Does my watermark ruin the shot? Yes there is a watermark.

[JBW]

The watermark is in one of the corners. And just for the record it is three capital letters. Now to the shot. This blossom is 10MM tip to tip. I do enjoy a good close-up.

[Donald]

I saw the title of the thread and was ready to reply 'Yes', without even looking, because I believe all watermarks that are on the image itself, ruin them. That after all, is there purpose is it not? To stop others stealing their images if they're determined to do so. And we all no that it doesn't do that anyway. It just ruins the image.

However, in this case, I honestly can't see it. I'm wondering if it's because I'm colour blind that, to me, the colour of the letters has totally merged into the colour on the image itself?

[James G]

Brian, I can't see any initials either.. though I am viewing on my laptop... will check when I boot up the desktop.

A good while back I 'regularly' used a logo / watermark. But as Donald points out, I found myself placing it on the image border, because I could not face the idea of 'ruining' the finished image.

I also realised I was actually more interested in applying a logo as part of the 'final' presentation of the image.



These days I very rarely bother

[JBW]

I saw the title of the thread and was ready to reply 'Yes', without even looking, because I believe all watermarks that are on the image itself, ruin them. That after all, is there purpose is it not? To stop others stealing their images if they're determined to do so. And we all no that it doesn't do that anyway. It just ruins the image.

However, in this case, I honestly can't see it. I'm wondering if it's because I'm colour blind that, to me, the colour of the letters has totally merged into the colour on the image itself?

Nope your colour blindness shouldn't effect anything. It is black on green. Bottom left if you look really really really closely you will see at full size a light black horizontal line. 'T.O.M.' make up the line. It is simply too easy to remove something you notice. So I thought I'd try for something people won't notice. I know where it is and i can 'see' it.

[JBW]

I am only using this so i know what's actually mine. That no one but me can see it is what I was hoping for.

[Shadowman]

Cannot see it so I guess it works.

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Brian,

I have a feeling this may be so small, in pixel terms (esp. after any downsizing), that jpg coding may distort and render it unreadable at the size shown above - which by my reckoning/measurement is now 4 or 5 pixels tall, which is insufficient to resolve all the parts of a character.

On this image I cannot say that I can discern the letters "TOM", but I thought I could read it on the earlier image you posted, it was clear enough for me to remember thinking "oh, it's not JBW".

The absolute minimum pixel grid needed for alpha-numeric characters is generally accepted 7 x 5 (h x w), as used in early dot matrix printers and motorway/free-way overhead signs. Now while you may be using a large pixel grid enough size on your original image when creating the letters, I suspect that in downsizing, it becomes less - then we add in jpg compression, which may well mangle things further.

It is a valid aim, and I'm all for things that don't spoil an image.

Dave

[Manfred M]

Brian - the aversion to watermarking seems to be quite specific to some members of this site. When I took a photography course at the local community college. This was part of the program for a certificate in photography, not just one of those "interest courses", watermarking on submitted images was mandatory. When questioned, the professor's view was that the watermark was no different than a painter signing his or her painting and made some comment about along the lines of identifying the image was being your work was a sign of pride in your workmanship. A lot of the images I do see for sale in this part of the world are watermarked by the studio or photographer.

I personally go along with this view, with a couple of caveats:

1. Your watermark is NOT going to prevent your work from being stolen or otherwise ripped off, so don't ruin the image with an overly heavy-handed approach. Most watermarks I've seen can be removed in a couple of seconds with a PP tool anyways; and

2. Your watermark should be presented in such a way that it fits with the image and is large enough to clearly do this in the final image size. That's a nice way of saying, make sure that people can see it without too much trouble, for instance if you put it in a dark area of the image, use a light colour and if you put it in a light area, use a dark colour.

The main reason I don't watermark the images I post here is that I got tired of the "nice image, why did you ruin it with a watermark?" comments. That comment is up right up there with other comments like "I hate HDRI", "I hate B&W", "I hate silky water". There is no use arguing with people that have already made up their mind.

[Rob Ekins]

1. Your watermark is NOT going to prevent your work from being stolen or otherwise ripped off, so don't ruin the image with an overly heavy-handed approach. Most watermarks I've seen can be removed in a couple of seconds with a PP tool.

The point of watermarking is that in the case that your image is used illegally it is very easy to prove to a court that the image is yours, Brian has done it well I think (At the low res I see) All of the images on my website are watermarked, I defy any one to find one but in the case of a legal argument I could point it out very easily.

I should add branding your image is different to watermarking..

[Manfred M]

The point of watermarking is that in the case that your image is used illegally it is very easy to prove to a court that the image is yours, Brian has done it well I think (At the low res I see) All of the images on my website are watermarked, I defy any one to find one but in the case of a legal argument I could point it out very easily.

I should add branding your image is different to watermarking..

As a commercial photographer once pointed out to me, showing up in court with the original file is going to be what convinces a judge that the work is yours.

While I agree branding and watermarking can be two different things; i.e. the inference is that the watermark is "hidden" whereas the branding / signature is not. The two can be one and the same thing. Take a look at paper (or plastic) currency; the watermarks are rather obvious.

[TonyW]

Now that you tell us where to find the watermark, I can see it when I expand the image on my iPad. Since no one is likely to notice it without prompting, it would be an effective means to protect the image, until others get to use it and it becomes a standard technique.

[JBW]

Hi Brian,

I have a feeling this may be so small, in pixel terms (esp. after any downsizing), that jpg coding may distort and render it unreadable at the size shown above - which by my reckoning/measurement is now 4 or 5 pixels tall, which is insufficient to resolve all the parts of a character.

On this image I cannot say that I can discern the letters "TOM", but I thought I could read it on the earlier image you posted, it was clear enough for me to remember thinking "oh, it's not JBW".

The absolute minimum pixel grid needed for alpha-numeric characters is generally accepted 7 x 5 (h x w), as used in early dot matrix printers and motorway/free-way overhead signs. Now while you may be using a large pixel grid enough size on your original image when creating the letters, I suspect that in downsizing, it becomes less - then we add in jpg compression, which may well mangle things further.

It is a valid aim, and I'm all for things that don't spoil an image.

Dave

It is T.O.M. rather than JBW simply because The Old Man is the name I go by on my blog.

[JBW]

Now that you tell us where to find the watermark, I can see it when I expand the image on my iPad. Since no one is likely to notice it without prompting, it would be an effective means to protect the image, until others get to use it and it becomes a standard technique.

very true.

[Mike Buckley]

That comment is up right up there with other comments like "I hate HDRI", "I hate B&W", "I hate silky water". There is no use arguing with people that have already made up their mind.

More important to me, none of those comments is the least bit helpful when it comes to determining the quality of an image; they speak only to the preferences of the viewer. If I was wearing a suit and suspenders and asked someone to critique my clothing, and if they then explained that they hate suspenders, that information would be similarly unhelpful.

[JBW]

More important to me, none of those comments is the least bit helpful when it comes to determining the quality of an image; they speak only to the preferences of the viewer. If I was wearing a suit and suspenders and asked someone to critique my clothing, and if they then explained that they hate suspenders, that information would be similarly unhelpful.

From a personal standpoint I find many watermarks distracting. Somewhat like bright orange suspenders worn with a dark suit.

[Mike Buckley]

From a personal standpoint I find many watermarks distracting.

I do too. Any time part of an image is noticeably distracting, I tend to mention it. However, I don't do that when it comes to watermarks because I give the photographer the benefit of the doubt that he or she already knows that it's distracting at least to some people.

Personally, I gave up wearing neck ties a few years ago and couldn't care less if people dislike that I'll wear a suit without wearing one. Ha!