Watermarking purchased prints?

I have a question that has been on my mind the past week. I am curious as to how many people watermark their images that a client purchases from you?
Currently I watermark almost everything. If it is an image that I post online (Facebook) I make sure it has my watermark, and I make sure it is in a place that would be hard for someone to crop off without effecting the image. When I have a customer purchase a preview book from me, which is 4X5 previews spiral bound, they are each watermarked. When a customer purchases a print from me, it is watermarked. The only things I am not watermarking are events, bands, etc.
I am learning that several photographers are only watermarking images that they are sharing online. When they get a print made they are not watermarking them. I am not sure why they wouldn't. The reason I do, is 2 reasons. 1st is to gain exposure. When someone gives a friend a wallet, I like them to know it came from my studio. 2nd It deters people from taking to Walmart or Walgreens and making copies. I know it will not completely stop it, but sometimes store employees will not sell them to you if it has a logo, and they will sell it if it doesn't have a logo.
Any insight on this would be greatly appreciated! Thanks!

The customer bought the print... no watermarking on front.
However I do have my name printed on the back.

name and copyright goes on back. If someone likes their print they usually say who it was that took it. i don't remember a name on the front of a photo unless it looks awesome, then I might jot the name of the photographer down somewhere. If it's just on the print I might try and remember the name but I often forget.

My ego isn't that big...If someone buys it, they own it.

Simply price it such that it doesn't hurt as much if someone makes a copy.

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #10947244
My ego isn't that big...If someone buys it, they own it.

Simply price it such that it doesn't hurt as much if someone makes a copy.

+1

Only the online copy is watermarked.

Thanks everyone. These are some good reasons. I live in a very small community, which is rural area. Therefor I try to price my pictures affordable. For instance I charge $30 for an order of a single 8X10. My question now is, if a customer only wanted one 8X10 for $30 should I watermark it. And if they order a $500 package, leave the watermark off?

I personally would never watermark a photo that I had sold.

jacuff wrote in post #10946439
The customer bought the print... no watermarking on front.
However I do have my name printed on the back.

Same here.

I would not watermark any photo I've sold either. I know people who do though (just a small signature in the bottom corner).

If they like the photos well enough, they will be back.

Studios used to emboss or stamp a logo on the corner of the image back in the fifties, it faded away for good reason. Nobody wants to frame a shot with your logo on it.

I don't think you're really talking about "watermarking." Watermarking is a low opacity insignia across the middle of the format.

Most of the professional portrait photographers in my circle either hand sign their prints with or use Photoshop to imprint their names or studio logos--usually in the lower right corner, as portrait painters do.

Interestingly, this is never a question by portrait painters--it is assumed that artists sign their work.

My work comes primarily through word of mouth and my clients prefer that I sign my work. However, most of my work is at minimum 16x20, usually larger.

Well, first off I've never sold a single wallet sized print, ever, and I don't personally know of anyone who even owns one. Watermarked such a tiny print would either be so huge in relation to the photo, its all you would see, or be so tiny it was not noticeable.

I.don't watermark any print I sell, no matter how much the total.

Thanks everyone....ok maybe I shouldn't have said watermarking. This is what I am referring to. If this was an 8X10, this is how my image would normally look when sold.

Good looking image but IMO, that's far too obtrusive a logo for a sold print. Sorry...

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #10953653
Good looking image but IMO, that's far too obtrusive a logo for a sold print. Sorry...

Don't be sorry, that's why I asked the question and posted the image. I wanted to get others input on it. Thanks!