What do you think of my watermark?

JLew24asu wrote in post #7762304
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 . There are bigger problems with the image than to worry about watermark.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #7762229
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.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #7762328
Why did you post it then . 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.

12mnkys wrote in post #7762406
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.

JLew24asu wrote in post #7762408
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.

12mnkys wrote in post #7762406
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.

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


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

JLew24asu wrote in post #7761553
how about something like this..(I'm trying to avoid placing in the middle, I'd like to be discreet yet effective)

SkipD wrote in post #7762049
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.

JLew24asu wrote in post #7762292
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?

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

cowboylife wrote in post #7762689
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.

breal101 wrote in post #7762703
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.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #7762730
Ya think?

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

JLew24asu wrote in post #7762292
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.

breal101 wrote in post #7762943
I think my assumption was safer than his. 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

SkipD wrote in post #7762953
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.