There were problems with the hardware a few days ago, I gather, and a number of posts went missing when things were restored from backup.
Aha, I thought something was awry
Well, I accept that that's your view, but with respect, it's not your view that matters: what counts is the opinion of people (in general, not just me) who look at your images and whom you want to look at your images.
Thanks for your comments Jeremy, and I understand what you are saying, and I can agree with it in part, and yet I disagree in part also. Regarding the 'only' worthy opinions being that of other people, I guess that happens only under the condition that the opinions of others are what's most critical to me. Only if I care about everybody's opinions do they then 'matter' to me. By contrast, if the only thing that matters to me is my
opinion, and the opinions of those people I really know and care about (as opposed to the opinions of every Tom, Dick, and Harry online), then the random opinions of other people I don't even know are of no consequence to me. I have always believed that a person whose own opinion shifts with the endless tide of "others people's opinions" is a pretty weak and weak-minded individual.
That being said, in the end, since the truth is I am trying to share my images with others for fun
, I must simply weigh the equation of what is most important to me---sharing my images online for fun online or protecting my efforts? I don't want to be paranoid, but yet I don't want to be naive either. Regarding big watermarks, the truth is, I have seen plenty of artists put big copyright marks over their online works, with the idea that if a person wants that photo/painting-rendition "mark-free" they can hit their hip pocket and buy it. And if they have no such intent, then who cares if they like the mark or not?
I am pretty new at all this, but I do believe I am getting better and better images, and I have read enough posts where people have had their images ripped-off from their sites (because they weren't protected) to feel concerned. Maybe someone couldn't make a wall-hanging image with a smaller image, but they can
do the things I mentioned previously. The paradox is, the weaker and less-intrusive any watermark is the easier it is to Photoshop out
of the image for the right-clickers out there ... yet the prettier the image for the online viewers. In exactly the opposite fashion, the stronger and more intrusive the watermark on the image the harder
it is to Photoshop out of there ... yet the more difficult it is for your online friends to enjoy unfettered. So which is most important and where is there a "sliding scale" as that can determine where one watermark is 'acceptable' and another is not?
Clearly, my big, fat watermarks emblazoned across the center of my images have gotten a lot of tomatoes thrown at me ... and it seems to be by unanimous vote ... so I musta violated this unwritten code ( ) ... but where is there a universally-agreed-upon consensus?
For me, the watermarks in the centre of the frame ruin the shot. I can look at it and understand that it's technically good (since I can see sharp edges), but I can't look at it and enjoy it.
As others have observed, there's not much anyone can do with such small photos. The answer, if you're really concerned about theft and feel you must do something, is to put a watermark towards the edge. Putting it across the very part of the image you want us to look at is simply self-defeating.
Thank you for the suggestion Jeremy and maybe I will try to tone them down a bit ... after I wipe all the tomato paste off for my violations of watermark subtlety