Black Cat

[timor]

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

Something tells me, it is your picture placed here with second account. So far no word from OP, but you sound like OP's advocate. Especially that it is not any remarkable picture. Apart from watermark.

 

[Watchful]

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

Something tells me, it is your picture placed here with second account. So far no word from OP, but you sound like OP's advocate. Especially that it is not any remarkable picture. Apart from watermark.

Because anyone offering any supportive comments must be somehow cheating... That's very cynical, or you understand the users of this forum well.
I am just a person trying to help grow the hobby and business of photography by being supportive, no ulterior motive. No self serving.
Sorry to disappoint.

 

[timor]

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

Something tells me, it is your picture placed here with second account. So far no word from OP, but you sound like OP's advocate. Especially that it is not any remarkable picture. Apart from watermark.

Because anyone offering any supportive comments must be somehow cheating... That's very cynical, or you understand the users of this forum well.
I am just a person trying to help grow the hobby and business of photography by being supportive, no ulterior motive. No self serving.
Sorry to disappoint.

No cynicism here, only lifetime of experience with peoples behavior.
As for the help, we expressed our opinions. It is only you, who fight them with vigor worth better cause. So far no word from OP. Maybe our voices not so nice, but still something to consider for the future. Or to show us .

 

[Tim Tucker]

We might have also scared the OP away?

Anyway, away from the distracting noise...

I think the B&W conversions are very good. But I would tone down the selective colour. Even muted colour will contrast against B&W so you can make it subtle rather than obvious. Give your viewer the benefit, don't act on the assumption they may miss it.

The compositions are a little off and, well, confused and random. Why is the first one tilted in relation to the frame? It's almost as though you're trying to divorce any relationship between the two. Even tension requires a relationship, the lack of it is just disorder.
In the second image the cat really is on the wrong side of the frame. His eyes and the lady's hair all suggest movement to the left so he should be further to the right. The cat's line of sight is really a strong diagonal.

Just as alternate suggestions and not presented as correct:

The watermark is well placed on a valuable image, but distracting on one that isn't. There are hundreds of thousands of cat/dog/puppy/kitten shots around, even got a few myself...

 

[bribrius]

not really that big a fan of the photo to be honest but i like the watermark

 

[bribrius]

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.

it is actually pretty standard procedure from my experience i have known a number of photographers that do the same especially those that do it for a living and sell prints. Often they will post photos of someones child in a account, email them, etc and let them chose which prints they would like to purchase and all will be watermarked similar to this. The photographers that shot my kids karate tournaments did the same all watermarked similarly. On even our local artists facebook site the conditions state there is no responsibility for photos and all artists are encouraged to watermark all images. Similar with the art association though some chose not to all are suggested too. Basically, its pretty standard procedure.

 

[bribrius]

If your watermark makes you happy, then to heck with everyone else.
Don't force yourself into someone else's box just because they are afraid to push boundaries.
Be true to you.

Using a huge watermark is pushing boundaries now? Lol.

how you prolly should watermark a image honestly. The few and far between times i bothered i usually put it in a corner small print but realistically it just takes a mild crop to make it disappear and depending on the photo that can easily be done in some cases and still have a composition-ally fine photo even cropped. For anyone with any intention of doing it for a living and selling prints (this isn't a living for me) then yes, a nice large watermark and they should get used to the idea when sending photos to clients especially. Chances are if someone can post process a large obvious watermark out covering near the entire image then they were capable of taking their own. Small ones, can be just cut off in a crop or more easily shopped out.

 

[DanOstergren30 5]

I agree with Watchful on this topic. You can look past the watermark, and there are plenty of people who responded to this topic offering feedback without mentioning the watermark to prove this.

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.

Saying it ruins the image is over dramatic in my opinion, but accusing the OP of being disrespectful because of it is absolutely crazy, and why on earth would anyone jump to the conclusion that the photographer would actually print their image in gallery size with this watermark on it? That's absurd, and THAT is disrespectful.

I'm all about supporting an artist's right to mark their online work for whatever reason they choose (although personally I feel the smartest way to do it is with a link to your website, but that's just one man's opinion). Giving feedback on a watermark is perfectly acceptable in my opinion too, but unless it completely blocks the image out or makes something impossible to see, the watermark and the image should be critiqued separately, and ultimately the photographer's decision to keep it should be respected no matter the reason.

