Black Cat

[robbins.photo]

Since when is something deliberately added to an image the same as a natural imperfection, that's what you need to train the eye to differentiate.

Nope, not really. If it detracts from the image it detracts from the image, I don't see a benefit to learning to ignore it.

Whether or not one chooses to mention it in a critique is a separate issue entirely.

I generally chose not too, as the individual made the choice to watermark. But even if I chose not to mention it I can't possibly imagine any benefit to pretending it doesn't exist.

Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk

 

[jcdeboever]

I can see through to the image but the watermark is smack dab in the composition zone. I just do not care to look that hard.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[timor]

What, if this is not about imperfection or perfection. What, if this is about, how the picture is presented to us ?
Placing this type of mark in the picture seem disrespectful, seems, that THE ARTIST consider us to be a bunch of crooks ready to steal his image, if one wants this straight. It is funny and gets deserved fire. Now I wonder, if TJ_Photographer is printing his gallery size pictures with this watermark in the middle. If he is printing at all. Such a big watermark right in the middle of the picture is a sign not of seriousness, but silliness.

 

[limr32 1]

Oh for crying out loud. The watermark wasn't an artistic choice to enhance the visual aspects or enjoyment of the image. It's not editing, it's branding - and quite unavoidable branding at that. Informing the OP that his mark was distracting is not stifling his creativity.

 

[timor]

Oh for crying out loud. The watermark wasn't an artistic choice to enhance the visual aspects or enjoyment of the image. It's not editing, it's branding - and quite unavoidable branding at that. Informing the OP that his mark was distracting is not stifling his creativity.

Yup...

 

[robbins.photo]

Oh for crying out loud. The watermark wasn't an artistic choice to enhance the visual aspects or enjoyment of the image. It's not editing, it's branding - and quite unavoidable branding at that. Informing the OP that his mark was distracting is not stifling his creativity.

 

[Watchful]

I still find it funny when a person can't look beyond a watermark.
Don't like it? Don't look.

 

[timor]

Don't like it? Don't look.

Thank's for advice. But... how without looking I should know, if I like it or not ?

 

[robbins.photo]

I still find it funny when a person can't look beyond a watermark.
Don't like it? Don't look.

Well I guess I find it funny that one person bringing it up counts as an outcry, or that adding a watermark is somehow pushing an artistic boundary, or the entire notion that somehow training yourself to ignore a distracting element of an image is a standard practice or even a good idea.

But for the record, and to the OP - if you want to add watermarks, feel free, it's your choice. If someone mentions it, just keep in mind it's a consequence of that choice. Should you decide not to add them in later or continue to watermark each image, again entirely your prerogative.

 

[Watchful]

Don't judge a photo by the watermark.
That has a nice ring to it.

 

[limr32 1]

Y'know folks, we should totally take his advice: ignore the distracting noise.

 

[waday]

So, umm.... if the OP has stuck around despite the noise in this thread...

I think the first is ok, but may help from a better crop?

Eh? (I chose to crop the arm, because I didn't like the crop with the paw in it. It's also all I can do using MS Paint.)

 

[robbins.photo]

Y'know folks, we should totally take his advice: ignore the distracting noise.

Wow.. no kidding. But now I'm kicking myself, I already used the golfer clap on another post.

 

[Watchful]

Exactly, view the image only, nothing else.
Thank you for that.

 

[limr32 1]

Exactly, view the image only, nothing else.
Thank you for that.

Wrong again.