Watermarking/posting on POTN/asking for critiques..

OK so I have a gripe/question and not sure where to ask this..

when posting photos on this message board specifically in the Critique Corner and asking for C&C on your photos one would think that you are asking a fellow photographer to look past the watermark and give you some honest C&C about the actual photo itself, the composition, DOF, sharpness, and overall quality of the shot and not complain that they think your watermark is so distracting from the photo. I don't think anybody is asking for a critique on what they think about the watermark and we all know that many people will put an opaque watermark through the middle of the photo when displaying it on a website where they don't want it stolen, after all several threads here on POTN are about members complaining and being upset that their photos have been stolen and are all up in arms about how to remedy the situation. Given this fact and truth that surrounds the issue of stolen images one would think that other members here can learn to "look past" the watermark and just critique the photo.

When a person complains about the watermark being so distracting do they honestly think that watermark is going to stay on the actual image once it is printed out and either sold or displayed in a frame someplace?

What are the actual rules of ettiquette when posting photos for someone to critique on this board? Why should someone have to forgoe putting an opaque watermark on their photo just so they can ask for some honest C&C from other members?

I created an opaque watermark that goes smack dab in the middle of the photo and did it with LR3 and followed an example and suggestions from someone else on the level of opaqueness (sp) in order for it not to be too bold or too light. But again it's there in the middle of the photo for a reason, to distract someone from copying the photo. Now I am by no means trying to be pompous and say that I am a Pro and think my photos are so special but I do feel that my work is getting better and some of the images I have created I think are pretty good and I dont want them getting stolen now especially since I have sold a few of them already.

So, the part that really confuses me about all this business with watermarking and comments from some members here is that I hear complaint after complaint about people's stuff getting stolen and lots and lots of images are displayed here on POTN without watermarks and all someone has to do is right click and save the image and it's that easy to steal it, so then when someone does think ahead and decides to post a photo and they choose to put an opaque watermark on it because it is displayed here on a site where the photos are easy to steal and they ask for some C&C you get comments like "oh the watermark is soooo distracting" and blah blah blah.. Well what do you want people to do?? Images get stolen, people try to prevent that and when they do then they get flack from some people and those people act like they can't look past an opaque watermark to give some simple C&C on a photo.

I just don't get it..

If you are asking for critique, but the watermark is so intrusive that you cant focus on the image but the watermark. then expect people to comment. Sorry but its a fact of life that when you put something out of public consumption the reaction they have will be theres, not what you wish it to be. If you are getting that sort of complaint perhaps you should find a less intrusive watermark, and ask yourself if that particular image needs the total security approach.

I don't normally watermark my images & usually, I don't find them distracting on other peoples images. But, there are times when the "main subject matter" cannot be seen through the watermark. Also, if the watermark is too big & bold, it can take from the viewers enjoyment of the image. It can also be difficult to give critique on an image that is blocked & I agree that the viewer should at least try to see beyond this, but alas, some people just can't or won't be bothered to do that.

The watermark is not that obtrusive.. I actually followed the suggestions of several about what level of opaqueness to use.. this is the watermark..

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/mpadula/6936174​744/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/mpadula/7082256​245/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/mpadula/7082253​815/

Michelle, I took a peek at your Flickr page to see your watermark and I have to say I won't look at photographers work with a watermark running through the center of the frame. It's OK on the corners, or strategically placed in background areas, but dead-center like that it sends me a "No Trespassing" signal. So, I move on. There's plenty of wonderful photography to look at that don't have intrusive watermarks, so I quickly skip past the one's that do.

I completely respect your felt-need to watermark your photos as you have, but I feel it's not possible to just "look past" it; it destroys the photo.

An example of watermarking I really like is Michael Shum's (trefleenor) nice work: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/trefleenor/
I love how he carefully places his watermark; often in ways that actually enhance the viewing enjoyment of his photos.

David Arbogast wrote in post #14275828
Michelle, I took a peek at your Flickr page to see your watermark and I have to say I won't look at photographers work with a watermark running through the center of the frame. It's OK on the corners, or strategically placed in background areas, but dead-center like that it sends me a "No Trespassing" signal. So, I move on. There's plenty of wonderful photography to look at that don't have intrusive watermarks, so I quickly skip past the one's that do.

I completely respect your felt-need to watermark your photos as you have, but I feel it's not possible to just "look past" it; it destroys the photo.

