# Watermark question. :)



## OcLove (Jul 23, 2012)

I have a question regarding the placing of a watermark. I've came across a few images that have placement in different spots and ways. I always thought it might look better being placed uniformed either on the bottom right or bottom
Left. But recently came across an image that it was coming off from the side towards the center. As tho it was coming out of a tunnel. Like a cone view. Small (center point) to big outer side point. Not sure if that makes much sense. Question is: does it matter on placement of a watermark? And is it best to somehow place it on the object or person that the picture is of. Since that's mainly the purpose of a watermark? 

Hope I didn't sound too confusing. I apologize. Thanks for for ur time and help


----------



## TCampbell (Jul 23, 2012)

I strongly dislike it when a watermark is prominently displayed in a photo.  To me, a watermark shouldn't look cool or catchy.  It's there for two very basic reasons:  (1) it identifies the maker of the image and serves as a subtle form of copyright (although copyright embedded in the image but not visible is just as valid.)  (2) a professional photographer can use it as a tiny non-obtrusive ad so if a viewer really wants to know "Who took that photo?  I want to hire them!" then they can find you.  I set the opacity pretty low so that it doesn't up-stage the subject in the photo.

Apart from that, a watermark is graffiti.  Look at famous paintings... they didn't graffiti their name across the art.  They scribbled it inconspicuously into a corner and/or sometimes disguised it into the art so that it wouldn't be very noticeable.


----------



## 480sparky (Jul 23, 2012)

I don't batch watermark anything.  Every image I post has a wm placed in a place I feel is inconspicuous, using colors from the image itself.


----------



## Jaemie (Jul 23, 2012)

^^ I completely agree with TCampbell. 

Keep it very small and about 30% opaque and confined to a (preferably) lower corner.


----------



## 50mm (Jul 23, 2012)

Hi Oclove.  I'm a novice, but am catching on real fast to this Lightroom 4 program.  It will let you position the watermark anywhere.  From what I have learned on this forum the smaller the watermark the better.  My Avatar is the how not to do a watermark example, but I'm sure you already knew that.  
Placement hmmmm........ not sure, but anywhere that it doesn't distract from the subject sounds wise.  
Now as far as the tunnel/cone type view watermark, well I really don't know that either.  Blank. Nothing. Sorry.  But it does sound unique and artistic.  
I mainly just wanted to stop in and say Hi.


----------



## 50mm (Jul 23, 2012)

TCampbell said:


> I strongly dislike it when a watermark is prominently displayed in a photo.  To me, a watermark shouldn't look cool or catchy.  It's there for two very basic reasons:  (1) it identifies the maker of the image and serves as a subtle form of copyright (although copyright embedded in the image but not visible is just as valid.)  (2) a professional photographer can use it as a tiny non-obtrusive ad so if a viewer really wants to know "Who took that photo?  I want to hire them!" then they can find you.  I set the opacity pretty low so that it doesn't up-stage the subject in the photo.
> 
> Apart from that, a watermark is graffiti.  Look at famous paintings... they didn't graffiti their name across the art.  They scribbled it inconspicuously into a corner and/or sometimes disguised it into the art so that it wouldn't be very noticeable.



Right on TC!  Couldn't have said it better myself.


----------



## 480sparky (Jul 23, 2012)

TCampbell said:


> .......  Look at famous paintings... they didn't graffiti their name across the art.  They scribbled it inconspicuously into a corner and/or sometimes disguised it into the art so that it wouldn't be very noticeable.




The Great Masters didn't have images thieves on the innernets to contend with.  You really didn't see millions of Mona Lisa's crop up in art galleries in 1506.


----------



## 50mm (Jul 23, 2012)

I think TC and Sparky are in complete agreement with each other from what I read.


----------



## rexbobcat (Jul 23, 2012)

I don't use one. I did a little while back, but it's just another step in my workflow that is tedious and requires me to save yet another copy of my photos. 

It's just a hassle that may or may not have any effect. If I was well known I would use one for vanity reasons but I'm not so....


----------



## KmH (Jul 23, 2012)

A watermark is nearly invisible, and takes some searching to see.

If what you add to an image is readily readable, it's not a watermark, it's a signature, logo, or a copyright statement.


----------



## 480sparky (Jul 23, 2012)

Not all watermarks need to be visible.  And not in the exif data, either.

There are ways to wm an image that only you can discover.


----------



## OcLove (Jul 23, 2012)

HOPE THIS WORKS TO REMOVE IT. IN CASE IT DOESN'T. THIS IS NOT MY WORK
Here's the link. Hopefully it works. If not, then I tried.


----------



## rexbobcat (Jul 23, 2012)

480sparky said:
			
		

> Not all watermarks need to be visible.  And not in the exif data, either.
> 
> There are ways to wm an image that only you can discover.



But then what's the point...


----------



## 480sparky (Jul 23, 2012)

rexbobcat said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




If they're gonna steal it, they'll steal it with or without a visible wm.  Proving the image is yours right in front of them is priceless.


