geese in morning fog

Uncropped, curves in LR2, AWB. Same as last time: comments on the photo only please, not on the watermark.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

You're entitled to ask people to comment on the image but not the watermark, as long as they can see the image rather than the watermark. Not possible here.

Gorgeous image! I love the colours, the mood, it's just all together fabulous IMO.

For what it's worth, I'm all for big obnoxious watermarks myself. Gotta protect yourself

CanadianKitKat wrote:
=CanadianKitKat;761454​9
For what it's worth, I'm all for big obnoxious watermarks myself. Gotta protect yourself

Thank you, another watermark supporter. I cannot fathom the first respondant's inability to see the image I posted with my watermark. More fog behind the watermark.

Nice Image. The geese are a nice touch too! Opening credits for a "When Geese Attack!" movie?

All was quiet in the sleepy little town of Pleasantville. Until the day... WHEN GEESE ATTACK!!! duh duh duhhhhh!!! Brought to you by Robert Hoy Productions, LLC ©2009

Sorry to say, but with that large of a watermark, it is really almost impossible to form a serious opinion. My advice would be to make the watermark smaller in future posts.

I have never noticed it before but I love your icon of the squirrel!!!

tkoutdoor wrote in post #7616759
Nice Image. The geese are a nice touch too! Opening credits for a "When Geese Attack!" movie?

All was quiet in the sleepy little town of Pleasantville. Until the day... WHEN GEESE ATTACK!!! duh duh duhhhhh!!! Brought to you by Robert Hoy Productions, LLC ©2009

Beautiful photograph! Terrible watermark.

I think it's easy enough for a "photographer" to "see" the image without the watermark. It's a quite nice image really. I like it. It does however, have a lot of space available for text if one chooses to use it as an opening screen for a geese/wildlife slideshow etc. That's not a complaint. Just an observation. I like the image, the processing, and the effect. I don't find any difficulty in imagining the image without a watermark. I actually didn't even see the watermark when I looked at it the first time and then I thought... Oh, There's a watermark there!

[Where's the smiley for "tongue in cheek"? Never mind that might actually be confused with something obscene. Forget I said it!]

HappySnapper90 wrote in post #7616735
Thank you, another watermark supporter. I cannot fathom the first respondant's inability to see the image I posted with my watermark. More fog behind the watermark.

The eyes go directly to your watermark..the image I first see is precisely the mark, not the geese, not the composition.....

I just don't get the need to imprint logo's over everything..if someone wanted to "steal" a photo, that wouldn't be a deterrent. I have seen hundreds of photos on this site that should be in books, and not one of them is marked. To each his own.....

I really like the image, but think it might have been nicer if the geese had been swimming into the frame, rather than out of it. Just a small point, and a very nice photo either way.

DerekSimon wrote in post #7616822
I have never noticed it before but I love your icon of the squirrel!!!

Thanks! I think Pekka tried to copy it for his icon! Darn! I should have watermarked it!

Actually he's chewing on a mushroom so big he had to roll it on it's side and chip away at the edges. That seemed pretty cool to me at the time. I didn't know until then that squirrels even liked 'shrooms!

Flo wrote in post #7616861
The eyes go directly to your watermark..the image I first see is precisely the mark, not the geese, not the composition.....

I just don't get the need to imprint logo's over everything..if someone wanted to "steal" a photo, that wouldn't be a deterrent. I have seen hundreds of photos on this site that should be in books, and not one of them is marked. To each his own.....

Publishing a book soon are you?

^ Not understanding the question.sorry..simply commenting on the OP photo.

Flo wrote in post #7616861
The eyes go directly to your watermark..the image I first see is precisely the mark, not the geese, not the composition.....

I just don't get the need to imprint logo's over everything..if someone wanted to "steal" a photo, that wouldn't be a deterrent. I have seen hundreds of photos on this site that should be in books, and not one of them is marked. To each his own.....

tkoutdoor wrote in post #7616917
Publishing a book soon are you?

Flo wrote in post #7616923
^ Not understanding the question.sorry..simply commenting on the OP photo.

You're sympathies have perfect compatibility with someone who would be "acquiring" a books worth of images to "publish a book" soon. They have less in common with a photographer who wants to keep his work as his own. You may not understand a photographer wanting to protect his work with a watermark, but (presuming you are a photographer yourself) I'd think you might find a way to empathize with someone who values his work enough to consider that. Since you didn't I naturally had to wonder if you were publishing a book soon.