Watermarks : are opinions still divided?

DrGed

DrGed

Suspended / Banned
Messages
847
Name
Ged
Edit My Images
Yes
I've been wondering about watermarks on pictures displayed on the internet. I 've read a thread on this subject, dating from 2009, and opinions at that time were somewhat divided.

Do different people still have different opinions or is there more of a consensus nowadays? I'm undecided myself. From the point of view of stopping people stealing images, I think watermarks are very often useless but they do give correct attribution for the photo.

What do people think four years later?
 
If you dont want people using your pictures in publications or passing them off as yours then watermark.. the more aggressive the watermark the less likely others will use and the more ugly your pic looks..mine is very aggresive but for my business its perfect

if you dont care if people copy then no watermark...

wheres the divided opinion? seems clear cut to me.
 
Because water-marking frequently detracts from picture content, denying the legitimate viewer its full pottential pleasure, while making them feel like a criminal for even looking at a publicly viewable picture.

Its tacitly telling the viewer that the photographer cares more about the criminal minority of the worlds population, than they do the target audience; and that they care more about thier rights than they do about the presentation and emmotive 'message' of thier work.

There's the divide.

If you have real passion and enthusiasm, and empathy with your medium, and want to share it with the world, share it, in its full glory, sans 'water-mark'

If you dont really care for your work or how its percieved or what message it conveys... and dont really care what people think of it, as long as no one can do anything with it.... go ahead, and slap a legend accross big chunk of it.

There's your controversey, Kipax.
 
Teflon-Mike said:
Because water-marking frequently detracts from picture content, denying the legitimate viewer its full pottential pleasure, while making them feel like a criminal for even looking at a publicly viewable picture.

Its tacitly telling the viewer that the photographer cares more about the criminal minority of the worlds population, than they do the target audience; and that they care more about thier rights than they do about the presentation and emmotive 'message' of thier work.

There's the divide.

If you have real passion and enthusiasm, and empathy with your medium, and want to share it with the world, share it, in its full glory, sans 'water-mark'

If you dont really care for your work or how its percieved or what message it conveys... and dont really care what people think of it, as long as no one can do anything with it.... go ahead, and slap a legend accross big chunk of it.

There's your controversey, Kipax.
Click to expand...

still dont see it.. I see how you have twisted stuff to make it look like putting a watermark on means I dont care about my work.. which is a ludicrouse way of loking at things.. no watermark and i lose money.. wiht watermark i make money... you can fluff it up however you like.,. thats the reality of putting work on the internet in this day and age..

personally i dont think the OP asked the real question he wanted to.. this ones too open ended.. maybe he should have defined art or business ?: )
 
If you are in it for the money then watermark to stop theft of part of your living. If you are in it for pleasure or to share then don't see the point of a watermark.
 
ernesto said:
If you are in it for the money then watermark to stop theft of part of your living. If you are in it for pleasure or to share then don't see the point of a watermark.
Click to expand...

agreed... hence why i think the OP didnt ask the right question :)
 
ernesto said:
If you are in it for the money then watermark to stop theft of part of your living. If you are in it for pleasure or to share then don't see the point of a watermark.
Click to expand...

I agree.

I also think that when people post watermarked images in critique sections criticising the watermark is fair game.
 
I only add a small border with my email address to the outside edge of my images I put online.

Any paid work I do I charge for my time and give the customer a disc of the images, so they have no need to try and rip me off and if they like/share the images people have a way of contacting me (I've got a couple of jobs this way).

If I was relying on selling images to make money then I would definitely watermark like Kipax.
 
Gary Coyle said:
What about those of us who can only display our images online if they are watermarked
Click to expand...

You have to do what you have to do....

But if you post in a critique section and you have a nasty watermark that distracts from the image I think it's fair to say so. I don't think anyone has any issues with watermarks for professional reasons though - most people don't have to stick to T&Cs of shooting high level sporting events that you do.
 
I watermark mine on my website as I did have a few people I know just downloading the pics or whatever which bugged me. I use an unintrusive one when asking for feedback in pics but that's tiny and in the corner. The ones that are on my website have a very faint watermark across the whole image. Still get some sales though so its obviously not that much of an issue?
 
To be honest I hate watermarks generally. I haven't spent thousands on gear to ruin every photo I put online by sprawling text right through my subject but that's just for me personally, I can very easily understand why pros and others do so should they wish. I use a very subtle watermark (1-3 opacity on the text layer) usually in a corner, most people would actually miss it and even I can't remember where the watermark is on some of my images but equalising it should bring it out and be able to prove a photo is mine should I need to.
 
PMN said:
To be honest I hate watermarks generally. I haven't spent thousands on gear to ruin every photo I put online by sprawling text right through my subject but that's just for me personally, I can very easily understand why pros and others do so should they wish. I use a very subtle watermark (1-3 opacity on the text layer) usually in a corner, most people would actually miss it and even I can't remember where the watermark is on some of my images but equalising it should bring it out and be able to prove a photo is mine should I need to.
Click to expand...

I hate watermarks, totally agree they spoil the image
But, I never spent thousands of pounds on gear to allow people to help themselves to my work
I used to think it would be great if someone wanted my photos, now it drives me mental when someone helps themselves
Any image now has a very prominent watermark if online anywhere, if you nick it, I get free advertising.
Keeps it simple for me
 
PMN said:
Funnily enough that's exactly what I used to say before my view shifted slightly. As I say, I can understand why people would choose to strongly watermark, I just personally don't these days. :)
Click to expand...

Well you seem to understand my view more than I understand yours
But if it works for you, that's cool with me
 
DrGed said:
I've been wondering about watermarks on pictures displayed on the internet. I 've read a thread on this subject, dating from 2009, and opinions at that time were somewhat divided.

Do different people still have different opinions or is there more of a consensus nowadays? I'm undecided myself. From the point of view of stopping people stealing images, I think watermarks are very often useless but they do give correct attribution for the photo.

What do people think four years later?
Click to expand...

There's no 'consensus' because there's not only 1 reason to post images on the Internet. It's like asking whether front wheel drive is a good idea? :thinking:

Answer: what for?

I always seem to be the 'what for' guy.

It's not even a pro vs amateur thing, it's more complex than that. But not that complex. You just need to think it through. We use a trick called the 5 why's, it's great for challenging opinions and getting to the heart of an issue.

Lots of people just stick a watermark on just because its the thing to do. They never gave it a thought. Lots of other people have thought it through properly.
 
Phil V said:
There's no 'consensus' because there's not only 1 reason to post images on the Internet. It's like asking whether front wheel drive is a good idea? :thinking:

Answer: what for?

I always seem to be the 'what for' guy.

It's not even a pro vs amateur thing, it's more complex than that. But not that complex. You just need to think it through. We use a trick called the 5 why's, it's great for challenging opinions and getting to the heart of an issue.

Lots of people just stick a watermark on just because its the thing to do. They never gave it a thought. Lots of other people have thought it through properly.
Click to expand...

+1 Absolutely!
For example if you sell event photo's online then in my mind a watermark is essential.
If you sell fine art prints then you want to display your work at its best and a watermark detracts from a potential sale but you leave yourself open to theft.
 
Thanks for all the replies.

The discussion has definitely helped me clarify my own views on the subject. When my website is finally ready I think I'll watermark the photos but I'll try to strike a balance between being obtrusive and not really protecting my images, if you know what I mean.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top