Is this watermark too much??

[angelsfort]

need some info here... I've just learned how to do a watermark on my pics and I was wondering if THIS was too much...

and if it is, can you suggest a way to create a watermark that's effective, but not too intrusive?? (is that possible??)

[korman]

No Diana,

the watermark with the baby isn't too intrusive for that nice image of the text.

Seriously, think about what you want to achieve with your watermarking.

• Are you living from your images or are you just yet another amateur? If you present the images to clients, which might go out and have them printed at the local Wallmart things are different than if you just show them around here.
• Do your images have a high reuse potential? Baby pictures for example are usually only of interest to the involved parents, generic product shots for ebay items are very popular to steal.

If you lose money because of copies, you feel you need to use for image filling watermarks you might want to make them less intrusive. In your case, make the watermark just an outline, so that the colours aren't affected inside the letters. Some of the professionals here might give you better advise about what other steps are a good idea to take.

If no money is on the line, just add your signature in a discrete way so that the image isn't ruined.

Korman

[angelsfort]

Korman, I'd like to place these images on my website so that the parents can come and take a look and decide if they'd like to purchase them. I work at a daycare and my director asked me to take some pictures (candid shots) of the children. After she saw them she decided that it might be a fun fundraiser to offer the pictures to the parents for purchase...

we want them to be able to look at the photo's without being able to just copy them over to their own computers and not have to purchase them from us.

The images will be printed by me (not by walmart) via Mpix and the parents will only get the prints... no digital copy of the original photo. Plus the watermark will not be on the printed version... I just want to deter them from stealing the pictures and having the daycare lose the money for the sale.

Your comment "Are you living from your images or are you just yet another amateur? " implies that there is nothing else... you are either making a living off of your photos or you are an amateur... I am neither of those things. I'm not a professional by any stretch of the imagination, but I've gained enough knowledge and experience to elevate myself above the "amateur" status. Not far above it, mind you... but I feel that I am past that stage.

[happusa]

I don't know what Florida's laws are about kid photos, but in Washington you have to have parental permission to photograph kids in any day care or state funded agency. I know you didn't say anything about that, it's just something to think about before posting to a website.

[korman]

Dianna,

in this case, the pictures earn you money and are likely to be used without consent and you'll want a big watermark to prevent the download by parents who then run to Walmart for a cheap print. You might want to try an outline font to keep more of the original image unaltered while still plastering the message across the important parts and reducing the chance of Walmart prints.

You might also go for less text, something like:
PROOF
© (make that one big)
DIANA G

Korman

[Take12]

Originally Posted by angelsfort

we want them to be able to look at the photo's without being able to just copy them over to their own computers and not have to purchase them from us.

Then simply post images no larger than 800x600 (at 72dpi). Thus they would need to be printed at 200x150 to get true photo quality. That's not even enough for wallet size prints. So that's not an option.

And it would save you from having to disfigure your precious images with ugly grafitti.

By all means include a (very small and unobtrusive) copyright stamp. But just outside the image. Not in it.

Oh, and you can (very easily) build your own website – for FREE! – to display your photos to the parents (and the world) and collect print orders, at weebly.com.

Have fun!

[korman]

Originally Posted by Take12

Then simply post images no larger than 800x600. Thus they would need to be printed at 200x150 to get true photo quality. That's not even enough for wallet size prints. So that's not an option. And it would save you from having to disfigure your precious images with ugly grafitti.

It won't. 640x400 yield good enough small prints (cheapest size at Wallmart), specially if the images are taken by someone who knew what she was doing and when those prints are compared to the stuff produced by camera-phones. That's what Dianna will be competing against. And in that case, big letters across the face is a good deterrent - and a small size on the web too.

Korman

[angelsfort]

thanks so much for the help guys! I think I'm gonna take BOTH of your advice... small size uploaded to the web AND watermark (maybe not right across the face, but definitely touching it.. kinda like I've done in the posted picture)

and take12, I'll go check out that website! Thanks for the link!

[angelsfort]

Okay, I created a different one... is this better than the old one? (I think so!)

[Ellbee99]

I think the watermark on her head is too much. I place them under the chin almost touching but, not quite. If you have them too dark or on the face, I think you will tick people off. Just my opinion from personal experience.

As my dad always says, "locks only keep honest people honest." In other words if they are going to steal your mages they are going to steal them. You would be amazed at what some people think it ok.

[Athena]

My website watermarks look more like what Lori has posted.

My images display small and the watermark lays at low opacity over them always in the same size/place. The small size deters people from stealing to print and the watermark helps keep them from using printscreen to steal them for websites/emails. I figure if they still print screen it and share with friends/family they are also advertising for me at that point.

[angelsfort]

Thanks to both of you! I placed the watermark under her chin instead of across her head like you see posted... and I made it a little more opaque (did I spell that right??) so it's not quite as noticeable...

and I also did a batch process to make the picture sizes much smaller... and to renumber them for ease of ordering!

thank you for your input, I really appreciate it!

[nowalkman]

not too much,I add small copyright watermark with url of my site on all my photos before publish it in the web. But if I try to sell images, I add big transparent or emboss watermarks.
u can try Batch Watermark Creator,i use the one for watermarking,resizing and renaming,I will be able to process thousands of files in a few seconds.

[angelsfort]

I tried a batch process on the actual watermark process, but in some pictures the watermark was placed right over the childs face and I didn't care for that!! (as I assume the parents wouldn't have cared for that either!) so I decided that I'd do each picture manually and control where the watermark got placed...

if it wasn't children (or people in general, I guess) then I'd definitely not mind the batch watermark process (probably prefer it!)

thanks so much for the link... I'm gonna go check it out.

[Ellbee99]

Dianna,
I batch watermark the images, then I go back and readjust the position as needed.

Lori

[Athena]

Smugmug puts the watermarks on my web images for me.