Watermarks

A friend of mine and I were talking about the use of different typesettings for watermarks on photographs. He brought up an interesting point about using a wild font for the watermark. Isn't the watermark supposed to just identify who took the photo. I've seen many photos here and on other forums and sometimes photographer web sites where the font used is a bit distracting and sometimes draws your eye away from the main subject in the photo. I've even seen where someone actually used a tiny thumbnail in the watermark itself which is even more distracting.

What's everyone else's take on Watermarks. I'm for a simple font. Even though todays photos have a digital watermark in them anyway, is it really necessary to put your name on your photos?

CameraMan wrote in post #12195640
Even though todays photos have a digital watermark in them anyway, is it really necessary to put your name on your photos?

I don't watermark, but I know for a fact that a digital watermark won't stop someone from downloading the highest res photo and using it for whatever they want. Slamming a giant name on it will render the photo unusable. Without a watermark anyone can use and modify your image freely, and your exif info will not always be preserved.

I use different watermarks for different applications. Cenetered, diagonal, and multiple on diagonal to really make sure if its stolen that it cant be cropped out. We always get kids with thier cell phones at our view stations taking pics of themselfs. And with LR3 you have some control as to where you can put it and opacity as well.
You can see my post/example in this thread.
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=998026

sbattey wrote in post #12195742
I don't watermark, but I know for a fact that a digital watermark won't stop someone from downloading the highest res photo and using it for whatever they want. Slamming a giant name on it will render the photo unusable. Without a watermark anyone can use and modify your image freely, and your exif info will not always be preserved.

True, but with Photoshop today any watermark can be removed by someone who desperately wants to steal that image. My general observation is what font is used in those watermarks. Flashy fonts take away from the image. Your watermark is screaming "LOOK AT ME FIRST! I'M COOLER LOOKING THAN THIS PHOTO!"

I'm saying a basic watermark with your name is all one needs to watermark their images.

CameraMan wrote in post #12197012
True, but with Photoshop today any watermark can be removed by someone who desperately wants to steal that image. My general observation is what font is used in those watermarks. Flashy fonts take away from the image. Your watermark is screaming "LOOK AT ME FIRST! I'M COOLER LOOKING THAN THIS PHOTO!"

I'm saying a basic watermark with your name is all one needs to watermark their images.

I never bother to use a watermark. I never "distribute" or sell my work (except for small-scale personal services), I don't need to "brand" myself, and I am really not that concerned with people grabbing my images for personal use. If I heard of someone using one of my images for personal gain or commercial use, well, sure, I'd go after them...

Like you said, skillful editors can edit out watermarks -- cloning can do wonders with photography!

But, I can understand why people do it, why they put something on there that "wrecks" the image for any use -- they figure that doing this will create a "hassle" for those retouchers and send off an unmistakable message that taking this photo is not OK. Period. Some watermarks aren't so much severe, not terrible to view, but are still plainly there. And it's not about the name of the photographer, but about the effect of the watermark. I don't do this but Oh well.

And then there is the name/brand of the photographer that is the alternative use -- finding a way of putting your identity on the photo so that when someones sees it on the Web that identity can register with them. OK, again, not my style, but hey, it's common. I can't complain.

As to font styles and such, well, I guess if I did this I'd look for something attractive and unobtrusive, but, hey, to each his/her own. If you get caught up with critiquing the work that others are doing you just waste your energy. Why bother? Concentrate on producing your own work and you just don't need to have the time and energy to criticize what those other folks are doing!

Photoshelter.com has a very good interview with Stella Kramer, a Pulitzer prize winning photo editor. She has worked for Time, Newsweek, SI, NYTimes, and more. This online interview is worth a listen.

http://blog.photoshelt​er.com …ter-online-portfolio.html

Photoshelter also has an article titled "Watermarks: Protecting Your Images or Damaging your Business?"

This web interview shows several photographer websites and she talks about what she likes and what she does not like. She hates watermarks, thinks it distracts/detracts from the image and anyone can download it anyway. Her opinion is that if you are afraid someone will lift it from your website, then you should not put it online. Its worth a listen.

I'll have to watch that at school where I have unlimited bandwidth.

Philz wrote in post #12199100
This web interview shows several photographer websites and she talks about what she likes and what she does not like. She hates watermarks, thinks it distracts/detracts from the image and anyone can download it anyway. Her opinion is that if you are afraid someone will lift it from your website, then you should not put it online. Its worth a listen.

so i guess she doesn't believe in on-line portfolios then.

narlus wrote in post #12200877
so i guess she doesn't believe in on-line portfolios then.

I have certain things in password-protected "galleries" on my PBase site, and that certainly includes whatever work I wanted "protected from the general public".

One thing that I consider is that, in general, photos that I have on the Web are of a size that is really only good for viewing and, at most, printing at a small size. Sure, someone could print a 4x6, oh well, but if they tried printing, say, an 8x10, well to me that's a big FAIL. Yeah, people do this for just personal fun, but they certainly aren't going to see financial gain out of a print like that!