Very characteristic of many images posted here seeking plaudits or feedback. However, generally speaking, the larger and more intrusive the watermark, the less worthy the image IMHO!
Hi Richard........That pic. made my day.....I never shot a pic. I thought worthy of a watermark ..... and think they are over used.....Just my opinion:D
I would suggest black or fluorescent orange text to help it stand out...
Right. The mark is actually Leonardo's signature and the original was black. The source image was small and of poor quality. Black didn't work because of the hair, so I did a quick color change to yellow. I usually don't spend much time on joke pics, but maybe I'll look around and see if I can find better source images and do a better job in PS.
I think the image suffers greatly. First the image is very soft. Your model's hands seem to be in an awkward position. What happened to her eyebrows?
Detail is totally lost on the bottom half of the image. Also what's up with that silly smirk?
Hey, Jim: I swapped the original for a revised version. I found a better copy of his signature and took your advice about orange. As for legibility, well, you'll have to take that up with him.
I think the image suffers greatly. First the image is very soft. Your model's hands seem to be in an awkward position. What happened to her eyebrows?
Detail is totally lost on the bottom half of the image. Also what's up with that silly smirk?
I think the new watermark is still totally ineffective. We all know that the purpose of a watermark is to completely distract the viewer's attention away from the underlying image. Even with this version we can clearly see that the underlying image is Gainsborough's Blue Boy, as copied by Michelangelo. I'm afraid that you will just have to keep practicing, Richard.
Is that banding? That 5DII banding is worse than I thought! Wow, those DPR forums are right after all!
Nice try, but you've got to know the limits of your camera. I think a diffused flash or two would have brightened up the image, allowing for the lower ISO...
I think the new watermark is still totally ineffective. We all know that the purpose of a watermark is to completely distract the viewer's attention away from the underlying image. Even with this version we can clearly see that the underlying image is Gainsborough's Blue Boy, as copied by Michelangelo. I'm afraid that you will just have to keep practicing, Richard.
Comments
www.digismile.ca
Pentax K-x and assorted lenses
Absolutely great. Thanks for the extra reason to smile today.
"The camera doesn't make a bit of difference. All of them can record what you are seeing. But, you have to SEE." - Ernst Haas
Link to my Smugmug site
www.mind-driftphoto.com
Daytona Beach at night
www.mind-driftphoto.com
Lauren Blackwell
www.redleashphoto.com
www.Dogdotsphotography.com
TravelwaysPhotos.com ...... Facebook
VegasGreatAttractions.com
Travelways.com
I would suggest black or fluorescent orange text to help it stand out...
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
Right. The mark is actually Leonardo's signature and the original was black. The source image was small and of poor quality. Black didn't work because of the hair, so I did a quick color change to yellow. I usually don't spend much time on joke pics, but maybe I'll look around and see if I can find better source images and do a better job in PS.
I think the image suffers greatly. First the image is very soft. Your model's hands seem to be in an awkward position. What happened to her eyebrows?
Detail is totally lost on the bottom half of the image. Also what's up with that silly smirk?
Maybe get her back and re-shoot.
Sam
http://wernerg.smugmug.com/
Nice try, but you've got to know the limits of your camera. I think a diffused flash or two would have brightened up the image, allowing for the lower ISO...