Personally I only post watermarked photos on social media. I wouldn't expect a client to purchase a photo for print or a model to add it to their port or website with a watermark on it. They already know who I am. I use it only as a marketing tool. That being said, I think the use of the watermark should be subtle and not a distraction from the work itself. You're not trying to sell your logo.
Great video as always, I agree no watermark. When you showed the two photos I noticed that the one with the watermark I read the watermark before looking at the photo. Which is not a good thing in my book!
I actually DID like that watermark placement in the flowers, Jessica. Looked professional, almost like the front page of a magazine. But I am like you most of the time, they take away from the picture. I guess it all depends on what you are using it for and who is seeing it. For general purpose I would say no. If you can cleverly place the watermark as you did in the flowers, then I suppose that would be okay.
Justin Borja lol, right.. it looked like a beautiful page in a magazine.. but generally I feel like water marks distract from the photo.. the eyes are always going straight to the mark
Early when I was taking photos just for the fun of it and for developing my skills, I didn't put a watermark on. I put them on Facebook, but then I had two instances of people just straight up downloading and reuploading without acknowledgement (my privacy settings are that only friends can see those). I ask them about it and they ignored me and it just didn't sit right with me. In those two instances I was at events and had taken the photos quite seriously, making sure I got a good coverage of the event. It's not like you can enjoy the actual event as much if you are taking photos the whole time, while the people who stole my pictures got to enjoy the event and my photos. So yeah, now I watermark subtly in the corner with some transparency because then even if people don't acknowledge, it's still there.
I really liked the watermark. :) Its like an artists signature. I agree with you about the "big old watermark" thing, I think it is done without taste a lot of the time. Yours looks gorgeous though!
Hey! Don't be hating on Taco Tuesday Photography!! Nacho Monday was taken! :( lol I use watermarks but for me they are like signatures, I usually put them in the lower left side of the picture and the opacity is very low. Even then sometimes it can be annoying, yet I can't seem to get myself to not do it at all.
Is that really where you would've placed your watermark for a client? I noticed it there immediately. I use a watermark, but with low opacity and positioned in an inconspicuous area. I know that if someone wants to use my photos without permission they will probably know how to erase my watermark. I don't use a watermark for that purpose, you mentioned branding and that is why I watermark my images. But I forget sometimes. (Thanks for making your videos Ms. Jessica, I enjoy them and your wonderful photographs.)
I think a good looking "signature" actually adds to the image, kinda says: "This photo is a thing. Look at it". But it has to fit in. I don't use watermark myself though
Jessica, thanks for tackling this polemic issue. I agree with you that the watermark should be discreet. As to its existence, think about a Mercedes Benz. with or without that famous logo on the front of the car, is still a Mercedes Benz, but there are so many people that get impressed by that logo that it adds perceived value to the car. I want it so that when someone sees my logo they will immediately identify with quality. As for which of your photos I liked better, really they were shown so fast, (and not repeated) that I didn't have a lot of time to decide,but in that short time I think the one with the logo was more interesting, however on that photo as a work of art I would go with the other one. God bless and keep clicking and teaching! - Christopher Soule - The American Photographer Down in Brazil.
I personally don't like big obnoxious watermarks but I put on my photos and in a subtle way, barely there. Reason 1: I'm not a famous photographer and so I want people to know that I took the photos 2. I want to protect my models who are real daily people and not professional models from having their face splattered in some unexpected websites. I know if people want to steal they will do whatever but I'm trying to minimize the chances. 3. Because I post on Facebook and as we all know once you do that, you let go copyright of that particular image already, so hoping that if people see it, they know where it came from at least.
I mainly use watermarks for the market function and I've gotten to the point where I only use it for the photos that I post to my blog, just in case they would be shared and people are nice. Plus, I usually put the watermark in the corner either as an overlay or at a low opacity so that it is there, but doesn't take away from the picture.
I enjoyed seeing it without the watermark because as you showed it, it was the first thing that caught my eye and in my opinion devalued the image. This video helped with whether I should put a watermark or not on my work. Really loved it.
To be honest with the example photo, i actually prefer the one with watermark. Reason is simple, the watermark in this example actually works well with the subject in terms making it more interesting to look at in a way, it added an subtle extra element to the portrait shot, which to me is actually more pleasing to look at rather than the unmarked version. I personally don't put watermake on any of my photos even many people has suggested me to, but as someone with a bit of photoshop back ground i know how easily they can be removed. I think a nicely designed and well placed watermark can sometime be a bonus to the display of a picture in the right situation.
I recently got myself into liparts, and lots of people suggest me to use a watermark cause lip photos is the biggest form of theft in makeup industry however i agree with you, it took away the whole experience of the photo hahahha
I actually enjoyed both photos! I think the fact that your watermark was well designed and well placed contributed to 99% of the fact that it was enjoyable to look at. However, I dislike big ugly watermarks across the whole picture. Great video!
