What do you think of my watermark?

[JLew24asu]

I wasnt sure where to put this thread. anywho, what do you think?

http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t30/jlew24asu/Image16.jpg

[HappySnapper90]

What is the purpose of your watermark? Is it to protect your photos while being online?

If so, your watermark won't do that. You have it in a location that is easily cropped out. I suggest you make it large and over the center of your photo. This is so anyone wanting to steal and use it for their own purposes (or sell it as microstock) has to do a bit of work to try and clone/heal out your watermark.

But overall I think your font is too fancy and a little difficult to read.

P.S. your hdr attempt needs some work. There is haloing around your buildings.

[JLew24asu]

I waasn't asking for critiques on the photo.

[Metalstrm]

^ Hehe, take it easy dude! I think happy is right on all counts. I would try something more personalized, or maybe edit the font a little bit.

[Ook]

I agree with HS90, the placement makes it easy to crop or clone out, and the font is difficult to read. There are also compression artifacts around it.

[SkipD]

I agree with HS90, the placement makes it easy to crop or clone out, and the font is difficult to read. There are also compression artifacts around it.I agree with this too.

[nphsbuckeye]

What is the purpose of your watermark? Is it to protect your photos while being online?

If so, your watermark won't do that. You have it in a location that is easily cropped out. I suggest you make it large and over the center of your photo. This is so anyone wanting to steal and use it for their own purposes (or sell it as microstock) has to do a bit of work to try and clone/heal out your watermark.

But overall I think your font is too fancy and a little difficult to read.

P.S. your hdr attempt needs some work. There is haloing around your buildings.
Co-sign.

[JLew24asu]

thanks for the input guys

[JLew24asu]

how about something like this..(I'm trying to avoid placing in the middle, I'd like to be discreet yet effective)

http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t30/jlew24asu/Image1.jpg

[12mnkys]

Its tough to get a photo of the bean w/out a million people surrounding it. What time were these photos taken?

[JLew24asu]

Its tough to get a photo of the bean w/out a million people surrounding it. What time were these photos taken?

sunrise...about 6am..

[SkipD]

how about something like this..(I'm trying to avoid placing in the middle, I'd like to be discreet yet effective)What do you call "effective"?

If you are merely trying to advertise yourself, it works.

However, if you are trying to prevent folks from stealing and publishing your work (the usual reason for a "watermark"), it does not work at all because of the positioning. The "watermark" needs to cross over a lot of the primary elements in the subject so that folks cannot just clone it out easily.

[airfrogusmc]

how about something like this..(I'm trying to avoid placing in the middle, I'd like to be discreet yet effective)

http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t30/jlew24asu/Image1.jpg

Obvious burn dodge be carefull with that (see the halos around the buildings) and on the buildings....

I say NO MORE BEAN PHOTOS PERIOD...Fight the urge to shoot it.

[JLew24asu]

What do you call "effective"?

If you are merely trying to advertise yourself, it works.

However, if you are trying to prevent folks from stealing and publishing your work (the usual reason for a "watermark"), it does not work at all because of the positioning. The "watermark" needs to cross over a lot of the primary elements in the subject so that folks cannot just clone it out easily.

yea, I'm trying to prevent folks from stealing them. a heavy traffic (100k month) chicago travel site wants to show my photos in a photo gallery section. I'm not charging him for the photos in return for a promise to promote my site. (photography is just a hobby of mine anyway, profit is not my #1 concern).

I made this second attempt bigger and away from the edge hoping it would be difficult to stamp or crop out. no?

[JLew24asu]

Obvious burn dodge be carefull with that (see the halos around the buildings) and on the buildings....

again, I didnt ask for a critique of the photo.


I say NO MORE BEAN PHOTOS PERIOD...Fight the urge to shoot it.

well if you say so. on second thought, nah....I'm going to continue to shoot it.

[airfrogusmc]

again, I didnt ask for a critique of the photo.



hate to break it to you, but no one cares what you say.

