# To watermark or not to watermark?



## naaaach (Jan 8, 2011)

That is the question. I've been sifting through a few online galleries and portfolios of both professional and amateur photographers. Some photographers have huge, obnoxious watermarks in every single photo. Some photographers have small text off to one corner. Some have a small (almost unnoticeable) logo. Some don't include watermarks at all.

Being an amateur photographer, what's with the watermarks? Do they serve any other purpose besides saying "This photo is mine."?

What's the standard for watermarks? I'm in the process of developing an online portfolio and none of my photos are watermarked, so I'm not sure which way I should go.

Thanks a ton.


----------



## tirediron (Jan 8, 2011)

There is no standard for watermarks.  It's whatever the person wants.  I think the majority of watermarks/logos on images are for one of two reasons:  1)  Because the person thinks their images are so good that they're immediately going to be stolen if published, and/or 2) because they think it will make them look like a professional.

IMO, the ideal watermark is one which identifies the photographer but doesn't interfere with the viewing of the image.


----------



## naaaach (Jan 8, 2011)

tirediron said:


> There is no standard for watermarks.  It's whatever the person wants.  I think the majority of watermarks/logos on images are for one of two reasons:  1)  Because the person thinks their images are so good that they're immediately going to be stolen if published, and/or 2) because they think it will make them look like a professional.
> 
> IMO, the ideal watermark is one which identifies the photographer but doesn't interfere with the viewing of the image.



Yeah, If I were to watermark all my photos, I would go for something along these lines. They're there, but they don't interfere. Maybe it COULD be distracting for some, but what are your thoughts?


----------



## Corbin Lane (Jan 8, 2011)

For me, if they're for an event such as a wedding or a birthday that I was hired for, I will watermark to prevent them from just ripping them from the site and printing them off. I'm here for a profit and I had an encounter with someone who did such thing and effed me over (I learned from it!)

If they're just pictures that I take while walking around town or hiking, then I'll leave them be and let everyone view them in their entirety.

remember this though, if someone _really_ wants your image. *They will get it!* (if they're tech savvy). It's a never ending battle and technology is winning.


----------



## 3bayjunkie (Jan 8, 2011)

hey can someone beer me a watermark?


----------



## Light Artisan (Jan 8, 2011)

There's really no right or wrong, just personal preference in what you want to accomplish. The big annoying ones aren't to display work, they are to keep people from steeling their work.

I struggled with this for a while and ended up going with this:




Light Artisan 5751 by Light Artisan Photography, on Flickr


----------



## Jeatley (Jan 8, 2011)

I watermark everything just for the simple reason to get my name out in the world.  I want people to know my shots.


----------



## altitude604 (Jan 8, 2011)

if it's low res stuff (facebook etc) i don't bother because if it's going to be stolen, all they can do is maybe make a postcard from it. i watermark all my jetphotos.net and deviantart stuff as it's higer res and if someone thinks it's good and jacks it... i want my name on it.

i've seen way too many horrible watermarks that are ugly as sin and are very distracting from the image. as tirediron said, they shouldn't interfere.


----------



## naaaach (Jan 9, 2011)

altitude604 said:


> if it's low res stuff (facebook etc) i don't bother because if it's going to be stolen, all they can do is maybe make a postcard from it. i watermark all my jetphotos.net and deviantart stuff as it's higer res and if someone thinks it's good and jacks it... i want my name on it.
> 
> i've seen way too many horrible watermarks that are ugly as sin and are very distracting from the image. as tirediron said, they shouldn't interfere.



That's the thing...if I put it up online I don't just want people to be printing off photos, put it up on a wall, and say they took it. I'll probably never know but the thought of that annoys me. What if the photos on my website are restricted to a certain size, say, only 800px across? Still printable but not really...


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jan 9, 2011)

Chances are, you're watermark could be very easily edited/cropped/cloned out, and then printed and hung on a wall. Why worry about it?


----------



## David Dvir (Jan 9, 2011)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> Chances are, you're watermark could be very easily edited/cropped/cloned out, and then printed and hung on a wall. Why worry about it?



I don't watermark for that reason.  I'm not against them entirely, but I feel like it really depends on where you're putting your images.  If they're on your own website, it makes no sense to watermark them.  If they're on your facebook or flickr, same goes in my opinion.  People already know who's photographs they're looking at so why make them look at a watermark too.  I do however feel like a watermark can be a good idea say when you're putting your photos up somewhere on the web where it's less obvious where they are coming from, and in that instance, a nice, nearly invisible, faded out watermark in the corner somewhere is appropriate. 

Putting one of those big nasty watermarks on your photo so that 1 in 1000 people don't steal it just isn't worth it in my opinion.  I see a photo with a ridiculous watermark and I lose any possible respect for the photographer


----------



## scotch59 (Jan 9, 2011)

I can't stand those big obnoxious "in your face" watermarks, they drive me crazy. But theres nothing wrong with  a nice left/right hand corner little watermark.  It basically protects your image, so if it gets posted anywhere (which is always good publicity) whoever views it knows the original source. since I post my images on Flickr, Tumblr and Bloggr I always add a small left hand corner watermark, so that if someone likes the image they can find my portfolio and well.. good traffing method, And I would not consider myself professional by any means


----------



## KmH (Jan 9, 2011)

scotch59 said:


> ... But theres nothing wrong with a nice left/right hand corner little watermark. It basically protects your image, so if it gets posted anywhere (which is always good publicity) whoever views it knows the original source.


