Opinions/Suggestions on a watermark

stick-dan

Hi guys,

I was just wondering could you lot (who are full of ideas) offer your thoughts on a watermark i'm thinking of putting on my photos. I was browsing on pix.ie and i can't for the life of me find the person who had it now but some photos i stumbled across had a watermark similar to the one i have put on my photo below. I have been talking to people who say that they have found people using their photographs unlawfully, and after having some requests for photographs myself i began to think how many people could possibly be using my photographs without my knowledge. It got me thinking and i stumbled upon the following watermark on my exploration in pix.ie. I just want to either put people off using my photographs unlawfully because they would have to remove my name and ultimately crop the image but at the same time i wouldn't like to hinder the people who genuinely just view the photographs.

The image (low res) below is an idea of what i had in mind and i was wondering on what was the general concenus on it? Basically would you still view the photograph without being too put off from doing so and would it deter you from downloading it?



I'd appreciate any thoughts on this. Thanks in advance guys.

Paulw

A small crop generally would be too easy and not much of a discouragement.

It's a fine line between something to mark your images, and something that takes away from the image itself.

Fenster

Not a freaking thing would stop me from downloading and using that image. It is (1) several times larger than your typical webpage-sized image and so (2) I wouldn't lose any sleep over just cropping the bottom off the image to remove the watermark before I put it on my website.

If I wished to print the image I would have to crop it anyways, so I'd just (3) give preference to removing the watermark in my cropping.

So your watermark doesn't do a single thing other than tell me that some fellow named Daniel Jordan put a laughably small watermark on it.

stick-dan

Paulw wrote: »

A small crop generally would be too easy and not much of a discouragement.

It's a fine line between something to mark your images, and something that takes away from the image itself.

Thanks for that, but i'm really not a fan of big watermarks as i feel they ruin photographs and should only be used in my opinion if you stand to lose earnings of a large amount of income due to people stealing your images.

I only want to encourage people to ask me to use my images so i know who is using them.

I've never seen a watermark that satisfies the dilemma you mentioned.

stick-dan

Fenster wrote: »

Not a freaking thing would stop me from downloading and using that image. It is (1) several times larger than your typical webpage-sized image and so (2) I wouldn't lose any sleep over just cropping the bottom off the image to remove the watermark before I put it on my website.

If I wished to print the image I would have to crop it anyways, so I'd just (3) give preference to removing the watermark in my cropping.

So your watermark doesn't do a single thing other than tell me that some fellow named Daniel Jordan put a laughably small watermark on it.

Harsh but true i guess, better watch out for you :P

This is the purpose of the thread though. What would you suggest.

Paulw

http://www.flickr.com/photos/paulwa/4220219436/

I try and keep mine as near to that line as possible.

Fenster

The only workable option that will prevent theft is to simply not upload the image. Anti-right-click scripts, flash galleries, watermarks and overlays by a transparent PNG file can all be defeated by any yahoo with the presence of mind to Google ''How do I...''

stick-dan

Paulw wrote: »

http://www.flickr.com/photos/paulwa/4220219436/

I try and keep mine as near to that line as possible.

That's a very good one alright paul, i may try y hand at making one of them. is it key to put it somewhere very obtrusive in the photograph and make it slightly transparent.

Fenster wrote: »

The only workable option that will prevent theft is to simply not upload the image.

not an option i'm afraid, i've progressed the little bit i have in the last year or so by uploading images and getting people to critique them and tell me where i have been going wrong and how to improve.

Fenster

Then you have to simply be resigned to the possibility of theft, vigilant for instances of it and strong enough to act upon it.

stick-dan

I'd rather not i'll see what other ideas are thrown out there. Pauls is quite good.

kjt

In my honest opinion there is no way to watermark you image without ruining it. What you've put up is easy to photoshop, if anybody really wants your image they just have to do a tiny crop.

You can either go the full hog and kill you images like this:


Or put a really low opacity text over the whole image and hope nobody will notice....

In my opinion only uploading low res <800px files is the way to do it, maybe pop your logo in the corner if you want people to know who took the shot in the case of it appearing somewhere you weren't planning.

