen. Watermarks can be removed; I could Photoshop those out in about five minutes. Just be cool like Lotsoffish on AB and just let everyone use your pics. 

But I'm tired of you other macro people showing me up. I'm going to post a few of mine when I get back home. :flick: 

-Lisa


----------



## speedie408 (Jan 15, 2009)

Kunsthure said:


> I hate watermarks personally. I think they really detract from the picture. It's the risk you take by putting your photos online, the good ones will be stolen. Watermarks can be removed; I could Photoshop those out in about five minutes. Just be cool like Lotsoffish on AB and just let everyone use your pics.
> 
> But I'm tired of you other macro people showing me up. I'm going to post a few of mine when I get back home. :flick:
> 
> -Lisa


Oh trust me, I hate them as well and I will agree they do detract from the picture. Indeed they can be removed, but it's just a deterrent. Whoever want's it bad enough will take it no matter what, just like a car with all the bells and whistles of an alarm system... if thieves want it bad enough, all they'll need is a flatbed tow truck. 

For the most part, I'm cool with folks using my pics if they would only ask me first for permission. That's all I ask as a professional.

B/R,

Nick


----------



## Kunsthure (Aug 2, 2010)

Just whip out a cease and desist letter on dey @ssess and threaten to sue them for copyright infringement. I had to do that on my former fish forum. I'm not going to give out details, but it wasn't fun. 

-Lisa


----------



## xmas_one (Feb 5, 2010)

Man, those pics are a watermark by themselves! I haven't seen any shrimp macros that even come close! Are you using that 100mm with a tube?


----------



## Kunsthure (Aug 2, 2010)

xmas_one said:


> Man, those pics are a watermark by themselves! I haven't seen any shrimp macros that even come close! Are you using that 100mm with a tube?


You just wait til I get home... They aren't shrimp pics but they are more than 2x magnified. 

-Lisa


----------



## speedie408 (Jan 15, 2009)

Kunsthure said:


> Just whip out a cease and desist letter on dey @ssess and threaten to sue them for copyright infringement. I had to do that on my former fish forum. I'm not going to give out details, but it wasn't fun.
> 
> -Lisa


[email protected] haha :hihi:

So far I haven't had the need to take drastic measures yet. 



xmas_one said:


> Man, those pics are a watermark by themselves! I haven't seen any shrimp macros that even come close! Are you using that 100mm with a tube?


Thanks xmas. No tubes used on those shots. Just hand held using my gear listed. 



Kunsthure said:


> You just wait til I get home... They aren't shrimp pics but they are more than 2x magnified.
> 
> -Lisa


Very interested to see what you have in store Lisa .


----------



## catfishbi (Jun 10, 2008)

very nice pic, which lens are you using?


----------



## Kunsthure (Aug 2, 2010)

> Very interested to see what you have in store Lisa .


Flickr mobile won't let me get the link to share individual sets. I hate mobile sites. 

-Lisa


----------



## somewhatshocked (Aug 8, 2011)

I love photos of shrimp eggs where tiny eyes and such are visible. Can't wait to see more.

Solid move on the watermarking. A necessary evil in instances like this because not everybody is honest or respectful. 

Keep up the great work!


----------



## speedie408 (Jan 15, 2009)

catfishbi said:


> very nice pic, which lens are you using?


Andy asked me on the first page but yeah, I shoot with a trusty Canon 60D w/100mm f/2.8 macro non IS lense, which I've dropped a dozen times and it's still able to capture shrimp the way it does :icon_lol:. This sucker is built like a tank! 



somewhatshocked said:


> I love photos of shrimp eggs where tiny eyes and such are visible. Can't wait to see more.
> 
> Solid move on the watermarking. A necessary evil in instances like this because not everybody is honest or respectful.
> 
> Keep up the great work!


Lucky shot bro. I almost never get shots like this, ever. :biggrin: Thanks though!


