...
Why as well do people have to put such a bloody big watermark over their pics......... not much you can realistically do with an 800 pixel image.
I was thinking about this too recently, albeit from a different perspective. I noticed that there a lot of very 'sparse' images posted for critique which have (large) watermarks filling up blank areas. This
vastly changes our perception of that image, IMHO, and can actually serve to make a rather weak photograph into a fuller, more balanced image.
Now, I'm not saying that the OP's photographs are 'weak', per se - I actually like most of them
. What I
am saying though is that if you take away those massive watermarks, from #2 and #3 in particular, you change the whole dynamic of the image and it lacks the 'finished' quality which the watermark adds :|.
#1, by way of contrast,
doesn't benefit from the watermark at all, as it is very busy (compositionally) to begin with. Curiously, this one doesn't seem to be as popular as the others, either
.
As I said, these are general comments about watermarks and not directly aimed at these images, but I must admit it would be better (for me) to see these pics posted as
pure photographs and not with any text over them
. Otherwise, it's hard to give an honest opinion.
Just my $0.02 :shrug:
