That's what you call a watermark!

Grockle

Suspended / Banned
Messages
451
Name
Chris
Edit My Images
Yes
Some people worry about a small watermark degrading the image, look at the size Sutton are using:

d08eur494.jpg
 
Thats a good watermark IMHO.. Doesnt hide the image yet big enough to stop people cropping it out :)
 
Yes who is it?

We need to know.
 
I think it would be better if the watermark was black, and covered the guy entirely.

I agree though, it's a bit excessive. Also I can't help but think that unless they're discreet, 'artistic' fonts or logos will distract from the image itself.
 
Sutton Images are a motorsport image agency - their pics are used worldwide and they aren't cheap - but it looks like they are really hitting back at the copiers and thieves, their watermark used to be just a script font of their name.
 
I don't think it's clear enough either. I've recently started to use a heavier watermark myself, after a spate of people using my pics elsewhere. So at least now when it happens, they are advertising my site for me.
 
watermarks do work - as advertising - I've lost count of the websites I've visited after seeing watermarks

Me too. It does get a bit tricky to balance the watermark with the image though. Mine tends to disappear in light backgrounds sometimes, but if I raise the opacity it stands out too much on the rest of the image.
 
Me too. It does get a bit tricky to balance the watermark with the image though. Mine tends to disappear in light backgrounds sometimes, but if I raise the opacity it stands out too much on the rest of the image.

Yeah. I was struggling to find that balance, but after recent activity, I've just decided to go heavy with it :D

And if you use different marks for different places (like on your site, on Flickr, on TPF), when you find them elsewhere, you can tell where they were taken from.
 
A guy with two right arms, and two left hands :lol: the mind boggles. no need for a watermark on such a crap photo.
 
Back
Top