I've been published in Top Gear magazine!

[Daisy Duke]

I've just noticed that Top Gear have used a couple of my photos that I took whilst hooning around the IOM with them. OK they're really small, but I think it still counts!

Had a great time and it was really interesting to watch Lee and Joe at work (and humbling to see their results).

Here's the two they published (you might have trouble trying to spot them in the magazine though )


Not all the locals were impressed with the lambo!



It's 5 am so must be time for a hoon.





I'm thinking of making the rest available but I should probably watermark them first. I'd appreciate any advice on how to go about this.

Thanks

[pastrana72]

nice pictures, welldone.

[RobbieM-Evo]

Daisy Duke said:

I'm thinking of making the rest available but I should probably watermark them first. I'd appreciate any advice on how to go about this.

Thanks

Do you mean like this?



If you do not have photoshop or other I would be happy to do this for you.

Regards
Rob

[EmmaP]

Daisy Duke said:

Not all the locals were impressed with the lambo!

Envy is a terrible thing

Congratulations on getting into print.

[2jamesl]

I really don't want to sound rude but i was just wondering why they got published? These photos show no skill or creativity?

Eeek, i sound really nasty! I honestly don't mean to but theres no other way i can put it, i hope you can understand

[Daisy Duke]

[quote=RobbieM-Evo
If you do not have photoshop or other I would be happy to do this for you.

Regards
Rob
[/quote]

Thanks Rob. I do have photoshop, but I don't really know how to use it yet. When I tried to use the Digimarc function, it wanted to take me to a site where I was going to be charged for it. I'm guessing what you did involved adding a separate layer (or am I just being thick?).

[Daisy Duke]

2jamesl said:

I really don't want to sound rude but i was just wondering why they got published? These photos show no skill or creativity?

Eeek, i sound really nasty! I honestly don't mean to but theres no other way i can put it, i hope you can understand

Well you'll find that in magazines it's often the picture that best illustrates the text that is chosen, rather than the best picture technically speaking. As for my photos, I don't think they're the best I took either, but then I'm not the editor.

And yes you do sound really nasty.

[RameshUK]

Daisy Duke said:

[quote=RobbieM-Evo
If you do not have photoshop or other I would be happy to do this for you.

Regards
Rob

Thanks Rob. I do have photoshop, but I don't really know how to use it yet. When I tried to use the Digimarc function, it wanted to take me to a site where I was going to be charged for it. I'm guessing what you did involved adding a separate layer (or am I just being thick?).

Hi Daisy,

I believe the Digimarc function adds a bit of grain /noise to your image. This holds your name/website details so someone can look up who created the image. It can be erased as well.

Most people create a photoshop action (a recording of things you do to an image) and then run it to easily add your name/company logo to a image. Saves you repeating the process everytime you needed to add a watermark.

Regards,

Ramesh

[2jamesl]

Daisy Duke said:

2jamesl said:

I really don't want to sound rude but i was just wondering why they got published? These photos show no skill or creativity?

Eeek, i sound really nasty! I honestly don't mean to but theres no other way i can put it, i hope you can understand

Well you'll find that in magazines it's often the picture that best illustrates the text that is chosen, rather than the best picture technically speaking. As for my photos, I don't think they're the best I took either, but then I'm not the editor.

And yes you do sound really nasty.

Oh damn im really not a nasty person! I bet your well pleased getting them published, i would be!

I was just curious and there was no other way i could ask it :/

Im really sorry you think that

[sstein]

Why do you want to watermark them?

Just put them up at 700px wide, I don't think that's large enough to print from.

-

Stuart

[Daisy Duke]

sstein said:

Why do you want to watermark them?

Just put them up at 700px wide, I don't think that's large enough to print from.

-

Stuart

Well I thought I may as well learn how to do it sooner rather than later. It's not that I thnk my photos are worth nicking, but I have known people to have even low resolution pictures taken and then used for someone else's profile and on other sites. It's not so much my pictures I want to protect, as the subjects (if that makes sense?)


BTW thanks for the tip Ramesh

[DIW35]

If you are using Photoshop, a simple way to watermark them is create a new layer, but set the opacity below 100%. I find that 40% is a good starting point.

On the new layer create your copyright message and voila. A more subtle effect can be created by lowering the opacity - but not so low that your copyright disappears, or by typing your copyright notice with a shade of grey rather than black

The attached was done with a 30% opacity layer and mid grey text..

HTH

Edited by DIW35 on Monday 3rd September 00:49

[RobbieM-Evo]

DIW35 said:

If you are using Photoshop, a simple way to watermark them is create a new layer, but set the opacity below 100%. I find that 40% is a good starting point.

On the new layer create your copyright message and voila. A more subtle effect can be created by lowering the opacity - but not so low that your copyright disappears, or by typing your copyright notice with a shade of grey rather than black

The attached was done with a 30% opacity layer and mid grey text..

HTH

Edited by DIW35 on Monday 3rd September 00:49

Yes but this would be really easy to remove as you have not covered the subject.

You are right about the layer and the person above is right about taking the resolution out, perhaps down to 72DPI then no one can print it but you can still use on the web.

If you want to send me a PM (D Duke) I will give you a step-by-step guide that will be easy to follow. Once you have done one you save it as a master PSD File then your good to go on following images.

Regards
Rob

[EmmaP]

My watermark is an irregular shape that always appears in the centre of the image as a small percentage of my company logo. It would be a real pig to retouch out.

It is difficult to police your images. I only ever have low res images on the web. One has to be careful as you say DaisyDuke, because you could be compromised if the subjects within your shots were not happy about their image being used publicly. It is always best, where possible, to get their consent first.

[Twinpipe]

Daisy Duke, is that you driving?

Or are you actually a denim short, gingam shirt clad blonde with a straw stetsan and a cracking pair of (.)(.)



Nice Lambo btw.

[Daisy Duke]

Twinpipe said:

Daisy Duke, is that you driving?

Or are you actually a denim short, gingam shirt clad blonde with a straw stetsan and a cracking pair of (.)(.)



Nice Lambo btw.

No it's not me driving, I took the photo. Oh and although I am female, I think I got my nickname for my driving style rather than my appearance! But I'm more Catherine Bach rather than Jessica Simpson anyway

[Daisy Duke]

RobbieM-Evo said:

If you want to send me a PM (D Duke) I will give you a step-by-step guide that will be easy to follow. Once you have done one you save it as a master PSD File then your good to go on following images.

Regards
Rob

YHM

EmmaP said:

It is always best, where possible, to get their consent first.

I have, I'm probably just being overcautious.

[DIW35]

RobbieM-Evo said:

Yes but this would be really easy to remove as you have not covered the subject.

It was intended to demonstrate how it can be done, not how big you should make the copyright notice or where you should place it.

[bramley]

Before anyone asks, the key combination for the copyright sign © is 'Alt 0 1 6 9'