Is this watermark enough? - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

09/15/2009 12:00:29 PM · #6

huh, i cant see it either. and contact info is an excellent idea. i may have to start doing that

Sigma 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM

09/15/2009 12:03:50 PM · #7

Originally posted by tate:

to
The idea of water mark is to make the picture unusable, no one would enjoy a picture with a copy right or contact info all over the picture. If the picture is usable, then it is not protected enough.
Also no picture is 100% safe, yet if whomever wants to steel them is good enough to get over the watermark, then for sure he can take pictures himself. It is to make it very hard on '' average '' person to use it.

AJSullivan

09/15/2009 12:04:38 PM · #8

Im assuming you are referring to the bar at hte bottom of the image? Whats the point? If I was hell bent on taking those photos, I would just crop that out, you even made a nice crop line for me!

NathanWert

Canon EOS-90D

09/15/2009 12:07:24 PM · #9

The only "watermark" I see is "TateDavidson.com" repeated across the bottom.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

09/15/2009 12:07:40 PM · #10

Message edited by author 2009-09-15 12:08:54.

Photologist

Apple iPhone 15 Pro Max

09/15/2009 01:03:13 PM · #11

Tate,

Generally, there are two reasons for having a watermark on a photograph, and these reasons often overlap.

The first reason is for advertising. You want folks to see your images and relate your name, your business, your web site, etc. to that photograph or style of photography.

The second reason is for security purposes. You do not want anyone to use your photograph in any meaningful way. If a viewer would like to use your photograph, then they will have to contact you.

Where many people fail when attempting to implement the second reason is that they just can't imagine "covering up" their image with text/graphics. One has to get over that mental block. If you want security, then you either cover your image with a watermark or you don't. There are many photographers that simply put their name across the bottom or edge of the image. Sometimes they just put the mark on some benign section of the composition. This can be a big mistake. A larcenist simply crops out the watermark.

I create my watermarks with a full (but subtle) band across the photograph. This makes it more difficult to remove. I also want to advertise my personal web site, so I have the name of it displayed in a not-so-subtle mode. Nevertheless, I take great care in strategically placing the watermark to where it does cover part of the main image, yet leaves enough visible for the viewer to enjoy it.

Another site where I post my images is on Flickr. Flickr is notorious for being a site where anyone can steal photographs. Before I began watermarking (last year), I never had an inquiry to buy any of my photos. Once I began to watermark, I've ~~sold~~ licensed enough photos to pay for some new glass (including my Canon 70-200 f2.8 L lens).

Here is an example of my watermark:

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

09/15/2009 01:09:25 PM · #12

AperturePriority I really like adding the red parts in the watermark, first time to see that, usually people tend to decrease the opacity not to distract and prevent the viewer from enjoying the picture, it is red, yet it is neatly placed.
Also it is good to find you on Flickr. :)

snaffles

Nikon D7100

09/15/2009 01:19:00 PM · #13

Wow, Ameed! Lovely pics of the children, great work!