Watermarks... Really???

[RANT MODE ON]

I can't believe how some people RUIN an otherwise awesome image with a great big obnoxious watermark. I have seen it time and time again, it's such a shame. The thing is, I really can't see the point. With the sophistication of Photoshop CS5's 'Content Aware Fill' even the most obnoxious watermarks can be easily removed with little or no effort. So all the photographer has effectively done is ruin the image before displaying it. Let's face it, if you put it out on the internet, you are always going to be at risk to having someone use it without permission. It's the nature of the game. All the right-click disabling, and obnoxious watermarking in the world aren't going to protect you. If the image means that much, then don't post it on the web.

[RANT MODE OFF]

I have many images I've had published or sold for use on the web that I don't post here or anywhere. You're right, if you don't want it stolen then don't put it on the internet. Leave the watermarks off. I especially find it annoying when someone posts a sub standard photo in the critique section with a big watermark running through the middle. It's kind of funny though.

Disagree. I don't find them that annoying. Like the locks on your house or car, they make it more work to steal. Most stolen photos on the web are stolen by the lazy, and it'd have to be a mighty fine photo (and at full res, IMO) to make Photoshopping to remove the watermark worth the effort.

wanna see the full image that you think is so awesome? buy it.

Shadow on the Door wrote in post #13397393
wanna see the full image that you think is so awesome? buy it.

...or edit it in Photoshop.

If you want to be a POS I suppose.

Ah it's that time of year again, you can set your calendar by the regularity with which this topic comes around.

As it happens (tribute to the late Jimmy Savile) I agree, a watermark will not deter a determined thief, but a well placed subtle watermark with your business / website details on it will work as a marketing tool.

I am curious as to why this seems to bother so many people. Its a personal choice that each photographer that should make for themselves and if you run across a site that this occurs then move along. Imo, there are a few things that a person should consider before applying a watermark. If you are simply sharing your image then I think one that simply identifies the copyright holder in a lower corner would be sufficient. If you are someone that does this for a living then you should be doing whatever you can to deter theft. If this means that you have to slap a big opaque watermark through the middle, so be it, as long as the viewing audience can still see the image. I've seen some that are gross where the owner didn't know how to properly use opacity in Photoshop, a sold black name going across the image. For the most part though, those that do this (myself included in some cases) leave the image perfectly viewable to a point where it allows them enough information as to whether to purchase or not. Doesn't matter a bit to me if someone that simply browses the internet to look at pictures disagrees with my application of a watermark. They would never be a customer in any event.

As Neil pointed out above, the proper application of a watermark can be a decent marketing tool. Simply slapping a big © across the image with no other details would be useless. You need to let the people know who you are and how to contact you. Knowing when to apply the right type of watermark is something that one learns over time. I certainly don't think that one watermark should applied to everything. Building watermark actions in Photoshop is so simple that a person can easily have different versions for different uses.

The OP in correct in that many watermarks are easily removed. If you want to use it as a web image you might get away with it but try and clone out a watermark and print it and in most cases it will be visible that you were nothing more than a common thief. That may sound harsh but the reality of it is that those that lift images off of the internet are simply that. This will be a battle that will continue forever and everyone is entitled to their opinion on it just as they are entitled to apply any kind of watermark that they feel suits their purposes.

What does time of year have to do with it?

It doesn't bother me any more or less because it's November.

neil_r wrote in post #13397420
Ah it's that time of year again, you can set your calendar by the regularity with which this topic comes around.

As it happens (tribute to the late Jimmy Savile) I agree, a watermark will not deter a determined thief, but a well placed subtle watermark with your business / website details on it will work as a marketing tool.

I won't put an image of mine onto the web without branding attached to it.

I don't put watermarks that are in the center, or are obnoxious, but there is ALWAYS a logo and web address in the corner. This is because I am trying to build a brand. When you see one of my images, I want you to also see the brand and (hopefully) eventually associate that type of shot with my brand.

It has nothing to do with security of the image.

Others do, do it for security, which I agree... is pretty dumb and certainly to be effective for that at all, it has to be obnoxious.

jwkramer wrote in post #13398005
What does time of year have to do with it?

It doesn't bother me any more or less because it's November.

One word: Hyperbole.

lenaxia wrote in post #13398052
One word: Hyperbole.

Well I guess I'm just stupid, because I still don't see what that has to do with it.

I'm not really talking about a small watermark in the corner. I have done this myself in the past, although I rarely waste the time now... I'm talking about OBNOXIOUS.

Like this:
https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1074588

Ruins the whole shot as far as I'm concerned.

-Jim

Todd Lambert wrote in post #13398048
I won't put an image of mine onto the web without branding attached to it.

I don't put watermarks that are in the center, or are obnoxious, but there is ALWAYS a logo and web address in the corner. This is because I am trying to build a brand. When you see one of my images, I want you to also see the brand and (hopefully) eventually associate that type of shot with my brand.

It has nothing to do with security of the image.

Others do, do it for security, which I agree... is pretty dumb and certainly to be effective for that at all, it has to be obnoxious.

jwkramer wrote in post #13398066
I'm not really talking about a small watermark in the corner. I have done this myself in the past, although I rarely waste the time now... I'm talking about OBNOXIOUS.

Like this:
https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1074588

Ruins the whole shot as far as I'm concerned.

-Jim

I believe what most people are not understanding is, to what end does someone adding a water to their own photo affect you? Does it impact your life so much to the point where it deserves time out of your day to rant?

Just like someone adding a watermark may ruin a good photo, do you get equally upset if someone takes an epic and awesome photograph, but misses the focus so everything's blurry?