----------



## MTVision (Jul 23, 2012)

OcLove said:
			
		

> This ISN'T My work, but the example I was trying to describe and how they placed it purposely I'm sure a tiny but on his head for the reason it's there



FYI: You should edit your post to erase the photo and just post the link to it - it's against forum rules to post another's work. 

I have a photographer friend who puts their logo (not a watermark) on all her photos online. It's a small little logo and she places it in different spots everytime - usually near the subjects head so that the logo cannot be cropped out. If you are trying to make it so people can't just cut it out and print the picture then you will have to determine the place for every image. If you just want your name on your images then placement doesn't really matter IMO.


----------



## o hey tyler (Jul 23, 2012)

OcLove said:


> This ISN'T My work, but the example I was trying to describe and how they placed it purposely I'm sure a tiny but on his head for the reason it's there



That is a truly horrendous watermark.


----------



## MTVision (Jul 23, 2012)

o hey tyler said:
			
		

> That is a truly horrendous watermark.



No taste. That watermark is the best one I've ever seen!!!!


----------



## 480sparky (Jul 23, 2012)

MTVision said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## MTVision (Jul 23, 2012)

That's even better!


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Jul 23, 2012)

OcLove said:


> This ISN'T My work, but the example I was trying to describe and how they placed it purposely I'm sure a tiny but on his head for the reason it's there



Yeah, that's absolutely hideous. I don't even see the picture.


----------



## OcLove (Jul 23, 2012)

How do  I edit it. I can't delete it. I tried to delete post and it doesn't seem to work. I'm coming off of my phone


----------



## OcLove (Jul 23, 2012)

I would of hit posted the link but it was off a friend of mine friend on FB. I thought of just posting the link but wasn't sure if it would just be private and unable to view anything. Hich would be pointless to post the link. I thought about that tho. Idk how to remove. :-/


----------



## HughGuessWho (Jul 23, 2012)

OcLove said:
			
		

> I would of hit posted the link but it was off a friend of mine friend on FB. I thought of just posting the link but wasn't sure if it would just be private and unable to view anything. Hich would be pointless to post the link. I thought about that tho. Idk how to remove. :-/



Go to the original post, click edit, delete the picture and add a link to the pucture


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 23, 2012)

OcLove said:


> This ISN'T My work, but the example I was trying to describe and how they placed it purposely I'm sure a tiny but on his head for the reason it's there



That's ridiculous! Really distracts from the photo.


----------



## OcLove (Jul 23, 2012)

Grrrrrrr I can't remove it. Ugh. Do I need to just delete this whole feed ?


----------



## KmH (Jul 23, 2012)

OcLove said:


> Grrrrrrr I can't remove it. Ugh. Do I need to just delete this whole feed ?


I've done it for you.

For future reference - click on *Edit > Go Advanced* and  then scroll down under the text box until you see *Manage Attachments*. Click on *Manage Attachments*. Look at the bottom of the dialog box that pops up and you will see the image you posted. Hover your cursor over the upper right corner of the gray box the attachment is in to reveal a black *x*. Click on the x to delete the attached photo.


----------



## OcLove (Jul 23, 2012)

There isn't those features on my iPhone. Thats how I come on here.


----------



## Jaemie (Jul 23, 2012)

[MEME]le facepalm[/MEME]


----------



## MTVision (Jul 23, 2012)

OcLove said:
			
		

> There isn't those features on my iPhone. Thats how I come on here.



If you slide your finger over your name in the bluish bar above the message you want to edit - options will show up - share, report, edit, quote.


----------



## irishguy0224 (Jul 27, 2012)

i put a small WM on all my work that is on the internet. Depending on where the work is going will depend where and how big my WM is going to be. I have had WAY to many people crop out past WM's and never give me any credit for the picture. Not that it is a HUGE deal to some, but if i put in work to take pictures of something and edit it etc. I want some credit. 

For instance, if i am at a car show, taking 100's of pictures and posting them on a forum for people to see and use for their facebook's or whatever, i will put a WM somewhere in there (not obvious) where they can't crop it out. if it is a sunset or something, just a small one in the bottom right. Wedding, engagement etc for hire, i won't put one on for the customers use, but i will put one on for the internet viewing so people can't steal them on me. 

Hope that makes sense.


----------



## Mogul (Aug 6, 2012)

I am new to this forum, but I have a question regarding watermarks.  If I watermark a photo, should I flatten the image to permanently imbed the watermark, save and post the flattened image to make theft difficult?  I know it's not impossible but it seems more difficult to retouch an integral part of the photo than to open it and simply remove a layer.


----------



## rexbobcat (Aug 15, 2012)

You can't post an unflattened image as a format that the web recognizes...ever...under any circumstances.

You have to flatten the image to save it as a normal image format ( PNG, JPEG, etc...)


----------



## cgipson1 (Aug 15, 2012)

I just noticed that a comment I made earlier was deleted.. . apparently by MOD's? I am wondering why.. since it was not rude... or scathing, or in any way bad. I merely answered the question!