----------



## xenxes (Dec 22, 2011)

That first shot is amazing! How did you do it? Put it in a glass petri dish and off angle flash from the side?

The watermark isn't very intrusive, center + transparent = people won't cut it off. Are you selling your photos so you need to protect them? If you're just marketing your business I would do a speedieaquatics.*com *watermark and just license some under a CC-BY-NC license, others using your earmarked photos isn't always a bad thing--free advertising


----------



## deleted_user_17 (Jun 14, 2012)

Brilliant shots! That first one is wow


----------



## speedie408 (Jan 15, 2009)

xenxes said:


> That first shot is amazing! How did you do it? Put it in a glass petri dish and off angle flash from the side?
> 
> The watermark isn't very intrusive, center + transparent = people won't cut it off. Are you selling your photos so you need to protect them? If you're just marketing your business I would do a speedieaquatics.*com *watermark and just license some under a CC-BY-NC license, others using your earmarked photos isn't always a bad thing--free advertising


No petri dish . Just a lucky shot while the shrimp was flying right in front of me. 

I'm not going to make a big fuss on this thread about it more than it is already so let's just say I'm good with seeing my pics anywhere, even without my consent, *as long as it's not for monetary gain.*


----------



## audioaficionado (Apr 19, 2011)

Boohoo, no more eye candy for my desktop wall paper collection :icon_cry:

That's a pretty extreme watermark that kinda ruins the shots. A water mark is necessary, but you could come up with a better one that works and looks artistic at the same time. 

You gotta do what you gotta do.

As far as idiots that live link your images, you could sub a pic of you givin' 'em the finger instead LOL.


----------



## speedie408 (Jan 15, 2009)

Steve,

Bro... I dreaded having to resort to this. Trust me. 

As far as artistic and being better, I'd like to see some suggestions my friend. Honestly, I suck at Photoshop so do tell/show lol. 

Nick


----------



## Kunsthure (Aug 2, 2010)

speedie408 said:


> Honestly, I suck at Photoshop so do tell/show lol.


Really? _Really?_. You poor thing. Stand by for PM. 

-Lisa


----------



## thechibi (Jan 20, 2012)

Yeah, I'm kinda with audio. I loves me some shrimp shots.  But ... it's like that SNL sketch. Some people just ruin it for everyone and I can't blame you for putting on a harder to edit out watermark.


----------



## Jadenlea (Sep 15, 2011)

Bummer that you have to do that. Can you report them to Ebay or leave feedback on their account saying the pics are not of their own shrimp


----------



## audioaficionado (Apr 19, 2011)

Any hot links from you site can be stopped at the sever and substituted with a warning message they are stealing. As for grabs off the web and reposted as attachments, there's not much you can do except get very militant and threaten them with legal action. A lot of hassle IMO. It seems you need to deface your work to make it less attractive to steal and obvious that it isn't their own work. I betcha some people will even post up your watermarked pics if they think they can sell some shrimp and turn a quick buck on the high priced premium species.


----------



## Soothing Shrimp (Nov 9, 2011)

The center watermark is best, Nick. I fully understand why you have to have it.

The bottom watermark, while less obtrusive, is more easily cropped out. I just tried it by cropping.


----------



## ohbaby714 (Feb 23, 2011)

I understand why you have to do it. 
But to be honest, this does take a bit away from your beautiful shot. The water mark block/distract me from the good looking image.

I don't have the solution. It's just my first impression of the photo.


----------



## nosebleed (Apr 2, 2012)

damn bow to the king!


----------



## pejerrey (Dec 5, 2011)

Maybe your name, as in a signature. Like a painting, but instead of the lower corner, sign in top of the bug.


