Why watermarking wedding photos?

dantastic

Part genuine question part rant. Got married about a year ago and being an amateur photographer I wanted good photos. In the process of finding a photographer I went through the photos from friends' weddings - absolutely shocked to see huge, ugly watermarks plastered over the photos. In some cases the photos were in my opinion ruined by the watermarks.

So looking for a photographer for our wedding one of the things I was looking for was no watermarks. Found a lot of photographers would not entertain the idea of not including their horrid stamp.

The common reason to include a watermark is for copyright reasons. In the case of wedding photos I don't think the photos will ever be used in such a way this will ever be a problem. We're not celebrities like!

What I don't get is photographers in general have an eye for aesthetics. But yet some of the watermarks are truly horrendous and far too prominent.

So I don't get it, why the watermarks on wedding photos?

magicbastarder

generally so you don't get the proofs (to decide which ones you want the full treatment on) and go print them yourself.

Kenny Logins

Were they the final photos sent to the customer? Or just proofs?

dantastic

So I'm talking about the final printed product. Including a high quality bound album.

Kenny Logins

Ouch.

ScumLord

There shouldn't be a watermark on the photos, you don't see watermarks on photos in magazines.

If they want to put their contact details on the back of the photo or somewhere on the album itself that's fine but marking the photo with them is a step too far.

I would be surprised if there wasn't some way of suing a photographer that does this, it does effectively ruin the photo and it's purpose.

mloc123

It is kinda a scam.. when we were picking our photographer people warned us to make sure whoever we picked provided you with full copyright of the photos.

You will see places offering wedding packages for 799e etc.. but when you look into the details they only provide watermarked images with the option to have photos printed with themselves for over priced amounts.

We went with http://www.leonard-photo.com/ in the end and were very happy with the photos.

AnimalRights

Dantastic most photographers are owm their own up jaxie

Splinters

I very rarely see watermarks from ANY photographer that dont look awful. I personally hate them and never use them. Very suprising to hear a wedding photographer would insist on these being on the final images too.

AnCatDubh

sounds like your friends made some bad choices in their wedding photographers

pullandbang

Can't say I've ever seen a photographers watermark on the final images. Yes you get them on proofs, but not on the final album - that's just mad. I'd have been suing him whoever he was.

Captain Flaps

Are you SURE this wasn't a case of your friends taking the proofs and getting an album made themselves? Watermarking proofs is completely standard (I do it myself) but the final images? Never ever come across that before.

Kenny Logins

Captain Flaps wrote: »

Are you SURE this wasn't a case of your friends taking the proofs and getting an album made themselves? Watermarking proofs is completely standard (I do it myself) but the final images? Never ever come across that before.

That's what I suspected, I can't imagine any bride accepting watermarked photos in her wedding album.

Paulw

Captain Flaps wrote: »

Are you SURE this wasn't a case of your friends taking the proofs and getting an album made themselves? Watermarking proofs is completely standard (I do it myself) but the final images? Never ever come across that before.

That definitely sounds logical and probable.

I've never seen a final wedding album with watermarks, but have almost always seen the proofs watermarked. That seems to be standard, and fully acceptable.

Captain Flaps

Yeah, I'd raise a serious eyebrow if I heard of a photog doing that, I can't imagine they'd be getting much business once word got out. I include my stamp and details discretely on an inside cover of the album but that's as far as I'd be willing to go personally. If the photos are good you'll get the referral by word of mouth, you shouldn't need to slap your name across final prints or a wedding album. My guess is printed proofs here.

Alltherage

If that's the case then the lesson to be learned is that your proofing watermark should always have the word Proof in it. Otherwise it's a great way of shooting yourself in the foot.

dantastic

I'm very happy with the responses here. I thought I was in for a bit of a battle.
For a lot of people not perhaps interested in photography I can imagine it's an easy trap to fall in to.

For our own wedding at the end of it I got a USB stick with about 2000 full resolution photos, no watermarks.
This included processed images and unprocessed (jpeg). This is obviously not common but this was considered in the price negotiated.

Captain Flaps

dantastic wrote: »

This included processed images and unprocessed (jpeg). This is obviously not common but this was considered in the price negotiated.

Yeah, all the packages I do include a disc of full-res images with a declaration of unlimited non-commercial use. I think the process of gouging people for prints that only cost pennies to make is archaic and more trouble than its worth. I've heard the argument about wanting to control the quality of the prints but since I offer to do the framable enlargements as part of the package the more likely place for the pics to end up is FB. I'm much happier knowing the photos I've taken are being shared around than I would be knowing there are a select few expensive prints gathering dust on shelves...

pullandbang

Captain Flaps wrote: »

Yeah, all the packages I do include a disc of full-res images with a declaration of unlimited non-commercial use. I think the process of gouging people for prints that only cost pennies to make is archaic and more trouble than its worth.

I'm seriously thinking of going one step further and giving the couple all the RAW files too on a separate USB and telling them to keep them safe! Saves me having to worry about storage into the future.....

CinSoots

Captain Flaps wrote: »

I think the process of gouging people for prints that only cost pennies to make is archaic and more trouble than its worth.

A photographer trying to sell photographs. Who would have thought it??

Wabbit Ears

Ive never seen watermarks on final wedding album prints. There may have been some, but inconspicuous enough Ive never noticed.

