Adding a watermark to my photos

[triggerhappy]

hi.

I am trying to create a watermark image for my shots but seems I can't get the right one.

I tried doing it in GIMP.



for gimp user I attached the xcf file

Please help me improve my watermark.
I am also for looking a font that would suit the image. I like the minimalistic approach.

Can you share your watermarks?

Thanks in advance.

Mark

I can't attach the xcf file... =( I attached the png

[Colin Southern]

The best advice I can give regarding watermarks is: AVOID THEM.

Seriously, in the vast majority of cases all they do is completely ruin the image for everyone, which defeats the purpose of displaying the image in the first place.

[carregwen]

Are you concerned about people stealing images from you? If so, are you concerned that they will make money from those stolen images, even if you haven't? The use of watermarks should be very specific. I just sold some shots of the area where I live to a small local business. I had to send some proofs to the printer so they could do layouts etc. I obviously watermarked them as at that stage they had not been paid for. Apart from instances such as that, I really can't see the point of water-marking. Convince me otherwise.

[triggerhappy]

Thanks Rob and Colin.

Thanks for the advice.

Are you concerned about people stealing images from you?

Not at all. I just thought it was just like signature.
I'm still a Noob, who would steal my images anyway =)

Thanks.

Mark

[Colin Southern]

Not at all. I just thought it was just like signature.

Hi Mark,

I think you're possibly meaning "branding" or "signature style" more than a watermark, which is a different kettle of fish. In that case I'd say by all means add one, but add it to the matte, not the image itself -- and in such a way that it doesn't draw the eye away from the image itself.

I've use one like this for while a while now ...



... it's the black frame / gray writing that kinda / sorta trains people to the fact that "Colin Southern" had something to do with this. Plus it's simple to do (use a single button click on Photoshop + a little text editing and positioning).

An expanded version I use is this ...



And more recently I'm experimenting on a few variations of this ...



So my advice would be to forget watermarking, but come up with your own presentation style

Hope this helps!

[triggerhappy]

hi Colin.

Thanks for the great advice.

Nice pics btw.

Mark

[Colin Southern]

Thanks for the great advice.

No worries (or as a pessimist would say, "Know worries")

Nice pics btw.

Thanks -- but they're pretty easy when you get the lights in the right place

[Klickit]

Thanks -- but they're pretty easy when you get the lights in the right place

Don't be so modest. You know there's a whole heap more to it than that.....

[Colin Southern]

Don't be so modest. You know there's a whole heap more to it than that.....

Thanks Kit,

To be honest though, it's pretty much just a set of techniques (albeit quite a few of them).

[carregwen]

Thanks Rob and Colin.

I'm still a Noob, who would steal my images anyway =)

Well, they might steal them, but I think my point was, would that be the end of the world? I don't think it would. It would be a problem if you were selling high-quality images for a lot of money and someone got hold of a decent copy, or even the originals, and started making money from them too, and thereby undercut some of your income.

A watermark is a unique and distinctive mark that helps to protect your images in specific circumstances (I gave an example in my last post). Branding is something different. For photography, branding is often a stylistic method of presentation that helps to make your work unique and identifiable to customers/viewers. It's about creating an identity. The problem is that ideally that identity should be in the shots themselves, and not in the way they are presented. If the identity is just in the presentation style, what does that tell you about the actual content?

I realize you are new to photography, and I'm not being critical - it's just my own opinion.

[Colin Southern]

Well, they might steal them, but I think my point was, would that be the end of the world? I don't think it would. It would be a problem if you were selling high-quality images for a lot of money and someone got hold of a decent copy, or even the originals, and started making money from them too, and thereby undercut some of your income.

(in total agreement with you Rob)

This might sound like I'm nit picking a bit - but I think it's worth reinforcing the point that perhaps it's not so much a case of "stealing an image" (implying that they now have it and you don't) as it is "stealing a COPY of an image". I've always taken the attitude that if someone wants to make themselves a small print from one of my images (a bigger one would be hard because of the lack of sufficient resolution) then I hope it brings them as much pleasure as it did me when I made it -- either way, it's not going to take money out of my pockets because they wouldn't have bought it anyway.

The other thing to keep in mind is that watermarks are easy to remove anyway - some easy to remove with a good result, others easy to remove with a poor result - either way, what does the thief care? And of course if someone posts a watermarked image on a blog of "bad photos" then that doesn't exactly help either

[revi]

Thanks Kit,

To be honest though, it's pretty much just a set of techniques (albeit quite a few of them).

And knowing when to apply those techniques has no importance...

Lovely pics, whatever you might say to belittle your part in them

[Maritimer1]

I have a case for watermarks that I don't think was mentioned. Facebook.

Quite a few photographers, new and established, use Facebook sites as a way to network and get their work out there and let people see their style. Because I am interested in doing more equine photography via shows and clinics before or when I retire, I sometimes upload a few of my better photos and let the owners tag them for their sites.

Here's the problem: People then put them on their sites, but there is no credit for your work. Others look and make comments, like "Great photo" and the person who is in the picture just says "Thanks" 90% of the time without acknowledging the source. A watermark, in that case, would let the viewers know the identity of the photographer. I'm developing one with my name and e-mail address that I can put in the corner or on a border. I want viewers to know where those photos came from in case someone would like to contact me. I'm not a big fan of Facebook, but can't deny that more people would see my photos through this type of sharing than via a personal website (Unless I linked that site via Facebook as many photographers do ) The website can wait until I gain more experience and confidence.

Myra

[Maritimer1]

Colin, I love the way you identify ownership of photos. Would I borrow the idea and tweak it for photos I display locally instead of using a watermark? You bet I would!

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery...


TC!
Myra

[rick55]

Here's the problem: People then put them on their sites, but there is no credit for your work. Others look and make comments, like "Great photo" and the person who is in the picture just says "Thanks" 90% of the time without acknowledging the source. A watermark, in that case, would let the viewers know the identity of the photographer. I'm developing one with my name and e-mail address that I can put in the corner or on a border. I want viewers to know where those photos came from in case someone would like to contact me.

Hi, Myra;

I think this fits in the basket Colin described above as "branding." I think it makes perfect sense to add branding information to an image, since casual publishers (e.g., facebook users) aren't conscious of proper publishing behavior, like attribution of images. They probably don't even think of it as publishing. Adding your name in the matte, tastefully, doesn't detract from the image, and provides you with that connection you're looking for. It doesn't "protect" your image, but that's not the problem you're trying to solve.

As a specific comment, I'd suggest that it will be hard to add an email address tastefully. I suggest that a better approach, if it's feasible for you, would be to create a name, and at least a minimal site with that name. Rob's "Carreg Wen Images" is a great example. If I search for "carreg wen images", "carregwen images", or "carregwenimages" on Google, his site comes up in the first couple of hits. Even without good Google ranking, putting "SomethingPhoto.com" looks much more professional (IMO) than "someone@somewhere.com".

Cheers;
Rick