SM watermarking

Pindy

I have made a watermark, thanks to Andy's handy tutorial (sorry Schmoo—I stole your corner idea). I'm wondering, however, if the watermark can be made to scale uniformly between orientations. viz:



I like this size. it's quite small and not terribly obtrusive, but you can still read it and the point gets across. now, in Landscape orientation, the same watermark looks much larger:



Is there a way—perhaps in the canvas/image size's dimensions in Photoshop—that you can make it so these scale more closely? it looks like it might have to do with the width of the canvas.

timnosenzo

I wanted a similar thing (a watermark that looked OK both vertical and horizontal) and I basically just played with the size of the watermark image until it looked OK. For me, I just made a transparent background that is 798 x 1063, and put my watermark in the bottom corner.

Here's how it turned out (both SM Large images):

Vertical:


Horizontal:

jfriend

Pindy wrote:

I have made a watermark, thanks to Andy's handy tutorial (sorry Schmoo—I stole your corner idea).

Do you realize that this type of watermark is easily cropped off the photo. If the point of the watermark is theft prevention, then I just wanted to make sure you realize that this isn't very effective.

Pindy

jfriend wrote:

Do you realize that this type of watermark is easily cropped off the photo. If the point of the watermark is theft prevention, then I just wanted to make sure you realize that this isn't very effective.

You're not wrong.

I generally don't like watermarks because they detract from the enjoyment of the image and, well, the design is a work in progress that has to at once protect the image and get out of its way.

jfriend

Pindy wrote:

You're not wrong.

I generally don't like watermarks because they detract from the enjoyment of the image and, well, the design is a work in progress that has to at once protect the image and get out of its way.

The ones I've seen work best have an element like yours on the edge that is meant to be readable and a visible reminder. Then, they separately have a highly transparent element sprinkled in several places through the photo. The transparency makes it faint enough that you can still see the image fine, but it's just visible enough that nobody would think of framing a print with it or putting it on their web-site as their own.

Andy

jfriend wrote:

The ones I've seen work best have an element like yours on the edge that is meant to be readable and a visible reminder. Then, they separately have a highly transparent element sprinkled in several places through the photo. The transparency makes it faint enough that you can still see the image fine, but it's just visible enough that nobody would think of framing a print with it or putting it on their web-site as their own.

http://www.moonriverphotography.com/gallery/634937_G88Gj#138586521_hS5Hk-A-LB

EEB

Andy wrote:

http://www.moonriverphotography.com/gallery/634937_G88Gj#138586521_hS5Hk-A-LB

I was just getting ready to post on how to make a watermark like that. Right now I'm just using the one of the samples like that because I didn't have time to make one. I wanted to keep the line going to each corner and put my name in the middle. How can I do it like that?

Ed

Pindy

Andy wrote:

http://www.moonriverphotography.com/gallery/634937_G88Gj#138586521_hS5Hk-A-LB

two things I notice are that you are selective about which images get the BIG ASS WATERMARK treatment, and secondly, a watermark that size and scope is a real commitment. it straddles the line between enjoyment and annoyance.

Having said that, it certainly is effective.

jfriend

Pindy wrote:

two things I notice are that you are selective about which images get the BIG ASS WATERMARK treatment, and secondly, a watermark that size and scope is a real commitment. it straddles the line between enjoyment and annoyance.

Having said that, it certainly is effective.

I agree. It is effective. I personally thought it was too much. My measure is whether you can look at the image and not be "drawn" to the watermark. If you are drawn to it, then it is really detracting from the shot. For a fine-art shot like this one, I thought it could be less intrusive and still plenty effective.

Pindy

What we've got here is yet another hot, contentious issue! I appreciate all the feedback.

AFBlue

jfriend wrote:

The ones I've seen work best have an element like yours on the edge that is meant to be readable and a visible reminder. Then, they separately have a highly transparent element sprinkled in several places through the photo. The transparency makes it faint enough that you can still see the image fine, but it's just visible enough that nobody would think of framing a print with it or putting it on their web-site as their own.

