Scioto River, Columbus

From my new D800!

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Nice clean shot. It seems that the bldg on the left is leaning left just a bit, maybe WA distortion?

Thanks, it's the Zeiss 50 MP. Perhaps, or I haven't used the horizon feature yet...

nice shot! wish i could get as good with my d800 lol.. only nitpic is i wish that runner was somewhere else, not centered.

Thanks!

I don't mind that, because it kind of tells a story. There were quite a few runners out (I used to shoot for my college paper, so I have a PJ streak).

Yes...nice clean shot. Good colors and comp. You may want to tone down the watermark a bit though.

GorgeShooter wrote in post #15921303
Yes...nice clean shot. Good colors and comp. You may want to tone down the watermark a bit though.

Not happening. It's for security.

(I'm surprised of the amount of attention WMs get,; it's not like we keep them on when printing them.)

nphsbuckeye wrote in post #15921338
Not happening. It's for security.

(I'm surprised of the amount of attention WMs get,; it's not like we keep them on when printing them.)

Agreed. One of life's mysteries.....

I mean, if you want to critique the WM, go for it. But separate that from the picture.

CAL Imagery wrote in post #15927337
I mean, if you want to critique the WM, go for it. But separate that from the picture.

What I think is funny about the whole WM thing (with you) is that you have a Nikon camera but come to a Canon themed site asking for critique.

Just saying...

For the image, I would crop it just above your watermark so you would lose the rocks in the grass - especially the odd bit sticking out the lower left of the image...

I've been here for a long time. There's a lot more going on here than a lot of other Nikon sites. Plus, critiquing is agnostic.

CAL Imagery wrote in post #15928227
I've been here for a long time. There's a lot more going on here than a lot of other Nikon sites. Plus, critiquing is agnostic.

Right, but what I'm saying is I would crop it right above your WM, so if I wanted to pinch your image then the WM would mean zero to me...

tmoore323 wrote in post #15929408
Right, but what I'm saying is I would crop it right above your WM, so if I wanted to pinch your image then the WM would mean zero to me...

Thanks!

CAL Imagery wrote in post #15921338
Not happening. It's for security.

(I'm surprised of the amount of attention WMs get,; it's not like we keep them on when printing them.)

It's hard to C&C a photo when there's a distracting WM. My opinion. You can do whatever you want. And who would think you'd keep a WM when you print?

GorgeShooter wrote in post #15930872
It's hard to C&C a photo when there's a distracting WM. My opinion. You can do whatever you want. And who would think you'd keep a WM when you print?

I put WMs on photos for security. Ostensibly they need to be distracting (as in, keeping the photo from being stolen -- putting a small WM on a corner won't stop people from cropping it out) enough to prevent theft. The WM has little to nothing to do with the color, exposure, composition, etc., of the photograph. I'm asking for critiques of that, not of the WM.