Fascinating video. I use small watermarks in the corners of my images because I find it's a good balance. It's not in the way, but at the same time it does help someone recognize who took the photo. And especially with digital photography it's not like you can't have a version with and a version without anyway.
Interesting video. Watermarks are obnoxious, but so are people who steal your photo and then when you ask them about it they refuse to say, "I like your photo." You made a lot of good points about the cons of the watermark though and I agree that the cons outweigh the pros.
I like subtle, small watermarks that are semi-transparent - it gives context to the picture. If the image is for client use, it shouldn't have a watermark. Just discovered your channel - fun topics - good delivery!
- Doesn't like watermarks - Uses watermark in video :D In all seriousness, I think a discrete watermark in the corner works best. Mine have steadily been getting smaller and smaller overtime but having a small symbol there, I feel, just makes it a little more official. As long as it's tastefully done and well designed, it doesn't really detract from the work. After that, if someone wants to go to the trouble of cropping it then that's on them. Like you said, it's not going to stop people from stealing your work, but it might make them think twice.
Love this video. You're right, the watermark totally takes away from the photo. Instead of my focus being on the model's face, my focus was drawn to the flowers with the watermark
I fully support the usage of watermarks. I almost always put a watermark on a photo that I've taken. I don't use watermarks when delivering photos, but whenever I post any photo online I will almost always add a watermark. I believe that a watermark supports your brand. I know that adding a watermark isn't going to prevent art theft but at least it will detour some from stealing a photo. When I post the photos online I make sure that a watermark is not in the middle of a photo, and I set it to around a 40% opacity so that the watermark is not distracting. Before I started using watermarks, some of my clients downloaded my photos that I was going to get printed for them anyway. They took the images, printed the photos at Walmart, and then never payed me. After that incident I decided to start adding watermarks. It all comes down to personal preference but I honestly believe that some times it is a necessity to have a watermark on an image.
My wife and I had one of our photos shared by a page on Facebook with credits given to some mystery photographer. We have no idea how this person was given credit, but they got 12,000 (by the time we found out) people to see this photo as theirs. The funny thing is, our logo is in the bottom right corner of the image. We were able to contact the person running the FB page, and have their post corrected to give us our due credit, but we had already lost out on a considerable amount of exposure. Without our logo, it would have been a bit more difficult to prove it was, in fact, our photo. Had our actual company name been on the photo, this would not have been a problem at all. We work far too hard to have others receive credit for our work. People complain that an image can look like an advertisement, but that is exactly what it is. I do not like obnoxious watermarks, but think of all the images you've seen, throughout your life, without any idea of whom took them.
The example you gave here had the watermark huge relative to the size of the photo so the obvious reaction for many people would be to choose the photo without it. I use my watermarks but they're all small and just text; no intricate artwork, just text. I agree on everything except people searching far and wide if they really love your work. I don't think they should have to. Many people will miss out on a lot of my work if I relied only on word of mouth, where people had to go through a million people to find out who took the photo. I guess i could have made a long story short by saying that I personally prefer a small watermark lol. Not for deterring thieves but it's just right there on the picture, in a small corner, so they can just look me up. At least they have a name to work with if they need to ask people who I am and how to get in contact with me. I feel the easier it is for the viewer the better it is for me. Love your channel. Keep up the great work. Love your photos :)
Watermarking seems to be an issue of experience and your personal journey. I loved the pros and cons When I first started digital photography back in 2007 I was so concerned about people stealing photos for flyers. Also, I wanted people to be able to find me and my website the same way i found talented photographers' sites, by their watermark. Times have changed, and the internet has changed since then. I'm not worried about people stealing photos to use for party fliers (there's pinetrest for that!) I'm shooting better models and not "cute girls". Instagram and Google image enable you to track down the metadata of almost any photo. The second problem is that many photogs design their own logo and watermark, and many are not that good. Photos with large, busy watermarks, or worse, watermarks that change position in every photo SCREAM bad design and bad decision making. In the end, you'll decide what works for you, and this video is a great help!
I personally use a watermark which is basically my name but, it's not distracting.I always put it in place far away from the main object. The thing is that I've had people use my pictures and edit them without my permission or making it look like they took the picture. Which is the main reason I use the watermark. So that people know I was the one who took the picture. I just really don't feel comfortable not using it. Though I wish I didn't have to.
With the watermark I was mostly looking on the text because it seemed to give me more clues of what the photo is about, like you know, on memes. Without the picture I was looking at the models face and eyes, which made me realize it's a wedding photo.
The watermark was well placed so it depends where it's placed. It think the issue is placement and neutrality. If the watermark created a high contrast and distracts, change it. I actually do like the presentation of elegant and well placed watermarks. It's like brand names on devices, Sony, Canon, Cadillac,...you get my drift.
