Crazy Skies

[vfilby]

Here are two crazy Skies that I took from my home town. Let me know if the watermark is too obtrusive, I am trying different things out to see what I like best for 'web preview' images for my upcoming website. I can post non-watermarked versions if necessary.

Also if you have good advice/ideas for watermarking images that you post on the web I would be happy to hear about them.

Props to LightHunter for the Signature and Frame advise.

http://www.filbar.org/Pictures/1043_Web-WM.jpg

2003:08:04 08:19:57
7.2-28.8mm @ 28.8mm
Subject dist: 36m
1/320 sec, f/5.6
Mode: Landscape
Metering: Evaluative
ISO: Auto
AF mode: Single AF
Drive: Single frame shooting
White balance: Auto
Flash: Off
File size: 612KB
Image size: 2272 x 1704

http://www.filbar.org/Pictures/IMG_1713-11x14-WebPreview-W.jpg

2004:04:11 06:48:57
7.2-28.8mm @ 7.2mm
Subject dist: 66m
1/1250 sec, f/5
Mode: Auto
Metering: Evaluative
ISO: Auto
AF mode: Continuous AF
Drive: Single frame shooting
White balance: Auto
Flash: Off
File size: 707KB
Image size: 2272 x 1704

Thanks for your criticism,
Vince

[rick barclay]

They're both great, but your wm defintiely kills them both, IMO. Watermarks
are like children--to be seen but not heard.

[LightHunter]

I prefer the 2nd.
The WM are too much but they do serve their purpose, make your images unusable.
It's nice to see you like the signature version I made for you :wink:

[vfilby]

Here is another version of the watermark, it is much less obtrusive. Is this better?

Should I even bother adding a watermark to images that I post to the web? All the images I would be posting will be approximately 800x600 or less.

http://www.filbar.org/Pictures/1043_Web-WM2.jpg

Thanks,
Vince