Is it worth watermarking?

I usually do

Why am I ignorant for suggesting that there should be standards? I'm not a pro and don't pretend to be so I don't watermark my images as such. I said to the photo thief who stole my photo last night that I didn't mind him using it because at the level our clubs are at most of the bread and butter stuff is done by volunteers for the love of it and often in the face of adversity and I see us all as friends.

Believe it or not I have a pretty decent name around our league and most seem to appreciate what I do and the fact that I share things. As I've said, I'm no pro and I don't describe what I do as "work". I do apologise if I'm not pretencious enough for the rest of this forum.

And your copper friend? LOL!
Today 19:50
Click to expand...

I can understand your view on this to an extent but to say someone shouldn't watermark there work because there not at a certain level is just not right, its personal choice not public choice. As for the 'copper freind? LOL! again childish to attack someone you have or probably will never meet. Your not painting a very good image of yourself. The fact is it is theft but there is the whole process of proving its your work etc which is what puts many people off doing anything about it, but if they could be bothered to go through with the process it can be proved.
 
tigerimages said:
I do apologise if I'm not pretencious enough for the rest of this forum.
Click to expand...

Cue Don Lafontaine voice over

'Just when you thought he couldn't dig himself any deeper....
One man...
One destination...'
 
Last edited:
Gandhi said:
Feel free,

Watermark away. People are very adept at cloning topday anyways, and unless you stamp it right across the image it's not gonna have much effect anyway.

Finally. An 800 px image at 72 dpi isn't worth squat, even with interpolation!

Apologies to the owner of the image but.......


2 minutes in CS4. Had I spent an hour doing pixel perfect sampling it would be immaculate.......

theft1.jpg




100% crop of an up-rezzed copy of the original file. I used Genuine Fractals Print Pro for this, widely recognised as being the best upsampling algorithms around and up rezzed to 240 dpi 16x20 inch. A good healthy print size.

There isn't a professional print company/Image library/Magazine etc that would touch an image with this quality!

theft2.jpg




Ok, so people can nick your images and use them elsewhare on the web. Big deal. If you watermark your image there are 100,000's out there who don't and they'll just use on of those rather than pay you for a version without a watermark.

Granted, if I was shooting weddings or something where I was the only shooter the I would watermark the images on the page people can order them from as some goon is always going to try and rip them off to print a couple of 6x4's for the aunts but for general stuff.........

Don't post images bigger than 800px and don't worry about it too much!
Click to expand...

And exactly how many thiefs know how to do that? ;)
 
I came to add that watermarks can be cloned over and see Ghandi has already pointed it out.

I have no problems with watermarks. Regardless how crap the image is. If someone watermarks an image which I think is just average, then I would tell them its an average pic and no big deal deal. If you cant take criticism then dont post.
 
onikami said:
I came to add that watermarks can be cloned over and see Ghandi has already pointed it out.

I have no problems with watermarks. Regardless how crap the image is. If someone watermarks an image which I think is just average, then I would tell them its an average pic and no big deal deal. If you cant take criticism then dont post.
Click to expand...

LOL, can't take criticism? Who are you referring to?
 
xSitara™;1420534 said:
LOL, can't take criticism? Who are you referring to?
Click to expand...

Just making a general point. Not referring to anyone on particular!
 
DaveMartin said:
I can understand your view on this to an extent but to say someone shouldn't watermark there work because there not at a certain level is just not right, its personal choice not public choice. As for the 'copper freind? LOL! again childish to attack someone you have or probably will never meet. Your not painting a very good image of yourself. The fact is it is theft but there is the whole process of proving its your work etc which is what puts many people off doing anything about it, but if they could be bothered to go through with the process it can be proved.
Click to expand...
Coppers on here don't hold much water mate, how many threads have you seen where coppers have told people to delete photos?!!!

And :bang: I'm not saying they shouldn't watermark it because it's not to a certain level. I'm saying they shouldn't put professional looking watermarks on crap photos. Sometimes it's easy for a newcomer to come on here, see all of these watermarked photos with XYZ Photography on them and think that it's all pro's on here and that the majority of posters really AREN'T hobbyists.
 
DaveMartin said:
Unfortunatly they all do :thumbsdown:
Click to expand...

:( Sadly pretty true.
Mate of mine isn't the slightest bit interested in photography but uses photoshop in his design work and is without doubt a genius with the program.
If somebody wants a picture bad enough, they will find a way to remove watermarks.

I still use watermarks myself, but I'm banking on detering the lazy copyright thief.
Best thing to do if you're worried about theft is to put the smallest lowest res images possible online.
 
Off topic - by the way tigerimages - your website has been missing today

tiger.jpg


Don't worry though.... it can't be theft :D can it?

Neil
 
Blimey I ask a nice simple question, pop off to work, get back and find a giant can of worms :D

Cheers for all your thoughts everyone its been an eyeopener (y)
 
good image - crap image - amateur image - pro image - it does not matter it is still a copyright image and using it without permission is illegal - so if watermarking helps prevent that = good! I've made a lot of money this past year from some high profile people trying to use my images without paying - even though they were watermarked. It's people who allow their images to be used free - amateur mostly - who cause loads of problems for people - like me - who rely on photo work/sales to make a living. EVERYONE should care about their work being used without permission and do what they can to prevent that.
 
