another cold night . . .

watermark rather detracts from the pix - sorry
 
but it stops them being pinched which is more important to me - sorry!
 
mmcp42 said:
watermark rather detracts from the pix - sorry
Click to expand...

:agree:
A "portrait" "landscape" seems a little strange also.
IMHO think #1 would look better cropped just above the "red sky"
 
"portrait" "landscape" are used on magazine covers all the time - and this is where these shots will end up hopefully!!

I did shoot these in both landscape and portrait so everything's covered!
 
awp said:
"portrait" "landscape" are used on magazine covers all the time - and this is where these shots will end up hopefully!!

I did shoot these in both landscape and portrait so everything's covered!
Click to expand...

Ok that shows you how much I know about "landscape" photography good luck with them (y)
 
A little too much sky for me in both, but nice pics. 2nd one looks a bit like the back of the Pentland Hills, Allermuir in particular...probably miles off. :(
 
2nd shot is Tinto Hill in South Lanarkshire . . . . you'e not too many miles off.

If you're going for mag covers (which pay more) then you have to allow plenty of room for the title and so on - that's why they are shot this way!
 
TomB said:
That's possibly the single most ridiculous thing I've ever read.
Click to expand...

You really have led a sheltered life then :D stick around there's plenty more where that came from :p
 
Wow :) Is everyone one the angry pills tonight!!!

Anyway the watermark is definately too distracting, they are surely of limited use to any "thieves", they don't have the resolution etc to be useful anywhere but on a screen. Perhaps you can make the watermark much more see through?
 
Also, is it just me or is their more JPEG noise than normal? I presume you have not uploaded these in 100% jpeg quality?
 
TomB said:
That's possibly the single most ridiculous thing I've ever read.
Click to expand...

very helpfull remark to the op.
look forward to more of the same..

imo the 1st thing i thought was about the watermark. but having read down why you have done it like that and the space left all becomes clear ..

nice shots

md(y)
 
OK - I'll try to soften the watermark in future - but people stealing pictures is a BIG problem - I've more or less stopped it - as far as I know - with the watermark - but before that it was a free for all. If you make your living selling pics then it is a problem.

They are saved at JPEG 7 quality at 72 dpi I think - so yes they will print rubbish but should look OK on screen.

Thanks for the commenst about the pics though.
 
They are nice shots but I can't see much interest in them tbh. It's nice scenery but lacks anything to keep my interest or make me go 'wow'

I guess as magazine covers they would be Ok.

As for portrait format landscapes.........I've taklen a million!



(well, maybe not a million but certainly quite a few)
 
Gandhi said:
They are nice shots but I can't see much interest in them tbh. It's nice scenery but lacks anything to keep my interest or make me go 'wow'

I guess as magazine covers they would be Ok.

As for portrait format landscapes.........I've taklen a million!



(well, maybe not a million but certainly quite a few)
Click to expand...

afraid i must agree with gandhi here...there's nothing bad about them, but theres also nothing that stands out either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top