Somewhere I read that text on an angle across an image was less distracting to the eye. So I have used a tiled, angled, transparent watermark that I hope provides as much protection as one can get while still showing the photo to good advantage. Take a look at anything on beautyofnaturephotography.com

jfriend

AFBlue wrote:

Somewhere I read that text on an angle across an image was less distracting to the eye. So I have used a tiled, angled, transparent watermark that I hope provides as much protection as one can get while still showing the photo to good advantage. Take a look at anything on beautyofnaturephotography.com

I think your idea works, but you could use a lot more transparency and a little larger font size and that would allow the eye to focus more on the image and increase the readability of your watermark but still be just as effective. I also wouldn't watermark the thumbnails since that seems like overkill that isn't really preventing anything we need to prevent. Remember, the idea is that you want the smallest amount of visual impact you can use that will still accomplish the goal.

Pindy

Been experimenting. Does this suck too much? I don't really know how to do "safe" and also enjoyable viewing.

OPTION 1 (uh oh, it's changed the watermark—this is a useless exercise until I can fix it):




OPTION 2:



I feel that if I keep it smaller and out of the way, I can keep it more opaque, whereas if it's dead center, it's gotta get out of the way, decreasing it's ability to be seen. In busier compositions, it's often impossible to see. I'm favoring option 2 as of this minute.

Pindy

I suppose you could make your watermark a graphic logo, too. It doesn't matter that you have a © or anything so long as you can prove the logo belongs to you. I gotta think a simple graphic will be less distracting than text.

AFBlue

jfriend wrote:

I think your idea works, but you could use a lot more transparency and a little larger font size and that would allow the eye to focus more on the image and increase the readability of your watermark but still be just as effective. I also wouldn't watermark the thumbnails since that seems like overkill that isn't really preventing anything we need to prevent. Remember, the idea is that you want the smallest amount of visual impact you can use that will still accomplish the goal.

The visibility of the watermark varies a lot depending on the image, of course. In some cases it is so transparent now that I thought I missed watermarking some images.
Since we agree that we want the smallest amount of visual impact that will still accomplish the goal, I was somewhat surprised that you suggested increasing the font size. Don't you think using a larger font would be more distracting?

jfriend

AFBlue wrote:

The visibility of the watermark varies a lot depending on the image, of course. In some cases it is so transparent now that I thought I missed watermarking some images.
Since we agree that we want the smallest amount of visual impact that will still accomplish the goal, I was somewhat surprised that you suggested increasing the font size. Don't you think using a larger font would be more distracting?

I don't think it's the transparency that makes it gets missed on some images. Nobody would ever miss it on a dark image. It's easy to miss on a light colored image.

This is all personal opinion, but I would add a dark outline to it which will balance the visibility more with light and dark images and make it more transparent. In my opinion, on a dark image, it's too in your face.

The reason I suggested increasing the font size a little bit is that I think the font is it's hard to read and I figure that if you're going to use words, it might as well be something that people can read. I would probably pick a thinner font that was a slight bit larger.

This is all personal opinion, but here's my suggestion: thinner font, slightly larger size (both to increase readability), add black outline or shadow to the font (to increase visibility on light backgrounds), increase transparency (to decrease visibility on dark backgrounds and balance out the slightly larger font and shadow).

AFBlue

jfriend wrote:

I don't think it's the transparency that makes it gets missed on some images. Nobody would ever miss it on a dark image. It's easy to miss on a light colored image.

This is all personal opinion, but I would add a dark outline to it which will balance the visibility more with light and dark images and make it more transparent. In my opinion, on a dark image, it's too in your face.

The reason I suggested increasing the font size a little bit is that I think the font is it's hard to read and I figure that if you're going to use words, it might as well be something that people can read. I would probably pick a thinner font that was a slight bit larger.

This is all personal opinion, but here's my suggestion: thinner font, slightly larger size (both to increase readability), add black outline or shadow to the font (to increase visibility on light backgrounds), increase transparency (to decrease visibility on dark backgrounds and balance out the slightly larger font and shadow).

Good, sound reasons. I'll tinker with the watermark and see how using your suggestions look.