----------



## speedie408 (Jan 15, 2009)

Jadenlea said:


> Bummer that you have to do that. Can you report them to Ebay or leave feedback on their account saying the pics are not of their own shrimp


Remorting to Ebay is an option but I heard it takes them a long time to take it down. You can only leave feedback to someone you've bought from, it's not like pTrader. 



audioaficionado said:


> Any hot links from you site can be stopped at the sever and substituted with a warning message they are stealing. As for grabs off the web and reposted as attachments, there's not much you can do except get very militant and threaten them with legal action. A lot of hassle IMO. It seems you need to deface your work to make it less attractive to steal and obvious that it isn't their own work. I betcha some people will even post up your watermarked pics if they think they can sell some shrimp and turn a quick buck on the high priced premium species.


I'm not militant natured so that's not something I enjoy doing and try to avoid. Lot's of hassle indeed. I'm kinda outta options, other than not posting pics at all. Something I can not do for obvious reasons. 



Soothing Shrimp said:


> The center watermark is best, Nick. I fully understand why you have to have it.
> 
> The bottom watermark, while less obtrusive, is more easily cropped out. I just tried it by cropping.





ohbaby714 said:


> I understand why you have to do it.
> But to be honest, this does take a bit away from your beautiful shot. The water mark block/distract me from the good looking image.
> 
> I don't have the solution. It's just my first impression of the photo.


Thanks for the input guys. I agree completely. 



nosebleed said:


> damn bow to the king!


lol thanks bro, but I would rather much be called speedie or nick, not king. Please. :icon_wink 



pejerrey said:


> Maybe your name, as in a signature. Like a painting, but instead of the lower corner, sign in top of the bug.


That would look nicer to some but it would be much easier to photoshop out. Right? I guess it depends on how big you really want to make the watermark.


----------



## thechibi (Jan 20, 2012)

Well, what you do is create a vector along the side of the shrimp you want to have the water mark on. I personally like to use the point to point thinger (Such awesome terms) so I can wiggle the curve as I like. Then the text tool and bam! Text on a curve.  Or shrimp.


----------



## Michiba54 (Nov 24, 2011)

More often then not people don't mean any harm when the randomly take a picture off google images. If you ask them to remove it and they don't then that is another issue.

This guy does the mini signature: http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/showthread.php?t=181198 I don't think it looks too bad.


----------



## thechibi (Jan 20, 2012)

They may not mean any harm, but it is most definitely not representing one's own merchandise fairly and it is still stealing the work that Speedie put into it. I would be upset if I saw a picture like that and ... bought shrimp that were obviously not the same. 

Personally, I figure if you're into breeding shrimps/fishes or selling them, a decent camera isn't a bad investment. It lets people know what they're getting. 

But yeah, most folks'll pull a picture if asked. It's just a lot of work to ask and some people just refuse.


----------



## pejerrey (Dec 5, 2011)

I have a friend that sells her pictures online. She said that was fairly easy to set up a store.
Why don't you set up a store with hella expensive pictures and send the people that use your pictures a bill.


----------



## audioaficionado (Apr 19, 2011)

thechibi said:


> Well, what you do is create a vector along the side of the shrimp you want to have the water mark on. I personally like to use the point to point thinger (Such awesome terms) so I can wiggle the curve as I like. Then the text tool and bam! Text on a curve.  Or shrimp.


Nick, if you have PS, you can take text and transform it to fit curves and various shapes. Might look rad if your shrimps all had 'Speedie' tats on 'em :hihi:


----------



## speedie408 (Jan 15, 2009)

audioaficionado said:


> Nick, if you have PS, you can take text and transform it to fit curves and various shapes. Might look rad if your shrimps all had 'Speedie' tats on 'em :hihi:





thechibi said:


> Well, what you do is create a vector along the side of the shrimp you want to have the water mark on. I personally like to use the point to point thinger (Such awesome terms) so I can wiggle the curve as I like. Then the text tool and bam! Text on a curve.  Or shrimp.


I might have to try this out, but then ultimately this method may be even more detracting than my current method because it'll block the entire shrimp/section of the body if made too large. If made small and say I put it on a small portion of the body this will be the simplest way for someone to easily clone out. 



