I can understand the reason behind watermarking your pictures to a certain extent - but there is a right and a wrong way to do it. Allow me to illustrate.
Many photographers add a big freaking watermark across the whole photo. Like so.
You might as well use this:
Because that's pretty much all the viewer gets anyway.
Are there acceptable ways of putting a watermark on your photos? Sure!
Continuing with my example, here's something that's at least bearable:
Of course - you can also make yourself a pretty little logo and use that instead.
image courtesy of Jenn Hilderbrand
Jenn uses a cute J and H for her logo and she sticks it somewhere unobtrusive.
Do I like it? Nope. Can I live with it? Absolutely.
On to a more famous example: Douglas Sonders
image courtesy of douglassonders.wordpress.com
Again: Do I like it? Definitely not. Can I live with it? Sure.
When you boil it all down, watermarks are ugly. They get in the way of the image. So why would anyone ever watermark their photos? Security? To show ownership?
Anyone with even the most basic skills in Photoshop or Gimp can remove any but the most heinous watermark. If it takes up the whole photo (like the examples at top), then nobody can see the image and it isn't worth stealing to begin with.
So, we find ourselves in a bit of a pickle. Watermarks that allow the viewer to see the photo detract from the image and are easily removed. As such, they work poorly to show ownership or to provide security. While huge watermarks provide security and proof of ownership - nobody wants to steal your image because it looks like shit.
What's the solution? How can you make your images pretty and safe at the same time?
It depends on what you're afraid of. If you think your photos are going to get stolen and printed, all you have to do is resize them to 72dpi at say, 600 pixels or smaller at the widest. Nobody can print that and make it look good. Problem solved
If you're afraid of someone stealing your images and using them on the internet - this won't help. You can, however, embed metadata that shows YOU own the photo! That way, when some asshole steals it and puts it on his website, you can say "Hey, you've got my photo without my permission. Pay me $1000, or remove it or I'll take you to court." If you do go to court, you can download the image off the asshole's website and pull up the metadata that proves you own the photo.
Whew. A fairly long post for me. What do you think about watermarks? If you use them, why? What did I miss?
As always, comments are appreciated.
4 comments:
I'm with you on this one - watermarks suck. In fact, it's a total deal breaker. If I go to view an image and it has one of those semi-transparent watermarks across the middle of it (or worse, a non-transparent watermark), I'm out. If you're that worried about theft, don't put your images on the internet. Might want to make a tin foil hat while you're at it...
While the little logo watermarks that you discussed aren't the best for looking at an image, I'm actually seriously considering doing something like that for myself. Not for theft (like you said, a little content-aware fill or some judicious cloning and it's gone), but as a way to brand my images. Most of my images are on flickr as CC, and every so often someone will use them on their blog or whatnot. Having my name on them helps guarantee that I get photo credit on the blog. I want people to share my work, but I want their viewers to know it's mine.
-----Comment of the Month-------
I agree. Watermarks... are a bummer.
--Mark Beaty
Yeah - they suck big time. That's why we never display them in our portfolio.
It is a risk but I'm willing to take.
Regards,
Alex
Two years ago, I would share your view 100%. I've been burned...and that speaks to the security aspects. No, a watermark won't prevent it entirely, but it will at least deter the ignorant from using it. In the case of one of my photos, it was used as a wallpaper offered free by an ignorant vendor. Specifically, it was their hired consultant that screwed up. Had my watermark been there, they probably wouldn't have tried.
But I think the marketing aspect goes a long way, and this is where I hold most of my own beliefs. I know from my own behavior that if I stumble upon a random photo and it has a watermark somewhere, I'll go through the effort to track them down. But it's beyond that...it's branding. My watermark matches my company's logo. And I can speak with data to back it up, it has brought me new clients already...and I've only been watermarking for the past four months or so.
Bottom line - I don't like the cover-the-image type watermarks. But I do support and use the logo/branding style watermarks.
Post a Comment