To watermark or not to watermark?

[New Hampshire]

I am with those who think big obnoxious watermarks do more to ruin a photo in my eyes than anything. I could be looking at the most stunning and gorgeous landscape, one to top Ansel Adams, but if I see this massive white lettered watermark in the corner I just keep seeing my eye drawn to the hideousness of it and lose interest. I do not mind small, almost transparent watermarks that blends in but yet is still there. Sort of like painters who sign their initials nice and small in the corner of a piece of their work. But in this day and age a little work could easily remove any watermark, so those worried about having their image stolen seems a bit odd. Those looking to get their name out there...ok, I could get that. Just please keep it understated and unobtrusive. Sometimes I roll my eyes at some people who watermark their images. For instance, I know a guy who usees his P&S camera to take snapshots of the hikes he goes on. Every one is watermarked, and I don't understand why. We are not talking about well thought out, artistic photos. We are talking about simple snapshots to document his trips. Yet he puts this massive white (and thus UGLY) watermark on his images as if he is afraid someone is going to steal his images. Doesn't make much sense to me...but then again neither does the guy. :lmao:

Brian

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

A watermark and a signature are 2 different things.

 

[Derrel]

I am with those who think big obnoxious watermarks do more to ruin a photo in my eyes than anything. I could be looking at the most stunning and gorgeous landscape, one to top Ansel Adams, but if I see this massive white lettered watermark in the corner I just keep seeing my eye drawn to the hideousness of it and lose interest. I do not mind small, almost transparent watermarks that blends in but yet is still there. Sort of like painters who sign their initials nice and small in the corner of a piece of their work. But in this day and age a little work could easily remove any watermark, so those worried about having their image stolen seems a bit odd. Those looking to get their name out there...ok, I could get that. Just please keep it understated and unobtrusive. Sometimes I roll my eyes at some people who watermark their images. For instance, I know a guy who usees his P&S camera to take snapshots of the hikes he goes on. Every one is watermarked, and I don't understand why. We are not talking about well thought out, artistic photos. We are talking about simple snapshots to document his trips. Yet he puts this massive white (and thus UGLY) watermark on his images as if he is afraid someone is going to steal his images. Doesn't make much sense to me...but then again neither does the guy. :lmao:

Brian

^^^Agreed, Brian.
I like HUGE, CAN'T MISS IT watermarks, with the shooter's name and then the word PHOTOGRAPHY at the end.

 

[naaaach]

Hahaha, thanks for all the responses. So the general consensus is that I should either keep it small or just leave out a watermark. Unless it's for business (buying / sampling photos, etc). So if I put a photo up for my website, and let's say I did use a watermark...would something like this be okay?

Looking at it again, actually, it's still really annoying, but maybe that's just cus I put it there. Not sure how many people automatically catch on to the watermark when looking at the photo. Hm, perhaps I just shouldn't watermark at all...

 

[scotch59]

Looking at it again, actually, it's still really annoying, but maybe that's just cus I put it there. Not sure how many people automatically catch on to the watermark when looking at the photo. Hm, perhaps I just shouldn't watermark at all...

No thats fine size, dosen't take all the attention away from the photo at all, but then again like everyone else in this thread has mentioned it can be easily cropped, but thats hard to avoid. The only time a huge centered watermark would be called for is if you were shooting a sporting event, Ie. triathalon, bike race, equestrian competition etc... where people are aware that you are the photographer for that event and they will pay to have your photos of them printed, then thats when those large centered watermarks come into place.

and IMO it really doesn't hurt to have a small cornered watermark if someone is really going to try and steal your photo.. they will, watermarked or not. it just adds a small bit of protection from that, unless of course its a large photo ruining one

 

[JG_Coleman]

All this seems like much ado about nothing, really.

It's just a watermark. Use one, don't use one... it's really pretty trivial.

As far as size/transparency/placement and everyone's two cents about the "perfect" watermark, it just seems like one of things where opinions are endless but real-world importance is rather minimal. Sort of like if a roomful of people were asked to critique the colors of "Wild Berry" Skittles... everyone can form an opinion, but it really doesn't matter all that much in the end.

I, personally, have never been turned off of an image by the watermark... with exception of those translucent watermarks that are literally centered on top of the image. And in the rare cases where you find that, it's usually the work of a stock agency that has a legitimate reason for making their images very, very difficult to steal.