Michiba54 said:


> More often then not people don't mean any harm when the randomly take a picture off google images. If you ask them to remove it and they don't then that is another issue.
> 
> This guy does the mini signature: http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/showthread.php?t=181198 I don't think it looks too bad.


That type of watermark is exactly what I was referring to in my response to thechibi and audio. It may look nice n all and less detracting, but it's so easy to clone out, even with MSpaint. 



pejerrey said:


> I have a friend that sells her pictures online. She said that was fairly easy to set up a store.
> Why don't you set up a store with hella expensive pictures and send the people that use your pictures a bill.


It's in the works bro .


----------



## catfishbi (Jun 10, 2008)

nice , I got same camera and thinking about buying the IS one 





speedie408 said:


> Andy asked me on the first page but yeah, I shoot with a trusty Canon 60D w/100mm f/2.8 macro non IS lense, which I've dropped a dozen times and it's still able to capture shrimp the way it does :icon_lol:. This sucker is built like a tank!
> 
> 
> 
> Lucky shot bro. I almost never get shots like this, ever. :biggrin: Thanks though!


----------



## diwu13 (Sep 20, 2011)

Honestly the watermarks don't bother me that much. It's still hella a nice picture. Love the eggs with eyes. Hope you can catch a shot of the shrimplets JUST hatching! Even with the watermark the details are crystal clear, as well as the color saturation.

But yea, I can see why you'd be angry at people using your pictures for their profit. At least give the man some credit for his photography skills :\


----------



## ykh (Jul 21, 2006)

No one will look at the bottom of a shrimp, except you Nick! :icon_twis

All I can say it's an excellent shot.




speedie408 said:


>


----------



## speedie408 (Jan 15, 2009)

diwu13 said:


> Honestly the watermarks don't bother me that much. It's still hella a nice picture. Love the eggs with eyes. Hope you can catch a shot of the shrimplets JUST hatching! Even with the watermark the details are crystal clear, as well as the color saturation.
> 
> But yea, I can see why you'd be angry at people using your pictures for their profit. At least give the man some credit for his photography skills :\


I'm over it bro... Not angry anymore, just taking preventative measures now so I don't have to deal with these characters anymore moving forward. 

The day I catch a shrimplet hatching will be the day I make it onto NatGeo! roud: One day... I have yet to catch a shrimp busting out it's exoskeleton. That is another goal of mine.  Shrimp crazy, right? :icon_eek: 



ykh said:


> No one will look at the bottom of a shrimp, except you Nick! :icon_twis
> 
> All I can say it's an excellent shot.


You caught me bro. lol I'm a shrimp Peeping Tom :icon_eek::icon_lol:


----------



## nosebleed (Apr 2, 2012)

speedie408 said:


> The day I catch a shrimplet hatching will be the day I make it onto NatGeo! roud: One day... I have yet to catch a shrimp busting out it's exoskeleton. That is another goal of mine.  Shrimp crazy, right? :icon_eek:
> 
> 
> 
> You caught me bro. lol I'm a shrimp Peeping Tom :icon_eek::icon_lol:


Do what NatGeo would do point every camera at your berried shrimp =]


----------



## jimko (Aug 17, 2007)

The first pictures is awesome, the second one is right over all the pride and glory. Take out the legs or antennas, but stay away from the body and face (bread and butter). It'll be hard to crop out your logo as long as it's anywhere near the body. 

It is definitely a shame that people are stealing your pictures. Your pictures are second to none. What ever you do peeps will continue stealing your fotos not sure if this is going to give you any piece of mind. At least they know where to find more excellent pictures. Time to turn that bad boy into a shrimp sale site. 

The watermark is pretty big. Can't you give them a smaller tattoo?