An example of watermarking I really like is Michael Shum's (trefleenor) nice work: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/trefleenor/
I love how he carefully places his watermark; often in ways that actually enhance the viewing enjoyment of his photos.

But David, that kind of watermark can easily be cropped out, I have a very similiar one at the bottom of the majority of my other photos.. I can easily make the watermark more opaque than what it is now, but for any examples of photos that I will offer for sale on any website or FB photography page will have the watermark going through the middle, for me there is just no other option unless the website prevents someone from right clicking on the photo and saving it to their computer. I looked at your work as well on Flickr and it is amazing!! Don't you care that someone can simply go to the section in Flickr and view in all sizes and then right click and save your photos?? I never really cared before, but I have since sold several photos and have decided now that for the photos that I plan on selling I will not post them unwatermarked without a centered watermark on a website that cannot totally protect the image. I realize that is someone really really wants to steal a photo they can, but it would be that much harder for the average joe shmo to steal an image with the watermark I have.

I'm still learning about all this and realize that there is a huge divide between photographers that watermark on the web and those that do not.. I have seen a lot of professional photographers that do wedding and portrait photography that have every single image watermarked with such a centered mark going right through their images on their websites, but I digress the main gripe that I really had was why people are picking on that when I am not asking for critiques on my watermark.

As for my Flickr page I am still a little unsure how to proceed with that, if you look further on my Flickr page you will see that only 2 sets have that watermark in the center and none of the other ones do, I just recently as of this weekend decided that maybe I should start center watermarking all my photos that go on Flickr, if Getty images decides to buy one of my photos they know how to look past that watermark when they are deciding on purchases and I do not really care too much about the average person just browsing my photos so much because those people are not buying my photos and if anyone really really thought they liked a photo, they can always contact me and inquire. Granted there are people that will not look and then there are a lot of people that still will look.

I am using LR3 and if you know of a way to strategically place the watermark in several areas of the photo I would love to know how to do that, but from what I found on LR3 you can only place dead center, or on the upper or lower corners of the photo.

Just do what you feel like doing, don't worry about what others think you should do. If you want to center the watermark then do it.

David Arbogast wrote in post #14275828
Michelle, I took a peek at your Flickr page to see your watermark and I have to say I won't look at photographers work with a watermark running through the center of the frame.

I agree. Also, the people who might steal any of my small for-the-web images are not the sort of people who would ever be paying clients. Others may be in a different position, but for me random people resharing my work on tumblr or pinterest is of no concern to me - if they offer a link back, even better

Maybe they could print out a decent 4x6 or something with one of my web shots, but print sales are not my main focus as a photographer and even if they were, the sort of person who would be satisfied with a lousy 4x6 print wouldn't want to ever buy my work in any event. So, for me - no watermarks.

put the watermark any where you think it should go. and as soon as you read a reply that says your watermark is distracting, i say stop reading and move on to the next reply. and great pictures Michelle.

macroshooter1970 wrote in post #14276116
Just do what you feel like doing, don't worry about what others think you should do. If you want to center the watermark then do it.

yup! if you want to protect your images then continue to use that watermark. it's doing its job.

best way to protect your images is to not post them up at all of course

but to answer your question, it should not matter.

mpadula wrote in post #14276071
But David, that kind of watermark can easily be cropped out, I have a very similiar one at the bottom of the majority of my other photos.. I can easily make the watermark more opaque than what it is now, but for any examples of photos that I will offer for sale on any website or FB photography page will have the watermark going through the middle, for me there is just no other option unless the website prevents someone from right clicking on the photo and saving it to their computer. I looked at your work as well on Flickr and it is amazing!! Don't you care that someone can simply go to the section in Flickr and view in all sizes and then right click and save your photos?? I never really cared before, but I have since sold several photos and have decided now that for the photos that I plan on selling I will not post them unwatermarked without a centered watermark on a website that cannot totally protect the image. I realize that is someone really really wants to steal a photo they can, but it would be that much harder for the average joe shmo to steal an image with the watermark I have.

I'm still learning about all this and realize that there is a huge divide between photographers that watermark on the web and those that do not.. I have seen a lot of professional photographers that do wedding and portrait photography that have every single image watermarked with such a centered mark going right through their images on their websites, but I digress the main gripe that I really had was why people are picking on that when I am not asking for critiques on my watermark.

