Foamhenge

[AnneWynne]

Camera: Nikon D50
Exposure: 0.003 sec (1/320)
Aperture: f/10.0
Focal Length: 55 mm
Exposure Bias: 0 EV
Flash: No Flash

I don't do many landscapes, but captured this on a trip through northern Virginia. Sky was blown out, so I increased the blue channel as well as the green of the grass. I also cropped out a couple of benches. Does the final result look natural? Does it need additional enhancement? What do you think of the text at bottom right?

Thanks,
Anne

[gdowden70]

I like the shot very much. However, the sky is still blown out on the right edge. I'm curious, what time of day did you take this shot. From the looks of it the sun was high in the sky. A very bad time for outdoor photography. Next time you could try using a polarizing filter to cut the harsh glare of the sun. As for the text in the photo I find it very distracting. I find the watermark more distracting than the text to the bottom right. I understand that you want to protect your work but it doesn't need to be so intrusive. The same goes for the labeling. The photo should be the focal point, not the label. I'd love to see this shot at sunset or early morning. I think the long shadows would make it much more dramatic.

[AnneWynne]

Originally Posted by gdowden70

I like the shot very much. However, the sky is still blown out on the right edge. I'm curious, what time of day did you take this shot. From the looks of it the sun was high in the sky. A very bad time for outdoor photography. Next time you could try using a polarizing filter to cut the harsh glare of the sun. As for the text in the photo I find it very distracting. I find the watermark more distracting than the text to the bottom right. I understand that you want to protect your work but it doesn't need to be so intrusive. The same goes for the labeling. The photo should be the focal point, not the label. I'd love to see this shot at sunset or early morning. I think the long shadows would make it much more dramatic.

The shot was taken around 4pm, but I was looking up the hill to the southwest (so the sun was still an issue) The polarizing filter is a good idea..putting that on the to buy list.

Ignore the watermark as it will not be in the final print...it is to protect the work and is meant to be intrusive and unavoidable. The other text is on a layer so I can delete it easily...I was thinking postcard/calendar when I added it.

I agree about the early morning, sunset times, but we were traveling and I do not live anywhere close to this site. I would love to be able to have multiple shoots throughout the year...snow, fog, wildflowers, etc.

Thanks for the comments, especially the filter.
Anne

[fletch]

Sorry to bang on about the watermark but if you are going to submit your photos for critique you really need to get rid of them. A small signature in the corner is fine but text over the main subject really distracts from the image and makes an objective critique virtiually impossible. I understand you want to protect your image but if you really think someone is going to steal this one then you need to not submit it for critique rather than scrawling all over it.

At the moment the only thing I can really comment on is the "Foamhenge" font, which I don't like. The smaller type is too difficult to read and is lost in the path where it competes with detail in the photo.

(PS The "Anne Eden Photography" text is probably a 5-10 minute job to clone out. If someone wants to steal this shot they can, easily)

[kencaleno]

Best way to protect your shots, or at least prove ownership, is to crop just inside the full image and "Save as" as a different file. that way you will have the cropped copy to display, and the original on file in your computer-to prove the crop version came from there. Also you could keep the full image at 300dpi;and save the cropped image at 72 dpi-anyone stealing your image would have problems enlarging a low res image.Ken

[fletch]

Originally Posted by kencaleno

Also you could keep the full image at 300dpi;and save the cropped image at 72 dpi-anyone stealing your image would have problems enlarging a low res image.Ken

Err... No.

The PPI setting in an image file is just a number. Doesn't change anything about the image one bit. If I stole your 72 PPI image I could just change the number back to 300 if I really wanted to. What you really want to do is ensure you reduce the number of pixels. between 800 and 500 on the longest side is big enough to view but not big enough to print at anything above 6x4.

[AnneWynne]

Originally Posted by fletch

Err... No.

The PPI setting in an image file is just a number. Doesn't change anything about the image one bit. If I stole your 72 PPI image I could just change the number back to 300 if I really wanted to. What you really want to do is ensure you reduce the number of pixels. between 800 and 500 on the longest side is big enough to view but not big enough to print at anything above 6x4.

OK, I am lost....If I want to upload a photo and want to make it hard to steal, how do I reduce the number of pixels so it is not big enough to print?

As for the watermark, I have the photo on flickr with the tag Foamhenge...more concerned about someone downloading/copying from that site, Sorry if I offened anyone by suggesting by the presence of the watermark anyone here would steal the image.
And Fletch, you are right, the watermark could be cloned out...didn't think about that.

Anne