Color or B&W?

[sudodrew]

I mentioned the name on the photo because it pulls the eye away from and detracts from the model. If anyone wanted to steal your photo, they'd only have to crop the top or use a cloning tool. You could add a frame around the image and add you name there. Good luck.

It's irrelevant to the photograph. So back to the original question, color or black and white?

It's irrelevant to the question... But very relevant to the photo. It's still a distraction.

Color is my vote. Although not a fan of the skin tone. Bw version too busy. Pretty model tho.

Cheers!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[DanOstergren28 4]

I mentioned the name on the photo because it pulls the eye away from and detracts from the model. If anyone wanted to steal your photo, they'd only have to crop the top or use a cloning tool. You could add a frame around the image and add you name there. Good luck.

It's irrelevant to the photograph. So back to the original question, color or black and white?

It's irrelevant to the question... But very relevant to the photo. It's still a distraction.

Color is my vote. Although not a fan of the skin tone. Bw version too busy. Pretty model tho.

Cheers!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Thanks for the feedback!

Please tell me though, how at all is it relevant to the photograph? It's not part of the retouch, nor is it part of the original exposure, or have anything to do with the photograph other than to give credit to the photographer when posted on the internet. Regardless, I will continue to add it to every single image of mine that is posted online. If it were to be published in a magazine then of course it would be removed, but in this case it is absolutely irrelevant to the photograph itself other than to identify the photographer when shared on the internet. I would think a little differently if it were covering her eyes or some other important aspect of the photograph, or if it were large enough to take up a large portion of the frame, but it's in the corner, out of the way, visible enough only so the viewer will not miss it but not even close to being something that intrudes on the photograph. It's irrelevant to critique.

 

[sudodrew]

Anything on the picture is...well, a part of the picture. Maybe it just comes down to differing schools of thought regarding presentation.

Yes it's very small, but so is dirt on a sensor that shows up on a blue sky on the corner of an image. One would still clone it out even if it's small and in the corners. Probably not the best example, but I hope you can see where I am going with that.

I understand it is for protection and credit, this is the internet after all. But the main point being, it's a critique of a photograph that is being presented. Purely subjective and should be taken with a grain of salt.

Cheers!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[DanOstergren28 4]

Anything on the picture is...well, a part of the picture. Maybe it just comes down to differing schools of thought regarding presentation.

Yes it's very small, but so is dirt on a sensor that shows up on a blue sky on the corner of an image. One would still clone it out even if it's small and in the corners. Probably not the best example, but I hope you can see where I am going with that.

I understand it is for protection and credit, this is the internet after all. But the main point being, it's a critique of a photograph that is being presented. Purely subjective and should be taken with a grain of salt.

Cheers!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It's absolutely irrelevant to the photograph, and is nothing even remotely similar to dust or dirt on the sensor. If the image were a canvas print for an art gallery and it had my name printed like that in the corner then yes, it would be relevant to critique. Honestly I think it's nit-picking in this case, not critique at all, and certainly not constructive.