Watermark

[nhilcissistic]

Quick question, how do you feel about watermarks? Are they really "that" important? Even for those who are new in photography?

 

[480sparky]

It should make no difference to you how I feel about them. What is important to you is how YOU feel about them.

 

[PixelRabbit]

Watermarks are often toted as a form of protection for your work online, the problem is for it to be even slightly effective it has to be big enough, intrusive and positioned in an important part of the image thus ruining it. Any watermark placed in an unobtrusive spot can easily be cropped or cloned out. Because of this watermarking for image protection isn't effective.
Watermarks are good for "signing" your work/promotion so the world knows who did it and people can take the name and google it if they s desire to find more of your work.
And that is my 2 cents on watermarks

 

[Designer]

IMO, the best kind are put on photos to advertise. If your watermark is legible and looks like an IP address, you might get some clickers.

 

[KmH]

Five Things You Can Do to Protect Your Online Images | Photo Attorney

 

[Luke345678]

Hello!

I shoot sports for my part time job while being a student. I upload them onto a public website where everyone can go look through them and purchase them directly from the site. If I did not have a watermark people could easily steal them a variety of ways without consequence. Having this watermark large and across the center of my image makes sure that if someone wants the shot itself they have to purchase it.

It depends how you shoot. For my online portfolio I just slap it on a corner for the picture.

It really depends what you want to do and how you want your work presented online.

 

[ak_]

Quick question, how do you feel about watermarks? Are they really "that" important? Even for those who are new in photography?

Thanks for asking. I feel they are unimportant, usually unnecessary, obtrusive and pretentious.

 

[ak_]

Exceptional images excepted.

 

[AceCo55]

Hello!

I shoot sports for my part time job while being a student. I upload them onto a public website where everyone can go look through them and purchase them directly from the site. If I did not have a watermark people could easily steal them a variety of ways without consequence. Having this watermark large and across the center of my image makes sure that if someone wants the shot itself they have to purchase it.

It depends how you shoot. For my online portfolio I just slap it on a corner for the picture.

It really depends what you want to do and how you want your work presented online.

^ Similar situation. Local sports. Kids check out their photos every week ... and every week they screen shot the photos they want. They even show me MY shots they have on their phones! Some parents took screenshots of all the players in a team to make a poster for their finals match!

I have right click disabled (which is really only a nuisance for people with even a tiny bit of knowledge). I put my watermark slap bang dead centre. It has a bevel effect with zero opacity and reduced "fill" so that it is legible on both light and dark backgrounds.

When some-one takes a screen shot it comes with my web address for all to see. I consider it an effective form of advertising (and a way for me to know they haven't purchased it). I only upload images less than 1200px on long side and "Save for Web", quality 30. I keep the copyright metadata in tact.

People could/maybe/probably remove my watermark but really, the people taking them have neither the software, the skill or the inclination to remove them.
They get a low res image, and I get pretty extensive advertising.
I am comfortable with the trade-off.

I can understand the concerns of photographers who shoot landscapes/portraits etc with having a watermark in the middle of their photos. That situation just doesn't apply to me.

 

[nhilcissistic]

Thanks for all the answers, everyone!

I see how important it is if you are selling your photos (like the mentioned sports images), but I guess, like what AceCo55 said, it can be a dilemma if you do portrait photography.

I guess I would put a watermark on the photos I upload on facebook, but definitely not on instagram (considering the small, cropped photos that are allowed to be posted anyway). And perhaps not on my blog and behance portfolio?

But then again, I don't really need to worry since my photos arent that amazing yet to be stolen. )

 

[480sparky]

..........But then again, I don't really need to worry since my photos arent that amazing yet to be stolen. )

You would be surprised. I'd venture to say a lot of infringement occurs solely due to this attitude.

 

[kimsuarez]

From what I've read, watermarks are fine as long as they're not interrupting the image ie. a giant watermark covering the entire image. I've seen professional photographers who have nice, small logos in the bottom corner of their images and it doesn't disturb the image. But understand, there are different situations that call for different types of watermarking.

 

[runnah]

I keep all my photos on a thumb drive that I hang from the collar of an ill-tempered bison named Bruce. If you defeat Bruce, the photos are yours.

 

[Hermes1]

I keep all my photos on a thumb drive that I hang from the collar of an ill-tempered bison named Bruce. If you defeat Bruce, the photos are yours.

Funny you should mention this. Just the other day I mentioned to somebody I keep my photos on a drive tethered to my 2-Akita's. To the OP as mentioned, watermarking can be of value to get your name out and for others to associate your work with you, but not a reliable security technique.

 

[480sparky]

From what I've read, watermarks are fine as long as they're not interrupting the image ie. a giant watermark covering the entire image. I've seen professional photographers who have nice, small logos in the bottom corner of their images and it doesn't disturb the image. But understand, there are different situations that call for different types of watermarking.

Too much?