spot removal is fine, if something is in the image work around it or use it
In several decades of using reversal film, I had to accept what was in my images. Now I get noise where I never had it before but can deal that and with distracting details or crop to modify framing. It is not called "the digital darkroom" for nothing. This is not a criticism, just a point of view.
After reading the above 'to-ing n fro-ing' re watermarks, I decided to have a quick shufties at your site - and noticed that for most (if not all, iirc) of the pics I viewed - the watermark was along the bottom of frame, in such a position that it could be easily cropped off a screen grab, without really cutting into the main subject.
A good example of this, imo is the headline pic for the dragonflies section (nice pic, btw)
Incidentally, if I decided to bother with watermarks, I'd probably seriously consider adopting the approach taken by this guy
Whilst you may well consider the next comment as fitting into the 'pedantic' category ... I was surprised to see text labelling shots as 'macro' ... because they'd been taken with a macro lens.
I appreciate nobody really particularly adheres to the 1:1 'definition' ... but a full frontal shot of a complete female mallard (for ex) is, imo - 'pushing it' a bit
I appreciate nobody really particularly adheres to the 1:1 'definition' ... but a full frontal shot of a complete female mallard (for ex) is, imo - 'pushing it' a bit
Comments
In several decades of using reversal film, I had to accept what was in my images. Now I get noise where I never had it before but can deal that and with distracting details or crop to modify framing. It is not called "the digital darkroom" for nothing. This is not a criticism, just a point of view.
Nice picture (ignoring the watermark).
Harold
A good example of this, imo is the headline pic for the dragonflies section (nice pic, btw)
Incidentally, if I decided to bother with watermarks, I'd probably seriously consider adopting the approach taken by this guy
Whilst you may well consider the next comment as fitting into the 'pedantic' category
I appreciate nobody really particularly adheres to the 1:1 'definition' ... but a full frontal shot of a complete female mallard (for ex) is, imo - 'pushing it' a bit
pp
Flickr
Or "ducking the issue" ?
Harold
Website