My two cent.

stunt_penguin

kjt wrote: »

In my honest opinion there is no way to watermark you image without ruining it.

Which is exactly why I don't bother.

Behold :

www.chrisdidthis.com

I know the images are probably going to be used, but if I do find someone using them I've got a €450 invoice all ready to send out to them along with a solicitor's letter.

ianflynn

stunt_penguin wrote: »

Which is exactly why I don't bother.

Behold :

www.chrisdidthis.com

I know the images are probably going to be used, but if I do find someone using them I've got a €450 invoice all ready to send out to them along with a solicitor's letter.

i dont bother watermarking as my images arent worthy of theft... i take them for my own enjoymeny.
im quoting this post because those pics are amazing, fair play!

stick-dan

kjt wrote: »

In my honest opinion there is no way to watermark you image without ruining it. What you've put up is easy to photoshop, if anybody really wants your image they just have to do a tiny crop.

You can either go the full hog and kill you images like this:


Or put a really low opacity text over the whole image and hope nobody will notice....

In my opinion only uploading low res <800px files is the way to do it, maybe pop your logo in the corner if you want people to know who took the shot in the case of it appearing somewhere you weren't planning.

My two cent.

I had thought of that before and ultimately it was my laziness that hindered me making any low-res image copies. my own fault and i probably should just cop on. I do like the idea of lo-res though and then a logo in the corner

stunt_penguin wrote: »

Which is exactly why I don't bother.

Behold :

www.chrisdidthis.com

I know the images are probably going to be used, but if I do find someone using them I've got a €450 invoice all ready to send out to them along with a solicitor's letter.

good idea lol but the problem is finding the offenders

nilhg

stick-dan wrote: »

I had thought of that before and ultimately it was my laziness that hindered me making any low-res image copies. my own fault and i probably should just cop on. I do like the idea of lo-res though and then a logo in the corner



good idea lol but the problem is finding the offenders

It really does come down to your attitude though, if photography is your hobby and the enjoyment comes from the process, going out and shooting, processing, then sharing with your friends and the wider public either here or on the likes of flickr or pix, then why waste your time trying to find "offenders". 99% of the time said offender will be some kids bebo or myspace page that's only ever seen by 3 of their friends. Fair enough if Coca Cola or Microsoft or one of the bigger papers nab your image then let fly with both barrells, they deserve it but apart from that life's too short.

AnCatDubh

stick-dan wrote: »

good idea lol but the problem is finding the offenders

I don't think it will ever be perfect.

Tineye is getting better and getting more of the web indexed as is google's find similar images.

Far from perfect but promising for the future.

This is only online stuff. Won't stop someone from downloading and using as a desktop background or printing.

stcstc has stated that you'd be amazed at how good printing technology can make even <800px images to reasonable reproduction sizes.

If your stuff is good enough or you are well known enough then you've got to accept that it may happen. Try sort it if you find out about it. In the meantime post small images as a damage limitation exercise.

nilhg

AnCatDubh wrote: »

I don't think it will ever be perfect.

Tineye is getting better and getting more of the web indexed as is google's find similar images.

Far from perfect but promising for the future.

This is only online stuff. Won't stop someone from downloading and using as a desktop background or printing.

stcstc has stated that you'd be amazed at how good printing technology can make even <800px images to reasonable reproduction sizes.

If your stuff is good enough or you are well known enough then you've got to accept that it may happen. Try sort it if you find out about it. In the meantime post small images as a damage limitation exercise.

But stopping somebody using your image without paying doesn't mean that they will automaticly pay for it, 99% will just move on somewhere else, and that "victory" comes at a cost, you've lessened the enjoyment of your work by your friends.

tororosso

nilhg wrote: »

But stopping somebody using your image without paying doesn't mean that they will automaticly pay for it, 99% will just move on somewhere else, and that "victory" comes at a cost, you've lessened the enjoyment of your work by your friends.

