Big images with big watermarks or smaller images with no watermark
- Thread starter Yantorsen
- Start date
For event display I've tried both and noticed a significant reduction in sales when using smaller low definition (saved at 65% in Photoshop and 500 pixels max width or height) jpegs. I even had someone phone me from a high street printers to complain that it was not big enough to print properly at a size suitable for mounting on the wall. They got very upset when I asked them to pay for a higher resolution image that would print correctly.
For portfolio use you really want the client (potential client) to see the image and I feel you have to take the chance that someone is going to print it. A subtle watermark may work but I usually just put a copyright notice somewhere on the bottom of the image. I'm sure they get copied and it irritates me but I try to balance it with the fact that I am displaying my images in a way that I would want them viewed.
John
For portfolio use you really want the client (potential client) to see the image and I feel you have to take the chance that someone is going to print it. A subtle watermark may work but I usually just put a copyright notice somewhere on the bottom of the image. I'm sure they get copied and it irritates me but I try to balance it with the fact that I am displaying my images in a way that I would want them viewed.
John
- Messages
- 7,634
- Name
- Lewis
- Edit My Images
- Yes
It depends if it is a portfolio showing off a few of your best images (in which case I'd not water mark on the basis the pictures should look as good as possible) or if it is a lot of photos from an event for example (in which case I would watermark).
Well it's supposed to be a portfolio of better work.
I'd say nothing larger than would comfortably fit inside a browser window sized at 1024 x 768 and a watermark on the image somewhere. Something subtle enough to go unnoticed but recognisable if you're looking for it.
Admittedly plenty of people now have large monitors, but massive images take ages to download and anything bigger than 800 x 600 could potentially be printed unless protected by a whopping great watermark, which then ruins the image.
Admittedly plenty of people now have large monitors, but massive images take ages to download and anything bigger than 800 x 600 could potentially be printed unless protected by a whopping great watermark, which then ruins the image.
- Messages
- 5,025
- Name
- Neil
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I agree and that's exactly what I do with my website images, a little copyright on the bottom right hand side to reinforce.
I think you need to watermark your work, if only to market yourself a little. The right choice of watermark would then not only serve as branding for your photography and website but also afford you some degree of protection against image thievery.
I'd be reluctant to go with a logo or anything obscure as it while it would look striking and brand your work, it wouldn't exactly help with getting people to find you if they were seeing your work on a website that wasn't linking to your own.
What is lucky is that you're a good Googler. If I get your name right, you're at the top. If I get it wrong, you're almost at the top.
So on that basis, and if it were me, I'd go with something simple like this:
I'd be reluctant to go with a logo or anything obscure as it while it would look striking and brand your work, it wouldn't exactly help with getting people to find you if they were seeing your work on a website that wasn't linking to your own.
What is lucky is that you're a good Googler. If I get your name right, you're at the top. If I get it wrong, you're almost at the top.
So on that basis, and if it were me, I'd go with something simple like this:
It's just a matter of reducing the opacity of the layer. I usually start at 50% and see how that looks.
Ideally what you'd want to do is create a watermark as a separate file at 100% opacity and then paste that in as a layer, playing with the opacity as you see fit. With those examples I was working with two layers and had a bit of a nightmare trying to get the 'n' of thomson and 'h' of photography to line up.
Admittedly it's a bit tough to try and come up with a solution that would work with every image, but a few percent here and there won't show up as being massively different and that allows you to adjust accordingly depending on what the image is beneath the text. Some images will work at lower opacities than others - it's just what feels right at the time.
Oh, and I had a mooch round your gallery and I have to say that I was pleasantly surprised. There's some good stuff in there.
Ideally what you'd want to do is create a watermark as a separate file at 100% opacity and then paste that in as a layer, playing with the opacity as you see fit. With those examples I was working with two layers and had a bit of a nightmare trying to get the 'n' of thomson and 'h' of photography to line up.
Admittedly it's a bit tough to try and come up with a solution that would work with every image, but a few percent here and there won't show up as being massively different and that allows you to adjust accordingly depending on what the image is beneath the text. Some images will work at lower opacities than others - it's just what feels right at the time.
Oh, and I had a mooch round your gallery and I have to say that I was pleasantly surprised. There's some good stuff in there.
I think the sizing is pretty much bang-on. There's a few images that I have to scroll down when opening but that's more to do with the layout of the website rather than the image size.
Have you thought about using Lightbox 2 to display your images? I think that might look really nice with the size of images that you're using and the general style of the site.
Have you thought about using Lightbox 2 to display your images? I think that might look really nice with the size of images that you're using and the general style of the site.