Watermarks?

[AcadieLibre]

I have noticed more and more of those who post here using water marks, just curious as to why? And also why so big? What do you think the watermark accomplishes? I am actually curious. And when you did decide to go with a water mark what inspired the design and did you do it or have someone design it for you, and have you ever asked people outside your family or friends what they think of them.

[Gem]

I use a watermark mostly to differentiate between my photography shots and just fun, spur of the moment shots; haha, and I like to think it offers some protection. Basically, I'll have three copies of the picture: the original, an edited version, then the edited version with a watermark.

Everything that gets posted here is without the watermark because I know that some people find it annoying when critiquing the photo. I don't really have a "design," just the copyright sign followed by my name. That's about it. I also try not to make it huge (it usually ends up distracting me ). And I've never asked people what they think of it since it isn't fancy or anything of the sort.

I've heard you can put like an invisible code on the pictures so that if someone steals it, you can prove it's yours. If I knew how to do that, I probably wouldn't use a watermark (not that any of mine are worth stealing ... yet ).

[Iguanasan]

I started putting it on recently because I've heard from a lot of photographers on the web that you need to protect your shots and this is one way of accomplishing that. Picasa, for me, made it easy because it will stamp it as it goes out the door so I thought I'd try it out.

I do, however, find it kind of distracting, even on my own and I think mine is pretty small. I'll probably flip the other way and not bother with one as, frankly, I'm not sure that it makes a difference with respect to having people steal your shots.

I guess what I'm saying is that I'm confused too!

[jjeling]

AL, I'm glad you said something. I was pondering this same thought to myself as to whether or not it makes any difference. In my thoughts, its not going to stop anyone from downloading a file. As we all know, with a little handy work you can make them go away. My basis is the same as it is for facebook, marketing. As much as I hate to say it, if your trying to make an income from this, its 80% marketing, 10% skill, 10% right place/right time. I figure that has been roughly the general consensus. The market here is big enough that if I give my business name, it will be better than giving out my name. Its easier for most people to remember. I hate putting on my work, so I just place it on a 800x??? pixelated/desaturated POS, web version, never a full image. I wouldnt normally put them on a forum like this, but, that would require another file or moretime I just do not want to deal with. So, in the end, we all suffer the consequences of spending so much time trying to get an image perfect, and we show it off by placing an ugly watermark on a degraded image up on a forum. hoorah right? Well, it has worked for me and people have taken some of my images more seriously. ????? Dont ask why, they see a watermark on a picture and it changes their attitude about your work.
I wanted to keep it short but....it wasn't.

[Marko]

For me I certainly don't mind watermarks of any kind if it makes a photographer feel more secure. It does detract from the photo in many cases though.... as always it's a personal compromise.

[F8&Bthere]

Despite being brand new around here, I'm going to be a bit of a bull in a china shop. I think there's part vanity, part folly, and part paranoia present, at least to some degree, and in some cases just outright poor taste, in some of the obnoxious copyrights/watermarks I've seen on images. No, not this forum of course- I've been to many others.

Just the thought of joe hobbyist (describes me as well) losing out on big buck opportunities for that photo of their cat on the sofa because they didn't lay obvious claim to the image makes me chuckle. Especially since it was probably never intended to be posted to anything more than a critique forum at reduced size and resolution. Oooo just imagine the potential fortune that those despicable stock photo thieves could steal from your pockets with that 680 x 480 70% full quality jpeg, lol.

Tastefully framing and/or adding a small title, name, website, date, etc on the perimeter is fine. But the worst, aesthetically ruining their image in the process, are the bold watermarks in huge nasty font across a good portion of the photo.... just my opinion

[AcadieLibre]

Well first of all Watermarking offers NO protection at all. If someone wants your image you can remove anyones watermark in short order. They are a distraction and that is about all they accomplish. If it on the web it is able to be stolen. I think I might feel different if they were small and blended into the photo in one of the two lower corners. I just think if you use it for protection for image theft your fooling yourself. The more effective way is to use low quality images, and if you can afford it use Digimark or a similar product to digitally watermark them. To each their own I suppose but I think they are a bad idea when not done properly and are overbearing.

[BlueX]

I do it purely out of spite. I know anything I put on the web can get stolen if some one really wants to steal it. I just want them to work for it.

By keeping the file size and quality low, I know the chances of someone making money off of my photo is very slim (although, technology is getting better in this department too...).

[Mad Aussie]

Rather aggressively stated there AL. I beg to differ. Actually, I don't beg at all. I disagree with the accuracy of your statements.

Firstly I think there's a difference between 'Watermarks' and 'Signatures'
On my shots here at ph.ca you see Signatures. There's no blending usually and they sit in a corner (admittedly a bit large a first but now smaller) and they are there for Identity. I like seeing my business identity on the photo. I have that choice.

I also use Watermarks which are more usually a transparent mark across the photo designed to allow the viewer to see the photo they may like to purchase, but suitably obvious enough to dissuade them from just accepting that watermarked image and not purchase a higher resolution one.
I use this mostly for my event photography where I display the images in low res (but high enough to show the quality they are buying) and watermarked to encourage them to purchase the higher res version.
Does it work? It does for me.

Well first of all Watermarking offers NO protection at all.

Yes they do. How much though is dependent on several factors I think. Not least of all is how obvious the watermark is and how large.

If someone wants your image you can remove anyones watermark in short order.

No they can't. You aren't going to remove a well done watermark without some fairly serious attention and some fairly serious skills in order not to ruin the photo. You, personally might have those skills, and someone with your skills may be willing to take the time to achieve this on a small image they found online but most people don't have the skills or the inclination. They'll go look an non watermarked image I think.

They are a distraction and that is about all they accomplish.

I think my comments above prove I believe this to be inaccurate.
And Signatures ( I include these because those talking about watermarks in this thread and others recently also include them) are about Identity. They may in your mind achieve 'Distraction' but they also achieve 'Identity' and the show the author of the photo to be serious about their images.

If it on the web it is able to be stolen. I think I might feel different if they were small and blended into the photo in one of the two lower corners. I just think if you use it for protection for image theft your fooling yourself. The more effective way is to use low quality images, and if you can afford it use Digimark or a similar product to digitally watermark them. To each their own I suppose but I think they are a bad idea when not done properly and are overbearing.

I agree with this is most ways, hence me lowering the size of my own signature lately. I've taken this 'advice' seriously and acted upon it immediately.
I agree that if an image is on the net it can be stolen. There's not a site I've ever found that I couldn't copy an image if I wanted. But again not everyone has that skill base. But enough do to make this statement accurate enough to me.
As for fooling oneself over the protection, well I guess it depends on what you are using the watermark for. Unless it's so overbearing across the majority of the photo, as some people do (not around ph.ca though) then the level of 'protection' is limited and I agree with that.

I wasn't going to enter into this debate at all and have left it lie for a few days but with several new members joining up I didn't want them thinking they would be labelled or hassled if they like to use watermarks/signatures. So that's why I've felt compelled to come in and give my thoughts.

[JAS_Photo]

I do not know if it adds any real protection or not but in Lightroom you can add lots of extra details to the exif data. Most of it is for professional work but you can certainly also add in your watermark name there as well as on the picture itself.