Watermark - Yes, No, Image or Text?

[snerd]

I've never seen the need to watermark my images. But if I did................... do you prefer an image or just plain text? A couple samples I made sitting here this morning......................

 

[Light Guru]

ABSOLUTELY NOT the first one WAY WAY WAY to distracting. So distracting in fact that I didn't even notice the flower was out of focus at first and that flower is badly out of focus.

The second one is not bad. What I like to do on my images is just overlay my signature like if I had signed a print.

 

[ronlane]

I agree with Light about the first one. It seems a bit big in that example (something that I struggle with). Honestly not sure of the need for the copyright symbol on there but if you like it.

 

[TWright33]

This is my style, but why not use your signature?

That's what I do to mine, you can save it as a PNG image in PS.

 

[snerd]

Sorry about the pics, they were just a couple from the crapper bin. I was only interested in the watermark. So either much smaller for an image, or go with text. On the signature, maybe a dumb question, how would I get one into my computer? Would it need to be scanned in?

 

[limr35 5]

Definitely the text.

I started marking the photos I put on my blog last year when I was doing the 365 Project, but I haven't been marking the ones I have since put here or on Flickr. I'm considering starting again and I think I'll just stick with a simple copyright symbol and my name, or possibly an embedded watermark.


Day 284 - Red bike diner by limrodrigues, on Flickr

 

[sscarmack]

I use to watermark my images, but my theory is this.

People will do absolutely everything they can to get rid of your watermark, even if that means cropping the picture and cutting half the image off. And in return it makes the image look like crap. And if someone knows you took that image, do you want crappy cropped photos out there?

So I just simply stopped watermarking.

 

[480sparky45 45]

Text.

Definately text!

 

[limr35 5]

I use to watermark my images, but my theory is this.

People will do absolutely everything they can to get rid of your watermark, even if that means cropping the picture and cutting half the image off. And in return it makes the image look like crap. And if someone knows you took that image, do you want crappy cropped photos out there?

So I just simply stopped watermarking.

If someone is willing to go through the bother of getting rid of the copyright, then they'll get around the watermark. A mark is of course not a guarantee that your photos won't be stolen. The only way to guarantee it is to never post them on the internet.

Most people, however, are too lazy to be bothered and they'll just look for one that's not watermarked. It's a deterrent and therefore is likely to reduce the chances of some lazy thief using my work.

 

[vintagesnaps]

There you go Sparky that works! I don't post much online and don't have a standard watermark, depends on where it's being posted. Unless somebody is planning to pay for the photo they can just look at the watermark! lol Seriously what's the point of making it look good if someone takes it, because once they remove the watermark who in hell is going to know it's yours anyway?

 

[480sparky45 45]

Another method is to simply post very small versions. 600 or 800 pixels on the long end. The thievin' bastids won't get a decent print out of that.

 

[JustJazzie]

I love the idea of using a signature if needed! How did you guys create a signature watermark??

Sparky, you make me laugh!

 

[480sparky45 45]

I love the idea of using a signature if needed! How did you guys create a signature watermark??

Sign a sheet of white paper with a black Sharpie, scan it, desaturate it, and increase the contrast.

Select the white background and make it transparent.

 

[Light Guru]

Sorry about the pics, they were just a couple from the crapper bin. I was only interested in the watermark.

I know you were only interested in comments about the watermark, my comment about the image being out of focus was watermark related. I said the watermark was so distracting I didn't even notice the subject was out of focus at first. This means that your watermark draws in so much attention that it has become the subject of the image instead of what you photographed.

So either much smaller for an image, or go with text.

Not just smaller but the colors of the logo are also will pull attention away from the subject of your photograph.

On the signature, maybe a dumb question, how would I get one into my computer? Would it need to be scanned in?

Scanning works or you could photography it and remove the white of the paper.

 

[mmaria]

text


... sorry snerd, but just to mention... I don't know what to do with my pictures. Should I or shouldn't I put my name on my pictures? Few days ago I found out about my stolen picture, it's printed on another city's flyers. Would my signature help me with that? Probably not. Can I do something about it? No

My copyright is embedded in my file info but no one will look up there I still can't decide should I put my name on my photo or not....