Many of my peers in hobbyist photography “watermark” their photographs, both on their websites and certainly on any social media or group sharing sites. And yet many of the pro photographers I follow don’t do this, even though they arguably have more of a reason for doing so.
A watermark is an identifier that sits overtop of some portion of the image. It is usually semi-transparent. The identifier could be the photographer’s name, their business name, or a combination of both. A copyright symbol and year might also be included. These labels might be simple white text or more elaborate logos and fonts. They are most often placed in a corner of the image, but sometimes can occupy more central space. Text sizes vary, but most are unobtrusive, aiming not to interfere with proper viewing of the image.
Why do photographers use them? It seems there are two main reasons: to guard against theft and to advertise their work. Let’s examine each of those purposes. Continue reading “To Watermark or Not to Watermark – That is the Question”

It’s been a long standing complaint that Adobe Lightroom is frustratingly slow to load and display images, particularly previews on import or previews when switching from Library to Develop. Adobe promised to deal with this issue, going so far as to release a
Whenever I venture to purchase a new lens, I’m typically presented with the fastest lens first – the advanced option. But the more I’ve shot, the more I’ve come to question this equipment mantra. Most of the time, you DON’T need the fastest lens. Here’s why.
A year ago today, I received a new hip. Routine surgery I’m told, but life changing for me. Months of excruiating pain replaced, initially, by the feeling of having been hit by a bus. Luckily that lasted only a couple of weeks.
In 1935, Eastman Kodak Company introduced Kodachrome and changed the world forever. Despite this, colour photography did not become widespread, at least not in the consumer market, until the 1960’s. So colour image capture has really been in broad use for just 50 years.
Macro photography requires only one unique piece of equipment: a lens that can focus within a tiny distance of the subject, resulting in an image that is the same size on the camera sensor as the subject is in real life. But macro lenses have an amazingly small depth of field, almost guaranteeing that some part of the image will be out of focus. What’s a photographer to do? 
This leaves me wondering. If photography must be art to be successful, is there a point where a photograph is no longer a photograph? And where is that line? The answer isn’t obvious. Here’s why…