 As mentioned those nice liitle in-the-corner watermarks are easily cropped away. You then actually get zero publicity, and the thief can claim the photo as their own.

There is one, and only one, sure way to keep people from stealing any of your photos off the Internet. Don't put them on the Internet in the first place.


----------



## Syco (Jan 9, 2011)

A watermark gives everyone the illusion that your images are worth watermarking.


----------



## xjoewhitex (Jan 9, 2011)

So in all reality if someone wants to steal one of your images and claim it as their own its going to happen, watermark or not. I watermark most of mine, unless they are just silly pictures I post onto facebook. Main reason, well thats how I advertise I haven't been doing this very long so im not that well known, and as my stamp slowly feeds out on facebook, Modelmayhem, etc the more business I get.


----------



## New Hampshire (Jan 9, 2011)

I am with those who think big obnoxious watermarks do more to ruin a photo in my eyes than anything.  I could be looking at the most stunning and gorgeous landscape, one to top Ansel Adams, but if I see this massive white lettered watermark in the corner I just keep seeing my eye drawn to the hideousness of it and lose interest.  I do not mind small, almost transparent watermarks that blends in but yet is still there.  Sort of like painters who sign their initials nice and small in the corner of a piece of their work.  But in this day and age a little work could easily remove any watermark, so those worried about having their image stolen seems a bit odd.  Those looking to get their name out there...ok, I could get that.  Just please keep it understated and unobtrusive.  Sometimes I roll my eyes at some people who watermark their images.  For instance, I know a guy who usees his P&S camera to take snapshots of the hikes he goes on.  Every one is watermarked, and I don't understand why.  We are not talking about well thought out, artistic photos.  We are talking about simple snapshots to document his trips.  Yet he puts this massive white (and thus UGLY) watermark on his images as if he is afraid someone is going to steal his images.  Doesn't make much sense to me...but then again neither does the guy. :lmao:

Brian


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jan 9, 2011)

A watermark and a signature are 2 different things.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 9, 2011)

New Hampshire said:


> I am with those who think big obnoxious watermarks do more to ruin a photo in my eyes than anything.  I could be looking at the most stunning and gorgeous landscape, one to top Ansel Adams, but if I see this massive white lettered watermark in the corner I just keep seeing my eye drawn to the hideousness of it and lose interest.  I do not mind small, almost transparent watermarks that blends in but yet is still there.  Sort of like painters who sign their initials nice and small in the corner of a piece of their work.  But in this day and age a little work could easily remove any watermark, so those worried about having their image stolen seems a bit odd.  Those looking to get their name out there...ok, I could get that.  Just please keep it understated and unobtrusive.  Sometimes I roll my eyes at some people who watermark their images.  For instance, I know a guy who usees his P&S camera to take snapshots of the hikes he goes on.  Every one is watermarked, and I don't understand why.  We are not talking about well thought out, artistic photos.  We are talking about simple snapshots to document his trips.  Yet he puts this massive white (and thus UGLY) watermark on his images as if he is afraid someone is going to steal his images.  Doesn't make much sense to me...but then again neither does the guy. :lmao:
> 
> Brian



^^^Agreed, Brian.
I like HUGE, CAN'T MISS IT watermarks, with the shooter's name and then the word PHOTOGRAPHY at the end.


----------



## naaaach (Jan 9, 2011)

Hahaha, thanks for all the responses. So the general consensus is that I should either keep it small or just leave out a watermark. Unless it's for business (buying / sampling photos, etc). So if I put a photo up for my website, and let's say I did use a watermark...would something like this be okay?







Looking at it again, actually, it's still really annoying, but maybe that's just cus I put it there. Not sure how many people automatically catch on to the watermark when looking at the photo. Hm, perhaps I just shouldn't watermark at all...


----------



## scotch59 (Jan 9, 2011)

> Looking at it again, actually, it's still really annoying, but maybe that's just cus I put it there. Not sure how many people automatically catch on to the watermark when looking at the photo. Hm, perhaps I just shouldn't watermark at all...


No thats fine size, dosen't take all the attention away from the photo at all, but then again like everyone else in this thread has mentioned it can be easily cropped, but thats hard to avoid. The only time a huge centered watermark would be called for is if you were shooting a sporting event, Ie. triathalon, bike race, equestrian competition etc... where people are aware that you are the photographer for that event and they will pay to have your photos of them printed, then thats when those large centered watermarks come into place.

and IMO it really doesn't hurt to have a small cornered watermark if someone is really going to try and steal your photo.. they will, watermarked or not. it just adds a small bit of protection from that, unless of course its a large photo ruining one


----------



## JG_Coleman (Jan 9, 2011)

All this seems like much ado about nothing, really.

It's just a watermark.  Use one, don't use one... it's really pretty trivial.

