Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

"Watermark too intrusive" rejection?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • "Watermark too intrusive" rejection?

    Hi,

    I had a photo recently rejected due to two reasons. One is the photo being too dark / underexposed, which is totally fair. The other reason is the "watermark too intrusive" reason, which I found a bit funny as it is applied by the website. Anyway I've always thought the screening is done without the watermark?

    A watermark, by definition, is always intrusive but a necessary evil. That the watermark is applied by the website, how can a photo be rejected because of that?

    http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=5652491

    Cheers,
    Radzi
    Click Here to view my aircraft photos at JetPhotos.Net!

  • #2
    Originally posted by lesenterbang View Post
    Hi,

    I had a photo recently rejected due to two reasons. One is the photo being too dark / underexposed, which is totally fair. The other reason is the "watermark too intrusive" reason, which I found a bit funny as it is applied by the website. Anyway I've always thought the screening is done without the watermark?

    A watermark, by definition, is always intrusive but a necessary evil. That the watermark is applied by the website, how can a photo be rejected because of that?

    http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=5652491

    Cheers,
    Radzi
    It is all down to your choice. However, you need to use a sensible watermark density and positioning. There is nothing worse than a watermark that covers the fuselage. The website does not choose the location and density.
    If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

    Comment


    • #3
      Thanks for the explanation. Now I have to be more careful when applying those watermarks.
      Click Here to view my aircraft photos at JetPhotos.Net!

      Comment

      Working...
      X