Beginner To Watermark or not?

[GreedySmurf]

I’m still a beginner, and while I want to improve my photography I have no aspirations to become a professional. Talented Amateur maybe?

My wife has encouraged me to put a watermark on my photos I’ve thus far put on Flickr/etc, but given my stage in still learning, I am more than a little of the thought that it would make me look like a pretentious flog! Absolutely not to say watermarks in general equate to that, I absolutely understand their value. So I suppose what I’m asking is if you use Watermarks, at what point did you start using them? Is it worthwhile for someone still in the early stages of learning this hobby to use them?

 

[Jannyfox]

Worthwhile? - probably not. Everyone can tell you they're easily removed. Can they make you look like a pretentious git? - absolutely. Can they detract from the image itself? - definitely. Should you use one? - if you want to just mark your images as yours why not something small and discreet?

 

[Phrasemaker]

You can add copyright information to Photoshop images and notify users that an image is copyright protected via a digital watermark. The watermark—a digital code added as noise to the image—is virtually imperceptible to the human eye. The Digimarc watermark is durable in both digital and printed forms, surviving typical image edits and file format conversions.

Nothing readily visible on your images if you are worried about looking pretentious using a Digimarc watermark. That's providing you have the use of Photoshop.

 

[Kodiak Qc]

Everyone can tell you they're easily removed. Can they make you look like a pretentious git? - absolutely. Can they detract from the image itself? - definitely. Should you use one? - if you want to just mark your images as yours why not something small and discreet?

Good comments … except…

Worthwhile? - probably not

If it is meant to protect your copyright, it is useless
because easily removed but to inform the viewer it
is a good way.

 

[PhilH04]

You can add copyright information to Photoshop images and notify users that an image is copyright protected via a digital watermark. The watermark—a digital code added as noise to the image—is virtually imperceptible to the human eye. The Digimarc watermark is durable in both digital and printed forms, surviving typical image edits and file format conversions.

Nothing readily visible on your images if you are worried about looking pretentious using a Digimarc watermark. That's providing you have the use of Photoshop.

Digimark is fine and good but probably overkill in this situation, plus it costs you $99.00 per year at its most basic level.

Treat a visual watermark as your signature on an image, even plastered across the image they can be removed... (Wasn't content aware developed to remove watermarks) No it is not pretentious, as a signature you are telling people who authored the image.

 

[john.margetts]

My solution to interweb image security is to never post any image that has any commercial potential. The images that I do post have a 'watermark' so people know they are mine but as far as nefarious folk are concerned, people are welcome to them.

 

[ah5168]

I had quiet a few images stolen and used without my consent before I started watermarking, now I watermark them it's much less of a problem. While they are easily removed it highlights to people that the images are copyright and this stops a lot of indiscriminate use.

 

[viewfromthenorth]

Watermarks can be removed if someone really wants to. I put them on initially to stop unauthorised access of my urbex pictures (there was quite a lot of unauthorised usage by the press a few years ago), but since then it’s more a case of showing that they are mine by having the name of my website in the watermark. In an age of social media sharing, I’m more interested in people knowing where shared images came from than protecting against theft.

Is it worth it for you? I don’t know, but In an age where billions of images are shared online every month, is there something in your photographs that is unique, or you want to try and protect, or are you trying to standout and promote your work / drive people to a website?

 

[DG Phototraining]

So I suppose what I’m asking is if you use Watermarks, at what point did you start using them? Is it worthwhile for someone still in the early stages of learning this hobby to use them?

I started to use them once I wanted people to know they were mine and that's primarily as a marketing tool rather than 'protection'. I didn't use them at all for many years

As viewfromthenorth says - I've no idea if its worth it to you as I don't know if you have an aim for people knowing about you or not, but it can't hurt really (unless it cover 90% of the image lol) so why not add one - even if only to appease your wife

Dave

 

[Eloise]

Worthwhile? - probably not. […] Should you use one? - if you want to just mark your images as yours why not something small and discreet?

This is probably said already in different ways... but while a watermark is easily removed, it can be useful as a method to say to someone “you knew this image was copyrighted and not for general / free use”.

 

[jondc]

For me it depends on where and why I am posting the image. On Flickr I just use the inbuilt notification. On FB personal I don't bother but some of the photo FB sites I post to I do, as I have had a few images "borrowed" with one person taking credit on a particular image of mine.

 

[Slyelessar]

I don’t personally use watermarks anymore. when I first started it was a worry about photo theft, but there is definitely a pretentious element when you see them. They do detract from the image, especially if they are a lot larger than subtlety at the bottom and barely visible.

They aren’t really needed on a forum where everyone can see your user name already. However, it someone feels more comfortable using them then fairy muffski.

 

[droj]

As they are mostly used, they are an innocuous form of anal fantasy. For those who like rubbing their own arses.

Just ask yourself how on earth a 'watermark' can improve your photographs? You want to share your best visions with the world and hopefully find accord with certain viewers - if your images are worth anything, will you achieve that by besmirching them with a crude trademark? But then I suppose that it all depends on what cultural level you operate?

 

[viewfromthenorth]

As they are mostly used, they are an innocuous form of anal fantasy. For those who like rubbing their own arses.

Just ask yourself how on earth a 'watermark' can improve your photographs? You want to share your best visions with the world and hopefully find accord with certain viewers - if your images are worth anything, will you achieve that by besmirching them with a crude trademark? But then I suppose that it all depends on what cultural level you operate?

