watermarking

when you select images to watermark.. tick the use advance options.. in there thers loads of options including ability to load your own logo :)
 
An easy and just as effective way is to not watermark at all.

You can't watermark an image effectively (i.e. make it impossible to remove) without ruining it.

Sticking a non-terminal watermark on a photo means two things:

1. People are going to steal your image anyway, they'll just crop it or shop it out.
2. Your image looks worse than it did without the watermark.
 
pwhysall said:
An easy and just as effective way is to not watermark at all.
Click to expand...

complete and utter tosh

watermarking never stops people stealing we know that.... nothing i can do about that...

I dont care if they look ugly.. dont want ugly? then pay

If anyone wants a print then they need to buy ie PAY MONEY :)

They can have fun trying to take my big ugly watermark out if they want :)


Not watermarkign would kill my print revenue stream... total rubish advice not to watermark...

ta :)
 
I think I'm aware of your points Peter Ive been doing photography professionally for a lot of years now. I just needed something quick this morning as PSP scripts weren't playing ball. An easy an effective way of not marketing and selling your images is not to put them online which in this day and age is suicide. Of course we all know the pitfalls but we at least have to try to make it as difficult as possible.

"total rubish advice not to watermark..."

Agree with above totally, watermarking doesnt have to make your images look ugly depending how good you are at it and if someone wants to spend ages shopping it out while taking half the image with it thats their choice.
Anyway dont want the thread to turn into a big debate about watermarking so
Question asked and answered thank you
 
Keep it subtle and unnoticeable unless you're looking for it. I find that to be the golden rule with watermarks. Otherwise, yes, they're unneeded.
 
Depends what work you do. Kipax shoots... then tries to sell I imagine... in his case, he needs one. Most people don't.
 
Not everyone is savvy enough to look for contact info in Exif.
So if I have one I consider could be desirable I sometimes put a small one in the corner in case they want a higher res version.
I just type it in PS then fade the layer.
If you make an action the colour or fading is not always suitable for that image anyway but if you are doing loads I guess it's not a bad idea.

I find with a suitable font, some text can almost enhance and set the mood of an image even if it is just a URL
e.g. a vaguely Gothic font below some ruins etc.
 
Last edited:
pwhysall said:
An easy and just as effective way is to not watermark at all.

You can't watermark an image effectively (i.e. make it impossible to remove) without ruining it.

Sticking a non-terminal watermark on a photo means two things:

1. People are going to steal your image anyway, they'll just crop it or shop it out.
2. Your image looks worse than it did without the watermark.
Click to expand...
Not everyone watermarks to protect an image, some do it for branding and exposure.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Depends what work you do. Kipax shoots... then tries to sell I imagine... in his case, he needs one. Most people don't.
Click to expand...


exactly.. its the blanket "dont" that winds me up... for a second or two ..just long enough to reply :)
 
I find watermarks a neeccesary evil.. would be great if i didnt have to.. However..

4wd said:
I find with a suitable font, some text can almost enhance and set the mood of an image even if it is just a URL
e.g. a vaguely Gothic font below some ruins etc.
Click to expand...


yes.. i have seen some pics that probably look better with one.. especialy if you caption it as part of the watermark.. can look really good..
 
pwhysall said:
An easy and just as effective way is to not watermark at all.

You can't watermark an image effectively (i.e. make it impossible to remove) without ruining it.

Sticking a non-terminal watermark on a photo means two things:

1. People are going to steal your image anyway, they'll just crop it or shop it out.
2. Your image looks worse than it did without the watermark.
Click to expand...


The question was not should I / should I not, but how to and in that context alone this is a stupid answer

So if the image looks worse after cropping out a logo why is that a bad thing?

Mike
 
I don't watermark a lot but when I have to I use the one in CS6, the custom shape tool, not everybody's favorite but it does the job.
 
I use an action I created in CS6, from a tutorial online, I'd be happy to share it with anyone who wants it, you'd just have to change the logo to whatever you want, I think its not too bad as it doesn't mess up the images too much, though I cant remember where I got the tutorial from :(

Plus shrinking it down to 500 pixels on the longest side makes it not worth printing out on anything decent:
14556827814_857af65d3b_o.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top