Wabbit Ears

Captain Flaps wrote: »

Yeah, all the packages I do include a disc of full-res images with a declaration of unlimited non-commercial use. I think the process of gouging people for prints that only cost pennies to make is archaic and more trouble than its worth. I've heard the argument about wanting to control the quality of the prints but since I offer to do the framable enlargements as part of the package the more likely place for the pics to end up is FB. I'm much happier knowing the photos I've taken are being shared around than I would be knowing there are a select few expensive prints gathering dust on shelves...

I presume your pricing model includes the time and effort in post processing all those images where a photographer who just gives proofs is selling a cheaper package. A photographer giving loads of unlimited use hi res images at a bargain basement price is not running a sustainable business model.

Also not marking your inages at all is losing a promotional opportunity. Images that go on facebook really should have a watermark or signature somewhere that's placed off centre of the images and is unobtrusive. Whats the point in hundreds of people viewing your work and noone knowing who took the photo?

dantastic

Wabbit Ears wrote: »

Also not marking your inages at all is losing a promotional opportunity. Images that go on facebook really should have a watermark or signature somewhere that's placed off centre of the images and is unobtrusive. Whats the point in hundreds of people viewing your work and noone knowing who took the photo?

The photographer is the only vendor at a wedding insisting on marketing. A florist wouldn't leave business cards in with the flowers. The shop where I bought the suit didn't insist on me wearing a sticker with their logo on it. My wedding is not a marketing opportunity, you are just there to do a job.

I'm sorry, but you are insignificant in all of this. If someone wants to know who took the photo they will ask. People looking to get a photographer will check their website. All a watermark would ever do for me is put me off.

Captain Flaps

That went down exactly as I'd hoped

Wabbit Ears

dantastic wrote: »

My wedding is not a marketing opportunity, you are just there to do a job.

To a professional wedding photographer, every wedding is a marketing opportunity :cool:

beauf

Wabbit Ears wrote: »

To a professional wedding photographer, every wedding is a marketing opportunity :cool:

You can't market what people won't buy.

Wabbit Ears

?? I'm not advocating big obtrusive watermarks on Photos, quite the contrary, All Im saying is if you are going to take the time to process a load of images that you expect to go on FB you should have a signature or similar somewhere on the images placed tastefully on the image.

We recently had some band promo photos on FB that got really really good praise and a whole heap of likes and not one single poster asked who had taken the photos and the person who posted them didnt give credit either. Considering the work was done as a favour to a friend it was a complete loss of opportunity, time and effort. Lesson learned, If you dont promote yourself, noones going to do it for you.

beauf

If people don't want that, they'll go elsewhere. There's a place for self promotion. I wonder how many sales you'd lose if people realised they couldn't get the photos without a watermark. Or indeed how informed customer are off this practise.

Paulw

beauf wrote: »

If people don't want that, they'll go elsewhere. There's a place for self promotion. I wonder how many sales you'd lose if people realised they couldn't get the photos without a watermark. Or indeed how informed customer are off this practise.

My understanding is that low-res images (for web, facebook, etc) would have a small watermark with photographers name, but high-res images for printing and the album would have no watermark.

EricPraline

Wabbit Ears wrote: »

?? I'm not advocating big obtrusive watermarks on Photos, quite the contrary, All Im saying is if you are going to take the time to process a load of images that you expect to go on FB you should have a signature or similar somewhere on the images placed tastefully on the image.

Whatever about Facebook photos, any watermark on a printed photo, whether placed in an album or framed on a wall, is going to look obtrusive and tasteless, especially for larger prints.

Regarding promotional opportunities, the opportunity already exists - if you provide a good service, you're likely to be recommended by word of mouth to friends and acquaintances of the couple. No different than the florist, musicians etc. On the other hand, the watermarking tactic described by the OP is hardly going to lead to positive recommendations.

beauf

Paulw wrote: »

My understanding is that low-res images (for web, facebook, etc) would have a small watermark with photographers name, but high-res images for printing and the album would have no watermark.

The OP experience was that they were on the prints.

dantastic wrote: »

So I'm talking about the final printed product. Including a high quality bound album.

I can understand why photographers want to protect, promote their work. But for me it would cheapen the photo.

Paulw

beauf wrote: »

The OP experience was that they were on the prints.

But, the OP hasn't come back to confirm or deny the likely scenario that their friend took the "proof" images that are likely to be watermarked, and then had them printed up to be the wedding album, rather than paying the photographer for an album (unlikely to contain watermarks).

beauf

That quote was his exact reply to that precise question.

Unless either you and/or he are confusing "Proofs" with "Final printed product". Which seems unlikely.

Captain Flaps

Just following up, and all joking aside, I watermark proofs with an obvious PROOF stamp, and online galleries/any non-print image with a discrete stamp in the bottom right. If a couple asked me to give them some shots without the watermark for FB I would oblige but this has never happened. Not once.

Obviously, final prints are a completely different matter and anyone watermarking those or the album probably won't last long in the business.

Alltherage

beauf wrote: »

I can understand why photographers want to protect, promote their work. But for me it would cheapen the photo.

Because it cheapens their work it does anything but promote the work. It's enough to spawn a 3 page thread on how it's an assault on photography itself.

(I know that's basicly what you're saying but you're working too hard at rationalising the photographers decision. It's just a bad decision)

beauf

If its optional at a price that's one thing. No option at all that's another.