Is my new watermark too intrusive?

[rgrebby]

Just a little collection of random images to test if the new weater mark is any good.

Thanks in advance.

 

[wack61]

to me it doesn't look like a watermark, it looks like it's going to be on the final prints so i think you'd get a lot of phone calls

 

[alexkidd]

yeah, but i don't really like watermarks anyhow

 

[Grendel]

I'm afraid I don't like it. It's far too fussy and intrusive. Sorry

 

[rtjdesign]

It look's nice but it just seems pointless. Sorry

 

[Jo]

I have to agree with everyone else I'm afraid. Plus it look rather $ I can't believe I'm going to say this) ghey on the motor one....

 

[mrgas]

it spoils all of the shots

it isn't subtle enough

sorry

 

[Bawbee]

Sorry, I don't like it either

 

[will69]

Another no.. don't like it. Too obtrusive.

 

[allanm]

A rather large NO from me too. Its not really a watermark, it would be ok on a proof, but I wouldnt want to pay to have that on final print.
Allan

 

[Janice]

I dont quite see the point of it. A watermark is usually to stop people printing off the image ie, a pale thing across the image which is used when they are viewing online.

This looks unlike a watermark so they are likely to think they will be on the prints as said above.

 

[andrewc]

I could pinch these images and either crop or PS out the watermark, thus defeating it?

 

[rgrebby]

hmm, maybe I'll try and do a centred one

 

[Venomator]

Think you have your answer... :shrug: ... it is far too intrusive and distracting imhgo and is definitely not a watermark as it stands... ... as Janice has already said it should be more or less transparent, relatively simple in design and not totally detract from the image being viewed, yours is more like a signature block...

 

[rgrebby]

Thanks guys, just re working it a bit. Maybe its more of a signature thing im after but im going to keep it simple now

 

[KayJay]

A simple text watermark in a nice font with an opacity setting would be fine. This is just too big.