----------



## xenxes (Dec 22, 2011)

speedie408 said:


> No petri dish . Just a lucky shot while the shrimp was flying right in front of me.
> 
> I'm not going to make a big fuss on this thread about it more than it is already so let's just say I'm good with seeing my pics anywhere, even without my consent, *as long as it's not for monetary gain.*


I know you mentioned it somewhere before, but what body/lens? Tripod infront of the tank, settings? I can't get good macro pics, UGh! Teach me sensei. :bounce:


----------



## thechibi (Jan 20, 2012)

I see. And I love the pictures regardless. Such pretty ones of awesome shrimps.


----------



## zdnet (Aug 13, 2010)

speedie408 said:


> As far as artistic and being better, I'd like to see some suggestions my friend. Honestly, I suck at Photoshop so do tell/show lol.



You may want to try GIMP. Its watermark plugin is flexible and easy to use. Here are couple samples (using a customized version which allows the centering of watermark):



















If you shoot in RAW, you can get the GIMP plugin UFRaw. That should minimize the image quality impact of applying watermark.

HTH


----------



## zdnet (Aug 13, 2010)

speedie408 said:


>


Very cute "family shot". roud:


----------



## audioaficionado (Apr 19, 2011)

speedie408 said:


> I might have to try this out, but then ultimately this method may be even more detracting than my current method because it'll block the entire shrimp/section of the body if made too large. If made small and say I put it on a small portion of the body this will be the simplest way for someone to easily clone out.


You mainly have to detere the casual lazy @$$ that just grabs an image of Google and slaps it in his sale page. A dedicated thief will PS anything you can devise or try if they are determined to steal the credit for your work. I think a nice modest tat on your subjects will not only ID it as your work, but it will in itself add to the total art of the images you create. Like an artist signing his paintings. You can crop it out, but everyone else will know who made the original.


----------



## Anhvu (Apr 19, 2012)

Oh wooooowwwww Master Shrimping Nick. Lol what extension tube that you use bro? Pics looks awesome


----------



## sayurasem (Jun 17, 2011)

not really diggin it lol. I like the old ones on the bottom right corner.


----------



## speedie408 (Jan 15, 2009)

jimko said:


> The first pictures is awesome, the second one is right over all the pride and glory. Take out the legs or antennas, but stay away from the body and face (bread and butter). It'll be hard to crop out your logo as long as it's anywhere near the body.
> 
> It is definitely a shame that people are stealing your pictures. Your pictures are second to none. What ever you do peeps will continue stealing your fotos not sure if this is going to give you any piece of mind. At least they know where to find more excellent pictures. Time to turn that bad boy into a shrimp sale site.
> 
> The watermark is pretty big. Can't you give them a smaller tattoo?


Thanks Jimmy. Workin on it brotha . 

I hate tattoos period but it has to be done. I'm also gonna add a copyright symbol on as well and change it up a bit when I have time. 



xenxes said:


> I know you mentioned it somewhere before, but what body/lens? Tripod infront of the tank, settings? I can't get good macro pics, UGh! Teach me sensei. :bounce:


I posted that answer on this thread twice, but I'll tell you again: Canon 60D w/100mm f/2.8 macro non IS.  The rest is all in the wrist . Lighting is key. Keep that in mind. 



zdnet said:


> You may want to try is flexible and easy to use. Here are couple samples (using a customized version which allows the centering of watermark):
> 
> If you shoot in RAW, you can get the GIMP plugin UFRaw. That should minimize the image quality impact of applying watermark.
> 
> HTH


Thanks for showing me. It's pretty much what I've done but cheaper fonts lol. I like my fonts better . Easily done using photoshop as well. I've never used gimp since I've been using CS5.



audioaficionado said:


> You mainly have to detere the casual lazy @$$ that just grabs an image of Google and slaps it in his sale page. A dedicated thief will PS anything you can devise or try if they are determined to steal the credit for your work. I think a nice modest tat on your subjects will not only ID it as your work, but it will in itself add to the total art of the images you create. Like an artist signing his paintings. You can crop it out, but everyone else will know who made the original.


roud: 



Anhvu said:


> Oh wooooowwwww Master Shrimping Nick. Lol what extension tube that you use bro? Pics looks awesome


No tubes yet bro. Still waiting for them to come via USPS :bounce:.



sayurasem said:


> not really diggin it lol. I like the old ones on the bottom right corner.


