Couldn't sleep so I made my first watermark...C&C please!

[adversus]

I don't watermark my images for two reasons:

1. I don't make a living off them, and
2. As someone who is a budding artist, I'd be just tickled if someone liked my image enough to re-use it

Besides, as others pointed out, adding a watermark does little to avoid theft. If you don't want it stolen, don't put it online.

 

[Ballistics]

I don't watermark my images for two reasons:

1. I don't make a living off them, and
2. As someone who is a budding artist, I'd be just tickled if someone liked my image enough to re-use it

Besides, as others pointed out, adding a watermark does little to avoid theft. If you don't want it stolen, don't put it online.

I don't think you would be too "tickled" if you found out that the person that stole your image made a $1 million off of it, or in a more realistic case, put it on their website as an ad to bring in revenue.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

I don't watermark my images for two reasons:1. I don't make a living off them, and2. As someone who is a budding artist, I'd be just tickled if someone liked my image enough to re-use itBesides, as others pointed out, adding a watermark does little to avoid theft. If you don't want it stolen, don't put it online.

I don't think you would be too "tickled" if you found out that the person that stole your image made a $1 million off of it, or in a more realistic case, put it on their website as an ad to bring in revenue.

The meat of adverus' point was the last bit.If you are worried about your images being stolen, don't post them online.

 

[Ballistics]

I don't watermark my images for two reasons:1. I don't make a living off them, and2. As someone who is a budding artist, I'd be just tickled if someone liked my image enough to re-use itBesides, as others pointed out, adding a watermark does little to avoid theft. If you don't want it stolen, don't put it online.

I don't think you would be too "tickled" if you found out that the person that stole your image made a $1 million off of it, or in a more realistic case, put it on their website as an ad to bring in revenue.

The meat of adverus' point was the last bit.If you are worried about your images being stolen, don't post them online.

Im not worried, just pointing out an obvious point in jest.

 

[adversus]

I don't watermark my images for two reasons:

1. I don't make a living off them, and
2. As someone who is a budding artist, I'd be just tickled if someone liked my image enough to re-use it

Besides, as others pointed out, adding a watermark does little to avoid theft. If you don't want it stolen, don't put it online.

I don't think you would be too "tickled" if you found out that the person that stole your image made a $1 million off of it, or in a more realistic case, put it on their website as an ad to bring in revenue.

If I found one of my images that was being used to generate that much revenue by someone, I'd come here first and post something along the lines of:

"Holy crap, I made this and look where it ended up! I'm so stoked!!!"

It's akin to the reverse argument of music piracy. Someone who steals music that they wouldn't pay for anyway isn't costing the music industry any money. Likewise, someone stealing something of mine I wasn't going to make money off of anyway isn't harming me in any way.

Given your example, I'd probably call my lawyer. But I wouldn't spend money pursuing the matter, unless it was being used for something I find distasteful, then it'd be just a matter of principle, not money.

 

[Ballistics]

I don't watermark my images for two reasons:

1. I don't make a living off them, and
2. As someone who is a budding artist, I'd be just tickled if someone liked my image enough to re-use it

Besides, as others pointed out, adding a watermark does little to avoid theft. If you don't want it stolen, don't put it online.

I don't think you would be too "tickled" if you found out that the person that stole your image made a $1 million off of it, or in a more realistic case, put it on their website as an ad to bring in revenue.

If I found one of my images that was being used to generate that much revenue by someone, I'd come here first and post something along the lines of:

"Holy crap, I made this and look where it ended up! I'm so stoked!!!"

It's akin to the reverse argument of music piracy. Someone who steals music that they wouldn't pay for anyway isn't costing the music industry any money. Likewise, someone stealing something of mine I wasn't going to make money off of anyway isn't harming me in any way.

Given your example, I'd probably call my lawyer. But I wouldn't spend money pursuing the matter, unless it was being used for something I find distasteful, then it'd be just a matter of principle, not money.

ok

 

[shmne]

If you are going to water-mark your photo you should probably use your logo. Going with a font based logo that you make on your own is extremely risky, and can give people the wrong idea about your company.

Companies that use fonts as their logos generally have the font custom designed, even if they do use a pre-made font you still need to make adjustments on the kerning to ensure its legible and clean looking. In this case the font you are using says "Yet another female photographer." If that is what you want, then go for it! That is not sarcastic either. However if you want to stand out I would suggest having a logo created, font based or graphic based. Don't forget, the word "logo" comes from logotype because companies used to only have font based logos. So don't be afraid of having a font based logo! Just make sure it is done right

 

[amandalee]

If you are going to water-mark your photo you should probably use your logo. Going with a font based logo that you make on your own is extremely risky, and can give people the wrong idea about your company.

