Glasgow!!

[riz_sat]

Hello everyone!
I took this photo when I used to live in Glasgow! I am sorry for watermarks as I put them long time ago!
So I would appreciate C & C on this photo!

 

[thereyougo!4]

First thing that jumps out at me is the watermark. 1 watermark is one thing but 3. Are you serious?

Once I eventually get past those (and really they are distracting) there isn't enough sky there to gve a sense of scale to the building. That's if that is the subject, but I'm not sure that that is the subject.


I know I have gone on about watermarks, but when I see a watermark, the first thing I think is - right, this person fears their photo being stolen - if that's the case they must think it's really that special, and mre often than not it's not. There are better ways of avoiding the theft of your work, one of them is to keep your ppi down to screen resolution which for most is 72 ppi and keep your longest size down to 800 px.

Edited to add - I take on board the comments you said yourself about the watermarks - I'll be honest and say that I looked at the image before the text. Did you not keep the original file or original edited file before you added the watermark?

 

[riz_sat]

First thing that jumps out at me is the watermark. 1 watermark is one thing but 3. Are you serious?

Once I eventually get past those (and really they are distracting) there isn't enough sky there to gve a sense of scale to the building. That's if that is the subject, but I'm not sure that that is the subject.


I know I have gone on about watermarks, but when I see a watermark, the first thing I think is - right, this person fears their photo being stolen - if that's the case they must think it's really that special, and mre often than not it's not. There are better ways of avoiding the theft of your work, one of them is to keep your ppi down to screen resolution which for most is 72 ppi and keep your longest size down to 800 px.

Edited to add - I take on board the comments you said yourself about the watermarks - I'll be honest and say that I looked at the image before the text. Did you not keep the original file or original edited file before you added the watermark?

I really appreciate your comment on my work. Well you are right I was scared to some extent that this image may get stolen and I admit that I had a 'watermark fever' the time I took this photo lol. But the reason I put watermark is also for the credit! it once happened to me that someone used a photo taken by me without my permission and giving me credit!

Now I have put one watermark instead and decreased the image to 72 ppi!

Well the subject in this photo is the girl looking across the river!

 

[thereyougo!4]

First thing that jumps out at me is the watermark. 1 watermark is one thing but 3. Are you serious?

Once I eventually get past those (and really they are distracting) there isn't enough sky there to gve a sense of scale to the building. That's if that is the subject, but I'm not sure that that is the subject.


I know I have gone on about watermarks, but when I see a watermark, the first thing I think is - right, this person fears their photo being stolen - if that's the case they must think it's really that special, and mre often than not it's not. There are better ways of avoiding the theft of your work, one of them is to keep your ppi down to screen resolution which for most is 72 ppi and keep your longest size down to 800 px.

Edited to add - I take on board the comments you said yourself about the watermarks - I'll be honest and say that I looked at the image before the text. Did you not keep the original file or original edited file before you added the watermark?

I really appreciate your comment on my work. Well you are right I was scared to some extent that this image may get stolen and I admit that I had a 'watermark fever' the time I took this photo lol. But the reason I put watermark is also for the credit! it once happened to me that someone used a photo taken by me without my permission and giving me credit!

Now I have put one watermark instead and decreased the image to 72 ppi!

Well the subject in this photo is the girl looking across the river!

The girl is very central in the foreground, and I'm not sure what she is looking at. There are so many lines in the picture and you can't see anything of her face so you can't tell what she is looking at. To me and other people's mileage may vary, she's not interacting with the rest of the scene enough to appear to be the subject. I can't see what her relation is to the what else is going on. It appears to be well exposed, and the conversion is ok. Everything is pretty much in focus which leads me to believe that you were using a narrow (high f/ number) aperture. So she's not separated from the scene.

 

[WesternGuy]

First point - a watermark is not going to stop anyone from stealing your image - ever! If I wanted to steal your image, not that I would do that, because I am very strongly against that sort of thing, it would take me all of five minutes or less with Photoshop to remove the watermark. If, for whatever reason, you are going to insist on using a water mark, then, in my opinion, it should include a copyright symbol and a year, e.g., © 2012 Rizwan Satter. People may not be as prone to "steal" something that is marked with a © symbol - don't know(?).

As far as other compositional things go, I would have liked to have seen more sky, maybe the top third or quarter, as the sky that I can see has some very good contrast and tonal range to it. These are among the more inportant aspects of black and white conversion. I would also have placed the girl off centre, either on the left or right third line in the image - rule of thirds. Having her right in the centre, draws the viewer to the centre of the image and then the horizontal railings which are compositional horizontal lines, take the viewer's eye out of the image. If she is off to the side, then she acts as a vertical line to keep the viewer's eye in the picture.

WesternGuy

 

[riz_sat]

First point - a watermark is not going to stop anyone from stealing your image - ever! If I wanted to steal your image, not that I would do that, because I am very strongly against that sort of thing, it would take me all of five minutes or less with Photoshop to remove the watermark. If, for whatever reason, you are going to insist on using a water mark, then, in my opinion, it should include a copyright symbol and a year, e.g., © 2012 Rizwan Satter. People may not be as prone to "steal" something that is marked with a © symbol - don't know(?).

As far as other compositional things go, I would have liked to have seen more sky, maybe the top third or quarter, as the sky that I can see has some very good contrast and tonal range to it. These are among the more inportant aspects of black and white conversion. I would also have placed the girl off centre, either on the left or right third line in the image - rule of thirds. Having her right in the centre, draws the viewer to the centre of the image and then the horizontal railings which are compositional horizontal lines, take the viewer's eye out of the image. If she is off to the side, then she acts as a vertical line to keep the viewer's eye in the picture.

WesternGuy

You have indeed pointed out some good things about the watermark! Next time I will be careful with it by having copyright symbol and year in it and will try not to make it as distracting as it looks in the image.

Regarding composition now I get it why it has drawbacks in the photo! To me it looks like I lost an opportunity for a good photo. However I really appreciate yours and thereyougo!'s critique on it! I will try to keep these things on mind. Thank you so much