Why did you post it then :confused: . There are bigger problems with the image than to worry about watermark. ;)

[12mnkys]

Obvious burn dodge be carefull with that (see the halos around the buildings) and on the buildings....

I say NO MORE BEAN PHOTOS PERIOD...Fight the urge to shoot it.

Why not? Whats your deal with the bean? You might as well say..NO MORE PORTRAIT PICS PERIOD...or heck why not NO MORE BIRD SHOTS PERIOD!!

No need to be ahole man.

I see the halos like everyone else, but in this case, for this picture, it is a cool effect.

[JLew24asu]

Why did you post it then :confused: . There are bigger problems with the image than to worry about watermark. ;)

I posted the picture to ask about the watermark. what dont you understand about that?

if you want to critique the photo, I posted it in the critique forum. but dont bother if you are just going to be rude and give no advice on how to fix it.

[JLew24asu]

Why not? Whats your deal with the bean? You might as well say..NO MORE PORTRAIT PICS PERIOD...or heck why not NO MORE BIRD SHOTS PERIOD!!

No need to be ahole man.

I see the halos like everyone else, but in this case, for this picture, it is a cool effect.

thank you. besides, I asked VERY SPECIFICALLY about the watermark, not the photo.

[airfrogusmc]

I posted the picture to ask about the watermark. what dont you understand about that?

if you want to critique the photo, I posted it in the critique forum. but dont bother if you are just going to be rude and give no advice on how to fix it.

Who's the one being RUDE and defensive. If you're going to post your images be ready for the HEAT. Its all part of it. And RUDE would be saying your PP skills are terrible.

You need to be way more careful when burning/dodging. These techniques should be SEAMLESS and not visible. As far as your watermark again I can't think of anyone that would steal this image with all the technical flaws. My advice is get thicker skin and really learn to use photoshop.

[airfrogusmc]

Why not? Whats your deal with the bean? You might as well say..NO MORE PORTRAIT PICS PERIOD...or heck why not NO MORE BIRD SHOTS PERIOD!!

No need to be ahole man.

I see the halos like everyone else, but in this case, for this picture, it is a cool effect.

It was a joke but it has been way over photogrpahed and any PP should be seamless. Those halos are not a good thing and should be addressed no matter how its sliced and diced.

[Wile_E]

That's it! Go get my belt!!!


Seriously, I think it's nice but the font should be easier to read.

[JLew24asu]

how about something like this..(I'm trying to avoid placing in the middle, I'd like to be discreet yet effective)

http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t30/jlew24asu/Image1.jpg


What do you call "effective"?

If you are merely trying to advertise yourself, it works.

However, if you are trying to prevent folks from stealing and publishing your work (the usual reason for a "watermark"), it does not work at all because of the positioning. The "watermark" needs to cross over a lot of the primary elements in the subject so that folks cannot just clone it out easily.


yea, I'm trying to prevent folks from stealing them. a heavy traffic (100k month) chicago travel site wants to show my photos in a photo gallery section. I'm not charging him for the photos in return for a promise to promote my site. (photography is just a hobby of mine anyway, profit is not my #1 concern).

I made this second attempt bigger and away from the edge hoping it would be difficult to stamp or crop out. no?

trying to get this thread back on track. any opinions about my second attempt?

[breal101]

I'm just curious about the use of photoshop in the watermark. I would have to assume that Adobe has it trademarked.

[JLew24asu]

Haha, don't mention can of worms ;)

I agree, the watermark is nice and large, close to the bean to try and deter stealing and photoshopers.

Watermark looks fine to me. Did the agency say that watermarks are allowed? This will usually vary from agency to agency.

thanks. I actually made the final a little more lighter and transparent.

http://chicagotraveler.com is the site that wants to use them. he prefers to use a high resolution image that you can "click on to see larger". so the photo can easily be saved and printed or used on stock sites.

thanks for your input, I appreciate it.

