HOME | DD
StudioMC — Tricky Nickie
Published: 2012-06-02 06:44:21 +0000 UTC; Views: 11325; Favourites: 165; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
Tricky NickieRelated content
Comments: 24
she needs to be in a bond-flick or a peril scene
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
its impossible for me to critique this with that awful watermark.. just tag them instead! not a huge fan of your framing either. sorry to be so negative this time around :/
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thats ok.... The watermark ain't moving though...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
thats okay too! i do love a lot of your work
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
very beautiful model... smile lights up the area around her
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yes Yes... I can make it brighter...
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Hate the watermark. You are better off trying a web address or signature like these:
[link]
[link]
[link]
I try to help others, as they try to help me.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I like the watermark but thanks for your thoughts....
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Me too, much harder to edit out of the image.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I like your art, that is the important thing, yes?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Critique: the lighting is ok, and the model is lovely... I think the watermark takes away from her beauty, but that's personal opinion
I might have used a little more reflected light on her face, she's in the shade and a bit dark
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
I agree about the quantity of light on the face but the watermark takes away from her beauty? Think more, fap less. *rolleyes*
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
first off, thanks for the insult.
second off I think watermarks in the middle of the picture detract from the picture. they distract the viewer
thirdly: I've been searching for 12 years now for a girl that would be willing to go on a First date with me, let alone a second date... the lady in this pic wouldn't even give me the time of Day, so fap is about all I'd ever get out of her, or her picture.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Dude, a watermark is a tool and it is only rarely a photographic element. Do you really think that the photographer said, "ZOMG, HOLD THAT POSE! IT WOULD LOOK PERFECT WITH THE WATERMARK THAT I'M GOING TO SLAP ON IT!" *click* No, he was architecting an image (or holding down the shutter release and moving both her and the camera randomly; *shrug*). And you know what the purpose of the watermark is, you know that it's there to prevent people from stealing the image. So why bother mentioning it?
Is it because you'd like to see a less obtrustive watermark? Probably, and there are some photographers that put non-obtrustive watermarks on their images because they don't care if they get stolen. But these kinds of watermarks are ridiculously easy to remove.
The photographer took the image (for whatever reason, consciously or otherwise) and then pasted a watermark over top of it to make it harder to steal. He is well aware of the fact that the watermark is changing his image into something that he didn't intend it to be. The fact that you said that the watermark 'detracts' from the image (actually, you specifically said 'her beauty') is immaterial. You know what the purpose of a watermark is so why bother mentioning it except to demonstrate your desire to have the watermark removed so you can get an unobstructed view of the beauty. Fair enough, I'm not going to blame you for wanting it; you are the consumer of the image and what you do with it is your right. If you fap to a picture of a beautiful woman (which is pretty likely given your #3 above), that's your choice and I even applaud you for it. Any guy that says that he hasn't/doesn't fap to a picture of a beautiful woman is either at the start of a relationship, is too embarrassed to do it anywhere but the shower, is with a nympho, can't get it up or simply isn't attracted to women.
There was an insult in there, you're right, but it's not the one that you thought it was. The photographer is posting these images for free and you, with your comment, were expressing:
a) your inability to look past the watermark at the image
b) your dissatisfaction with the fact that the image (again, that he allows you to consume, for free) wasn't easy for you to consume (steal, fap to, whatever)
c) the fact that you had forgotten that the photographer publishes these images for free and that you take then for granted
d) your inability to form a cohesive argument against such a watermark; you didn't mention anything about image aesthetics, market reach, professional marketing, etc. You just said, *ick*.
Either way, it's remarkably selfish and no one cares whether you (or the poster below) hate the watermark.
So please, appreciate the photo. Appreciate the skill with which it was taken (and give critique, as you did). Appreciate the inviting smile and delicious curves. Appreciate that the image was posted for you to enjoy. Appreciate that we have tools like watermarks so that when the images get out into the wild, they have the web address on them so that more people can appreciate the images and entice the photographer to create more images for us to consume.
Here is how I would critique the watermark....
"Your watermark makes it difficult to pick out your gallery web address because it's overpowered by the dA logo and web address above it. The fact that there is both WWW.DEVIANTART.COM and (c)StudioMC.deviantart.com in the same watermark makes it confusing and many people might only see dA's web address and ignore yours. The dA marketing is far more prevalent than your own in the watermark and you might consider making your own watermark on the image rather than dA's stock one to help would-be fans find their way back to your gallery more effectively."
See the difference?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I think you should be a lawyer. I couldn't argue it better myself.... and to be honest I have given up trying to. When they ask you to remove the watermark you know exactly why.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
This is a very simple pic.... It was me with my camera and nothing else.... was trying to get a more commercial natural look....
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