I know I know haha. It's a love hate relationship with this new watermark. Still working on other options. 

____________________________

Here's a couple new shots, one with similar and the other slightly different watermark positionings:


----------



## Bananariot (Feb 28, 2012)

speedie408 said:


> Here's a couple new shots, one with similar and the other slightly different watermark positionings:


As much as I love the top one the most, it's totally croppable :\


----------



## speedie408 (Jan 15, 2009)

I know, but how about I add a © symbol in so if they do crop it out, they'll be in BIG trouble . 

Like this one:


----------



## pejerrey (Dec 5, 2011)

I still think that it should be in top of the shrimp. Just more like a symbol. 

However, I don't think that lame guy I know used your shrimp images to sell his shrimp would be smart enough to use photoshop. I also think most likely is been lazy. And maybe mentally challenged. That said, anything that would be easily recognized as a "brand" symbol will defeat the purpose of stealing a pic from google. 

Something like a "NX" stamp in a detail busy area of the shrimp itself that looks good with the stamp (Nick X. Photography)


----------



## speedie408 (Jan 15, 2009)

I'll work on a NX logo. Been watching alotta youtube tutorials lol.


----------



## Chrisinator (Jun 5, 2008)

Amazing photos!


----------



## audioaficionado (Apr 19, 2011)

Close enough that a crop looks crappy, but not right over the subject roud:


----------



## thechibi (Jan 20, 2012)

Little top hat with the NX initials/logos. Fancy, well dressed shrimp.  No crop problems!


----------



## dhgyello04 (Jul 11, 2008)

:drool::drool::drool::drool::drool::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:


----------



## zdnet (Aug 13, 2010)

speedie408 said:


> It's pretty much what I've done but cheaper fonts lol.


One thing about the posted examples was the default blending used by the plugin. It makes the watermark much less distracting. A watermark is not the main message of an image. Its attention grabbing should therefore be secondary to that of the image itself.

As to the font used, any font can be used. The default one is plain and simple in order to reduce the distraction caused by a fancy or elaborate font. Again, the watermark is there to discourage stealing, not to draw people's attention.


----------



## speedie408 (Jan 15, 2009)

zdnet said:


> One thing about the posted examples was the default blending used by the plugin. It makes the watermark much less distracting. A watermark is not the main message of an image. Its attention grabbing should therefore be secondary to that of the image itself.
> 
> As to the font used, any font can be used. The default one is plain and simple in order to reduce the distraction caused by a fancy or elaborate font. Again, the watermark is there to discourage stealing, not to draw people's attention.


I agree with you, however when I'm editing my pictures, I would like to use only one program to keep things as fluid as possible. I use a feature called Actions on CS5 that enables me to put a group of commands into a set that you can "play" (apply) on every single picture you want, at the click of a button. This cuts down the time on the amount of actions you have to make to edit every single shot you're working on. I've integrated my watermark into one of these processes and it's been super easy to apply. It's pretty efficient actually. Saves so much time. Something I have very little of these days.

I appreciate your time bro, and thanks for the explanation. I'm still working on a better watermark design so I'm sure it'll be much less distracting in it's finalized design. roud:


----------



## audioaficionado (Apr 19, 2011)

CS5 FTW! :hihi:


----------



## plamski (Sep 25, 2009)

Lightroom has it too.Nice tool.


