Fishing Gull Tryptych
Please forgive the watermark.:lust
Please give me some feedback.
Neil
"Snow. Ice. Slow!" "Half-winter. Half-moon. Half-asleep!"
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
0
Please forgive the watermark.:lust
Please give me some feedback.
Neil
Comments
http://clearwaterphotography.smugmug.com/
…but even without them, I'd be hard pressed to work out exactly what I'm looking at in #3
Thanks for sharing!
- Wil
Mitchell, although what I have to offer here might not move the earth for you - they are not typical of the documentary style in this thread - I do think as a set they have decorative value, I really like the treatment and the textures, they are not just about a bird, but about a bird and a setting, an ambiance and a narrative. I especially like the balletic shapes of the bird above the rippled and glassy water, with reflections. My intention with these is to offer them as a limited edition of decorative framed sets, on canvas with blond wood frames, to be sold in a gallery. Whatever they are worth to a small few potential buyers is lessened if they appear to be freely available on the internet. You are probably right that they are trivial, but if that's all I have I still have the right to protect it.
I also like my logo, and I know I am not alone in that. A signature style watermark placed somewhere around the edge of the frame, which is possibly the most common, does not, as everyone knows, provide security for your work for sale. A watermark for security must deface the image or else it is useless. This is the first occasion ever on which I have used such a watermark, for the reasons I have just explained.
I apologised for it, and I hoped still that people might look past it to comment on the images themselves. That's not impossible. While I appreciate your comment, it does not say anything, whether negative or positive, about what I am trying to achieve with these images, .
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
Not sure how to take your comment, Wil, but thanks for looking! Perhaps what I have written to Mitchell above might be relevant. I realise that the style of these images is decorative and not the typical ultra realistic documentary type usual here. Perhaps I have posted them to the wrong thread?
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
North San Diego County
Wade Courtney Photography
Be my Fan on Facebook
Top 20 By Interestingness
Most Recent Captures
Something Completely Random
Please post your results here.
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
http://www.google.com/search?q=removing+watermarks+from+photos
--- Denise
Musings & ramblings at https://denisegoldberg.blogspot.com
I'm guessing that you're going for a high key look.
Going with that, the first shot looks a bit ... strange. The bird is lacking almost all detail and to
my eyes, looks like a paper cutout. I bit more detail would help.
The second shot, although I like the wing tips touching the water, staring at this birds
butt on my wall wouldn't do it for me. If the bird would have been orientated differently, this
could have been a nice shot.
Once again with the third shot, the blown out tail looks like a paper cut out. The pose is nice,
but not dramatic enough to carry the shot. Had the bird been looking in your direction, this
pose is very desirable.
This is an early example of one of my shots of gulls fishing:
Of course on the net, it tough to envision these on a wall.
How large are you thinking the prints should be?
It's possible that in a beach house with large white walls, these could work, but the main
subject is so small in the shot, I would think 20 x 30 inches would be a minimum.
but at that size, the lack of detail in the bird would so glaring, that I don't think I would go for them.
Basking in the shadows of yesterday's triumphs'.
<o:p></o:p>
Your defense of both images and water mark is analogous to others posts I have read in which the photog states "... I don't care what you think ... I like it." If one doesn't care what others think, then why request a critique? Perhaps a qualifier of "Only Positive Critiques Appreciated" could be used as a broiler-plate disclaimer in lieu of the watermark. Albeit, Mitchell's last remark, while quite telling, was a bit blunt. I suspect Mitchell is not a student of H.L. Menchen and I quote, "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public." <o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Personally, I really don't see anything in your images which shout "Great Photography" or "Buy Me". The basic image is uninspiring, the horizons seem a bit tilted, the focal point of the image is centered (smothering any suggestion of movement), seems to be a lack of detail in the white (hard to see through the watermark, the choice of subject matter is rather pedestrian, et cetera.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
I suspect that with some Photo Shopping, a digital artist could turn the image(s) into something worth "swiping" ... but then the images would be something other than a photograph. In summary, just because you think you can sell it does not qualify the image as good. (The marketplace is not an indicator of quality.)<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
My Two Cents,<o:p></o:p>
Gary
Unsharp at any Speed
The watermarks are there at the photographer's wish. Any further discussion of the watermarks is ....:deadhorse
There are some interesting images to talk about.
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
With my limited photoshop skills and patience, this is what I came up with. My point was, and I can say this with some knowledge of DRM and media security, that there is no way to 100% guarantee that someone won't swipe your stuff.