I've always hated watermarks and still do to an extent. Part of the reason is that I noticed early on that the most gawdy "in your face!" marks always seemed to be on the most "ho hum" and quite frankly, amateurish, images. And then one day I discovered one of my more popular photos on a web site with someone else's watermark on it (and had it for sale). Over the years I've found many of my pictures on web sites and usually I was always credited as well as the image being no where near its original size so I never made a big deal about it. But in this case seeing someone blatantly put their own mark on it and claim it as their own really set me off. Now obviously someone could have stolen it had I had a watermark on it already but I feel it would have been a subtle "I am watching you" step for the thief in question. Right now I put a very subtle web address on (most of) my photos. I never want it to get in the way of the image but I always want it to point directly to my web site if anyone is interest -no "company name" that would then make someone Google it to find out its source. This is the image in question that was stolen. No watermark on any of them shown on my site. ONLY ones that I post on social media. www.wayneslandphotography.com/Central-Arizona/i-v9QBDV4
LOL @ Taco Tuesday Photography! I feel the same about watermarks. Had a falling out with a mua recently because she was hell bent on putting her watermark on my images. Told her to put her watermark on the model's forehead instead :)
Watermarks can look nice on some photos, and be a distraction to others. Plus, you have to figure out where you are going to place the watermark based on the photo subject. When a client pays you for a picture of their family, should they advertise your business? Some people are brand conscious, so if you are a big name photographer, they like to show. I realize it is a personal preference. I personally do not like putting watermarks on my photos. It also creates extra work, because LR does not make it easy if you need to move a watermark around.
No watermark for me, but I would still put a little signature in the corner, so it's not distracting. When someone steals the photo, you can prove that it is yours.
I personally don't like watermarks. I think it takes away from the photo. I did see someones watermark though that was really small and not super visible and it was down on the left hand corner and I didn't even see it at first. That kind of watermark is fine but i just don't personally like them! Thanks for the video!
I really dont like watermarks, the only times i use them is if i did a heck of alot of special effects work in photoshop and even then it's small and in the corner at a 30% opacity of just text
I started with wm than I decided its better to keep pictures free from wm. Like you jess I think its cleaner without wm and makes pepole appreciate more yr work
I had a water mark but i tried to have it on the corner and be small plus a bit transparent so it doesnt distract but as i test other designs i can clearly see how it can be distracting, maybe i could just use the logo water mark for my avatar picture on social media more than on every single picture.
I wanted to put a picture of me holding a knife and making a mean face ( kinda like a movie actor ) on my facebook to show what kind of photos I do but have a worry that some one might steal it and use to say that " this is my boyfriend and he is going to get you"! So I was thinking about putting a big water mark in the middle so that if any body tried to use it will have to somewhat ruin it. Are my thoughts valid? Or am I just being paranoid?
If watermark is badly placed (middle of the screen) then yeah, bad idea... But in some corner, small font no big deal. And it is good for recognition - not anti steal purpose.
as an editorial illustrator you CANNOT put your name in it in any way. they credit you in the magazine and if your really worried about copyright issues then do that in Adobe Bridge where it really matters and not by disrupting the image. that's my thoughts anyways
When you post your photos onto certain social media sites, you may be giving up copyright ownership to your images and or/your metadata is removed from them. Many people don't know this and this is why some people may still use watermarks. Check the fine print in the terms of use to be sure you're not giving up your rights. Here's the information to back this up: iptc.org/news/many-social-media-sites-still-remove-image-rights-information-from-photos/ You can also do additional research on what sites actually do this.
i got watermarks on them , but only on my facebook page. i consider not to do it but yeah idk . when my website is done i am not planning to use them on there lik eon facebook
That's it!!😁 You've finally convinced me "to boldly go where no man has gone before"... . From now on All my images will have a giant logo at 99% opacity that will be... Venutian drum roll or Celeste pizza, extra cheese please... a giant glass of water being held by none other than Mark Leonard (Spock's dad, or perhaps Leonard from "The Big Bang Theory"). On the glass he holds it will say "live long and perspire" and "I may be a Vulcan but my tires are Goodyear" (while I'm at it, why not get corporate sponsorship?). Instead of my name it would be signed (by) "William Shatner, Hi, I'm TJ Hooker and I'm from the lost tribe of Canada, "Promise!", Le'chaim!, I break for Tribbles! Priceline.com?! Fascinating Captain!!" And a tagline that says "A Desilu production (in Klingon!)" There will be no image of mine beneath the watermark, but with so much advertising, who needs one? Mr. Scott? Neo? "Energize!" This post paid for in Quatloos by Paramount Pictures -- "Star Trek Beyond -- it's a floor wax, an ear wax, a Turtle wax and a dessert topping!"
