Watermark Feedback

[Beauty Through a Lens]

So now that I am doing some Macro photography I feel like my watermark is to large, but at the same time I use my watermark as advertisement (not just protection) so I want the name to be easily readable. The issue is I feel like my watermark is ruining my photograph (I prefer to have it in the centre almost always)

I was wondering If I could get feedback on these four styles of watermark.

Proportion: 17 Opacity: 50
[IMG][/IMG]

Proportion: 17 Opacity: 40
[IMG][/IMG]

Proportion: 15 Opacity: 50
[IMG][/IMG]

Proportion: 15 Opacity: 40
[IMG][/IMG]

I am open to suggestions.

[Donald]

...I feel like my watermark is to large, but at the same time I use my watermark as advertisement (not just protection)

I'd suggest it does neither.

I'd say it was a very ineffective way of advertising. If people have got as far as looking at your image, they know who you are. And it offers the very minimum of protection if any. Removing a watermark is pretty straightforward.

The issue is I feel like my watermark is ruining my photograph (I prefer to have it in the centre almost always)

That's exactly what it does most effectively ... all the time.

I am open to suggestions.

Drop the idea of using a watermark.

[Manfred M]

Adrian - putting a watermark on your image is a really good way of defacing it and is a totally ineffective way of protecting it.

The only way of not having your work ripped off, if someone even wants to do so, is not posting at all. The best way of protecting your work is to post a small low quality image, that way the person ripping it off has very limited things that he or she can do with it.

[Digital]

Adrian, if you want to use a watermark IMHO I would not put one in the center of my image. All things considered I agree with Donald, and Manfred on not using a watermark.


Bruce

[Saorsa]

Put a small copyright notice in the corner if you must. I've never found watermarking to be effective. The microstock sites usually use a large watermark that is very faint.



I don't bother in normal posts or on my blog.

If one of your images has great commercial value it would be worth pursuing copyright infringement but in most cases that's not worthwhile.

[jcuknz]

Even Manfred's suggestion that a small file protects is suspect I am afraid. While it may protect against photographers with an eye for quality it doesn't protect against other people as I proved to my own satisfaction years ago by downsizing and compressing an image and then blowing it up again. [ Somebody had not saved their small files with a different name to the original and was rather sad ]
I downsize images to avoid some automatic process spoiling it but now with broadband so widespread I do not bother about compression these days.[ except for one site I frequent which requires this ]

[Manfred M]

Even Manfred's suggestion that a small file protects is suspect I am afraid. While it may protect against photographers with an eye for quality it doesn't protect against other people as I proved to my own satisfaction years ago by downsizing and compressing an image and then blowing it up again. [ Somebody had not saved their small files with a different name to the original and was rather sad ]
I downsize images to avoid some automatic process spoiling it but now with broadband so widespread I do not bother about compression these days.[ except for one site I frequent which requires this ]

Yes and no, John. It won't keep your file from being ripped off, but will reduce the usefulness to the thief.

Large size, high quality (Photoshop jpeg quality 10 (12 is max):







Small size low quality (jpeg compression quality 0).



You can see compression artifacts in the image at "full size".

[DanK]

I briefly used a watermark but gave it up. it doesn't offer much protection, and it detracts from the image. IMHO, putting one in the center of the image, as you did, is really bad. It nearly ruins the image and will make it hard for people to see that the image is attractive. I put mine in a bottom corner (which of course makes it even simpler to get rid of it).

I now limit the size of downloads, as Manfred suggests, and just live with the fact that some people will steal those images. The are too small to create prints to sell to any discriminating buyer. I did find one instance in which someone stole an image and posted it as his own, but he was only trying to show the area I photographed.

[dennybeall]

My personal opinion only, but I really, really dislike Watermarks and dismiss any photo with an obvious one. Don't even look at it.
But I'm only one person.
Can you imagine "The Mona Lisa" with the artists signature across her nose???

[jcuknz]

Who but a discerning photographer bothers about artifacts Manfred And I did more than adjust compression but also down-sized.
I follow your description of the Photoshop process but with PSP I adjust on a 1-100 scale to get the Kb read-out I need for the site .. though as I mentioned now with broadband I'm lazy and do not bother about compression except for one site which requires no more than 100Kb or it doesn't show with the text but as a link.

Actually I may know and dislike them but I am not sure what an artifact is that so many get in a twist over. Another heretical pronouncement

[benm]

Can you imagine "The Mona Lisa" with the artists signature across her nose???

Marcel Duchamp

[Manfred M]

Who but a discerning photographer bothers about artifacts Manfred And I did more than adjust compression but also down-sized.
I follow your description of the Photoshop process but with PSP I adjust on a 1-100 scale to get the Kb read-out I need for the site .. though as I mentioned now with broadband I'm lazy and do not bother about compression except for one site which requires no more than 100Kb or it doesn't show with the text but as a link.

Actually I may know and dislike them but I am not sure what an artifact is that so many get in a twist over. Another heretical pronouncement

John - The question was, I believe, on protecting the photographer on preventing their work from being ripped off.

My original answer of not posting on the internet is the only 100% foolproof way that I know.

I know a number of commercial photographers quite well and the method that they use is the one I describe. They use as small an image as they feel that they can get away with on their website and then lossy compress the image so anything other than the size on their website looks crappy. It avoids the hated watermark and gives a reasonable amount of protection from someone ripping off the image and creating a print).

Another method I saw (that is not applicable for Adrian's purposes) is what the photographer that did my daughter's grad photos. All shots were green screen (with the purchaser being able to select one of several backgrounds). They did really sloppy chromakey work that left green artifacts in the online proofs. Obviously these were done well in the final product.

[Beauty Through a Lens]

I post my photography on Tumblr and people are known for changing sources so I want the name somewhere on the photograph, so I decided to take your guys' suggestions and not use my watermark. So what about this:

Opacity: 52 Proportional: 14



[IMG]

[Mike Buckley]

Your second watermark looks nicer. It took me slightly more than a minute to eliminate it from both images. If you prefer that I remove the images, I'll be happy to do so.

[Black Pearl]

Putting a (C) on your images is utterly pointless.

Your average internet user will completely ignore it as it has no meaning to them and as has been proved above anyone with a bit of knowhow can remove them if they really want to so frankly its not actually copywriting anything.

If you are a commercial photographer you have to put a value on your images and to an extent you need to protect that value as it forms the basis of your living wage. Against that you have to advertise your work or you're going to find it difficult to build a business and make that living. To do so you have to put your work out for others to see and every time you do so you run the risk of someone copying it - BUT - someone copying it and you actually losing income from that copy are very different things. Personally I hate to see images with names or watermarks of any kind on them. For me it ruins the shot. If it is someones name then I just laugh and move on as it feels more like its there as a "look at me" than for any practical purpose. If it has a photography business name on then to be honest I wonder why the image alone needs it as the context (the site) should be enough to get your attention.