Mixed Feelings

[obtr32]

I look at a lot of photos online (oh, stop....not those types of photos)...and I have noticed that some photographers put a watermark somewhere in their photos.

Half of me says that is a great idea....however, the other half says that it it some what.....narscistic (lack of a better word).

What are your feelings on it?

Pauly

[PavelOlavich]

Originally Posted by obtr32

I look at a lot of photos online (oh, stop....not those types of photos)...and I have noticed that some photographers put a watermark somewhere in their photos.

Half of me says that is a great idea....however, the other half says that it it some what.....narscistic (lack of a better word).

What are your feelings on it?

Pauly

I'm a pro, okay, so what I would say is that you are right more often then not.

[tomrock]

Most people do it so people won't "steal" their pictures but a lot of folks really don't have to worry about their pictures being stolen. I started doing it because it looked so "professional". Now I do it to advertise my site.

[obtr32]

My Pro side says: Do it so that people wont steal it. I agree. The last thing I would ever want is to find a photo that I had taken end up on some porn site...

However....

My Con side says: Is a watermark a desprate attempt to make a photo look more professional. Let the photo speak for itself. If its good...then its good. If someone likes the photo that much....then wouldn't an email address on my profile be more professional the plastering my name all over a photo that I took.


(tomrock, I'm just running thoughts through my head....I am not aimming any comments towards anyones direction....no offense is given)

Here is a photo that my 8 Year old took

[brian.austin]

Define "watermark" in your context here.

I don't see an identification of the photographer or statement of copyright as a watermark unless it's given an "embossed" look to it and kind of merged with the photo. This is usually across key elements of the composition to make it less likely that someone will try to crop it out and steal it as their own.

A simple name/copyright in the corner is enough for me, at least right now. The Internet being what it is, all images are up for grabs in some way. Places like OMP that stop the right-click/copy function on the image can't do anything about screen captures. You post your pics, you take your chances.

[NFG]

I hang out with a group of freerunners, and have been taking pics of them for over a year. A month or two ago I started tagging all my images, and the feedback was immediately positive. The people in the photos all felt the tags gave the images a hint of credibility, a bit of professionalism that they never realized was missing.

And yeah, now when 300 of my pics are splattered across myspace, everyone knows it was me that took 'em. =)

[peterst6906]

There's a recent Flickr thread that got a lot of tongues wagging on this issue:

meaningless selfportrait on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Unfortunately Flickr didn't handle it too well, but at least the photos are no longer being sold by someone else on Ebay anymore (although it looks like they made a heap of money doing so).

Regards,

Peter

[brian.austin]

As I said, if you post pics, you take your chances.

When I get better, hoping to get published, gallery space, whatever, you won't be seeing those images on the Internet. The theft is too easy.

[kevin_c]

Most watermarks/signatures can be removed very easily in PS, so It won't actually stop anyone 'stealing' the image if they really want to.
As long as it's not too big ( I don't tend to post any bigger than 5 or 600 pixels) it will stop it being printed at too big a size with any degree of quality, but it's still perfectly usable on a website.

If placed sympatheticly, a logo or photogs name can be a good marketing tool but some people just plaster them all across the middle of an image and for me this distracts from the actual image.

My thought are, if you don't want it stolen from the internet, don't post it!

[jfrancho]

I've been trying to implement a watermark in creative ways. It takes a bit more time, but looks better than a generic mark plopped over the picture, with no forethought or consideration to the picture itself. It falls in line with my philosophy of adding quality to your pictures at every step of the work flow.

[PavelOlavich]

Originally Posted by kevin_c

Most watermarks/signatures can be removed very easily in PS, so It won't actually stop anyone 'stealing' the image if they really want to.
As long as it's not too big ( I don't tend to post any bigger than 5 or 600 pixels) it will stop it being printed at too big a size with any degree of quality, but it's still perfectly usable on a website.

If placed sympatheticly, a logo or photogs name can be a good marketing tool but some people just plaster them all across the middle of an image and for me this distracts from the actual image.

My thought are, if you don't want it stolen from the internet, don't post it!

You'e posted the best response to date on this issue!