-=5D CLASSIC admirers, assemble! (3)

Crappy, blurry subject, but my God the bokeh...

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

That is the blurriest, weirdest looking duck that I've ever seen

TaDa wrote in post #9483994
That is the blurriest, weirdest looking duck that I've ever seen

that's what they look like in texas.

<-----doesn't want a 1D anything

<-----loves her 5D (though I do wish for some more focal points)

<-----hates the traitorface

<-----loves his 1D something

<-----adores his 5D ( and has all the focus points he could want on the 1D )

<-----thinks that they make an awesome pair

I would have taken shots today with the 5D/135L, but got an emergency call from my son's nursery school that he got a gash in the back of his head on the playground. Just got home from the ER and am exhausted. 2 staples to close up his skin, so nothing major.

<--- Luv my 5D
<-- I wish to have a 1Ds
<-- Dream to have a leaf

k.lee wrote in post #9480237
Cute!

Mossman6 wrote in post #9480292
^^ nice

thanks!

<------ this is fun
<------ loves my 5d
<------ would love a 135L but
<------ also loves my 7D
<------ 85mm on the 7d is 136mm and its killerand also 1.8

<--------loves my 5D
<--------would love a 1D, but it'd have to be an S. FF is for me.
<--------loves the 135L (sorry Tiffany)
<--------has a more recent love affair with the Sigmalux. The 135L sits until the weather warms up.

<------corrects slowdad. The 85.18 is still a 85 1.8 . It's a fantastic lens in its own right.

I was terribly behind at printing my pics. Let's just say that I have owned a 50D and now a 5D since I have last printed. WOW...the 5D pictures blow the 50D pics away. What an amazing difference. I LOVE my 5D (and don't miss my 50D at all)

Here's a few of my "models"

Always feel like I'm in the matrix when I'm driving on Hwy 75, so processed accordingly...

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

Brett wrote in post #9479304
Yeah, especially when it's splashed directly across the center of the image, making the image itself virtually impossible to see.

While I understand your opinion, the reason behind putting it in the middle of the image is to stop people from being able to crop out the watermark. I use one in the middle and I lighten the opacity to 30 percent so hopefully it doesn't take over the image at all, but you can still see it. I used to use a watermark towards the bottom of my images and too many times, my clients would crop it out and do whatever with the image. I def think it looks better to have it at the bottom, but it's either that or potentially getting ripped off by clients. I'm going to go with the watermark in the middle personally.

Brett wrote in post #9479151
It's interesting. Some people like to splash a huge watermark over their images, which I can understand if there's the potential for those images to be used or claimed by others...which is always a danger on the internet.

Others, like Tiffany, run a business and of course put their logo on their images. Her particular logo is classy, stays at the bottom of her images, and doesn't detract from the image in any way IMO.

Ingard (where is he anyway?) used to place a tiny, unobtrusive watermark on his images, that was hardly noticeable.

Connor has his own style. Most of the time, the text is complementary to the image, and is usually quite clever. But, I could see how someone could say that it detracts from the "art" of the image. Don't take it personally, gonzo. I don't think anyone was knocking you; just offering their own opinion.

Then there's people like me, who don't turn out work good enough to merit either a watermark or any text.


Sunset from our hotel near Niagara Falls, on the U.S. side. The mist is from the falls.

Loooooove this!!

TaDa wrote in post #9485074
<------corrects slowdad. The 85.18 is still a 85 1.8 . It's a fantastic lens in its own right.

<------- stands by original statement-- 85mm x 1.6 = 136mm,,and yes it is awesome