I’ll bite.....

I personally don’t use watermarks to improve an image, that really isn’t the point. I share my best visions of the world at my exhibitions and in my books, where of course my name is on the cover and on the door (so to speak).

Does having a watermark stop them being stolen? Hell no, but they can be a deterrent in certain circumstances. I originally started doing so due to the annoying tendency of the press a few years back to help themselves to urbex images on the web and publish them without reward or recognition whilst hiding behind a ‘public interest’ argument. I can’t prove it but I had nothing used without permission during that time, but I did have one paper approach me for their use. As my images are often of places that are inaccessible or have since disappeared, they have proved to have some commercial value (in subsequent sales for use in magazines, books, print sales, promotional material, etc) so it’s worth me watermarking them.

But I would agree with the general tone of your comment. I’ve seen some large, clumsy watermarks on unremarkable images of popular subjects (normally on Flickr, etc) that quite frankly have got little commercial value and nil chance of being used without permission.

 

[Scirocco_09]

I’m still a beginner, and while I want to improve my photography I have no aspirations to become a professional. Talented Amateur maybe?

My wife has encouraged me to put a watermark on my photos I’ve thus far put on Flickr/etc, but given my stage in still learning, I am more than a little of the thought that it would make me look like a pretentious flog! Absolutely not to say watermarks in general equate to that, I absolutely understand their value. So I suppose what I’m asking is if you use Watermarks, at what point did you start using them? Is it worthwhile for someone still in the early stages of learning this hobby to use them?

Personally I regret using one at an early stage. Being honest, unless you're very gifted your early work probably won't be very good, so using a watermark on something unlikely to be stolen is a waste of time and looks daft. Once established is a different matter though, a discreet watermark can remind someone an image is yours and not to be stolen, even if they can be removed or cropped out quite easily

 

[droj]

It partly depends on what your PURPOSE is. There's a huge amount of crappy stock photography (just check out Alamy) on-line with watermarks all over it. Well at least there it has some commercial purpose.

It seems to me that a lot of individuals who post watermarked images on-line, though, are amateurs who've scarcely made a penny from photography in their lives, but have a fantasy about being 'professional', and feel that a watermark helps to portray themselves as such. And it often looks like a style statement, sometimes along with mock-mounting and drop-shadows. If your pictures are any good then they shouldn't need 'styling'. We're photographers, not hairdressers.

So if you're out and out commercial, do what you like if you feel that it might brand your imagery or protect it a bit, but if you're just wanting to share your images on the internet and want them to be admired as pictures, leave it off - it's going to be a misplaced vanity exercise that makes it harder for others to see your pictures as they ought to be seen.

 

[Ganton Gunner]

i use watermarks on a lot of my pictures but not for any safety reasons.
i shoot air rifle competitions local, European and World and i shoot the camera also while there.
my pictures go up in the various shooting communities i frequent and my pictures are used on facebook all over the world by shooters from all over the world.
for me i do it for self pride and it helps the other shooters from around the world remember who i am .
it is nice when i get people from America, Australia, Lithuania and most other countries using my pictures of them as their main FB pics.
sometimes the watermarks are on my other pictures but that's only if i forget to turn it off before exporting.
think of me as you wish but that is my reasons and i do not hide it but as for safety etc, they serve no purpose at all.

 

[sirch]

I was firmly in the anti camp until a year or so ago when I shared some photos with a club of which I am a member and one of the other members put one of my photos up on their facebook and started getting some "nice photo" comments aimed at her, not me. Now I don't mind sharing and if she had asked I would have said yes but it irritated a bit that she didn't ask and didn't credit me for taking the photo. I genuinely think it was an oversight, nothing malicious and there was no way any money would ever be involved, however since then, in some circumstances I have just put my name on some photos I share, just as a gentle reminder that some time and effort went into taking and processing the photos. That said I generally don’t bother.

 

[dwrcymru]

I was firmly in the anti camp until a year or so ago when I shared some photos with a club of which I am a member and one of the other members put one of my photos up on their facebook and started getting some "nice photo" comments aimed at her, not me. Now I don't mind sharing and if she had asked I would have said yes but it irritated a bit that she didn't ask and didn't credit me for taking the photo. I genuinely think it was an oversight, nothing malicious and there was no way any money would ever be involved, however since then, in some circumstances I have just put my name on some photos I share, just as a gentle reminder that some time and effort went into taking and processing the photos. That said I generally don’t bother.

If people want to steal your photos they will, watermarks don't prevent it from happening. Put up a low resolution version of the photos, but then I don't even bother doing that.

 

[sirch]

If people want to steal your photos they will, watermarks don't prevent it from happening. Put up a low resolution version of the photos, but then I don't even bother doing that.

That wasn't really the point I was making

 

[Joseph Nott]

The most interesting part of the whole watermarking debate is that I've found, to an almost exact certainty, that it's only photographers who don't like, or even notice watermarks

 

[TimHughes]

I recently started with pixsy and was quite surprised by all the matches found. I’ve since moved to sharing low resolution online. I’d recommend pixsy if you are worried about pics being copied.

 

[rosess]

I believe that there is the disadvantage of using a watermark on our photographs. It introduces a perturbing visual element that doesn't belong in an image. But while we consider the query, what is the purpose of a watermark? there are several benefits to watermarking photos that we found, we can't ignore them.Such as the free advertising, the sense of satisfaction etc.