My big problem is with Facebook who strips out all the metadata from the image. No proof of theft. Yes, thieves can also remove metadata but it makes it harder to find a person when you are looking for one. “Who took that photo you posted? I love it!” “I don't know. I found it on the web,” he said. “Where?” “How am I supposed to remember that,” he said. “It's called, giving attribution. No worries. I'll just drag the image into my viewer and…. Hmm. No metadata.” “What's metadata,” he asks? “It's data about the data, such as attribution.” “What's attribution,” he asks? “Never mind. I'll just do a Google image search and…. Hmm. It's on so many different Facebook timelines. That's helpful.” “Yeah,” he said. “I shared it with all 4,593 of my friends. Now everyone knows how good that photo is!” “But who is the photographer?” “Does it matter,” he asks? Facebook claims it strips metadata to save space but really, I don't think that in the big picture, metadata is the number one (or two) consumer of space on their servers, and I know a number of cats who would agree with me in their videos. It is a disservice to do that. They should, at the very least, leave photographer, publisher, copyright, title, description, and date & time. Nevertheless…. I give clients (depending on what kind of client) two or three sets of images; a full size “Prints” set with a faint or no watermark, and a “social media” sized set with a noticeable (but not prominent) watermark so that their 4,593 Facebook friends can find me. The third set may be an Intranet, publication or presentation sized set with no watermark. All sets will have complete metadata -XMP, IPTC, Makernote (yes, my camera puts ‘photographer“ & “copyright” info into the Makernote), and EXIF- inserted during my workflow, until they are posted on Facebook. :-( The point is, my problem really is not theft. That will always happen. It is not clients. They will always give attribution. Its the average Joe, looking at my social media feeds, copy/pasting away, not giving attribution. So there is a place for (subtle) watermarks and it is not in a portfolio or certain client work (like comp-cards, etc.).
I place my Watermark across the image and set it at 5% opacity. Hard to photoshop out. Have to protect my work. If I put in the corner or such, they can be easily cropped or cloned out.
spanish. ink I maybe mistaken but I believe she covered in another video that she doesn’t send any work to the client until full payment is made. At least that method makes the most sense to me.
If you are buying a painting, would you want one the is signed or one that is not signed? The one that is signed is worth a lot more $$. So you are saying your photograph is not ART and not worth signing. Plus nothing says a watermark needs to be huge and impact the photograph like your example. Don't be afraid to sign your work.
Not the same. A photograph is not an original. It's a digital image. A painting is an original piece and unique. There is only one. So the signature not only makes sense, it adds value. To sign a limited edition print makes sense as well. To watermark a web image is dumb. But watermarks on Facebook and Instagram posts or in your own portfolio is cheap and amateurish.
I totally agree ! I came to photography from art, all sorts of art. Especially graffiti, which basically was signing my name everywhere, and I agree if you sign something it'll be worth more, it'll reflect more, it'll expose you more, etc. I use a small watermark on the bottom right of my pictures and nobody has ever complained or said that it's distracting. Some people even say they don't notice it.
I feel like they cheapen the experience. If you want to know who took a photo, it's really easy to reverse search an image via google. If you don't know how to do that, someone you know does.
YES THEY SHOULD. You'll get screwed royal. Do musicians copyright their music? Smart ones do. I work with entertainment law attorneys. In the end it's up to you.
People starting out worry far too much about getting their work stolen, and 999 out of 1000 nobody is going to want to steal it. I use a small/tasteful good-looking watermark so that people can eventually find me, but NO watermarks for photos on your web site, just stuff on social media.
Alexis Rose you are part of a very small minority. I’ve had several photos stolen. If you think that a watermark will prevent photo theft, may I introduce you to the healing tool and the crop tool. Unless you’re willing to completely uglify your photo, nothing helps. Notice that none of the big photographers watermark.
@@alexisrose4221 I've had photos stolen from my gallery, but IG removed the stolen photos fairly fast after I filed the reports. To be fair, I put HUGE watermarks in the center (there's no way to remove them without ruining the images), not sure if that helped with my situation.
My watermark has always been super super super super small (like really really really really super small) in the bottom left and at like 40% opacity and it's just my text logo Here's an example: www.flickr.com/photos/intrepidvisuals/25635513236/in/dateposted-public/ I hate huge watermarks, you're totally correct that it takes away from the image, and it looks very amateur.
+Peter Barnes Just being curious. To what point is it just not worth putting in the watermark if it's being discreet? If it's nicely hidden, like yours, do people still notice it?
+gameshoes The reason I have mine like I do is because it's something that you have to look for. Usually if someone is actually curious about who took a photo the first thing they will do is look for a watermark. I've put mine in the bottom left so that way it's not the first thing you see in the image, but that it can be found if you're looking for it.
