# Beginner question...need help with logo / watermark.



## sarahburge (Mar 12, 2010)

I am just getting my photography business off the ground. And I was wondering if I should have my logo printed on my photos? Or is it just a personal preference thing? I don't want my clients to take them to Wal-mart or Walgreens and copy them. But I don't want to distract from the image either. Also, if I have proofs printed in a portfolio (I was thinking about using Mpix), should I watermark those? All of these minor details are quite overwhelming! Any help would be appreciated!


----------



## Big Mike (Mar 12, 2010)

Welcome to the forum.

There really isn't a right or wrong here, you just have to find what works for you and what is comfortable.  This is a common concern though, so you should be able to dig up some previous conversation about it.

I think the first issue is ignorance.  Most people (public) are ignorant of copyright laws/rules.  They figure that there is nothing wrong with scanning/copying anything they get their hands on.  Of course, unless you give them permission/rights to make copies of the photos you create, it would be illegal for them to make copies.  But if they don't know that, it's hard to enforce.

Luckily, places like Wal-mart & Walgreens have been sued before, so they usually tell their front line employees not to scan photos that look professional etc.  Of course, you can't always count on employees who make close to minimum wage.  

So yes, putting a watermark on the images is one way to prevent illegal copying.  It does detract from the image, but that's just how it goes.  Some photographers use small, out of the way watermarks, but some people will just crop that off.  

Another method is to mark the back of the photo.  Some Pro photo papers already have this.  My lab uses Kodak Professional paper and it has copyright messages and 'Do not Copy' already written on the back.  You could get a stamp or stickers and add the same, or just use a marker etc.  It won't stop people who are determined to do it, but it does let them know about it...which should prevent honest people from doing it unknowingly.  

Proof books etc. are yet another option.  Having the images printed up into a magazine type book, with relatively small images, would let people see them, and it would be harder to scan & steal.  


Some photographers give small resolution files as proofs.  On one hand, this makes sense because most people are very digital these days.  One problem is that people might not know the difference between high & low resolution and they may try to print the images anyway...and then they look bad, it reflects poorly on you, probably without you even knowing about it.  
That's why it's my philosophy that if I'm going to give a client digital files...they will have to pay for them and they will be high resolution, print ready files.  

Another method (what I do) is to use on-line proofing & ordering.  I have an application (Photocart) on my website.  I create a gallery for the clients where they can view & order the images.  They are somewhat protected but anything that appears on a screen can be captured.  I could also add a watermark, but what I do is just keep the images relatively small.  There is a big difference between the resolution needed for screen, and what is needed for good quality prints.  So even if they did steal the images from my site with a screen capture, they files wouldn't be much good for making prints.


----------



## burstintoflame81 (Mar 12, 2010)

You can also just put a big transparent "PROOF" across the image. Turn the opacity down really low, so it doesn't make the picture unable to be seen, but also makes it not nice looking if you were to copy it and hang it on the wall. This same technique works well if you use am overlay pattern running at a 45 degree across the picture. You can then adjust the size you feel looks least intrusive. Then you can create a mask and paint black over the people in the picture, so that your client can see the quality but everything in the background etc. has a very light "Proof" or "© Joe Schmo" over it. So they can't print it for any significant use because it would look terrible, not to mention tacky.

Personally I just like the good old fashioned "PROOF" across the dead center of pic. It looks more professional I think.


----------



## burstintoflame81 (Mar 12, 2010)

whoops, I don't think I addressed images that you actually sell not just proods. There really isn't much you can do about people breaking the law unless you catch them. I would just make it very clear up front. Maybe make them sign an acknowledgement about the copyrights of the images. The more times you tell them and make sure they are aware of copyright laws, the easier it becomes for you to sue them later on should need be. Make sure they know that even copying images for some relatives and not actually SELLING them is still breaking the law. Most people think that unless they sell something they can do as they please with it.


----------



## KmH (Mar 12, 2010)

I would add..... it depends on your logo.

I find more and more new photographers are calling a copyright statement, their logo. They are not the same thing.

I further believe that having a logo is dependent on the type of photography one does.

I can recommend Mpix (important information: Mpix.com - Help) and agree proofs need to be watermarked as such or have a copyright statement or logo on the image.

Mpix will backprint their larger images.

Edit - Oh, Mpix is taking 15% off all prints till tomorrow I think. Use the checout code: allprints15


----------



## sarahburge (Mar 13, 2010)

Thanks for all the information! Now I know why my husband like forums so much.  I think I have decided to use Smug Mug for proofs until I can get my website set up. Then I will probably go with the Photocart software. This seems like the most professional way to do it and probably best for long term.


----------



## KmH (Mar 13, 2010)

sarahburge said:


> Thanks for all the information! Now I know why my husband like forums so much.  I think I have decided to use Smug Mug for proofs until I can get my website set up. Then I will probably go with the Photocart software. This seems like the most professional way to do it and probably best for long term.


If you are doing retail photography proofing online, rather than in person, will limit your sales.


----------



## sarahburge (Mar 15, 2010)

I am going to focus on protraits right now. I would really like to avoid the hassle of printing out proofs. The only thing I'm concerned with is that the pictures might look a bit different on their monitor than mine. I guess most people would not even notice minor things like this though! Also, I was viewing my smug mug albums at my in-laws house and they have really slow internet connection. The photos were loading incredibly slow! I guess it is just what you get used to. So if my clients are used to slow internet, this might not be an issue. ??


----------



## KmH (Mar 15, 2010)

Compared to text photography files are just enormous. If a client isn't used to waiting for images to load, they may not wait.

Web site images are usually optimized to load as quickly as possible. Do you know how to optimize images for online viewing?

I shudder when I think about clients looking at my images on an uncalibrated monitor. But, that's me.


----------



## sarahburge (Mar 16, 2010)

I make the files smaller but probably not small enough. I wanted them to be able to veiw them at a decent size without degrading the image quality. Sizing is one thing I really need to study & practice. I am working on my blog and website this week. So hopefully this will give me lots of practice!


----------

