Xoxoxo. dont even stress about what they are talking about hollows watermark.... They are pathetic and need to learn more about watermark. My baby look sexy and fired in her pic. First thing that come to my eye is my sexy baby xoxoxo
Nah, really. It's like, there's this girl (you) whose form is obscured --and whose moral affiliation is also curiously obscured, thanks to her skinful, leggy pose which belies the otherwise childlike, snuggly, secret-hiding-spot nature of her immediate surroundings-- by the darkness.
That's what we see, but due to the text being placed on top of said 'darkness' (whoOoOoo~), it's not what we 'feel' (not as strongly as we could, anyway).
The typography could be better; So that it compliments (or at least doesn't impede) what the shot can communicate to the viewers, instead of disrupting the mood. It's akin to that scenario where Christian Bale flipped the fuck out on Shane Hurlbut for toying with the lights during his emotive scene on the set of Terminator Salvation. I M M E R S I O N _ B R E A K ! The eyes of anyone who reads this comment are going to be drawn to that bold text before they can even read enough of it to get the gist of the entire message. Which perfectly exemplifies the point I'm trying to make. It won't matter that it appears two paragraphs in.
But fret not, editing isn't the model's concern (though, you should probably give a shit). And like I said, the photograph is still cool, in spite of my personal hang-ups over it. So don't give me sass.
I invite everyone who felt that the photographers justified and well-due watermark that is at the very bottom of the image was somehow TAKING AWAY from the 99% rest of the work to go ahead and chime in here.
- most great artists don't know much about typography, and many who do are very hit-and-miss with it at best.
- a great deal of those viewing your images wouldn't give a shit if they had a neon-green border around it, because to them, your scantily-clad body would be more than enough. Fine wine is wasted on those who don't have a taste for it, and just want to quench their thirst.
But you seem to be okay with that, in which case, I might as well be talking to a wall. Also, don't get it twisted; I never said there was anything wrong with watermarking or claiming your work. I just said it could have been done more thoughtfully to make an already-nice image even better. No one's shitting on your or the photog's work here.
Lemme know when you get hungry... I'll bring you a Snickers.
Since you asked, I do feel that the comment about the watermark is valid. This image is magic and it comes from the chiaroscuro your form is bathed in, your knee protruding into our space. It is the first thing that grabbed me in the thumbnail, the second being watermark; it felt as if you were tripping over it, razor-edged against your soft form, even with the normally unobtrusive placement.
It doesn't bother me much, I love this image, but I can see how it would cause a slight hiccup in exploring the photo. Congratulations on the DD.
Well, I bet he'll be sure to make sure the watermark is ten times easier to get rid of for all the art thieves out there, then. Maybe a see-through letter in the corner of images?
I can't believe anyone can take up an issue with a small name going across the very, very bottom of a picture. There isn't even anything down there to cover up. ALL the action is at the middle of the photo.
There is no need to get defensive. It is a non-issue to me, but you did ask if someone else felt that the watermark was talking away from the photograph. Whether it is justified or not is irrelevant in that sense.
Because I clearly state on my images that I'm the model...and yet I get all too many comments by people who don't read that. After hundreds of "she's so ____" and "I like her ____" when they're speaking to the She in the image, I made an effort to REALLY stress that I am the model. It seems to have worked, as the comments referring to me as if I'm not reading the comments have gone down astronomically since. : )
In many cases the poster doesn't respond to and possibly doesn't read such comments in more than a glance. Often feels like you are just talking to the audience about the piece instead and so the language of "she" in stead of you occurs. The better the work the artist puts out the more likely they have moved on from responding to their tons of admirers so the audience knows to talk amongst themselves. Its kind of a complement in a way.