Wade
North San Diego County
Wade Courtney Photography
Be my Fan on Facebook
Top 20 By Interestingness
Most Recent Captures
Something Completely Random
Yep, Denise, I know all about all of that.
But as you can see from Wade's attempt the removal of a good watermark is not likely to be so successful as to leave the image unaffected. And it requires more software, more skill, more patience and more time than the average pilferer on the internet is interested in investing in.
That's as far as it goes, and that's far enough, I reckon.
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
Many thanks, Dave, for your generous-spirited critique!!
I agree almost entirely with everything you say. You touched on my two biggest concerns: the butt view in #2 - which wouldn't do it for me on my wall either, and the size of the bird in the canvas. The longest lens I have, used here, is the 70-200mm f4L. The bird was not all that far from me, and the lens was on my crop body 40D, but still the lens was not long enough for the ideal capture. Adding to the difficulty of capturing these images was that the light (after sunset) was so low the AF was beginning to falter (I think they were shot at ISO 800), and the bird was fishing from the surface, rather than gliding from above, so that it was making extremely quick and unpredictable leaps and dives in and out of the water in the space of only a couple of feet or so (I used AIServo, and the balance of shutter speed and aperture for freezing action and getting enough exposure and DOF was very, very delicate indeed!). I must add that I thought the performance of the 40D and lens in these circumstances, and in the hands of an inexperienced shooter - the first time I have ever attempted anything like this - was stellar!
Seeing these inadequacies in these captures, but liking some things about them too, I thought it worthwhile to try to reach a compromise through styling them in post. I can of course see how your image of the gull is superior as an image of a gull. However, it has no ambiance. I do love the textures of ripples and glassiness and reflections in the water in my images. I love the washed out tones I have given them in imitation of a painting technique. For me, those two things - textures of light and mood of color - are almost enough to justify printing and hanging.
So the bird being small is balanced by the presence in the images of other strong elements which give the images their unique character. They are not images of a gull mainly, they are images of ambiance-mood. The display of these images together in triptych format, side by side, each in its own frame, strengthens that character, as the light, patterns and color are repeated, while the bird becomes more a motif than a documentary subject.
As well as to bring out the light and textures, it was to make the bird more this kind of motif, rather than a documentary study, that I developed the washed out style. As a result, but on purpose, the bird lost some detail and tone, becoming more like something that is painted. There is a bit more detail and tone in the bird than you can see in these <500KB pics. The files are ~11MB .tiff, and at 12"x18" they look just fine at normal viewing - three together at this size is a big enough product.
100% crop (noise, of course, but on canvas at normal viewing will be OK - none of them are blown out). You can see the drops of water falling from the bird because it has just sprung up from the surface of the water.
I agree with you that the original images are failures because of some major deficiencies of size and detail of the bird. On the other hand I think, as I have developed them, they succeed on other criteria.
Again, sincere thanks, Dave, for your very fine and generous critique.
Neil
PS Dave, what would you recommend as a way to increase reach on this lens - extension tubes? Or should I be thinking of a 300mm or 400mm?
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
The watermark is gone, along with a lot of the quality of the image! Security MAINTAINED!
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
Thanks, Gary.
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
Extension tubes allow you to get close to a subject. They won't give you more reach.
For your 70-200 f4 lens, the best you can do would be to buy a 1.4 teleconverter.
For around $300 you'll gain 80mm in length, but, you'll lose one stop of light.
It seems like there's always a trade off.
I don't have one, but I've read that the 300f4is is a very good lens.
Because it's an f4, you could add a 1.4 tc to it and end up with a 420mm f5.6 with i.s.
Of course adding a tc is not as good as having a lens mounted without one.
The AF will be a bit slower, the image will be just a bit softer.
Once again ... a trade off.
Look through some of threads in the Wildlife forum.
You'll find many different ways to gain reach, but still have a kit that's manageable.
There is a wealth of knowledge here, and most will share if asked nicely.
For a light weight travel kit, I now have a Canon 7D with a Canon 15-85is and a Canon 100-400Lis.
For me, this makes a great kit. 15mm to 400mm in 2 lenses that seem to work very well with that camera.
Basking in the shadows of yesterday's triumphs'.
I don't agree with your assessment of my skills, but hey, to each his own. Good luck!
North San Diego County
Wade Courtney Photography
Be my Fan on Facebook
Top 20 By Interestingness
Most Recent Captures
Something Completely Random