As for my Flickr page I am still a little unsure how to proceed with that, if you look further on my Flickr page you will see that only 2 sets have that watermark in the center and none of the other ones do, I just recently as of this weekend decided that maybe I should start center watermarking all my photos that go on Flickr, if Getty images decides to buy one of my photos they know how to look past that watermark when they are deciding on purchases and I do not really care too much about the average person just browsing my photos so much because those people are not buying my photos and if anyone really really thought they liked a photo, they can always contact me and inquire. Granted there are people that will not look and then there are a lot of people that still will look.

I am using LR3 and if you know of a way to strategically place the watermark in several areas of the photo I would love to know how to do that, but from what I found on LR3 you can only place dead center, or on the upper or lower corners of the photo.

I truly empathize and appreciate your concerns and I too struggle with the issue as well. I wish I had a good answer. If/when I get serious about wanting to market my work like you, I'll especially be You might consider Flickr for your casual shots (that you don't feel as protective about), and a different photo-hosting site with better image-theft prevention for your special shots.

Big-name photographers, like Joe McNally [http://portfolio.joemc​nally.com/], who I imagine are as concerned as anyone regarding image theft, don't use watermarking. Joe uses a flash-based presentation that at least prevents the ol' right click/save image routine. Still you can just hit "print screen" and open the image in Photoshop. No doubt about it: image-theft poses a real problematic conundrum to photographers.

Thanks for the really nice words by the way!

If someone has a ridiculous watermark I'll often say so - the same as I'd comment on a garish border or overcooked vignette.

FWIW your watermark is pretty standard and not overly obtrusive.

Try not to let it get to you.

It's not as bad as when the C&C on the image itself is bad!

Thanks, thanks and thanks to everyone that replied.. I guess I will just continue on as I planned, and in time when I am ready for a website I can make sure to have someone design me a site that protects the photos in such a way that you cannot right click on them and save them. For right now I just don't have the knowledge to do that myself. And I guess I will just forgo putting anything up and asking for C&C if some are going to get all bent out of shape about not being able to look past a watermark that is not really that bad to begin with and yep, just ignore those comments and move on....

Michelle, as to "rules of etiquette" regarding commenting on watermarks here, well, there aren't any, and then there are also no rules about using watermarks or not...

So, in a large public forum like POTN, where at any point of time there are typically several thousand folks "active", well, you get all types, including ones that are picky, not just about watermarks but about just about anything!

There is one rule, though, and that's "Don't be a jerk"! Most regulars here are familiar with the rule and happily abide by it, though occasionally quibbling does break out and people need to be reminded, to "play nice".

But of course, in something like the "Critique Corner" we are asking for, well, anyone who wants to voice an "opinion".

I'd just say first, look at who is posting the criticism, and listen to it, and decide how much "weight" to give to it, but especially to develop a "thick skin" to it all!

And, don't be afraid to post the watermarked photos, just realize that some will complain. You can ignore them or respond to them, that's up to you, but don't let it keep you from posting!

As to watermarks, well, I don't use them, 'cause Web images are only good for "small stuff" and also 'cause I'm not in this for the money, and I don't mind someone downloading a pic for a 4x6 print, a "bad" 8x10 print, or a screensaver or "background" computer display -- I'm OK with that.

But I have nothing against watermarks and there are some photogs who are smart to watermark if they are concerned that the Web images would be of "value" to potential customers.

Here in POTN there are not rules about watermarks, although up until not too long ago we had a "contest" where images would be subitted for week judging by a couple long-time members, and then month-to-month "winners" would be announced, and then at the end of the year, winners would be announced. Their photos and selected others then would be compiled into an actual book that would be (and still is) available through Blurb for people to buy!

Anyway, that one contest is the only place here I know of where it was spelled out that watermarks are not allowed, so if you submitted a shot with a watermark it was summarily rejected...

But the contest ended. A more casual one took it's place, and it was early on decided that watermarks were OK, although some individuals (picked from the prior week's competition) may decide individually to give a lower score because of the watermark).

Well, that's a bit of history there. But so you'll know, there are people here who I believe have developed some very cool watermarks that are noticeably non-intrusive, although they are really there and are visible over key parts of the image. If you keep checking out people's pics here and check out the watermarks used, you might get some good ideas!

Hope this helps a bit!

Thanks so much Tony for your reply as well I really appreciate it!!