As far as size/transparency/placement and everyone's two cents about the "perfect" watermark, it just seems like one of things where opinions are endless but real-world importance is rather minimal.  Sort of like if a roomful of people were asked to critique the colors of "Wild Berry" Skittles... everyone can form an opinion, but it really doesn't matter all that much in the end.

I, personally, have never been turned off of an image by the watermark... with exception of those translucent watermarks that are literally _centered_ on top of the image.  And in the rare cases where you find that, it's usually the work of a stock agency that has a legitimate reason for making their images very, very difficult to steal.

As far as watermarks in the corner of the image, it doesn't really matter all that much whether it occupies 2% or 10% of the corner.  It'll do the job, and people who are actually interested in your photograph will just ignore it.  Hopefully, they'll like the photograph enough that they want to buy a copy which doesn't include the mark.

There should really be only a minimal fear of "turning off" viewers due to a watermark.  The ordinary viewer is very familiar with the customary watermark, and I'm sure the vast majority look right past it.  At least one person commented in this thread that watermarks practically destroy a photograph.  Nonsense.  A bad photograph destroys a photograph... a watermark just ensures that it can't be looked at without people knowing _you _took it.  I'd wager that very few people turn away from exceptional photographs merely because they've got a watermark in the corner.

It seems like others on this thread are hopelessly addicted to being humble and seem to dislike watermarks on the ground that they represent a person "thinking their photographs are _worth _watermarking".  Look, if it's worthwhile to you and you want to watermark it, knock yourself out... you don't automatically become a head-swelled fool just because you want to watermark your work.  Unless you go seriously crazy with the size of your watermark, it will likely have a very minimal impact upon your viewing audience except for getting your name out there.


----------



## white (Jan 9, 2011)

If you're concerned about people ripping your work, don't post large files. Obviously that doesn't stop them from posting it somewhere else online, but that's not something you can control anyway.

If you're irrationally paranoid someone is going to steal your incredible work, don't post it online.

I don't worry about this sort of thing personally. Doesn't matter if people rip my stuff -- they have small files, and I have the physical negatives, work prints, final prints, ad nauseum.


----------



## Drake (Jan 9, 2011)

Yeah, watermarks might be often easy to clone out by other photographers, but not everyone is a photographer. Not everyone has photoshop or similar software, and not everyone knows how to use it properly to erase something and not ruin the photo. I suppose most people really can be stopped that way from saying a photo is theirs.

But I don't watermark my photos at all. I don't think my photos are good enough to be stolen and actually used for something important. Not that I don't like my work. I am actually very proud of some of my shots. Still, I don't think many people would steal my photos. And even if they do, then what? I'm just an amateur, not making any money as a photographer. I put a lot of effort into making my photos worth seeing. Why the hell would I want to spoil it with a hideous logo, or even some text.

And really, when I see a good photo with a watermark, then ok, I don't like it, but there must be a good reason for someone to do it. But more often I see watermarks on photos that are not exactly spectacular. And what would I do with it even if I wanted to steal it? Most of the photos are 600 or 800 by something pixels. Do they expect me to print post stamps out of those?


----------



## KmH (Jan 9, 2011)

naaaach said:


> Looking at it again, actually, it's still really annoying, but maybe that's just cus I put it there. Not sure how many people automatically catch on to the watermark when looking at the photo. Hm, perhaps I just shouldn't watermark at all...


What watermark?

Lasso tool, content aware fill, it was gone in about 7 seconds total editing time. Cropping the bottom of the photo would have been quicker and easier. Plus 4 or 5 other ways could have been used to get rid of what actually was a logo, not a watermark.


----------



## JoshC. (Jan 9, 2011)

Not exactly related, but how do you guys make a water mark?  I have one in my mind but no idea on how to create it...


----------



## Light Artisan (Jan 9, 2011)

I always create my artwork in Illustrator so it can be sized to whatever I need. After that I usually bring it into Photoshop.

I use Mogrify in Lightroom to add borders and the logo, not sure what I'll do now with Nikon Capture NX2 though.


----------



## MohaimenK (Jan 9, 2011)

i've stopped now. I just upload the images small so they can't be enlarged and stolen. my new website will have all watermarks removed.


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 9, 2011)

'Identification' watermarks/logos are one thing, and I don't mind them.

'Theft Prevention' watermarks though, to be effective they pretty much make the picture un-viewable.  The way I see it (and others have mentioned), if you don't want it stolen, don't make it available.


Personally, I don't worry about people stealing my work.  Yeah, I know I probably should, but I don't.  I upload almost everything at full size to Flickr, and it's actually worked as a cheap back-up for me a few times.


----------



## naaaach (Jan 9, 2011)

O|||||||O said:


> 'Identification' watermarks/logos are one thing, and I don't mind them.
> 
> 'Theft Prevention' watermarks though, to be effective they pretty much make the picture un-viewable.  The way I see it (and others have mentioned), if you don't want it stolen, don't make it available.
> 
> ...



Understood. I've decided not to go through all my photos and stamp them. But I'll keep my resolution on-line to a certain limit. Thanks for all the input!


----------