Last edited:
Busby said:
:( Sadly pretty true.
Mate of mine isn't the slightest bit interested in photography but uses photoshop in his design work and is without doubt a genius with the program.
If somebody wants a picture bad enough, they will find a way to remove watermarks.

I still use watermarks myself, but I'm banking on detering the lazy copyright thief.
Best thing to do if you're worried about theft is to put the smallest lowest res images possible online.
Click to expand...

Agree(y)

A watermark will never stop a committed/determined thief but stops/reduces the opportunists from stealing the image.

It's a bit like your house. However many locks and alarms you protect it with, it will not stop a determined thief who really wants something of yours but it reduces the chance of an opportunist thief breaking in.

I personally dont watermark as I would love someone to steal my images cos they are not good enough to steal and it would make me feel great.

If you dont want anyone nicking them then watermark it. It is some form of protection regardless of quality of image
 
tigerimages said:
I didn't say there was anything wrong with adding watermarks to your photographs, I just think it's wrong when you see crap images with professional looking watermarks on them saying XYZ Photography which suggests to me as if it's done by a pro.
Click to expand...

Well good thing there's a watermark on the crap image so you know which 'fake' professional to avoid then isn't it?

:wacky:
 
tigerimages said:
I'm saying they shouldn't put professional looking watermarks on crap photos. Sometimes it's easy for a newcomer to come on here, see all of these watermarked photos with XYZ Photography on them and think that it's all pro's on here and that the majority of posters really AREN'T hobbyists.
Click to expand...

Um ... wrong.

It's up to the individual to find out or decide whether or not we're all professional photographers, and if they're intimidated by that maybe they should go away and come back when they're ready to play like a grown-up.

Exactly what is a "professional-looking" watermark, anyway?
 
I use my name and site

two reasons
1. so people can see i took the pics
2. to prrove that if i sell something that the images are mine and the items are genuine
 
While I know people can and do clone out watermarks, I think the porpoise is to make it too much hassle to do so. As I said earlier - I put them on in a place where if they're cropped off or copied over it will ruin the pic, and likewise in a place difficult or time-taking to clone.
 
awp said:
good image - crap image - amateur image - pro image - it does not matter it is still a copyright image and using it without permission is illegal - so if watermarking helps prevent that = good! I've made a lot of money this past year from some high profile people trying to use my images without paying - even though they were watermarked. It's people who allow their images to be used free - amateur mostly - who cause loads of problems for people - like me - who rely on photo work/sales to make a living. EVERYONE should care about their work being used without permission and do what they can to prevent that.
Click to expand...
If you rely on your photos to make a living then don't put them on the internet, simple.
 
fabs said:
Makes it a bit difficult for potential customers to see your work though.
Click to expand...
I'd be very surprised if there were people out there looking for photographers to work for them by browsing online galleries.

Local photographers that I know that make their living from it are either employed by the local paper or the freelancer that I know is well known and gets most of his work by word of mouth and has built up his business over the past 15 years with his good repuatation. He has an online gallery on his website but it's password protected.
 
tigerimages said:
He's a schoolboy, not a professional and doesn't have a company called "Matt Sayle Photography". Does it need spelling out to you?
Click to expand...

It doesn't say he's professional, doesn't say he has a company either. It just says this is some of Matt Sayle's photography. :thinking:
 
tigerimages said:
I'd be very surprised if there were people out there looking for photographers to work for them by browsing online galleries.

Local photographers that I know that make their living from it are either employed by the local paper or the freelancer that I know is well known and gets most of his work by word of mouth and has built up his business over the past 15 years with his good repuatation. He has an online gallery on his website but it's password protected.
Click to expand...

So all those pros with websites are wasting their time then? When I meet potential clients I hand them a card with my web address on it, they can then look at my site before deciding weather or not to hire me. This is a well established method or do you assume that potential clients only look at prints in the presence of the photographer?

tigerimages said:
He's a schoolboy, not a professional and doesn't have a company called "Matt Sayle Photography". Does it need spelling out to you?
Click to expand...

Well that was unnecessarily aggressive. :nono: His age is irrelevant and if he wants to call himself Matt Sayle Photography that is his choice and no one elses.
 
mid_gen said:
It doesn't say he's professional, doesn't say he has a company either. It just says this is some of Matt Sayle's photography. :thinking:
Click to expand...
You've added the "'s" just to make a point when it clearly states "Matt Sayle Photography" leading the person looking at it to think that it's a company and not a young lad doing his hobby. If he wants to tag it with his name or website address or email then thats fine and how it should be but as it is it's misleading.
 
tigerimages said:
You've added the "'s" just to make a point when it clearly states "Matt Sayle Photography" leading the person looking at it to think that it's a company and not a young lad doing his hobby. If he wants to tag it with his name or website address or email then thats fine and how it should be but as it is it's misleading.
Click to expand...

still don't see a point you are trying to make :shrug:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top