Yeah that is the dilemma alright. If you take photos and want people to view them they will only be really interested if they think they can have the image for free. As soon as you start watermarking the image it might stop them having it but a large number of people are happy to take something if it is free although they just plain wont pay for it!! They place a value on the image but still wont part with cash for it (for various reasons).
The real issue with watermarking is that you are placing a monetary value (possibly not defined yet) on your photo. If you have 0% interest in making a gain from the photo, and it is just for a friend to enjoy, then why bother with watermarking??

mrboswell

stunt_penguin wrote: »

Which is exactly why I don't bother.

Behold :

www.chrisdidthis.com

I know the images are probably going to be used, but if I do find someone using them I've got a €450 invoice all ready to send out to them along with a solicitor's letter.

If someone is bold enough to publicly use an image belonging to you then I'd imaging that an invoice for 450 and a solicitor's letter isn't going to strike fear into them either...

They tend to use images from small fries that couldn't most a reasonable case against someone from another country. So say, for example, someone in the US used an image belonging to you - they know there isn't really anything that you could do about unless they used your image for a big advertising campaign and they knew you would follow up on it.

As we've said here before - watermarks are subjective and anyone who values their photography will do what they can to help protect them. If someone really wants a photo they'll just take it but watermarks are a small measure to help prevent it.

Mine is bold enough: here

but it does what I require of it

stick-dan

I've since messed around with this and am going to make a few layouts of my own. This is by no means the finished article but this type of semi transparent watermark is a step forward is it not? This is a simple layer added that i made myself

kjt

It takes from the shot a good bit, how about dropping the opacity a bit?

stick-dan

one sec will do.

stick-dan

This better and less obtrusive?

Dara Robinson

Dan, dont want to hijack your thread so asking 1st Would I be able to ask for ppl's 2 cent on my watermark also? just so there is not a load of threads with the same title

stick-dan

well i can't really stop you to be fair :P

kjt

stick-dan wrote: »

This better and less obtrusive?

I'd say you could get away with a bit more than that even. Bang in the middle of those two would be really good imo

stick-dan

kjt wrote: »

I'd say you could get away with a bit more than that even. Bang in the middle of those two would be really good imo

kk I'll work on it now.

stick-dan

This then?

kjt

I think that's pretty bang on! Just my opinion though buddy

stick-dan

kjt wrote: »

I think that's pretty bang on! Just my opinion though buddy

and thanks for taking the time to express it i might add, I'm trying to step back from the photo and see how visual impacting they are in a negative way, and to be honest I don't like seeing them on photos but has to be done.

Thanks Kyle, would appreciate any more thoughts opinions skepticism, etc

kjt

stick-dan wrote: »

and thanks for taking the time to express it i might add, I'm trying to step back from the photo and see how visual impacting they are in a negative way, and to be honest I don't like seeing them on photos but has to be done.

Thanks Kyle, would appreciate any more thoughts opinions skepticism, etc

It could be interesting for you to grab 10/15 random photos from your collection (not necessarily your best, but random so their different types of shots) and pop the watermark over them all. Look at them in large format, as small thumbnails and see what they look like.

Dara Robinson

I'd also like some feedback on my watermark. Some people are telling me its fine and others saying its horrible.

What I was trying to do was add something that was visible but also hard to crop out.

Any thoughts?

kjt

I like the idea behind it but don't think this one works. I've seen some great ones done like that before shall try and a find an example.

Couldn't find any great examples but I think this is an improvement on yours...? I think keeping the font simple will help a big amount!


Found here

Dara Robinson

Took in feedback and updated. Any thoughts on new one?

Also, is positioning ok or should I raise it higher or lower?

.Longshanks.

Dara, its the font that doesn't do it for me

kjt

Yea looks far better imo. I'd change the font though

Dara Robinson

New font. Any thoughts on placement?

btw, I am using a photoshop extension, a free one to create the watermarks. Allows me to do this in batches as well. Amazing little thing.

Its provided by the American Association of Photoshop Professionals
Download:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=678219&highlight=watermark+napp

Video Tutorial:
av.adobe.com/russellbrown/WatermarkCreator.mov
(present for allowing me to hijack the thread temporarily )

kjt

Miles better!