----------



## o hey tyler (Aug 15, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> I just noticed that a comment I made earlier was deleted.. . apparently by MOD's? I am wondering why.. since it was not rude... or scathing, or in any way bad. I merely answered the question!



Your comment, Bynx's comment, and also Mogul's comment was deleted because they were either rude or inflammatory. Or in Mogul's case, it was directly relating to Bynx's rude assertion. 

Yes, I saw your comment. Yes it was rude. And yes, it was also kind of ironic for you to post something so heavily against watermarks since you yourself use one... At least on 3/5 photos on your flickr front page. 

You generally have a pattern of saying rude, or condescending things, putting an exclamation point after it, and then a smilie face emoticon to somehow suggest that your comment was "light hearted" and "no offense meant." It's not really that tough to see past it, IMO. 

Just giving you a heads up!


----------



## jowensphoto (Aug 16, 2012)

I have recently began placing a "watermark" on my photos. One of my flickr photos was stolen about 100 times, and I really don't have the time to report all those copyright vios to various websites. 

Placing a logo, watermark, or copyright notice in the lower corner, for my reason at least, seems pointless. If someone really wants to steal a photo, they're going to do it, but that placement makes it way too easy for the mark to be cropped out.


----------



## cgipson1 (Aug 16, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > I just noticed that a comment I made earlier was deleted.. . apparently by MOD's? I am wondering why.. since it was not rude... or scathing, or in any way bad. I merely answered the question!
> ...


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Aug 16, 2012)

Watermarks should be subtle. However, they shouldn't be "plain," which many users here are implying. Artists work is very different from photography work. Artists simply use a very indistinguishable script integrated into the piece because the style of their work identifies themselves enough that they don't need exclusive identification.

In other words, when you see a piece by van gogh, you know it's van gogh without having to ask any questions as to who painted it. Photography is a little bit different. You can't tell who took a photograph unless there is some way to identify the photographer. Some people do this through Exif, I choose to do it though a watermark or "logo."

Not only do I use a watermark, it's simple, and easy to look at... along with well presented and easy to read. O Hey Tyler's watermark and logo is like this also. There is nothing wrong or cheesy in doing this. It is the single most important marketing tool you have. You need something that identifies you, that sticks in a viewers head and will make them remember you the next time they need photos.

I chose an expensive route for my watermark. The font in my "watermark/logo" is a $600.00+ font package, depending on where you get it from. However, I can say that there aren't many other people out there who have their logo in that font. It exclusively identifies me and my work, when it is seen. Where as, a million photographers use Edwardian Script and Scriptina as their watermark font thinking that they are setting themselves apart from others, and really they blend in worse than someone who uses Times or Arial.


----------



## o hey tyler (Aug 16, 2012)

AaronLLockhart said:


> Not only do I use a watermark, it's simple, and easy to look at... along with well presented and easy to read. O Hey Tyler's watermark and logo is like this also. There is nothing wrong or cheesy in doing this. It is the single most important marketing tool you have. You need something that identifies you, that sticks in a viewers head and will make them remember you the next time they need photos.
> 
> I chose an expensive route for my watermark. The font in my "watermark/logo" is a $600.00+ font package, depending on where you get it from. However, I can say that there aren't many other people out there who have their logo in that font. It exclusively identifies me and my work, when it is seen. Where as, a million photographers use Edwardian Script and Scriptina as their watermark font thinking that they are setting themselves apart from others, and really they blend in worse than someone who uses Times or Arial.



What font is used in your WM/Logo? I believe mine is Gotham (which is a damn sexy font IMO).


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Aug 16, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> AaronLLockhart said:
> 
> 
> > Not only do I use a watermark, it's simple, and easy to look at... along with well presented and easy to read. O Hey Tyler's watermark and logo is like this also. There is nothing wrong or cheesy in doing this. It is the single most important marketing tool you have. You need something that identifies you, that sticks in a viewers head and will make them remember you the next time they need photos.
> ...



Gotham is an awesome font!

Precious Sans is mine


----------



## o hey tyler (Aug 16, 2012)

AaronLLockhart said:


> Gotham is an awesome font!
> 
> Precious Sans is mine



I like the look of Precious Sans. Nice and simple, easy to read, while having some characteristics which separate it. :thumbup:

Do you ever go to FontSquirrel.com? I frickin' love that site.


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Aug 16, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> AaronLLockhart said:
> 
> 
> > Gotham is an awesome font!
> ...



Haha, the entire thing that sold me on Precious Sans was the lowercase "g." hahaha. 

Anyway, a few people have always directed me to FontSquirrel, but I have never actually looked into it. I'm on it right now digging around. Good website


----------



## o hey tyler (Aug 16, 2012)

AaronLLockhart said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> > AaronLLockhart said:
> ...



Yeah dude! Font squirrel is great. Wonderful resource for designers and specifically web designers with the @fontface styling.


----------

