11 Aug
The Dip Kiss (SOOC)
I posted a teaser from my wedding in New Hampshire on Jenna Cole today. I thought you guys might like to see the SOOC (that’s straight-out-of-camera if you’re new to the term) shot, and then click over to see Jenna Cole to see the final image after a little bit of time in Photoshop.
Also, this is why I shoot RAW! If I had been shooting JPG, I wouldn’t have been able to recover the amount of detail in her dress that I did. I like working with my flash on manual, but it gets tricky in these fast moving situations like this.
And another note, I’m thinking about dropping my watermark. Or maybe I should do the border with a logo in the bottom right corner?
I'm a farm-raised almost-crunchy stroller-pushing picture-taking lifestyle-blog-writing gastronomy-obsessed divine-seeking thrift-store-combing cheese-inhaling pavement-pounding laughter-sprinkling lover of individuality and taking chances.
I’ve just had a look through your pics on the site, I say leave the watermark on, I did love the one on Lindsey’s bump!
Reply
1I’d say leave the watermark on to protect yourself. I don’t think it really takes away from the image.
Reply
2I’m always a fan of watermarked pictures… people can be so terrible about giving credit where it is due, and if I see a picture I love, I like to be able to trace it back to the original photographer (I found the photographer for a friend’s wedding this way).
Without a watermark, people tend to steal things to claim as their own as well… I found two different sites that were using some of my food photography photos as their own, and just cropped the watermark out of the corner. If they wanted to use it and site back to me, that’s one thing, but to write about how they created the recipe and look at the great photo they took… it’s a little irritating. So I recently went back and watermarked all my old pictures with a bigger, uglier watermark, ha.
Reply
3I think you should drop your watermark and do something different.
To me, your logo for That Wife represents your blog. So when I see it on your Jenna Cole photos or website, I feel disconnected. I think the logo for that wife (your current watermark) represents your blog and the ideals you put here but Jenna Cole is your business and should represent something different, so it should have a different logo.
Reply
4I like what Meg said about having a different “brand” for your photography than you do for TW. I think it would appear more professional, and would show growth from where you started.
But I would absolutely encourage you to keep watermarking your images. I shoot a lot of images where composition is key, and artistically use dead space a LOT. Sometimes it breaks my heart to put a watermark on my pictures, because I’m worried that it interrupts the flow of the eye. But then I remember the SEVERAL times I’ve seen my work pop up somewhere completely unattributed, or worse… attributed to someone else, and I keep watermarking. A determined thief can work around a watermark, but it might give them pause.
Today’s shot is beautiful! Love a good dip kiss.
Reply
5I love your watermark. It is such a great logo. We are talking about the women head right?
By the way, when you click on Jenna Cole the top paragraph where you introduce yourself there seems to be something from with the code. Because you have the “” there….
Yvonne
Reply
Jenna Reply:
August 11th, 2011 at 10:56 am
Thanks Yvonne! Always so many problems to take care of…
Reply
I’d say ditch the watermark. It’s cool on your website, but do the couples receive all their pictures water marked? If they hired you as just a photographer (not because they happen to LOVE all your work or LOVE you as a person) I wouldn’t want someones name plastered all over my pictures. Though I suppose if they see it like that on your website they are looking for that? Obviously I’m not a photographer..
Reply
J Reply:
August 11th, 2011 at 4:17 pm
I know when we bought the files from our wedding photographer, we got a hi-res set without watermarks and a low-res set for facebook/web-posting. I think that method’s likely pretty standard.
Reply
jenna Reply:
August 11th, 2011 at 4:21 pm
In that case, I think its fine. As long as it’s an option to not get it, then who cares?
Reply
I like the idea of having a new, sleeker logo as well…something that wouldn’t take away from the picture as much (is that your concern?), but would still protect you from having people steal your work as easily (because let’s face it, if someone wanted to steal it, they still could - the watermark just makes it harder) That would encompass a lot more than just changing the watermark though, right? If I recall correctly, the wig logo is on your business cards too?
Reply
8Such a gorgeous picture!
P.S. I thought “SOOC” stood for “So Out of Control”. Ha ha. I’m a dork!
Reply
9I’ve never taken pictures in RAW before, but this is amazing! Is there anything additional that you do in post processing with RAW images than ones shot in jpeg? Do you ultimately convert it to jpeg?
Reply
10I really like your watermark image. I wouldn’t drop it.
Reply
11This photo looks amazing even before you did any photoshopping. To me, this is the true sign of a great photog. When we were looking at photogs for our wedding, it amazed me the number of “photogs” whose pics did not look professional. What I mean by that is they didn’t look polished…i.e. they look like something taken with a point and shoot, or you could see the bride’s face was flushed horribly, etc. Does shooting in RAW help with this? Could it be that these photogs weren’t shooting in RAW and they would have helped? Just curious because I know nothing about photography.
Reply
12both images look beautiful. I love what you did with the photo is photoshop thou. It brings out the detail in her dress a lot.
I cant wait to learn all about photoshop and be able to edit photos one day.
Reply
13You should wear that outfit more often. Seriously, it looks really good on you! Cream is a good color for you.
Reply
14