What’s Your Preference?

Nicole · #1 (**permalink**) 12-15-2007, 07:16 PM

The question of how to watermark images comes up pretty frequently, and that inevitably leads to the question of when should you watermark your images. And the answer to that is: It's up to you. In most places, a photo is copyright as soon as it is taken, so it is not necessary to add a watermark. Adding one, however, may make it easier to identify the picture as your own and if someone does take your picture and remove the watermark, it can be yet another thing that the person is doing wrong.

If you were always curious about how photographers add that watermark to their images, there are a number of ways to add a watermark to a photograph. You can do it in Photoshop or Paintshop Pro, or you can do it with software for PCs or Macs. Of course, if you actually want an effective watermark, you should probably read this article on creating safe and effective watermarks which I found to be a bit of an eye-opener.

There are plenty of arguments both ways for why to add a watermark or not, and there are also lots of different ways to add a watermark that I haven't mentioned here.

So, this week, we'd like to know if you watermark the images you put online and why you do or do not. And of course, if you have any tips and tricks on how to do your watermarking, then by all means, share those too

PerJr · #2 (**permalink**) 12-15-2007, 07:21 PM

Nop, I'm not very skilled (yet) so if anyone would "steal" one of my pictures i would get flattered :P

besides that i almost crop all my pictures so i would be able to find the original and show

watermark can be a bit annoying on a picture imo

rajah sulayman · #3 (**permalink**) 12-15-2007, 08:23 PM

Nope. I should probably start, as it'd at least function as passive advertising for my photoblog, but I never get around to it. I liked Lightroom's auto-watermark feature, but I wish it were a little easier to work with.

Nicole · #4 (**permalink**) 12-15-2007, 08:52 PM

Personally I'm with perjr on this one, mainly because I really don't like watermarks (personal preference of course). It's because of this that I don't watermark my own images, plus the fact that my images are already copyright, and in NZ there is no registration requirement to receive damages. Also I participate in a group on Flickr that requires that you not watermark your images that are used in projects (note: I am perfectly happy with that requirement, I'm familiar with the site and aware of how my images are being used in that context). Between these things plus the ease with which you can remove the less distracting watermarks, I don't watermark my images.

The steps that I do take are: restricting sizes on Flickr, including a copyright notice in the exif, marking my photos "All rights reserved" on Flickr, and keeping the original NEF files in order to show that they are actually mine. May not be 100% effective from keeping people from stealing my stuff, but I do what makes me happy with it

Jamesc359 · #5 (**permalink**) 12-15-2007, 08:53 PM

I don't. I see why some people do though, but for me it doesn't make a lot of sense to. Anybody who really wants to steel my photo[s] will do so anyways unless I make an obnoxiously large watermark.

I feel that if a person really wants to prevent people from stealing their photos, the best way is to only allow them to download a low resolution (500-600 pixels on the long side) version of your picture. It won't stop unscrupulous webmasters/mistresses from stealing your pictures, but most people interested in stealing your photos for print use won't because they will most likely want something that they can print bigger than a few inches.

Nathan deGargoyle · #6 (**permalink**) 12-15-2007, 10:29 PM

I don't. All my flickr images carry a share alike creative commons licence. Click my sig for the details.

rajah sulayman · #7 (**permalink**) 12-17-2007, 08:50 AM

The only time I'd really wanna watermark my stuff is when it's being published on another site, and even then only if it's a big site. For example, I was hired to shoot the launch party for a music channel, and all my photos wound up on their high-traffic site. Watermarking would've been a nice subtle way to get my name out there in case anyone wanted to hire me for other event shooting. I got photo credit on the site, but a watermark would've allowed me to slip in my site url.

That said, if I did watermark a photo, it'd be very subtle. Something like -

Hell, I might even kill the name and just leave the url.

But yeah - 99% of my shots remain unmarked.

Nicole · #8 (**permalink**) 12-17-2007, 09:55 AM

You know, I don't think anyone who watermarks their images has chimed in here yet

Come on, I know you're out there

Nobody will bite if you admit to it

wulf · #9 (**permalink**) 12-17-2007, 10:20 AM

Sorry - I'm just another no. I think watermarks are often quite disfiguring and detract more from the image than they add to its security.

If I did decide to start watermarking, I would probably use the approach taken by Mirentxu, one of my Flickr contacts, who integrates her tag as part of each image. It is often hard to spot and not intrusive.

Wulf

filemanager · #10 (**permalink**) 12-17-2007, 01:12 PM

YES. lol But, I only add watermarks when I'm uploading high-res images to my gallery, or to post somewhere (except here, where folks are pretty honest).