[JLew24asu]

I'm just curious about the use of photoshop in the watermark. I would have to assume that Adobe has it trademarked.

my site name is a play on words. Chicago Photo Shop....like a chicago tee shirt shop. (or whatever).. not sure if adobe has the word photoshop trademarked...but either way, I have it as one word chicagophotoshop.

[breal101]

Ya think? :lol::lol::lol:

I think my assumption was safer than his.:lol::lol::lol: It's his butt if Adobe objects, not mine.

[SkipD]

yea, I'm trying to prevent folks from stealing them. a heavy traffic (100k month) chicago travel site wants to show my photos in a photo gallery section. I'm not charging him for the photos in return for a promise to promote my site. (photography is just a hobby of mine anyway, profit is not my #1 concern).

I made this second attempt bigger and away from the edge hoping it would be difficult to stamp or crop out. no?You've still missed the mark if you're trying to prevent theft of the image.

Double the size of the watermark and put it right across the middle of the image. Make it a little more transparent if you like, but for it to be effective it has to cross the important parts of the image that are harder to replicate than the straight lines of the concrete.

[JLew24asu]

I think my assumption was safer than his.:lol::lol::lol: It's his butt if Adobe objects, not mine.

my site has been up for almost 5 years. I highly doubt adobe gives a **** about my local chicago photograhy website :rolleyes:

[JLew24asu]

You've still missed the mark if you're trying to prevent theft of the image.

Double the size of the watermark and put it right across the middle of the image. Make it a little more transparent if you like, but for it to be effective it has to cross the important parts of the image that are harder to replicate than the straight lines of the concrete.

thanks for your input skip.

[nphsbuckeye]

Make it on the center. If the pictures are high res, someone can still crop out the bean with no problem.

[JLew24asu]

Make it on the center. If the pictures are high res, someone can still crop out the bean with no problem.

even if I moved in further away from the corner?

[nphsbuckeye]

even if I moved in further away from the corner?
It's a personal thing. But if you are trying to deter people stealing the image, I'd say to put the watermark on the focal point. I put watermarks smackdab in the middle of the pictures.

[gooble]

Isn't the bean a piece of art copyrighted by the artist making it illegal to commercially use photos of it without the artists permission?

[T.D.]

Hey folks, let's get back on topic and stay off the personal attacks. You'll notice the thread is significantly shorter now. The OP asked about the watermark.

[07accordEX]

The font seems too complicated (mainly the pattern overlay), you want it to look professional and no so much like advertisement for Disney Land.

[JLew24asu]

Thanks TD, I really appreciate that.

The font seems too complicated (mainly the pattern overlay), you want it to look professional and no so much like advertisement for Disney Land.

I've been struggling with what font to use. I choose this one because I wanted to make it big. I'm very open to suggestions though

[Metalstrm]

One thing you could do (which I did with my watermark/signature) is to actually take a photograph of your signature and put it in your shots. It could be done very nicely if you play around with it.

[tonylong]

I'd say make the watermark a bit more transparent and then layer it over the very bottom of the bean so that you don't wreck the overall look of the shot, but will discourage those who would want to get the bean as a whole.

[SkipD]

I've been struggling with what font to use. I choose this one because I wanted to make it big. I'm very open to suggestions thoughA large font made up of a fancy outline of the letters would be better than a small font. The idea is to make the image visible "through" the watermark but to keep the watermark large enough and covering enough of the image to make it difficult to clone out the watermark.

Having a watermark that changes the color and/or the brightness level of the image "behind" it a little bit would be good too. In other words, a watermark which has the appearance of a "ghost" would make the image harder to recover with post-processing.

One thing you could do (which I did with my watermark/signature) is to actually take a photograph of your signature and put it in your shots. It could be done very nicely if you play around with it.Single line-fonts (like a copy of one's signature) are very easy to clone out of an image, totally defeating the purpose of using the watermark in the first place.

[JLew24asu]

here they are a little more transparent..

http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t30/jlew24asu/Image0002.jpg

http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t30/jlew24asu/Image0008.jpg

[JLew24asu]

http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t30/jlew24asu/Image0006.jpg

[Ook]

Nice, but you can still crop it totally out of the first image. I'd put it directly on top of the bean.

