- This topic is empty.
More street stuff
-
Some old and new street work. Includes some “street portraiture” where I love to rip off Dorothea Lange and Walker Evans. Thoughts and feelings welcome
New
Old
New
New
Really like the first 2 .. No1 is very interesting though i’d like to zoom in a bit (just my opinion).
Steve,
I really enjoy your work. Of this bunch #1 wins my prize
You showed all of her and her surroundings = the wheels on her cart, what she sells, the fancy holder for her meal. You gave us a view of how she exists.
On the othe rhand, Joey is right, by cropping at wrist level you’d be showing us more of her eyes and thus her soul.
#2 shows more of her face and eyes. But after seeing #1, I want to know more about her environment.
Nice shots but the watermarks ruin them, is there really a need for so many?
Thanks for the comments, appreciate them, although……..
pullandbang wrote:
Agree with the above. Big turn off all the watermarks….
……….why would a person judge a photo by the presence of watermarks?
steveb wrote:
……….why would a person judge a photo by the presence of watermarks?
That’s the problem, I don’t get to judge the shot because I’m drawn to the watermark – it’s a distraction.
It may be just a personal thing with me but it seems to be a common trait among some people who look at photos online.
Whatever about one small discreet watermark in a corner but yours are splashed all across the image and to my mind, they take away completely from what is basically a good image.
Again it’s what I see and others may disagree but there you go.This is a good topic for a bit of fire to brighten up a weekday.
The watermark is not, and is never, part of the image, and only a protective mechanism (I know you know this), and as such for me I dont even see it. Just like an ugly security tag on a nice pair of slacks that you pose in in front of a mirror before you buy, and you dont say Im not buying these slacks because there is an ugly big security tag on them. Do you? Are you really telling me that you fail to enjoy the vast databases of images on Magnum, Panos, VII, Noor, Amazonas, (and to some extent) Getty, and all the other class photography sites that employ watermarks, none of which are ever any more ubiquitous throughout the images than mine are? Hmmm?
pullandbang wrote:
but yours are splashed all across the image and to my mind, they take away completely from what is basically a good image.
See? You can still recognise quality regardess :wink:
steveb wrote:
This is a good topic for a bit of fire to brighten up a weekday.
The watermark is not, and is never, part of the image, and only a protective mechanism (I know you know this), and as such for me I dont even see it. Just like an ugly security tag on a nice pair of slacks that you pose in in front of a mirror before you buy, and you dont say Im not buying these slacks because there is an ugly big security tag on them. Do you? Are you really telling me that you fail to enjoy the vast databases of images on Magnum, Panos, VII, Noor, Amazonas, (and to some extent) Getty, and all the other class photography sites that employ watermarks, none of which are ever any more ubiquitous throughout the images than mine are? Hmmm?
pullandbang wrote:
but yours are splashed all across the image and to my mind, they take away completely from what is basically a good image.
See? You can still recognise quality regardess :wink:
What an interesting and somewhat indignant argument in favor of watermarks!
I think comparing a clothing security tag, which covers a tiny portion of the overall garment, and does not inhibit the inspection and trying on of that garment, with a watermark that covers a much larger proportion of a photgraph, is just not convincing me.
I also think that they detract from the overall impression of the photograph.
I am curious as to why you use the logic of if they are used by world famous sites, that somehow makes our opinions less valid.
Or, are you using watermarks to perhaps identify your work with these sites? Hmmmsteveb wrote:
Thanks for the comments, appreciate them, although……..
pullandbang wrote:
Agree with the above. Big turn off all the watermarks….
……….why would a person judge a photo by the presence of watermarks?
and why would a person say that thought and feelings are welcome, and then so indignantly criticise them?
Ahh just stirring it up for a bit of fun. Forums can be very pedestrian at times. The business section of this forum entertainingly always has a fire or two going, so why shouldnt this one?
BUT, watermarks do not detract from an ability to judge a photo in my mind anyway. Dont recall saying others opinions are invalid either, but he did say he cant enjoy an image with watermarks attached. Which makes me wonder about what he is missing (which is really none of my business, I do realise). I simply have watermarks because this is the net, and people steal. I have heard many stories of togs having to act after the fact. My images are probably crap, but at least I know nobody can easily steal my crap!!steveb wrote:
Are you really telling me that you fail to enjoy the vast databases of images on Magnum, Panos, VII, Noor, Amazonas, (and to some extent) Getty, and all the other class photography sites that employ watermarks, none of which are ever any more ubiquitous throughout the images than mine are? Hmmm?
Yep, I stopped browsing them. There are quite a few sources I can browse where watermarks don’t feature to much.
Case in point http://www.magnumphotos.com/Archive/C.aspx?VP3=ViewBox&VBID=2K1HZSYBO3FQ&IT=ZoomImage01_VForm&CT=Search&ALID=2K1HRGRKK44&PN=2&SH=1&SF=1&PPM=0″ onclick=”window.open(this.href);return false;
A beautiful image destroyed by a logo growing out of the dancers head……
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