----------



## zdnet (Aug 13, 2010)

speedie408 said:


> I agree with you, however when I'm editing my pictures, I would like to use only one program to keep things as fluid as possible. I use a feature called Actions on CS5 that enables me to put a group of commands into a set that you can "play" (apply) on every single picture you want, at the click of a button. This cuts down the time on the amount of actions you have to make to edit every single shot you're working on. I've integrated my watermark into one of these processes and it's been super easy to apply. It's pretty efficient actually. Saves so much time. Something I have very little of these days.


It makes good sense to simplify the work flow to a single click. 

If you want to produce a similar blending effect in Photoshop, place the watermark in its own layer and set the layer opacity to 30%. That is what the GIMP plugin does.


----------



## speedie408 (Jan 15, 2009)

zdnet said:


> If you want to produce a similar blending effect in Photoshop, place the watermark in its own layer and set the layer opacity to 30%. That is what the GIMP plugin does.


I've actually got it set at 30% opacity on CS5 as well .


----------



## Kunsthure (Aug 2, 2010)

Tubes are for chumps. Reversing rings are the right way to do it. 

I don't like the words right over top of then OEBT; lower down on the body would look better. 

-Lisa


----------



## speedie408 (Jan 15, 2009)

Kunsthure said:


> Tubes are for chumps. Reversing rings are the right way to do it.
> 
> I don't like the words right over top of then OEBT; lower down on the body would look better.
> 
> -Lisa


Personally, I hate reverse rings because of the super narrow DoF. Plus with the ring you lose aperture control. 

Damn... can't please everybody haha. :help:


----------



## DogFish (Jul 16, 2011)

Nick - I like the WaterMark, it doesn't detract from your great macro pics.


----------



## zachary908 (Feb 12, 2011)

Maybe I'm the crazy one here, but I don't see how the watermark detracts from the images really. I think it looks great. If I had pictures worth water marking I'd do something similar. 

Wicked shots, brotha! Keep it up.


----------



## speedie408 (Jan 15, 2009)

Thanks guys. Much appreciated.


----------



## Kunsthure (Aug 2, 2010)

speedie408 said:


> Personally, I hate reverse rings because of the super narrow DoF.


You ain't doin' macro unless your DOF is smaller than a snowflake's thickness. Go big or go home. 

-Lisa


----------



## zdnet (Aug 13, 2010)

speedie408 said:


> I've actually got it set at 30% opacity on CS5 as well .


Oops... my bad. Should have double checked before posting. Sorry!

First, before setting the watermark layer's opacity, the plugin did a bump mapping on the layer. Here is the LISP line from the plugin:

(plug-in-bump-map 1 image tlayer tlayer 135 45 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0)

Second, the opacity is 20%, NOT 30%.


----------



## audioaficionado (Apr 19, 2011)

Kunsthure said:


> You ain't doin' macro unless your DOF is smaller than a snowflake's thickness. Go big or go home.
> 
> -Lisa


:icon_ques You jest. Seriously?

Nick has some of the best aquatic shots I've ever seen on the internet.


----------



## zdnet (Aug 13, 2010)

Kunsthure said:


> Tubes are for chumps. Reversing rings are the right way to do it.


I say the reverse. Reversing ring is for chumps because it is probably the most clumsy way of taking macros. In contrast, tube is much more flexible. Of course, the right way of taking macros is using a macro lens.



Kunsthure said:


> You ain't doin' macro unless your DOF is smaller than a snowflake's thickness.


You are confusing between magnification (macro) and aperture (DOF). Yes, a macro shot often has very thin DOF. But that is not necessary. It all depends on the aperture. If you have to shoot wide open, you will have very thin DOF. But with a better lens you can have macro shots with much better DOF.

Macro is about magnification, not DOF.


----------



## audioaficionado (Apr 19, 2011)

I have a nice Nikkor 105mm f/4 Micro and a bellows w/rail. That sucker will go as high as you want in magnification. The lens itself does 1:2 and 1:1 with the Nikkor tube extension. Much better than some funky two lens spliced together conglomeration.


