The Watermark Thread

[wbeem]

This topic came up on another thread and then this article just showed up on my radar today. Thought I'd pass it along.

http://www.petapixel.com/2012/10/10...k-like-if-their-photogs-used-ugly-watermarks/

 

[wkrider]

Thanks for the link...the comments below the article were interesting too.

 

[wbeem]

Having seen plenty of watermarked photos get stolen, I just can't believe that it's a deterrent to theft at all. Some folks like to use them as a signature or calling card, which I think is a bit of a different issue.

Personally, I like using the combination of metadata, Digimarc and copyright registration. I don't care if anyone uses my photos for personal use - they weren't going to pay me, anyway. As for a business stealing my photos, I hope so. Then I have someone to sue.

 

[photo_chick]

I didn't read the comments, and am not going to get into the whole watermark debate except to say I'm not a fan of them, but the use of the watermarks on images from historically notable photographers is just awesomely funny. Especially when completed with a cheesy name like he did for Sally Mann.

Thanks for posting the link.

 

[WDWFigment]

Having seen plenty of watermarked photos get stolen, I just can't believe that it's a deterrent to theft at all. Some folks like to use them as a signature or calling card, which I think is a bit of a different issue.

Personally, I like using the combination of metadata, Digimarc and copyright registration. I don't care if anyone uses my photos for personal use - they weren't going to pay me, anyway. As for a business stealing my photos, I hope so. Then I have someone to sue.

I feel the same way. I used to use a small watermark solely as a calling card, but I gave that up last year because it became a big pain in *** to keep two versions of the same photo.

That said, I'm not super-opinionated on this. I can see the reason some photographers use them, and I can understand why others don't. I really don' think there's a clear, one size fits all answer for everyone.

I know I hate seeing them and often chuckle when I see a huge watermark over the middle of an awful photo.

 

[wbeem]

I'm thinking of adding a watermark to my future photos that says "Olan Mills."

 

[fitzperry]

I didn't read the comments, and am not going to get into the whole watermark debate except to say I'm not a fan of them, but the use of the watermarks on images from historically notable photographers is just awesomely funny. Especially when completed with a cheesy name like he did for Sally Mann.

Thanks for posting the link.

Totally off topic, but I'd never really looked at Sally Mann's work before, and the contrast between that silly watermark and the photo caught my attention. That's some creepy stuff.

 

[photo_chick]

Totally off topic, but I'd never really looked at Sally Mann's work before, and the contrast between that silly watermark and the photo caught my attention. That's some creepy stuff.

Agreed. I think people probably most associate her with the controversial work she did with her kids. Which makes that name that much funnier.

 

[zackiedawg]

I've always had a personal dislike of watermarks - I don't like when I see them when viewing photos, and I have no interest in using them. I agree on Beem's method of relying on metadata and registration...as well as my secondary method which was always to display high quality but smaller size photos on my galleries - max resolution I tend to use is 1024x at the widest measure. This is generally good enough to look nice on a monitor, get the details across, and show the photo well, but too small to make any reasonable print size out of and far below publication standards. I'd rather have clients or periodicals/procurement houses contact me on a photo, and send them high-res originals than post them online where anyone can grab them. At the same time, I'm perfectly fine with anyone deciding to use my photos for some personal use...just not trying to sell it or display it as their own. Keeping the uploads smaller tends to encourage personal sharing/use and discourages theft of property for sale or publication. And it renders watermarks unnecessary for me.

 

[ukstitch]

I've always had a personal dislike of watermarks - I don't like when I see them when viewing photos, and I have no interest in using them. I agree on Beem's method of relying on metadata and registration...as well as my secondary method which was always to display high quality but smaller size photos on my galleries - max resolution I tend to use is 1024x at the widest measure. This is generally good enough to look nice on a monitor, get the details across, and show the photo well, but too small to make any reasonable print size out of and far below publication standards. I'd rather have clients or periodicals/procurement houses contact me on a photo, and send them high-res originals than post them online where anyone can grab them. At the same time, I'm perfectly fine with anyone deciding to use my photos for some personal use...just not trying to sell it or display it as their own. Keeping the uploads smaller tends to encourage personal sharing/use and discourages theft of property for sale or publication. And it renders watermarks unnecessary for me.

This is pretty much the same approach I'm intending on taking for my photos. I had a quick look at the costs of copyright registration and digimarc here in the UK and (for me, as an amateur who makes no money from his photography) it's just not worth the roughly £100 a year cost.

I don't want to add watermarks to my own stuff because I personally feel it detracts from the image quality and a lot of why I enjoy photography is the sharing aspect of it, so I want to share the best pictures I can.

So for me, I'm thinking a lower res upload with a big "contact me" type text inviting people to request the full res images works best and it allows me to establish a cost for that if required.

 

[photo_chick]

Not to open another can o' worms, but there isn't any un-printable size anymore. You can get a decent 4x6 print from a 600 x 400 file. Not that most of us here would print that way, but you'd be amazed at how many people just don't see the problems with a slightly pixelated print. And that's not even getting into the ability newer software gives users who know what they're doing when it comes to rezzing up. It really is a serious issue for portrait and wedding photographers now.

 

[zackiedawg]

Not to open another can o' worms, but there isn't any un-printable size anymore. You can get a decent 4x6 print from a 600 x 400 file. Not that most of us here would print that way, but you'd be amazed at how many people just don't see the problems with a slightly pixelated print. And that's not even getting into the ability newer software gives users who know what they're doing when it comes to rezzing up. It really is a serious issue for portrait and wedding photographers now.

Quite true - even with some very good uprezzing software and interpolation, it's possible to make an 8x10 print out of a 1MP photo - as long as it's viewed from far enough away.

I personally don't really mind if someone wants to use one of my photos that way - print away from the 1024x pixel version...I don't even go militantly hunting all over the web looking for photos of mine that might have been 'stolen' and used without consent or claimed to be their own...if I find one, I'll call them out on it and ask that it be removed - or depending on circumstances, credited to me. My biggest concern would be someone making profit off my photos - and typically a person won't have much potential to profit from a 1024 pixel wide photo. It's way below publication standards, and won't yield much of a sellable result for larger prints, so it's a fairly safe and easy way to avoid someone going out and stealing your photos, selling them to a magazine, and you none-the-wiser!

 

[photo_chick]

Yes, I agree it's not a big issue really when it comes to lifting image for printed publication. Where it's a problem is when portrait and wedding photographers post their images on social media sites or do proofing online. Clients lift these images and then don't buy as many images later if they buy any at all. The choices are not to post online at all or to put big ugly watermarks on the images. I go for not posting myself and although I don't like watermarks I do understand why some use them in some instances. I get that's not something that affects everyone here though.

 

[wbeem]

I don't shoot weddings (except for family), but I have friends who do quite a bit of business in the wedding industry. Many of them know that family & friends may lift photos to print from their web site, so they've adapted by developing package pricing to suit their needs.

Wedding clients started requesting CD/DVDs of images years ago and photographers saw their print sales decline. Now a disc is practically expected, so charges for wedding as a service and some initial packages for deliverables adjusted to make up for the lost print revenue.

A much bigger threat to wedding photographers are other photographers who shoot for far too little money. No sense in rushing to the bottom of the market. Good photographers set themselves apart with quality. Pricing is part of that, too. Sometimes it's better for business to charge much more than much less.