[JLew24asu]

Nice, but you can still crop it totally out of the first image. I'd put it directly on top of the bean.

eh, then I cant process a bunch at one time :) I think if its cropped, the image would look bad, the crop would be way too high. no?

[SkipD]

here they are a little more transparent..You have totally ignored what you've been told by me and several others.

Place the watermark right over the top of the most desirable and complex part of the image. In the case of the bean image, place it over the bean, at least partially over the buildings being reflected in the bean. The watermark should be placed so that it is not easy to clone the image back over the watermark. Place the watermark on each image as a separate process to get the maximum effect - or leave it off the image in the first place.

[JLew24asu]

You have totally ignored what you've been told by me and several others.

Place the watermark right over the top of the most desirable and complex part of the image. In the case of the bean image, place it over the bean, at least partially over the buildings being reflected in the bean. The watermark should be placed so that it is not easy to clone the image back over the watermark.

take it easy guy. I'm not ignoring you. I mentioned before I want to avoid placing the watermark in the center. I'm trying to place it far enough away from the corner to not easily be cropped out.

[Ook]

eh, then I cant process a bunch at one time :) I think if its cropped, the image would look bad, the crop would be way too high. no?

It would look bad, yes, but whoever steals the image won't care.

take it easy guy. I'm not ignoring you. I mentioned before I want to avoid placing the watermark in the center. I'm trying to place it far enough away from the corner to not easily be cropped out.

If it's not obscuring anything, it's easily cropped regardless of where it is. It's still just two clicks.

[SkipD]

take it easy guy. I'm not ignoring you. I mentioned before I want to avoid placing the watermark in the center. I'm trying to place it far enough away from the corner to not easily be cropped out.It is not cropping that I am suggesting the thief would want to do. It's rebuilding the image behind the watermark with post-processing tools. Where you've been placing the watermark, it is ultra-easy to re-create the original image (or at least a very passable rendition of it), blotting out the watermark completely and leaving a very good near-duplicate of the original image.

[JLew24asu]

It is not cropping that I am suggesting the thief would want to do. It's rebuilding the image behind the watermark with post-processing tools. Where you've been placing the watermark, it is ultra-easy to re-create the original image (or at least a very passable rendition of it), blotting out the watermark completely and leaving a very good near-duplicate of the original image.

ultra easy? really? :confused: but I see what you mean. I think on the majority of my images, the placement is ok because its far enough away from the corner.

[SkipD]

ultra easy? really? :confused: but I see what you mean. I think on the majority of my images, the placement is ok because its far enough away from the corner.The location of the watermark needs to be over difficult-to-replicate portions of the image that actually make up the interesting part of the image. Merely considering where it is relative to a corner makes no sense. Each image will have a different ideal location for a watermark.

[JLew24asu]

The location of the watermark needs to be over difficult-to-replicate portions of the image that actually make up the interesting part of the image. Merely considering where it is relative to a corner makes no sense. Each image will have a different ideal location for a watermark.
well the farther away from the corner it is means its that much closer to the center :) not to mention the photo would need to be cropped higher and higher.

I realize the best way is to add it per photo (assuming I dont add it to the center) but that takes too much time.

[gooble]

well the farther away from the corner it is means its that much closer to the center :) not to mention the photo would need to be cropped higher and higher.

I realize the best way is to add it per photo (assuming I dont add it to the center) but that takes too much time.

That's the whole point.

[JLew24asu]

That's the whole point.

right, but I dont want to put it across the center :cool: ;)

[nphsbuckeye]

right, but I dont want to put it across the center :cool: ;)
That' defeats the purpose of asking for advice is you're going to completely ignore sound advice. The nearly unanimous consensus here is to put a watermark near the center of the image where a person will have a very hard to impossible time cloning it out. Watermarks aren't meant to necessarily to be pretty, but to prevent theft.

