Options

Large skipper butterfly resting on leaf

[Deleted User][Deleted User] Big grinsWisbech UKPosts: 0 Big grins
edited September 13, 2016 in Holy Macro
The user and all related content has been deleted.

Comments

  • Options
    StumblebumStumblebum Registered Users Posts: 8,480 Major grins
    edited September 11, 2016
    Lovely watermark!
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Big grins Wisbech UKPosts: 0 Big grins
    edited September 11, 2016
    The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • Options
    StumblebumStumblebum Registered Users Posts: 8,480 Major grins
    edited September 11, 2016
    I thought if you cloned out the butterfly, watermark would look great!
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Big grins Wisbech UKPosts: 0 Big grins
    edited September 11, 2016
    The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • Options
    StumblebumStumblebum Registered Users Posts: 8,480 Major grins
    edited September 11, 2016
    When you remove crap that you don't want in there in first place it is not called cheating, again, i love fonts.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Big grins Wisbech UKPosts: 0 Big grins
    edited September 11, 2016
    The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • Options
    ian408ian408 Administrators Posts: 21,912 moderator
    edited September 11, 2016
    OK. Enough. Both of you.
    Moderator Journeys/Sports/Big Picture :: Need some help with dgrin?
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Big grins Wisbech UKPosts: 0 Big grins
    edited September 11, 2016
    The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • Options
    ian408ian408 Administrators Posts: 21,912 moderator
    edited September 11, 2016
    kateycat wrote: »
    thanks and sorry, not on here to cause issues but also not here to have issues over what i do with my website,
    We get it. No more. OK?
    Moderator Journeys/Sports/Big Picture :: Need some help with dgrin?
  • Options
    e6filmusere6filmuser Registered Users Posts: 3,378 Major grins
    edited September 12, 2016
    kateycat wrote: »
    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. :D

    Nice picture (ignoring the watermark).

    Harold
  • Options
    puzzledpaulpuzzledpaul Registered Users Posts: 1,621 Major grins
    edited September 12, 2016
    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 :)

    pp
    Website

    Flickr
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Big grins Wisbech UKPosts: 0 Big grins
    edited September 12, 2016
    The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Big grins Wisbech UKPosts: 0 Big grins
    edited September 12, 2016
    The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • Options
    e6filmusere6filmuser Registered Users Posts: 3,378 Major grins
    edited September 12, 2016
    puzzledpaul wrote: »
    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 :)

    Or "ducking the issue" ? rolleyes1.gif

    Harold
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Big grins Wisbech UKPosts: 0 Big grins
    edited September 12, 2016
    The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • Options
    Cygnus StudiosCygnus Studios Registered Users Posts: 2,294 Major grins
    edited September 12, 2016
    I for one actually like the image. Nice capture.
    Steve

    Website
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Big grins Wisbech UKPosts: 0 Big grins
    edited September 13, 2016
    The user and all related content has been deleted.
Sign In or Register to comment.