HOME | DD
grace-note — These Affairs
Published: 2008-05-03 06:04:01 +0000 UTC; Views: 5653; Favourites: 281; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
...good value:one dress for two occasions.
--
not sure about the watermark? Should I do it like this for the rest of the portraits i'm thinking of doing or just the good ol' dA water mark? ie. removable with a click = lazy.
Related content
Comments: 85
Ditto. I've got oodles to tell, too. *giggle* I've gots me a dandelion piccie of Joe and I that I'll post later this week, after I've got most of my AP testing out of the way and I have time to edit pics from this last weekend. And I'll actually be online again! *LE GASP*
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Lawlz, that's good. On the other hand, imma's life is getting ...the time of the year type of busy. except it's all year round. -.-
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
deja vu. Just got a lecture on not!stressing!so!much but the oratory is ON TUESDAY -dies-
yes mummy.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
This is beautiful, too. I love her pose and the lighting. :3
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Very "grace"ful photo. It's lovely. I don't see a watermark, so I would say this one is much better than the intrusive dA one.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
yeah...the dA one should have an opacity adjuster thingie.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
That is a lovely picture
I do see your watermark (comment related to an earlier one lol).
I personally believe you should keep using your own watermark, and not rely on dA for this..
I mean, it sure is a nice feature, but as you said it looks rather huge and ugly, and most of the time it covers part you don't want to be covered..
Besides, you never know what new update dA will make for the coming versions of the website, and watermarks could stay as much as they could be removed in the future..
Adding your own watermark is a few minutes more of work, but it is your own way of protecting your work. Besides, I like how you do them usually, it's almost as if they blend in perfectly
Anyways, keep up the great work. I'm rarely commenting, but I'm always watching
I'll try to catch you in ThumbsShare someday
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yeah- ditto.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I mainly meant that for now they give us to possibility to add a watermark, providing that you don't put the full view at the real size.. What if with dA v6, this feature is removed?.. That would probably mean that the pics using it now wouldn't show the watermark anymore..
So I say, better be safe than sorry
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I don't see a watermark other than the title.
The photo is brilliant. So crisp and full of life.
As for the watermark of the title, I like it. I always change my titles years later for some reason, so I never use title watermarks. I think it would be very professional to put your real name in a watermark like the title one.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yeah...I have hundreds of file and folders everywhere, so I might not always be able to find the layer file! -dies- so maybe the dA watermark>? problem with that is that it is...huge. and obvious. -.-
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I have all of the DA watermarks on it. So if someone steals a photo of mine, I'll know where the got it from if it was from DA.
Andd are you serious "grace-note photography" is on this photo? My computer is not showing it at all. Not in thumb nor in full view... :stumped:
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
really? *pokes* maybe screen settings /lightness etc?
and on stealage, i dont' think that would be a problem for me.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Idk, this photo is really great. I have seen art stolen and used for everything from porn to icons to little quote thingies for myspace...all stolen from deviantART.
Pretty crappy.
And I love this photo, I could see someone adding a quote in black sketchy type font and putting it on their myspace!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
(idk?) So I should use the dA watermark>? I mean, the lazy-friendliness is really attractive.
XD lawlz!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I think it would be okay to. I always use it with my photo set to 800 wide.
The best photographers have such fine focus work that even with a watermark, the viewer can see the gorgeous details!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
<= Prev |