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

[Frequency]

I really like the first image for its tone and for that landing bird....Looking at the second image even my face turned green like "MASK"

Third is not to my taste.....

So what is your final decision on watermark?

If you are posting a low res. image, is watermarking a must? or at least can't it be on a less distracting place?

Regards

 

[alialley]

In the second photo, would also have preferred moving the camera so that the tree is not so close to goose's head.

 

[Majeed Badizadegan]

I enjoy #1. I like the composition of #2 but seems like focus was missed. #3, not much to say.

 

[toniap]

thanks everybody so much for commenting :thumbup: I am taking it all in

 

[Bynx]

I dont know what you did different from everyone else in uploading your pics here, but I dont see a thing.

 

[EchoingWhisper]

I dont know what you did different from everyone else in uploading your pics here, but I dont see a thing.

I could see though.

 

[Cpi2011]

I like your first 2 pictures it was really great shot. Thanks for sharing !!

 

[toniap]

thanks cpi2011

 

[Alex_B]

So, now also I have to add my 2 cents on watermarking:

I had a time when I would watermark all images which would appear somewhere on the web. The low res versions with an unintrusive watermark at the bottom at the image, and the mid-res version with a watermark right in the middle.

However, at some point I came to the following conclusion:

- The unintrusive watermark can be easily cropped away if someone wants to use the image.
- The centred watermark ruins the image totally, I would not want to show ruined images.

So that does only leave one purpose left for (unintrusive) watermarks: advertising yourself. And there I realised I advertise myself enough by the context I present the images in.

Hence today, every image I present at a pixelcount of below 1000x1000 is not watermarked at all.

 

[Joel_W]

Well said Alex.

 

[Joey_Ricard]

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!

You read minds Charlie! -

 

[toniap]