Are the M2Pro Photos Any Good?

[filchambers]

My M2P arrived on Tuesday and I wasn't planning on flying until this weekend but the sky lit up this evening so I ran outside to try and capture the twilight sky. This was taken in Downtown Los Angeles and is a frame from a hyperlapse I shot. All camera settings were auto with some editing of the DNG in Photoshop. Really impressing with the camera on this thing. Also, she handles great and is very very fast.

f/2.8, 1/30sec, ISO-160

WOW!

 

[ndroll]

Yes I have this watermarked, yes I know it irritates people... Mavic 2 Pro taken this weekend in the Badlands.

 

[fiatdale]

Gorgeous pic

 

[ricphoto]

Yes I have this watermarked, yes I know it irritates people... Mavic 2 Pro taken this weekend in the Badlands.

Doesn't irritate those of us who make a living creating images and who have had images "appropriated" and reused without permission or compensation...Do what you feel is right for you to protect your copyrights/ownership...

BTW: nice image...like how the snowy road acts as a leading line into the center of interest...well done

 

[gnirtS]

Watermarks although not THAT useful do deter the casual thief. Yes they can be removed in seconds but lots of people wont dedicate "seconds" to doing it.
Ultimately a downsized, low quality JPG with a watermark is needed online - its amazing what people will try to steal!

 

[Lees23]

I don’t get water marks on wedding photos. Super gaudy. Our wedding photographer didn’t do it but so many do. What do you think Op?

This is a joke, right?

Watermarks in wedding photos are put on free samples. The pictures that people buy do not have watermarks.

 

[ricphoto]

Watermarks although not THAT useful do deter the casual thief. Yes they can be removed in seconds but lots of people wont dedicate "seconds" to doing it.
Ultimately a downsized, low quality JPG with a watermark is needed online - its amazing what people will try to steal!

I love it when they remove my watermarks...That's all the court needs to show "willful intent" and elevates the theft to triple damages...

 

[nod]

I love it when they remove my watermarks...That's all the court needs to show "willful intent" and elevates the theft to triple damages...

I'm sure that's happened to you so many times

 

[Talley]

I treat my photography like crack cocaine. Give them a free hit... they keep coming back for more

 

[Ramjet]

Yes I have this watermarked, yes I know it irritates people... Mavic 2 Pro taken this weekend in the Badlands.

Huh, I thought I was the only one here in the badlands...

 

[timesnaps]

Yes I have this watermarked, yes I know it irritates people... Mavic 2 Pro taken this weekend in the Badlands.

dont see any irritation here! great pano!... thanks for sharing

 

[SoCalDude]

I'm sure that's happened to you so many times

I would imagine it as happened to him/her at least once. That’s all it takes!

 

[RayOZ]

I can understand watermark/signature on the bottom right, I don't mind it. Like a painter putting his signature on is art work. But light watermark smack bang in the middle, it's like assuming anyone who sees it might steal it.
But it's no big deal, since it's your photo and you can do whatever you want.

 

[CaliPilot]

I understand the importance of some pilots and their artwork but question a watermark as a way to protect a business. Anyway, i guess the original request was "Are the M2Pro Photos Any Good?" and not a all-encompassing philosophy about the pros and cons of watermarks!


Cheers
Chris

 

[ndroll]

Huh, I thought I was the only one here in the badlands...

I live in ND, we were down in Medora for the weekend.

 

[Gabe]

This is a joke, right?

Watermarks in wedding photos are put on free samples. The pictures that people buy do not have watermarks.

You already are contracted with the wedding couple. Water marks are stupid and come off ametuer.

 

[CanadaDrone]

You already are contracted with the wedding couple. Water marks are stupid and come off ametuer.

Typically the watermarks are on proofs / early samples / previews given to the couple, which they are often very eager to post online long before the final images roll in. When they do, the photographer is able to promote themselves a bit, which is reasonable in exchange for the early photos - if people like the photos, they know who took them. When the couple gets the final photos later, they won't be watermarked, and they can do whatever they want with them as outlined in whatever contract they signed (including re-post them to replace the watermarked versions). If you expect something different, have it put in the contract with your wedding photographer - simple. That is pretty standard practice in the industry - if anyone had a major issue with any of that, it could easily be negotiated beforehand.