Companies that use fonts as their logos generally have the font custom designed, even if they do use a pre-made font you still need to make adjustments on the kerning to ensure its legible and clean looking. In this case the font you are using says "Yet another female photographer." If that is what you want, then go for it! That is not sarcastic either. However if you want to stand out I would suggest having a logo created, font based or graphic based. Don't forget, the word "logo" comes from logotype because companies used to only have font based logos. So don't be afraid of having a font based logo! Just make sure it is done right

Thanks I appreciate it! Where can I get a logo made? or how to make one?

 

[doubleoh7]

pm inbound

 

[fokker]

OP: If I were you I would spend more time worrying about why the hell you were shooting at ISO3200 and 1/4000s then making watermarks. Seriously, the chroma noise on the girl's face and arms is ghastly and was the first thing I noticed in the photo.

 

[amandalee]

OP: If I were you I would spend more time worrying about why the hell you were shooting at ISO3200 and 1/4000s then making watermarks. Seriously, the chroma noise on the girl's face and arms is ghastly and was the first thing I noticed in the photo.

Thanks... I have been practicing different stuff in Manual mode... that's why... I didn't notice it before (I use my laptop to look and edit at home...monitor is not calibrated) but here at work I see what you mean! Any suggestions what it should be at in that lighting? Sorry I'm still learning... Thanks!

 

[pgriz]

Lowest noise is at the camera's native ISO setting (usually 100 for Canon and 200 for Nikon). You bump it up if you can't get a proper exposure otherwise.

 

[johnh2005]

OP: If I were you I would spend more time worrying about why the hell you were shooting at ISO3200 and 1/4000s then making watermarks. Seriously, the chroma noise on the girl's face and arms is ghastly and was the first thing I noticed in the photo.

Good lord I can tell I am going to have a hard time trying to be a good photographer. I had no idea what Chroma Noise was. So, I looked at the picture. I was like... What? Then I looked up Chroma Noise in my good friend Google. I looked at the photo again. I was like... What? I enlarged it. What? Stared... What? Kept staring... Holy crap I see it now. Maybe it is because I just got out of the pool and it was a little high in Chlorine and my eyes are a little fuzzy but dang, fokker, you have a good eye. Is that something you just "had" or did you develop it over time? I look people's CC and I am like what? I see people PP a photo and I am like... What's the difference. They both look good to me. Then I sit and I really study it and I can tell the PP one is better (at least the greater amount of time) but sometimes I still little difference. Though sometimes that may be what someone was going for.

I hope I have a good eye like that at some time in the future!

 

[fokker]

OP: If I were you I would spend more time worrying about why the hell you were shooting at ISO3200 and 1/4000s then making watermarks. Seriously, the chroma noise on the girl's face and arms is ghastly and was the first thing I noticed in the photo.

Good lord I can tell I am going to have a hard time trying to be a good photographer. I had no idea what Chroma Noise was. So, I looked at the picture. I was like... What? Then I looked up Chroma Noise in my good friend Google. I looked at the photo again. I was like... What? I enlarged it. What? Stared... What? Kept staring... Holy crap I see it now. Maybe it is because I just got out of the pool and it was a little high in Chlorine and my eyes are a little fuzzy but dang, fokker, you have a good eye. Is that something you just "had" or did you develop it over time? I look people's CC and I am like what? I see people PP a photo and I am like... What's the difference. They both look good to me. Then I sit and I really study it and I can tell the PP one is better (at least the greater amount of time) but sometimes I still little difference. Though sometimes that may be what someone was going for.

I hope I have a good eye like that at some time in the future!

Believe me, a year ago I never would have noticed it either. I'm not sure I like the fact that I now notice things like that as it can ruin otherwise good pictures for me, but you come to realise that small details like this, even if all but imperceptible to the untrained eye, can make the difference between a good and a great photo.

I used to just leave my ISO at about 800 on my rebel Xt, just because I couldn't notice the difference and it made it easier not having to worry about my shutter speed getting too low. Now I look back at some of those photos and wish I had kept the ISO to a more appropriate level.

 

[e.rose]

It doesn't suck. You just chose the number one font used by chicks in photography.

So what does that say about me then?

I didn't use that one... nor would I ever because it's not my tastes *at all* (no offense Amanda... I'm just saying *I* wouldn't use it for *me*... kinda like how I refuse to wear pink most of the time... but it looks adorable on my sister... ) ...so does that mean I'm not a girl? Or does that mean that I just have no tastes as a girl?