Is it worth watermarking?

tigerimages said:
when XYZ puts "XYZ Photography" it's rather misleading and suggests that it's professional rather than a photo taken by XYZ himself
Click to expand...

But it doesn't, though. As established in this thread. It's photography, it's by XYZ. It's not misleading at all - quite the opposite.
 
tigerimages said:
.... I just think when XYZ puts "XYZ Photography" it's rather misleading and suggests that it's professional rather than a photo taken by XYZ himself....
Click to expand...

The defence rests m'lud.
 
XYZ photgraphy would cover more of the photo. It would be tough if your name was Al !

It matters not if the word company or photography is on there at all. People will only buy (or ripp off) what they choose too. Gone are the days when the word professional was actually respected by anything but the minoritory of people, and those people will probrably got to a professional to get the shoot done in the first place

Example: Edit in profession of your choice and mouth in the tone of a council estate slappa:

"That teacher/doctor/optician/x wants there ead looking at"
 
Last edited:
XYZ Photography sounds like a cool name for a business, anyone mind if I use it?

All my images are tagged either with a copyright symbol and my name, or Chris Clark Photography. My Purestorm profile is called Chris Clark Photography, and my business cards say that too.

Tiger, listen carefully and you might even learn something: It's the image that will let someone know you're a pro, not the watermark. If you judge the suality of someone's work by their watermark then I'm not sure why you're even trying to defend yourself.
 
I could have that hamster, little furry squeaky b*****d. Although that would result in the forums acting up for a bit.
 
I think I'm going to stop watermarking my images.
I'm just out of short trousers, being 18 and all, and clearly that fact alone means I shouldn't watermark my images with the name I have on business cards and my domain name.

Don't want to offend miserable discontent individuals.
 
foodpoison said:
I think I'm going to stop watermarking my images.
I'm just out of short trousers, being 18 and all, and clearly that fact alone means I shouldn't watermark my images with the name I have on business cards and my domain name.

Don't want to offend miserable discontent individuals.
Click to expand...

Yeah, how dare you?!
 
foodpoison said:
I think I'm going to stop watermarking my images.
I'm just out of short trousers, being 18 and all, and clearly that fact alone means I shouldn't watermark my images with the name I have on business cards and my domain name.

Don't want to offend miserable discontent individuals.
Click to expand...

Well I hope you've learnt your lesson, you've been a very naughty boy! :nono: :rules: :D
 
Doonchu wink at us boyo, go to your room and think of all those poor people you made think you were a pro!
 
That's more like it.
 
check this one out. even put a magazine title on this one

2572925118_73c47e84c2_o.jpg
 
see thats ok ross, it looks class, and in fiarness all your images are worthy of watermarking.

i get wound up by pants pictures with a huge watermark across it, so it ruins the image.
 
For me it's way to dark, I know it's night but, the highlights are blown and it looks out of focus as well:shrug: just my thoughts(y)
 
It depend what your trying to stop.

If you don't want your images used by someone else in their blog or their website the watermark, but if you only want to stop people printing your images then just lower the dpi, and I do mean lower 20 dpi will display just fine for most things on the web, but will look rubbish if printed.

Resolution lowered in CS3

_MG_6845-250dpi.jpg
_MG_6845-20dpi.jpg
 
whiteflyer said:
It depend what your trying to stop.

If you don't want your images used by someone else in their blog or their website the watermark, but if you only want to stop people printing your images then just lower the dpi, and I do mean lower 20 dpi will display just fine for most things on the web, but will look rubbish if printed.
Click to expand...


changing the dpi for a web image makes no difference thats only for printing.
 
Sometime last year....
I checked my web logs as per usual and found some hits from an art website.. clicked the refferal link that took me to a forum where someone was asking what the best way to remove my watermark from a picture was.... the OP got a roasting from regulars (must have checked my website from the watermark) who said.. there only 3 quid. easier to buy it :)
 
I'm still confused.....

If an image is poor, then that should be self-evident from the fact that.....the image is poor.

Are you suggesting some people look at a picture, and then see a watermark and suddenly THINK the image is better?
 
The simple fact is; a watermark does not suggest the photographer is "professional". All it suggests is that the photographer would like people to know that he/she took the image.
 
tigerimages said:
Not really under discussion is it to be fair? It's just the majority rubbishing the opinions of the minority and then filling the thread with silly little smilies.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, the minority being you, one person, you, the single member here who thinks that a watermark using the word 'photography', suggests that the image and it's author are of professional standard.

It's insane and furthermore, irrelevant.

The rest of the waking world can tell if an image has been made well, they are not deceived into thinking that a piece of **** photo was made by a professional just because it has 'Blah blah Photography' in one of the corners.

You are alone in your belief.

tigerimages said:
If I came out with some of the sly and snidey remarks on here I'd be banned, so why are others allowed to do it?
Click to expand...

You get the response because you ask for it, you condescend anyone who disagrees with you, you've insulted other members and you've labelled the forum pretentious.

Your making yourself look like very arrogant and also ignorant chap.

The responses you get are justified.
 
Last edited:
This thread is highly amusing.

I put my LOGO on my images so that people will hopefully come across the images and recognise that they are mine.

You could look at it as FREE advertising. I've got my pictures on a few websites and hopefully one day I will get paid for an image that I've taken or I will get asked to take some photo's for a fee.

I'm getting a hint that this thread has turned into a little war between, crap togs, ameutur togs & pro togs.

Just to add something aswell. Most pro togs are being paid to take the photo's so thier client has paid for the image so why do they care if someone else takes it, thats upto thier client to deal with the theft.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top