Watermark in a JPG

Thomasofmel

I am looking to protect my photos I upload into the web. Is there an easy way to insert a watermark into a JPG, so nobody can 'steal' my photos? :rolleyes:

.Longshanks.

What software are you using?

Thomasofmel

Photoshop. I searched the net and found a software called Visual Watermark? Any good? It would add your own watermark to any JPG...

AnCatDubh

most image editing packages will do a watermark for you.

if you aren't as yet using photoshop, the gimp, or the like of, you could use something like irfanview (batch mode ->add overlay text) to add a copyright watermark. Also embed your details in the exif - the comment field or specific copyright field - Windows explorer will do this for you. Select a batch of photos->right click->properties.

.Longshanks.

Thomasofmel wrote: »

Photoshop. I searched the net and found a software called Visual Watermark? Any good? It would add your own watermark to any JPG...

In photoshop create a new layer and add your name or chosen symbol and place in on top of your photo. Lower the opacity of this new later to a low level (around 10% to 20%) and bobs your uncle.

If you wanted to, you can create a shape of your chosen copyright symbol to easily add it again for any future work.
Youtube tutorials are your friend.....

Thomasofmel

Thanks - I will give it a try

Zillah

Don't watermark your photos, it looks completely awful. If they're valuable then don't upload them to the internet. At the very most pop a little copyright thing tiny and in the corner, there's nothing more pretentious and amateurish than someone putting a massive watermark across the middle of their photo.

Thomasofmel

Zillah wrote: »

Don't watermark your photos, it looks completely awful. If they're valuable then don't upload them to the internet. At the very most pop a little copyright thing tiny and in the corner, there's nothing more pretentious and amateurish than someone putting a massive watermark across the middle of their photo.

Thanks Zillah - but I have a friend who is trying to sell nature etc photography via the internet (I am helping him out on this one). And obviously if the pictures are freely downloadable and without the watermark, it would be too easy to copy the photos (even if they are reduced in size) and print them as postcards. The watermark would be in the corner of a photo and it does not really affect the photo itself.

squareballoon

The method I like best for watermarking is to make a brush with your logo.
In Photoshop create your logo and have it on a layer with a transparent layer behind. Then go to Edit/define brush preset and name it. it will then appear in your brush library straight away.
Make sure you make it the size that suits the size of image that you usually upload because although you can scale it it will be fuzzy if changed from the size you make it.
I have to say I like images with the watermark on them as long as it's a nice simple watermark and not a hidious one with beveled edges and shadow drop etc.

Paulw

Zillah wrote: »

Don't watermark your photos, it looks completely awful. If they're valuable then don't upload them to the internet. At the very most pop a little copyright thing tiny and in the corner, there's nothing more pretentious and amateurish than someone putting a massive watermark across the middle of their photo.

I guess companies like Getty, Sportsfile and Inpho are amateurish, since they put large watermarks on their images?

What a load of rubbish.

If you value your images at all, then there is nothing wrong with putting a clear watermark on it. If people want the image, then they can ask for/buy the image from you.

A little something in the corner is dead simple to crop out. It does nothing to protect your image.

I almost always watermark my images, to protect them.

The new Lightroom 3 has a watermark feature, as has Paint Shop Pro X2.

mrboswell

squareballoon wrote: »

I have to say I like images with the watermark on them as long as it's a nice simple watermark and not a hidious one with beveled edges and shadow drop etc.

The point to watermarking is that you can see the image clearly without someone being able to use it, to protect your copyright. You can still enjoy the image or not - whatever your choice may be. Personally I bevel and drop shadow because I don't believe in a watermark that is too subtle and as PaulW said if people want your photo they can ask permission/buy it from you.

Would you call over to the Vatican and complain to the Pope that the Pieta has protective glass surrounding it and you can see it properly because there is a small shine from lighting? No - its there for a reason; protection...

squareballoon

mrboswell- I don't mean like yours. I guess I'm thinking of ones that are huge and generally right across a crap image. I put one on mine that's fairly obvious and in the middle of the photo but it's small and there to generally make it awkward for someone to steal the photo or for clients to use it without paying.

Paulw

An interesting thread to read - http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1014&message=33503572

Even with a nice large watermark, people still take/use images without permission.

The watermark simple enables recognition of your own files, and discourages misuse.

mrboswell

squareballoon wrote: »

mrboswell- I don't mean like yours. I guess I'm thinking of ones that are huge and generally right across a crap image. I put one on mine that's fairly obvious and in the middle of the photo but it's small and there to generally make it awkward for someone to steal the photo or for clients to use it without paying.

Fair enough but for media outlets that have world wide coverage I can totally understand if they plaster images with watermarks.
But as PaulW said - its to let people know they are yours and it will help to prevent misuse.
For the individual photographer its just choice - just like the viewer can choose not to look a images if they don't like the watermarks