[816_Studios_Inc]

right, but I dont want to put it across the center :cool: ;)

Then put it wherever you want it.

</thread>

[JLew24asu]

That' defeats the purpose of asking for advice is you're going to completely ignore sound advice. The nearly unanimous consensus here is to put a watermark near the center of the image where a person will have a very hard to impossible time cloning it out. Watermarks aren't meant to necessarily to be pretty, but to prevent theft.

Then put it wherever you want it.

</thread>

LOL is across the middle my ONLY option? good lord, I'm not ignoring sound advice. I appreciate it, but would rather not put the watermark directly in the center. ok? I mean really, is that ok? sheesh.

I've gotten plenty of great advice that I've already used such as changing the font and moving it away from the corner. THANK YOU!

[outbri]

LOL is across the middle my ONLY option?

Across the middle is the only option to deter someone who wants to steal your image. Anywhere else and your watermark can be bypassed -- it's only there to look pretty. The advice on the font matters little to the security. Moving it away from the corner helps a little bit.

Your watermark is worthless in post 42. (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=7766518&postcount=42)
Nobody can read it at all and a little bit of blur and the part that is visible will be gone.
The watermark in post 9 (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=7761553&postcount=9) is about the only one that stands out enough to have someone not totally ignore it while viewing the photo.

If these photos are worth being watermarked, then I'd suggest selling them instead of giving them away. A photo of the bean is so generic that a) nobody is going to steal your photo and b) nobody is going to see such great photos of a unique subject and go to your website to check you out. People rarely go to links in watermarks of images. Let us know how many more views you get when you have an image up on a 100k hits/day website.

And lastly, if you don't want to use the advice given, then don't. But all your funny little remarks are drawing ire out of everybody here. If you don't want the watermark in the center, don't ask about placement -- there are only so many places to put it. Ask a question more like 'What font for this watermark?", and then you don't have to reply to answers not answering that.
Also, if someone gives you some technical advice, don't tell him off saying you didn't ask for it! Use it to better your photography and PS skills. We can all learn. And we're all trying to help. The first respondant wasn't trying to make you mad by giving a little extra advice, I assure you. Say thanks and move on.

[JLew24asu]

thanks for that lecture dad, can I come out of my room and play now?

[S-S]

irrespective of where it's placed, i'm personally not a big fan of the texture-y look, it's a little bit dated. i prefer a clean flat semi-transparent watermark, either with or without a backscreen added (semi-transparent panel of a different colour - like black - which helps the watermark show up better)

but each to their own

[JLew24asu]

irrespective of where it's placed, i'm personally not a big fan of the texture-y look, it's a little bit dated. i prefer a clean flat semi-transparent watermark, either with or without a backscreen added (semi-transparent panel of a different colour - like black - which helps the watermark show up better)

but each to their own
I appreciate that opinion, thank you

[Cosha]

yea, I'm trying to prevent folks from stealing them

Either don't post the pictures (the ONLY way to stop someone from using them) or sell them to the company for a nice price and let them do what they want with them

water mark as close as you can to the best part of the picture, keep hold of the orginal picture in RAW, if some one uses it say:

"Please can i see the RAW file, oh you dont have it i do"

Job done!

[HappySnapper90]

ultra easy? really? :confused: but I see what you mean. I think on the majority of my images, the placement is ok because its far enough away from the corner.

I've read enough of your replies to see that in your mind your watermark is fine and dandy, so why are you still defending yourself here? Move on and use it as you wish even though you're ignoring the good advice given to you here.


water mark as close as you can to the best part of the picture, keep hold of the orginal picture in RAW, if some one uses it say:
"Please can i see the RAW file, oh you dont have it i do"
Job done!

The problem with the latter is having to defend your photo after someone starts using it without consent is going to be a lot of hassle and possibly costly depending on the situation. So a good watermark first is a whole lot better than arguing about who has the RAW file. :x In fact I find suggesting to see who has the raw/original file comment rather childish really.