All my images come from a Flickr account. I produce them all the same way despite where they may end up, since I hardly have time, with 400 photos and counting, to do different versions for different forums.

Maybe you heard that recently Flickr images were being sold, despite any photographers rights, as phone wallpaper? This is not specifically a condemnation of Flickr, since it can happen to any image on the net. The point is, with a watermark or frame a thief has to either go to the extra bother to remove it (they will not) or at least pass on the copyright holders name (better than nothing).

This is my justification for framing images. However I see that some are drastically opposed to them. One solution is for me not to post here any more. Or, convince everyone in the world not to steal. Or, I should give up caring and remove the frames. I wonder which option is best?

Some of the hostile responses to my honest inquiry have convinced me the first option is best. I'll still post to Pentax Forums should anyone care.

I wrote: "By the way, I was hoping that people would spot that the Beach Writing is being done not only by the child but by the waves."

So Gwyn replied: "Maybe we would have if the photo had been bigger."

Back where I come from that is called being snarky. Besides, you totally miss my point. Without the title on the border you don't have the extra level of reference that would provide you with this interpretation. Or maybe you just weren't looking in the first place? Because if you were I doubt 50 pixels would have made a difference.

It was nice to see everyone's photos. Congrats to the winners. Personally I liked the first shot from Nimitz quite a bit -- it has a certain tone to it that is appealing.

This is the second time one of my images has been dissed for its border on this forum, so I am interested in finding out more.

The border is functional not decorative. I use the same one on all my public images, to protect them with a copyright and to provide a title, which is often very important. So using a colour is not appropriate and using two pixels would not work. The only alternative is to watermark the image itself and I personally find that far more invasive.

What do people prefer: a watermark on the image itself or a copyright outside the image area?

By the way, I was hoping that people would spot that the Beach Writing is being done not only by the child but by the waves.

Thanks to Martin for taking the time to judge and provide extensive comments.

Here in Ireland we don't have what you'd call summer. Met a couple 'Stralians the other day and they were indignant on this matter.

Still, we do have beaches...

You can use either but I see no reason to ever shoot JPG. Shoot RAW and stop fiddling with white balance etc., knowing you can change how you like in development, and that all your images carry the maximum amount of information possible.

This is a matter of user control, not the programme, which appears to be the #1 choice in commercial software for this application. My demo has two totally different modes, one of which compresses dynamic range and looks nothing like the "extreme HDR" that you likely object to.

Aha! The black vine weevil. Thanks for the ident.

The Cosina/Vivitar 100mm f/3.5 macro is plastic, small and light so I can easily carry it wherever I go. Optical quality is way beyond expectations. Does 1:2 or 1:1 with included adapter. Inexpensive... around €100.





The Vivitar Series 1 105mm f/2.5 macro is heralded as perhaps the sharpest 1:1 macro ever. Bigger and heavier than the above, so I own both. Cost me less than €250 and gets me bugs like this:

Hey, I'm there with 300 photos and more all the time. Link is now in my sig.

We don't have a T.V. But I might upgrade my monitor to something huge so we can share DVD watching on it. And at the same time it will be better for photo editing. How's that for a compromise?