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

Something tells me, it is your picture placed here with second account. So far no word from OP, but you sound like OP's advocate. Especially that it is not any remarkable picture. Apart from watermark.

Timor, so by your logic because I am supporting the OP's decision, does that mean it's a second account of mine now? How absolutely ridiculous. It's strange to me that instead of being civil with those who disagree with you, you instead make outlandish accusations to try and discredit their opinion. It's also ironic that you would accuse someone of being disrespectful by adding a watermark to their photo, yet then you turn around and accuse someone else of pretending to be the OP simply because they support the OP's decision, and then you even go on to act as if the person you are accusing should be ashamed of having taken these photos. I think the only reason you're posting here is simply to be disrespectful to others.

 

[timor]

it is actually pretty standard procedure from my experience i have known a number of photographers that do the same especially those that do it for a living and sell prints.

I know that practice and I am completely alright with it. But here is not OP website, nor a market place and we are not his clients. Plus picture placed here are usually of such small resolution (Op's are 722x481) that are useless for printing anything else but maybe 4x5. That is a defence by itself. That is the tactics of many, many selling photographers with theirs websites. I just don't see a need on our website for such an obsessive protection.

 

[timor]

Timor, so by your logic because I am supporting the OP's decision, does that mean it's a second account of mine now? How absolutely ridiculous. It's strange to me that instead of being civil with those who disagree with you, you instead make outlandish accusations to try and discredit their opinion. It's also ironic that you would accuse someone of being disrespectful by adding a watermark to their photo, yet then you turn around and accuse someone else of pretending to be the OP simply because they support the OP's decision, and then you even go on to act as if the person you are accusing should be ashamed of having taken these photos. I think the only reason you're posting here is simply to be disrespectful to others.

Civil ? Me and others, who don't like this watermark and had the courage to voice it were sent by "Watchful" to " heck". (Post #7) If that for you a polite way to treat your interlocutors opinions... The rest is just life. Put the blame on the fact, that I am not even a human, but a machine.

 

[pixmedic]

wow.
tough crowd tonight.
so look, heres the deal. im not really a fan of selective color OR B&W, but these actually came out pretty nice. (though I like the edit with the eyes muted a little better)
personally, I think (and this is just my opinion) the watermark is a double edged sword...yes, its big, imposing, and distracting...
but, its opaque enough for me to see the image behind it, so I can work around that. six of one, half dozen of another.

I will also say this...
if an image is posted with a watermark in a gallery that is open for critique (basically all galleries except "just for fun" FYI)
then you should expect that any part of the image is open for critique....and that includes the watermark, since from our point of view, thats part of the finished product as posted.
now, obviously this is not an ideal situation given the varying opinions...however, depending on ones expectations for the pictures uses, critique involving the watermark may (or may not) be relevant.
lets just keep the critique as relevant and civil as possible please.
lets not let something silly like a watermark debate scare the OP off.

 

[limr32 1]

lets just keep the critique as relevant and civil as possible please.
lets not let something silly like a watermark debate scare the OP off.

Fair point, although considering the OP has posted several image threads but not come back to respond to any of the comments on those either, I'm not sure the tone of this one had anything to do with his absence here.

 

[mgblunt]

Good photos selective color is a good touch but thats a distracting watermark

 

[TJ_Photographer]

Okay, so I didn't notice any of this going on cause I didn't get any notifications, But the reason for such a big watermark is so that people can't just take my image and use it as their own. Right now I'm still only in high school so I have a lot to learn, but my photo teacher told me that if I am using a watermark to put it in the center and big, so that no one can crop it out. And I'm smart enough to know to keep a version of the image without watermark so I can print it and such. I put a watermark on all my images if you look close enough, I try to blend it as much as possible with it still being there. I'm sorry if this has become a disturbance and is taking away from the photo.

 

[TJ_Photographer]

I would also like to say I enjoyed reading all these comments, and I wish I could have been apart of the discussion. It taught me lot on how people react and different ways of portraying photos. I only wish the site would have notified me of all this activity, I only saw because it was under the most act threads.