 

[Gabe]

Typically the watermarks are on proofs / early samples / previews given to the couple, which they are often very eager to post online long before the final images roll in. When they do, the photographer is able to promote themselves a bit, which is reasonable in exchange for the early photos - if people like the photos, they know who took them. When the couple gets the final photos later, they won't be watermarked, and they can do whatever they want with them as outlined in whatever contract they signed (including re-post them to replace the watermarked versions). If you expect something different, have it put in the contract with your wedding photographer - simple. That is pretty standard practice in the industry - if anyone had a major issue with any of that, it could easily be negotiated beforehand.

I don't believe the photographer should be promoting themselves with watermarks. You paid for the photography already. More so watermarks don't look very professional. Why when we posted our wedding photographs we mentioned the photographer by name. It would have been out of character for our photographer to watermark the photos. I tend to believe word of mouth is stronger than watermarks but what do I know.

Perhaps a wedding photographer can chime in.

 

[CanadaDrone]

I don't believe the photographer should be promoting themselves with watermarks. You paid for the photography already. More so watermarks don't look very professional. Why when we posted our wedding photographs we mentioned the photographer by name. It would have been out of character for our photographer to watermark the photos. I tend to believe word of mouth is stronger than watermarks but what do I know.

Perhaps a wedding photographer can chime in.

As I said, if you don't want them to do that, you would simply negotiate that before signing on with them - very likely it would be no issue at all. That is pretty standard and a lot of people are OK with that in exchange for some fully processed early samples they can share with family/friends while the excitement of the wedding is still fresh. Especially if the couple is happy with your work, they are usually more than happy to help you promote a bit (many even offer). Typically what you are paying for are the completed, processed photos which often come weeks later - anything else would be part of a pre-selected package or individually negotiated. The watermarked photos often come the next day or two as early samples which people love to share and post to Facebook/Instagram. Everyone operates a little differently but that is a very typical arrangement. You can negotiate whatever you want with most photographers though. Source: I am a professional photographer.

 

[Garritynet]

My two cents on the watermark:

I'm a photographer and I have lots of photographer friends, except they're actually pretty good at it, and it's semi standard to drop a watermark on a jpeg automatically at the end of the workflow. If you are out there taking marketable photos of your city or local events for example it's not surprising if one of them ends up on some kind of "local city hype guy wannabe" Instagram account without permission or credit. Obviously if you want to use someone's photo on your Instagram or whatever you just ask but most people who aren't photographers don't respect the work and aren't going to be bothered. They will just save your photo off your site, crop out the watermark if its on the bottom corner and share it as if it was their own. It sucks and after something like that happens to you or a friend a few times you figure out to add the watermark to your workflow.

On the topic of wedding photos one of my friends recently shot a very nice baby shower, like seriously it could have been a wedding, and she absolutely did not get paid for it. The lady posted the small, low res proofs she had been sent on her Instagram/Facebook and two days later told my friend since she was so far along she didn't think it made sense for her to pay for the finished product because soon she would just want baby pictures, not maternity pictures. My friend knew the client and so agreed to the shoot with a verbal contract a few days before the event but it turns out that people don't like giving up money for things they already have and after she used the photos she just couldn't find it in herself to actually buy them. Guess who is going to start putting big watermarks in the center of her proofs from now on?

The trick is not to make the watermark tacky. That's what gives it an amateurish feel. Take a look at the Shutterstock and Getty watermarks. That's how you do it. Big enough that you can't crop but small enough to avoid dominating the image. Simple and with nice or at least in-offensive font. Not comic sans or anything cartoony/cursive-y/curve-y. It also shouldn't be your email address or too long; a word can be recognized and dismissed but three words together have to be read and you can't read and look at the photo at the same time. If your name is Bob Smith put "bobsmithphotos" and not "[email protected]"

Anyway, I know the watermark seems presumptuous but it's not like you're saying "This photo is so good, better make sure the guys on the forum don't steal it!" I understand how they can be annoying but keep in mind it's probably just automatic.