Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 
Watermarks 
Author Message
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:11 pm
Posts: 12143
Location: Belfast
Reply with quote
I just put a new set up on Flickr today and it's drawing some criticism regarding watermarking of images.
I was going to start watermarking all my images from now to deter people from 'borrowing' my work - as I'm also in the process of setting up a more professional photography 'site.
Now, of the images I just posted, I was considering reducing the opacity, but some people have stated that it ruins the images.

What's the forum views on this issue : to watermark or not?

Mark

_________________
okenobi wrote:
All I know so far is that Mark, Jimmy Olsen and Peter Parker use Nikon and everybody else seems to use Canon.
ShockWaffle wrote:
Well you obviously. You're a one man vortex of despair.


Thu May 28, 2009 11:57 am
Profile WWW
Moderator

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:13 pm
Posts: 7262
Location: Here, but not all there.
Reply with quote
Watermark if you want to. If it's important to you, do it.

My only comment on your mark, Mark :D , is it comes over very large in the centre of the thumbnails on Flickr.

_________________
My Flickr | Snaptophobic Bloggage
Heather Kay: modelling details that matter.
"Let my windows be open to receive new ideas but let me also be strong enough not to be blown away by them." - Mahatma Gandhi.


Thu May 28, 2009 12:06 pm
Profile
Doesn't have much of a life
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 10:14 pm
Posts: 1598
Location: Right here...... Right now.......
Reply with quote
Discussions on other channels tend towards the support of watermarks/copyright info but shy away from placement in the centre. Size is another issue but IMHO, if you reduce the opacity of the watermark but still make it obvious then you've covered both arguements.

I've had a few of my images 'borrowed' which is why I try an keep the resolution as low as possible and the size to 800px wide. With 'save for web' buttons available in most drawing packages these days there's really no need for huge file sizes.

My view - watermark and be dammed. After all, it would be nice to sell a few pics and not have them stolen.

Al

_________________
Eternally optimistic in a 'glass half empty' sort of way....


Thu May 28, 2009 1:13 pm
Profile
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:56 pm
Posts: 12030
Reply with quote
I'm anti-watermarking.
I don't, and I don't think I ever will.
The stuff that's on Flickr is all much lower res than the originals, 72dpi stuff that won't reproduce well. I'm usually doing 1024 pixels on the short side as well, but again, that might change.
You can play with the prefs to make photos only viewable not downloadable for all except your contacts, then nobody can steal the full-size pictures from your photostream.

One of my fav. artists has a vast catalogue of photography on Flickr, and has had some things lifted and claimed by someone else.
Now, that prompted a rather petulant outburst and a withdrawal of some of the material. However, he's still not watermarking his work, and I think there's been a revision in his contact policies.

If you really feel you must mark the pics, then please make it as transparent and out of the way as possible.

_________________
www.alexsmall.co.uk

Charlie Brooker wrote:
Windows works for me. But I'd never recommend it to anybody else, ever.


Thu May 28, 2009 1:31 pm
Profile
Dennis Magazines
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 5:33 am
Posts: 125
Location: Ober-Ohringen, Switzerland
Reply with quote
I lean completely in the opposite direction. All my images are Creative Commons licensed to be used by anyone, just as long as they attribute them to me. Lets be honest, if I stuck © and watermarks on them, they’d just use someone else’s.

I can understand pro photographers taking care to protect what is, after all, their livelihood, but for anyone else it just strikes me as a bit unnecessary.

As Alex (ProfessorF) said, if you upload at a max of 1024 then your images are next to useless for print. Yes people might steal them to use on a website, but does it really matter? Yes it’s rude if they don’t ask first, but you’ve not lost anything.

_________________
flickr | facebook | twitter


Thu May 28, 2009 3:36 pm
Profile WWW
Occasionally has a life
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 7:58 am
Posts: 188
Reply with quote
SAughton wrote:
Yes it’s rude if they don’t ask first, but you’ve not lost anything.


I'd say it's more than rude, they're nicking stuff. I agree, most people are pig ignorant when it comes to copyright - I've been told point-blank by one editor "if it's on the internet it's not covered by copyright" - but ignorance is no excuse. My policy is to watermark, but more as a bit of extra advertising rather than a huge deterrent. After all, I want people to see my pics and enjoy them, otherwise I wouldn't put them on Flickr. However, I don't put my absolute favourite shots up there, you have to keep some mystery.


Thu May 28, 2009 5:04 pm
Profile
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:11 pm
Posts: 12143
Location: Belfast
Reply with quote
HeatherKay wrote:
My only comment on your mark, Mark :D , is it comes over very large in the centre of the thumbnails on Flickr.
I've replaced the Money set with non-watermarked images.
I've decided that I'm going to reposition it and alter it's opacity, once I've done this I'll start using it again.

Mark

_________________
okenobi wrote:
All I know so far is that Mark, Jimmy Olsen and Peter Parker use Nikon and everybody else seems to use Canon.
ShockWaffle wrote:
Well you obviously. You're a one man vortex of despair.


Fri May 29, 2009 7:09 am
Profile WWW
Doesn't have much of a life

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 8:23 pm
Posts: 638
Location: 3959 miles from the centre of the Earth - give or take a bit
Reply with quote
I use a combination of Digimarc (which embeds a watermark that can't be seen and it remains there even if the picture is altered/cropped) and a small block of text in one corner with details of who/what/where and a note that it contains a watermark.

_________________
i7 860 @ 3.5GHz, GTX275, 4GB DDR3


Thu Jun 04, 2009 8:21 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 8 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software.