watermarks

[paleblue]

I'm seeing a lot of overuse of watermarking in just regular snap shot photographs. If you are an amateur photographer, I would like to throw out there that maybe it isn't worth watermarking your pictures. It can look ugly, pretentious and can distract from the picture itself. If you photograph just so happens to get published, then a watermark may be necessary. But look at this for reference http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/06/glastonbury_festival_2010.html amazing photography without bold comic sans MS font saying "copyright humperdinks photography 2010" across the middle of the picture; there's just a reference at the end of the description of the picture.

At the end of the day, the ease of cropping out or using photoshop to get rid of the watermark makes it not worth it. And I'm pretty sure that there's a 90% chance that no one is going to steal your photograph anyway.

If this sounds unreasonable then so be it, but I don't think I'm alone in thinking this way :shrug:

 

[smooth]

Interesting points Rick but I am afraid I disagree.

The use of watermarks is a useful marketing tool - people see the logo/name on the shot making it much more memorable.

The use of a watermark discourages people from copying a togs work - be they professional or not - which ultimately helps protect the profession.

 

[Jimmy_Lemon]

Interesting points Rick but I am afraid I disagree.

The use of watermarks is a useful marketing tool - people see the logo/name on the shot making it much more memorable.

The use of a watermark discourages people from copying a togs work - be they professional or not - which ultimately helps protect the profession.

What she says, plus the main difference between a regular tog and someone working for a major press agency (as displayed on the Boston Globe site/blog) is that they have the means and ability to chase up any unauthorized use. I will always watermark any photo I post online, just in case.

 

[smooth]

*she* Cheers Tom!

Also looking over the Boston Images - they would have already made the money for the photographer in newspapers/websites etc and get added to the Boston site after that fact.

 

[wippers]

Interesting points Rick but I am afraid I disagree.

The use of watermarks is a useful marketing tool - people see the logo/name on the shot making it much more memorable.

The use of a watermark discourages people from copying a togs work - be they professional or not - which ultimately helps protect the profession.

I agree. I don't think there should be any different rules for amateurs or pro's. If you've gone to the time and effort to produce an image you're proud of, then you may not want someone using your image without consent. Just because you're an amateur doesn't mean your images are free for the taking IMO.

 

[littlemonster]

I pop something on all of mine - usually just a bit at the bottom, but 1 or 2 of my more special images I've put proper watermarks on, because while they may not be the best ever and the chance of someone nicking them is minimal, they may be worthless - but they're worth a lot to ME.

Plus if someone is hoping to turn professional at some point, it may just be easier to put it into their workflow early on.

 

[thisisengland]

I think watermarking is one way to put people off stealing your photos, whether you are amateur or not. I watermark mine and recently sold use of an image on flickr which was watermarked, the enquirer had to email me to negotiate use and payment. If i had uploaded the full size image and without any watermark they could have just taken it without me knowing. I dont upload higher than 800pixels now either.

It probably takes the script in photoshop about a minute to auto insert the watermark and in my case resize about 30 images, so I am hardly going to lose sleep over wasting a minute of my time which might make me a bit of money in the process and perhaps bring more viewers to my own actual website.

 

[paleblue]

Interesting points Rick but I am afraid I disagree.

The use of watermarks is a useful marketing tool - people see the logo/name on the shot making it much more memorable.

The use of a watermark discourages people from copying a togs work - be they professional or not - which ultimately helps protect the profession.

Yup, notice i'm referring to amateurs. I think it is quite necessary for studio/portraiture photography and event work (such as night clubs) if you are earning money from it and need to promote your name/company. But a day at london zoo with the family doesn't need it.

I know the post sounds arrogant, but i'm just expressing something that makes me think less of a photograph which i could have otherwise enjoyed looking at, especially with landscape photography.