3 pictures of birds- i'm new be nice plz

2WheelPhoto · Mar 16, 2012

There's a distracting watermark in the dead middle of each pic, is that intentional?

toniap · Mar 16, 2012

I had already saved them like that and was just uploading them how I saved them. sorry

2WheelPhoto · Mar 16, 2012

toniap said:
I had already saved them like that and was just uploading them how I saved them. sorry

Its all good, the pics are nice. A little bit much of the green. In pic #1 a faster shutter may have helped freeze the bird if you happened to want that effect.

toniap · Mar 16, 2012

thanks 2wheelphoto. wow i didn't think it would feel so scary sharing my pictures for the first time. I was thinking that the was a little to much green. thanx

J_T · Mar 16, 2012

I like the first two, but I would crop the green one tighter around the geese if that's the subject of your photo.
Also, the blurry bird is distracting to the first photo, but I like the black and white processing.

You should clone the blurry bird out if you can. Are your photos okay to edit?

cgipson1 · Mar 16, 2012

#3.. get down on his level... shoot a portrait style shot. Shooting down on him, doesn't really show anything interesting....

Why do you bother watermarking your shots? Are you a PRO, and you are afraid someone is going to steal these? Or are you an amateur that thinks having a watermark makes you look like a pro?

toniap · Mar 17, 2012

Thanks j-t. and yes they are o.k to edit. cgipson1 Or are you an amateur that thinks having a watermark makes you look like a pro? well I'm a person that is a amateur but am still
aware that though you who may be a pro may not want these photos a amateur that may want them can. thank you

cgipson1 · Mar 17, 2012

toniap said:
Thanks j-t. and yes they are o.k to edit. cgipson1 Or are you an amateur that thinks having a watermark makes you look like a pro? well I'm a person that is a amateur but am still
aware that though you who may be a pro may not want these photos a amateur that may want them can. thank you

The way you have your stuff watermarked would be appropriate for Professional Proofs in a Proof gallery, to hopefully ensure that the photo's weren't stolen by those with access to the proof gallery (usually only the client). Very blatant and obnoxious! A small tasteful WM in a corner might be excused!

There are a lot of people here who have been doing photography for many, many years... and produce excellent work. They don't bother watermarking.. because it intrudes into the photo (very distracting) as long at they keep the images small, and web-compressed!

Even pro's don't bother watermarking their shots usually, as long as those shots are under a certain size (hard to get a good print from those), have web compression applied to them (even harder to get a good print from)... and typically, anything truly valuable should not be posted on the internet anyway.

Many of us will not even bother doing C&C on images with a really bad watermark.. and you could miss out on some good advice and critique because of that. I am trying to give you a HINT!

You won't hear from me again... (at least not while you are watermarking! lol)

Trust me.. you DON'T need to watermark these!

EchoingWhisper · Mar 17, 2012

Almost everything have been said above. Watermarks distracting. #1 should have more foreground. #2 should have less green and cropped tighter #3 should be shot level with the bird's eye and lighting seems harsh.

toniap · Mar 17, 2012

o.k thanks

Joel_W · Mar 17, 2012

Picture #1 has just too much going on. A more selective crop would really help. Try cropping down closer to the landing bird, and narrow the frame to the light pole. A faster shutter speed would have really helped with freezing the wing motion. Also a lower angle to the birds would add more interest.

Picture #2 has the subject way too small, dead center in the frame, bright green background that is very distracting, and your watermark is right over the subject. Why would you post this picture that way? Do yourself a big favor as CGibson1 alluded to, and drop the watermark for now.

Picture #3 doesn't have much going for it. Poor choice of camera angle that's doesn't add to your composition, & you cut off the tail in the process. Again, CGibson1 offered up some solid advice for improving it.

SCraig · Mar 17, 2012

There is a lot of anti-watermark sentiment on this forum as you might have noticed. It's up to you if you leave it there or not but placing one right in the center of the image and then asking for critique of the photograph are somewhat contradictory since what most people are going to focus on is the watermark.

I have no problem with a watermark as long as it isn't intrusive. If they are done tastefully I like them, and feel that they add something to the photograph. If they are done poorly all they do is ruin a shot that otherwise might have been pretty good.

#1 - Too busy and no subject. Is the subject the birds, the snow, the skyline, or something else? The horizon is dead center in the shot (Read up on the Rule of Thirds). And ... it's black and white.

#2 - Too much background and not enough subject.

#3 - Just a bird and shot from too high. Get down at or below eye level. Also why black and white? The color of most birds is what is striking about them.

Don't sweat it. Everyone starts at the beginning and photography is very much a learning experience.

Joel_W · Mar 17, 2012

SCraig, well said about the watermark issue. I've commented more then a few times about them when the photographer just blasters it across the photograph, so that it becomes a co-main subject. Most likely 9 out of 10 people using them, aren't professionals, and never have sold any pictures, so why use them, as they serve no real purpose, other then thinking they add a touch of professionalism to ones photographs?

SCraig · Mar 17, 2012

Joel_W said:
SCraig, well said about the watermark issue. I've commented more then a few times about them when the photographer just blasters it across the photograph, so that it becomes a co-main subject. Most likely 9 out of 10 people using them, aren't professionals, and never have sold any pictures, so why use them, as they serve no real purpose, other then thinking they add a touch of professionalism to ones photographs?

I don't want to turn the OP's topic into one on watermarking so I'll make this one comment and then back myself out of this thread: Why do painters sign their work? Certainly nobody is going to steal their painting and use it somewhere else. Why do software companies add splash screens to software? Certainly everyone knows where they got the software. Why does ANYONE sign ANY work that they do? It's not to prevent it from being stolen but because they are proud of the result, pure and simple. Other than that, you are right: They serve no purpose.