Need C&C for potential portfolio pictures

[c_lawrence]

Some posters can make very snarky comments like:
Be mindful of what you ask for. You just may receive it.

kundalini... :lmao:... I like ur style!

 

[elemental]

I think 1 and 4 are my immediate favorites. Both have vibrant and interesting but decidedly natural colors. I especially like the composition of 4: Lots of angles at work there, but everything fits. This sort of patriotic display generally rubs me as corny, but for whatever reason, this just comes across as an excellent photo. I think 4 is my favorite.

Please ignore me if I am beating a dead horse, but what is the purpose double-watermarking your pictures? This is not sarcastic or rhetorical, I am really just curious. I've seen it before on here, and I'm sure I will again, and I just can't say I ever understood it (and additionally, everyone who I ask seems to take it personally). So please accept that I mean no slight, and answer my question?

 

[c_lawrence]

elemental, no worries, I don't stress out too much on anything and certainly not what's written on an online forum with who know what kinds of personalities you come across... although, I too have seen people getting all bent out of shape here (kind of think it's a little funny )
Anyway, here is what I wrote on the other post in response to a similar question:

Some professionals in the field have told me to be extremely careful when posting online and to use a large watermark with 60% opacity (these are 50%). One guy told me a story of how he posted one the web with a discrete copyright logo at the bottom of a picture that was included in his webfolio but had sold to a greeting card company with exclusivity for one year. A calendar company came through his site, copied the image, cropped the copyright and used it in their calendar. The greeting card company some how found out and filed suit againt the photographer for breech of contract. In the end, the greeting card company retracted the suit and settled after the photographer sued the calendar company for stealing his image... he won, of course and even made a small sum of money from it... but all could have been avoided with a semi-obnoxious watermark. I doubt any of my pics are good enough for someone to want them for a calendar, but other things to consider... for example, someone stealing the image of the child and placing it somewhere on the web with some negative connotation attached to it/her and no way of me ever finding out... pro's and con's, I guess....

At this point, however, I have decided NOT to use the large watermark and simply resize the image to reduce the res just enough to make a really crappy print. Although I may still put a less obtrusive watermark on any pictures of children for the reason I mentioned above... my job has opened my eyes to some real sickos when it comes to children and has, unfortunately, made me overly cautious about protecting them...



So... aside from the watermark... any other comments and/or critique/tips for the pics themselves? I realize the now infamous watermark makes some of them difficult to see and I will post more soon without it, but until then...

 

[GwHizzKid]

all great stuff!

 

[EOS_JD]

I'm thinking of using a watermark..... Don't lose it just make it dofferent - maybe not so imposing over your images.

Some very rude responses here and this is not what I would have thought you'd get here on TPF.

Most of what I think about yopur images is noted above.

Keep shooting and experimenting and posting

Good luck
JD

 

[dab_20]

I think they're all really nice, surprisingly good if you just barely started shooting. The puppy one is absolutely adorable!! They're all quite good choices for a portfolio. If your going for a more natural photography look, I might not use #6. But whatever your style is, it's important to show it in a portfolio. Overall, very nice job

 

[MarcusM]

I agree with everyone about the watermark. It's hard to appreciate and really take in the photo.

#1 - my favorite, nice shot.

#2 - I don't think you should have cut the rider off in the torso. I think you should have included the rider.

 

[c_lawrence]

Thanks again. Any more technical suggestions on these photos?