Watermarking- do you?

dinneenp

If you have a blog, website, use a photo hosting site do you watermark your photos?
And why or why not?
Cheers,
Pa

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

No, it's extra work for me and it's pointless I think. Watermarks are easily removed.

What about yourself OP

almorris

As above comment. And just who is going to nick your photos? Hard enough getting an audience without splashing a watermark in a place that not's either easy to remove or denigrates your image.

dirtyghettokid

for the most part no.. i only put my name on my shoe pics. i don't exactly know why. it's not about stealing.. i think it's just so people can learn the name of who takes those cool shoe pics

amdgilmore

No. If a watermark is unobtrusive, it's easily removed. If it's bigger, it ruins the photo.

Paulw

Yep, always.

I've had a number of images used/stolen without permission. Yeah, you can chase to have them removed, etc, but it's a hassle. So, I watermark. It's subtle enough but visible.

homerun_homer

I watermark the official gigs I shoot for websites or promoters. I was advised to do this although I wasn't 100% about doing it for myself but from my perspective, it's something for casual photo browsers to recognise. They might see a few photosets over time and say "oh I like that guy's photos" rather than just looking through them and thinking no more of it. It happens with me in recognising other people's work as well in the same way.

There's also the view that if a band steals and image without asking, they can have a tendency to crop the image to remove the watermark. That to me is a sure sign of them being sneaky and cheap, by not inquiring about using the image properly. If this happens then it's a clear case to ask them to take it down.

I don't tend to watermark anything else I shoot.

dinneenp

I don't but have thought about it.My question came up after looking at Enda Cavanaghs website and seeing all photos watermarked.
I know people can remove the watermark but I'm guessing that most people don't know that you can.

Websites like Fineartamerica recommend that people don't add watermarks on images on their site for sale, they say that images without watermarks sell better. But I'm half thinking they say that even if it's not true.

I don't sell much so am not that worried about people selling but it's just something I think about. A lot of photos that I have on my 'buy prints' page I also have in my blog in larger size (800 pixels wide).
cheers,
pa.

mayo.mick

Yip, I watermark everything that goes on my sites, resized to either 600/800px @ 72dpi. Got sick of people stealing my photos without even credit! Usually bottom right or left either at 30/50/70 opacity. Really good shots I double watermark, bottom and across the middle in a larger font but @ about 20% opacity.

Riamfada

I suppose it depends on the content. I dont see the point in someone watermarking their image of the Glendalough Upper Lake that has been taken thousands of times or some random clouds & sunset. I do see this a lot though, especially on Facebook for some reason where the size & resolution is cack.

I dont consider myself good enough for anyone to steal and as an amateur Id be happy if someone used mine.

CabanSail

I only put a watermark on images I post on Facebook or the like.

eoglyn

Photographer's seem to be such an insecure bunch when they get very excited about what other togs do with their own images. Horses for courses methinks.

I dont use a watermark, only because i don't think i have much worth stealing, mainly because the photos are any good and are valuable to me are of family and friends. I don't share these online anyway.

I think the only group of people who complain about a watermark ruining a photo are other photographers. I genuinely don't think most people care - and i'd argue that a good logo could remind a potential customer that there is someone of skill and talent behind the camera capturing this noteworthy image.
For example, we found our wedding photographer by seeing a non-wedding portrait she had of my wife's cousin on facebook, that photo had a watermark, it made it easy for us to find the photographer.

So it depends on your market and who you are trying to impress. If you are a pro or semi-pro with a business page using social media to market your product i think it is sensible to include a decent logo on your pictures.

Also on your own website - while it won't exclude someone from stealing an image, it might encourage them to seek permission to use it.

AnimalRights

No and 90% of 'photographers' who do are codding themselves, They think by adding them that they are a better photographer than they actually are.

fret_wimp2

Watermarks on photos are like DRM on Music Files. Its not the way forward, but the fact that its needed show the distribution model is broken.
What should it be, I have no idea, if i did, I would be off sleeping on a large pile of money instead of posting on an internet forum!

As said previously though, watermarks are easily removed if small, ruin a photo if big.
Personally, I wouldn't hire a photographer who watermarks images taken for me, and it has been one key factor in deciding on a photographer in situations in the past. If I'm reviewing work done for me, I want to see just the work. Not the photographers name or any sign of them, as it gets in the way of reviewing the actual photo and its content.

In the past I have put a small signature in the bottom right/left, but that was more for recognition and not to prevent the image being used. I don't do it any-more as i went off the idea, but it could never be used to prevent the image being used anyway, 20 seconds in Photoshop could remove it.

candytog

I watermark purely for marketing, I'm happy for people to share any photograph I publish online provided the watermark is retained. If I spotted images used commercially or see that they have removed the watermark I demand they take it down, which they do. If they didn't I'd send a solicitors letter but that has never happened.

I do not watermark any images (digital or print) I sell to clients obviously but I benefit from referrals from those clients anyway. This is normally a portrait session or wedding anyway.

In my experience when I have not watermarked images they get pinched far more often. One "friend" or a friend who passes themselves off as a photographer on two occasions nicked one of my images, put them up on their FB page and tried to pass them off as their own images!

Reoil

almorris wrote: »

As above comment. And just who is going to nick your photos?

Well the BBC nicked one of mine...

LUZ

i try to put some kind of watermark on anything i put on my blog or facebook, but i try to make it look pretty and not a nasty times new roman straight across the middle!! I only do it because if my clients share something i want their friends to know where to find me!
I saw one of my photos in a local shop window once, taken from my personal facebook (shi**y res) blown up huge to advertise a gig, and i know they wouldnt have done it if it had a logo on, so since then i do try harder to watermark in some way.

bands dont record albums anonymously, they still get their songs downloaded but at least we know who they are. i dont see why we cant put our names on our images.