Rockhopper penguins, Falklands

[Charles Glatzer]

Rockhopper penguins, Falklands

1DX, 24-70 @ 28mm, 1/1000 @ F/8, ISO 400. Manual, Spot metered on white chest + 2 stops.

This year marked my 10th trip to the Falkland Is. Time of day and tidal influence are key factors in determining when and where we photograph on each island.
Knowing what to expect and look for ahead of time can pay dividends.

See you in the field or at the computer,

Chas

[gail bisson]

Hi Chas,
I don't know what impresses me more- the IQ ,exposure and interaction captured or the fact that you were at 28mm!
The comp is perfect and the "kissing" beaks make this a winner.
Gail

[Charles Glatzer]

Hi Chas,
I don't know what impresses me more- the IQ ,exposure and interaction captured or the fact that you were at 28mm!
The comp is perfect and the "kissing" beaks make this a winner.
Gail

Gail,

Thanks for the kind words.
This year marked my 10th trip to the Falkland Is. Time of day and tidal influence are key factors in determining when and where we photograph individual species on each island.
Knowing what to expect and look for ahead of time can pay dividends.

Best, Chas

[Satish Ranadive]

Wonderful image of intimate moment of penguins with great IQ. Superb exposure on blacks and whites.Love the compo with 3D effect.

Regards,
Satish.

[christopher galeski]

Beautiful image,IQ superb,great pose.TFS.

[PRABIR BHATTACHARYYA]

IMO, the action captured covers for all other aspects, IQ et al.
Wonderful job, Chas.

[Loi Nguyen]

This is a picture-perfect image. No critique form me. The 28-mm and the knowledge of the subject, location, and light made this image so appealing. TFS. Loi

[Daniel Cadieux]

OOh la la this is so appealing! Love the interaction, techs, colours, and sense of place we get from the wide angle. I do wish the BG bird's bill was not touching the frame at right, but no biggie in the grand scheme of things.

Realizing that watermarking images can be important and also valuable marketing tool, the signature line at bottom is fine but the logo at top, although well done, is distracting and contrary to our guideline #23...

[Charles Glatzer]

Dan, I post images so that others can learn from them, and yes as PR. Many of my images end up everywhere on the web without authorization from postings on photo sites like this, and others.
I no longer post images without both copyright and watermark. I have had both removed and my images reposted under various names.
You may remove the image from the site if necessary.

Protecting the rights of fellow photographers should be paramount on a photo website.

Best and Happiest of Holidays to all, Chas

[Henry Domke]

I agree with Daniel that the huge watermark is a problem. Not only is it distracting it cheapens a very fine image.

Why all the paranoia about someone reposting the image under their name? At such a low resolution it would have no commercial value.

In any event, people can steal your low-rez files if they want to. You just have accept that. I downloaded your JPG and using content aware fill in Photoshop I was able to "fix" the image in seconds.

[Charles Glatzer]

Henry, I wonder what is/was your livelihood?

[Henry Domke]

Henry, I wonder what is/was your livelihood?

I work full-time as an artist/photographer creating art for healthcare: www.henrydomke.com
Click here to see a few of my installations.

But what does my work have to do with watermarks?

My thoughts on this are simply:
1. Watermarks look bad.
2. Small JPGs have no commercial value.
2. Watermarks don't protect you.

What are your thoughts on watermarks?

[Troy Lim]

What a great image Chaz. Love the perspective.
I don't understand why people always comment about the watermark, how it ruined the image. I agree that if there is a will, there is a way and that it may be against the forum rule. People can always remove your watermark if they want to. But to make a comment of the watermark is just unnecessary in my opinion. I think people should be able to see past the watermark and appreciate the image itself. A watermark does not ruin my appreciate of an image. I can understand that someone has spent thousands on the equipment and trip to get the image, protecting the image is normal. even though legally, watermark does not give you the protection, but it is another way to discourage someone from using your image. Personally, I can appreciate a great image, whether or not it has a small or a big watermark.

[Robert Kimbrell]

Stunner shot. A great subject, I love the comp, and exposure in dead on. It looks like a postcard.

[Marina Scarr]

This image is a stunner with or without the watermark Chas. i love the low angle and all the elements of the environment. The diagonal line formed by the heads of the two penguins is very pleasing and the gentle touch of beaks makes for a very intimate picture. Of course it goes without saying that the processing is top notch.

I am with you and Troy on the watermark. I do not feel as though the watermark ruins an image. One of my images was stolen and used to so many times that I lost count because it was posted by Nat Geo on their Facebook site. Everywhere but on BPN I try to keep my watermark on at leadt a portion of my subject to make it more difficult to remove. I like to think that there are no thieves on BPN, But there once was a member who posted stolen images on BPN so there are Unconscionable people everywhere. The entire issue is unfortunate.

[Daniel Cadieux]

Troy, the only reason I commented on the watermark (and I realize I did say it is distracting) is because we have a guideline about it here on BPN and wanted to point that out to be fair to all the others who follow it. Chas' work and knowledge is among the best anywhere and I do realize the dangers of posting images online especially such beautiful images as these. Happy New Year to you as well!

[arash_hazeghi]

Troy,

The large watermarks distract from image critique and make the website look more commercial, that's why we have guidelines for this site. Watermark is no deterrent if someone wants to steal an image, it can be easily removed.

A simple desecrate signature has the same legal statue as a large logo/watermark. In fact the copyright info. in the EXIF section serves the same function so there is no need for putting a large/distracting logo on your images.

[Cheryl Arena Molennor]

Such a great image. I really love the intimacy of the behavior and your super low angle. I also love the angled line of the rocks. I have no issue with watermarks... never have.

[Arthur Morris]

Dan, I post images so that others can learn from them, and yes as PR. Many of my images end up everywhere on the web without authorization from postings on photo sites like this, and others.
I no longer post images without both copyright and watermark. I have had both removed and my images reposted under various names.
You may remove the image from the site if necessary.

Protecting the rights of fellow photographers should be paramount on a photo website.

Best and Happiest of Holidays to all, Chas

Hi Chas,

As you know and stated above, having a watermark does not stop folks from stealing your images. As the image in Pane 1 was in clear violation of this Guideline:

Posted images may not have any logos or graphics other than a discreet copyright notice.

I have removed it.