watermark cc

chris5olsonchris5olson Registered Users Posts: 76 Big grins
edited December 31, 2010 in People
Hi all!
after the CC i got on my photos that my watermark was distracting, I decided to play around and design a new one. I was hoping to get some CC on this one. (to see previous watermark see this post http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=186766 )

1. The Watermark Alone
log.jpg

2. The Watermark on an image.
IMG_7193logo.jpg
(I dont mind CC for the image either!)
In My Bag:
Canon Rebel XSi. Canon 50mm f/1.4. Canon 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6. Speedlite 430exII
Coming Soon
Canon 5DmkII. Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L

Comments

  • VayCayMomVayCayMom Registered Users Posts: 1,870 Major grins
    edited December 31, 2010
    Much better in my opinion, nice job!
    Trudy
    www.CottageInk.smugmug.com

    NIKON D700
  • adbsgicomadbsgicom Registered Users Posts: 3,615 Major grins
    edited December 31, 2010
    I like this much more. Much less obtrusive.
    As for the image, the focus seems soft. I'd consider bringing the crop up a bit from the bottom to lose the partial hands. Nice couple!
    - Andrew

    Who is wise? He who learns from everyone.
    My SmugMug Site
  • ChatKatChatKat Registered Users Posts: 1,357 Major grins
    edited December 31, 2010
    Dof
    When you are using low light lenses if you shoot wide open often the images are going to be soft. Watch your distance to subject or stop down. Usually for two people you want to shoot towards f4-f5.6 to have them be crisp.

    Also, one of the purposes of a watermark is to keep the image from being used without your permission and being cropped out. It should be across the image in a way that covers it enough that it can't be cropped off without ruining the image itself.

    Third - never cut off hands, feet, limbs - it is bad composition to do that. Hands in particular are important to a composition.
    Kathy Rappaport
    Flash Frozen Photography, Inc.
    http://flashfrozenphotography.com
  • PrezwoodzPrezwoodz Registered Users Posts: 1,147 Major grins
    edited December 31, 2010
    I really like the one you have here but I also am a big fan of this one.

    IMG_6532bwc.jpg

    I think you should keep it for advertising and other things. It is great!
    My Pictures can be seen at http://prezwoodz.smugmug.com
    I Live at http://www.alaskamountainforum.com
  • reyvee61reyvee61 Registered Users Posts: 1,877 Major grins
    edited December 31, 2010
    I feel this watermark is more subtle but as mentioned it depends on what your intentions are. If you want your images to remain yours, use something that goes entirely across the image. If you are looking to brand you're online images this is fine but keep in mind that anyone with a little knowhow can easily remove it.
    Yo soy Reynaldo
  • RacinRandyRacinRandy Registered Users Posts: 187 Major grins
    edited December 31, 2010
    chris5olson wrote: »
    log.jpg

    Very nice! I think that both this one and the previous one both work well.
    I think the biggest reason the other one was distracting is the color splash on the b/w image, eye was drawn to the color. I think if you were to have desaturated the wm it would have been fine on that shot.

    Both would work wonderfully as your photo mark in the printing process too. you know that little "Atrist signature" in the bottom right corner of your prints. Just use the color on color and a desat one on the bw stuff. And the new one on the more "Romantic" stuff(Wedding, engagement, family) and the other on Senior Portraits and things of that nature.

    Just My Opinion
    Randy

    EOS Rebel XS Digital/ EOS 7D/ EOS 6D
    50mm f1.8/ Tamron 70-200 f2.8 is/ 24-105 f4L
    Canon speedlights and Alien Bees
Sign In or Register to comment.