----------



## Geniusdudekiran (Dec 6, 2010)

speedie408 said:


>


Now I see why they're called Snow Whites! Look at the patterning, it closely resembles snowflakes


----------



## klaus07 (Nov 23, 2011)

the other big factor and maybe the biggest one of all in taking astounding macro shots issssssss....where did you put the lights, how many did you use and did you vary the ratios?

Klaus


----------



## speedie408 (Jan 15, 2009)

I got some new shots with the new tubes!  

All I gotta say is [jaw drop]. 

Btw thanks for all the advice and comments guys!


----------



## plamski (Sep 25, 2009)

Reversal ring are OK with right lenses, manual focus, manual adjusting of focus pointer,3-5 shots and the right macro software for stitching.
I'm waiting for mala to male reversing ring .I'll use Nikon D700 with Nikon 70-200/2.8 + Zeiss 85/1.4f.Those lenses have huge glasses and they will aloud large shatter speed.
I'll have magnification from 0.9:1 to 2.5:1 depends of 70-200 zooming.
Speedie you can use Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro , right


----------



## speedie408 (Jan 15, 2009)

I wish I had a MP-E model.

Here's the new shots I was talking about. You guys can be the judge if the tubes make a difference or not. Be honest now. 

This little baby Supreme Red is less than a 1/4" long. Can you see the new hatchling right next to it? 









Mystery baby, same size as the above shrimp.









Golden 



























Supreme Red Neo - look at the newly regenerated clear maxilliped after it recently molted.


----------



## Bananariot (Feb 28, 2012)

Is the mystery baby a tibee?


----------



## Kunsthure (Aug 2, 2010)

Cropped or not?

-Liss


----------



## speedie408 (Jan 15, 2009)

Bananariot said:


> Is the mystery baby a tibee?


Possibly  but I'm not 100% sure yet. 



Kunsthure said:


> Cropped or not?
> 
> -Liss


Cropped for framing. Here's the original of one shot for reference.


----------



## audioaficionado (Apr 19, 2011)

Nick, you could try to lighten the watermark around 15-20% so it's more subtle, but still visible and uneditable. At 30% transparency it still kinda defaces the pics IMHO.


----------



## speedie408 (Jan 15, 2009)

Noted Steve. Zdnet mentioned that above too but I got lazy last night after taking pics and just hit the action button on all the photos lol. I gotta delete that action and redo a new one. Will test it out later tonight.


----------



## pejerrey (Dec 5, 2011)

I think that is a very good one Nick. I agree with trying a lil lighter but it doesn't bother me as it is.


----------



## zachary908 (Feb 12, 2011)

Nice pics, Nick. What tubes did you end up picking up?


----------



## GeToChKn (Apr 15, 2011)

Geniusdudekiran said:


> Now I see why they're called Snow Whites! Look at the patterning, it closely resembles snowflakes


Actually most pigments on a shrimp look that way up close. Low grade goldens are more blotchy so it's easier to see.


----------



## tumbleweedz (Mar 1, 2012)

Great pictures, the watermarks don't bother me. I'd rather see them than have the pics stolen. Keep up the good work.


----------



## Soothing Shrimp (Nov 9, 2011)

I'd rather have watermarks than pictures stolen and used for deceptive purposes anytime!


----------



## speedie408 (Jan 15, 2009)

^^ Thanks guys! Glad to hear most of you approve . I like the font the way it is so I think I'm going to keep it and reduce the opacity to 20% like this one: 

Newly berried Ruby Red Taiwan Bee. YAY!!!


----------



## speedie408 (Jan 15, 2009)

zachary908 said:


> Nice pics, Nick. What tubes did you end up picking up?


Zeikos tubes.

So far, I like them. There's 3 rings in total which I'm using all of them combined in order to get a decent magnification from the 100mm. 

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...itialSearch=yes&Q=&Ntt=Zeikos+Extension+Tubes


----------