As far as watermarks in the corner of the image, it doesn't really matter all that much whether it occupies 2% or 10% of the corner. It'll do the job, and people who are actually interested in your photograph will just ignore it. Hopefully, they'll like the photograph enough that they want to buy a copy which doesn't include the mark.

There should really be only a minimal fear of "turning off" viewers due to a watermark. The ordinary viewer is very familiar with the customary watermark, and I'm sure the vast majority look right past it. At least one person commented in this thread that watermarks practically destroy a photograph. Nonsense. A bad photograph destroys a photograph... a watermark just ensures that it can't be looked at without people knowing you took it. I'd wager that very few people turn away from exceptional photographs merely because they've got a watermark in the corner.

It seems like others on this thread are hopelessly addicted to being humble and seem to dislike watermarks on the ground that they represent a person "thinking their photographs are worth watermarking". Look, if it's worthwhile to you and you want to watermark it, knock yourself out... you don't automatically become a head-swelled fool just because you want to watermark your work. Unless you go seriously crazy with the size of your watermark, it will likely have a very minimal impact upon your viewing audience except for getting your name out there.

 

[white]

If you're concerned about people ripping your work, don't post large files. Obviously that doesn't stop them from posting it somewhere else online, but that's not something you can control anyway.

If you're irrationally paranoid someone is going to steal your incredible work, don't post it online.

I don't worry about this sort of thing personally. Doesn't matter if people rip my stuff -- they have small files, and I have the physical negatives, work prints, final prints, ad nauseum.

 

[Drake]

Yeah, watermarks might be often easy to clone out by other photographers, but not everyone is a photographer. Not everyone has photoshop or similar software, and not everyone knows how to use it properly to erase something and not ruin the photo. I suppose most people really can be stopped that way from saying a photo is theirs.

But I don't watermark my photos at all. I don't think my photos are good enough to be stolen and actually used for something important. Not that I don't like my work. I am actually very proud of some of my shots. Still, I don't think many people would steal my photos. And even if they do, then what? I'm just an amateur, not making any money as a photographer. I put a lot of effort into making my photos worth seeing. Why the hell would I want to spoil it with a hideous logo, or even some text.

And really, when I see a good photo with a watermark, then ok, I don't like it, but there must be a good reason for someone to do it. But more often I see watermarks on photos that are not exactly spectacular. And what would I do with it even if I wanted to steal it? Most of the photos are 600 or 800 by something pixels. Do they expect me to print post stamps out of those?

 

[KmH]

Looking at it again, actually, it's still really annoying, but maybe that's just cus I put it there. Not sure how many people automatically catch on to the watermark when looking at the photo. Hm, perhaps I just shouldn't watermark at all...

What watermark?

Lasso tool, content aware fill, it was gone in about 7 seconds total editing time. Cropping the bottom of the photo would have been quicker and easier. Plus 4 or 5 other ways could have been used to get rid of what actually was a logo, not a watermark.

 

[JoshC.]

Not exactly related, but how do you guys make a water mark? I have one in my mind but no idea on how to create it...

 

[Light Artisan]

I always create my artwork in Illustrator so it can be sized to whatever I need. After that I usually bring it into Photoshop.

I use Mogrify in Lightroom to add borders and the logo, not sure what I'll do now with Nikon Capture NX2 though.

 

[MohaimenK]

i've stopped now. I just upload the images small so they can't be enlarged and stolen. my new website will have all watermarks removed.

 

[Josh66]

'Identification' watermarks/logos are one thing, and I don't mind them.

'Theft Prevention' watermarks though, to be effective they pretty much make the picture un-viewable. The way I see it (and others have mentioned), if you don't want it stolen, don't make it available.


Personally, I don't worry about people stealing my work. Yeah, I know I probably should, but I don't. I upload almost everything at full size to Flickr, and it's actually worked as a cheap back-up for me a few times.

 

[naaaach]

'Identification' watermarks/logos are one thing, and I don't mind them.

'Theft Prevention' watermarks though, to be effective they pretty much make the picture un-viewable. The way I see it (and others have mentioned), if you don't want it stolen, don't make it available.


Personally, I don't worry about people stealing my work. Yeah, I know I probably should, but I don't. I upload almost everything at full size to Flickr, and it's actually worked as a cheap back-up for me a few times.

Understood. I've decided not to go through all my photos and stamp them. But I'll keep my resolution on-line to a certain limit. Thanks for all the input!