My personal opinion (and it is a little controversial) is that on here watermarks are not required unless the work is for sale. Yes, people can right click on them and 'steal' them, but they are quite small and certainly not large enough to do much with.
I have found that many people with amazing photos on here do not bother with watermarks (some do)
I also find (again personal opinion) that often a watermark detracts from the actual photo putting another focal point into a photo distracting from its composition.
Someone wrote on a photography page I recently read "putting a watermark on your photo is like peeing on your belongings so no one will steal them"
I'm sure many will disagree with me but here I do not find it necessary.
"I also find (again personal opinion) that often a watermark detracts from the actual photo putting another focal point into a photo distracting from its composition"
I agree 100% - in fact, when a huge name is across a photo it ruins it. I think 'Why did you share it online if you don't want us to see it, if it's so precious put it in a frame!'
@monika64 lol that is a nice little thing about the peeing on your belongings.
I have umm and ahhh about watermarks for so long, considering i know for a fact i can remove watermarks on some photos and if i can do it many others can so i didnt bother unless i was putting it over the actual picture i was shooting which would ruin my photo.
I put my name of my photos.... not sure why really apart from the fact that it was suggested by a lawyer that I have done work with when he saw my photos and I told him I posted to here and sometimes to Facebook. The reason being.... if ever the image is taken and you have your name on it along with the original unedited version of the image it makes it easier to prove ownership. I only ever put my name in one of the bottom corners and make it pretty small. In most cases it could be removed in a few clicks of a clone brush. Even though the images are very small on here they can still be used for greeting cards etc if taken. Personal choice for everyone. Lets face it if someone asked me if they could use one of my images I'd be saying knock your socks off. If they didnt ask.... that's a different story.
I agree with Mags and Monika too, I have played with the idea once or twice but it certainly distracts from the subject. I've even stopped following or just not followed at all, some members who's watermark is OTT, I feel that I'm just reading their name rather than looking at the picture.
If you are really worried about your images being copied just reduce the file size before loading up, then it wont be worth stealing!
@lorraineb lol thanks, im not too worried as such. but its good to know others opinions of it all...i just played with some photos and put water marks on them, looked at them and just really didnt like it...took my eye away from what i was trying to show in my photo
In Flickr I upload my shots with watermark (small one, sometimes you can't see it because it's so small). It's a way to say that is mine. Of course can delete my name.
Now I'm signing all my shots (from flickr) with a software and invisible sign, the app sign the pic in the code, so you can't see it, but your name is there if someday the stole your shots.
Here and most other parts I don't put nothing, it isn't necesary.
I recomend you reading this http://www.stuckincustoms.com/2010/05/24/savannah/
I agree with Monika and everyone else who thinks it distracting and unnecessary. If someone really wanted to steal someone else's photo and profit from it, they or anyone with some rather rudimentary skills in photo editing could remove a watermark easily. I could do a fair job at it and I'm FAR from skilled in Photoshop/Elements/Lightroom/Etc. I would find watermarks more appropriate on a personal/business website where a photographer's goal is to sell images, but not so much on sites like 365 or Flickr. Just my opinion.
For those that feel that a watermark is distracting (and I'm not talking about the "over the top" kind) -- do you feel the same way when you see an artist's signature on a painting?
I really like to see a photographer's signature/name on a photo, if the photo is being presented as a piece of artwork, and as long as the sig is unobtrusive. Also, just my opinion! :-)
I've noticed when I go to art gallery or museum, the artist always signs or marks his/her work in some way. Its right there on the image, not on the back or hidden. The artist is proud of his/her work, which is why he/she puts his/her name on it.
Would you accuse Picasso or Monet of peeing on their work because they put their names on their work?
To me, photography is an art form. If all photography is to you is capturing images, then you shouldn't ever put your name on your work, but if you see photography as an art form, and your images are your art, then you should be proud enough of your work to slap your name on it. As for calling it a distraction, I'll admit that when I first learned how to do a watermark and started playing with it, the watermark was way too big and was a distraction, even for me... but now, if that tiny name on my work distracts someone, they are probably very OCD.
i put my watermark on my photos because i get to work with people like that .. someone saw my photos and by the watermark he searched my name on Facebook and asked me if i want to work for him ..
watermark brings you work =]
@jsw0109 lol maybe i should of made myself alot clearer.....i was meaning the watermarks that are big that you see before the photo...i have come across some of those.. i have seen some awesome photos with a small print in a bottom corner and those i dont see till i actually get to the bottom of the photo.
@golzman thats awesome about your getting work out of it
@jsw0109 i just went into your photos (lovely btw) and i couldnt even see watermarks i had to actually look for it...so your one wouldnt be such as a distraction, maybe its the colour you used and the font with size that makes it a great watermark
@kiwigirl04 thanks... there are some people that hate any watermark regardless of how small you make it or how much you try to get it to blend with the work... they just hate on anyone that uses one.... but none of the great artists ever took that attitude, so I figure if Picasso was proud to sign his work, I can be proud to sign mine. I don't sign mine to try to keep people from "stealing it" because it would be way too easy to clone over it... it has nothing to do with protection and everything to do with being proud of the end result.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
I have found that many people with amazing photos on here do not bother with watermarks (some do)
I also find (again personal opinion) that often a watermark detracts from the actual photo putting another focal point into a photo distracting from its composition.
Someone wrote on a photography page I recently read "putting a watermark on your photo is like peeing on your belongings so no one will steal them"
I'm sure many will disagree with me but here I do not find it necessary.
"I also find (again personal opinion) that often a watermark detracts from the actual photo putting another focal point into a photo distracting from its composition"
I agree 100% - in fact, when a huge name is across a photo it ruins it. I think 'Why did you share it online if you don't want us to see it, if it's so precious put it in a frame!'
I have umm and ahhh about watermarks for so long, considering i know for a fact i can remove watermarks on some photos and if i can do it many others can so i didnt bother unless i was putting it over the actual picture i was shooting which would ruin my photo.
Thanks for you opinion, im sure more will come
If you are really worried about your images being copied just reduce the file size before loading up, then it wont be worth stealing!
Personally find it unnecessary and distracting.
Now I'm signing all my shots (from flickr) with a software and invisible sign, the app sign the pic in the code, so you can't see it, but your name is there if someday the stole your shots.
Here and most other parts I don't put nothing, it isn't necesary.
I recomend you reading this http://www.stuckincustoms.com/2010/05/24/savannah/
I really like to see a photographer's signature/name on a photo, if the photo is being presented as a piece of artwork, and as long as the sig is unobtrusive. Also, just my opinion! :-)
Would you accuse Picasso or Monet of peeing on their work because they put their names on their work?
To me, photography is an art form. If all photography is to you is capturing images, then you shouldn't ever put your name on your work, but if you see photography as an art form, and your images are your art, then you should be proud enough of your work to slap your name on it. As for calling it a distraction, I'll admit that when I first learned how to do a watermark and started playing with it, the watermark was way too big and was a distraction, even for me... but now, if that tiny name on my work distracts someone, they are probably very OCD.
watermark brings you work =]
@golzman thats awesome about your getting work out of it