I HATE obnoxious water marks.

CaiusMartius

I really just need to shout out to the mountains. I you have to put an obnoxious water mark on your images that TOTALLY steals focus, what is the point of posting them?

It is like fricking TV stations that have the stupid overlays all the time.

Some people have discreet water marks and that is fine. (I have even seen some classy ones.) However some of them steal all of the joy of photography from me.

This is my open appeal to rein in the water marks. You know who you are.

*Rant Off*

Art Scott

Thank You and yes I know exactly who I am.........I received praise emails from publishers want to purchase photos and the praise was for great photos nad big obnoxious watermarksD:Drofl

I am glad you noticed them.bow

Foques

i'm with you!! all the way!
I hate those fancy heraldic shield watermark crap

jmphotocraft

For an event, especially sports, watermarks are important. For a lot of would-be customers, a nice large un-watermarked image satisfies their curiosity, allows them to share it with friends and relatives, pluck it out of browser cache, and then they don't need to purchase the image. I kind of think my watermark isn't big enough.



and yeah, that image didn't sell.

CaiusMartius

Glort gets it. Honestly, I don't even look at photos on sights that have obnoxious water marks. It is honestly that much of a turn off. I rank it right up there will pop up spam.

W.W. Webster

CaiusMartius wrote: »

I rank it right up there will (sic) pop up spam.

I totally agree.

But have you also noticed how often the bigger and more hideous the watermark, the less meritorious the image it purports to 'protect'?

jmphotocraft

I do agree though, I also hate huge watermarks. I've tried to strike a balance between rendering the photo unusable and leaving it enjoyable. Have I?

CaiusMartius

jmphotocraft wrote: »

I do agree though, I also hate huge watermarks. I've tried to strike a balance between rendering the photo unusable and leaving it enjoyable. Have I?

Yours isn't anywhere near the most obnoxious I have seen, but I would still have to classify it as an overlay and not a water mark.

mercphoto

Glort wrote: »

I think a lot of people go too far with watermarks and a pre-occupation in general about trying to protect their images.

If its a source of income you HAVE to protect it. Not only that, but if you copyright your images and hope to be able to enforce that copyright you will probably need to show that you took some measure to protect your images in the first place.

many of the watermarks are so large, distracting and basically offensive, they obliterate the picture they are supposedly protecting to the point it destroys all appeal a buyer might have in the image.

I have seen a myriad of shooters with watermarks across pics that the image is so obscured I can't tell If it's a decent shot or not. I'll bet when the potential buyers can't tell if the pics are good or not they simply don't buy them at all.

In this case what the shooter is really protecting themselves from is getting sales and making money.

Images will be stolen for if they are placed on the net. That's life and I think shooters should put far less emphasis on trying to stop that when it's pretty much a useless endeavor other than deterring a few people and they should put more time into making more money and getting more work.

The preoccupation with watermarking is like a cab driver putting the passengers in a clamp with their heads hanging out the window in case they throw up. If you drive a cab, it's going to happen. If you are so pre-occupied and concerned about it. Do the one simple thing you can to guarantee your images won't be stolen.....
Don't post them on the net in the first place.

By turning images into dog's breakfasts and obliterating the pic with watermarks, I think you may as well not post them in the first place.

Are you suggesting that if you can't stop all theft with watermarks then you might as well not watermark at all?

CaiusMartius

mercphoto wrote: »

Are you suggesting that if you can't stop all theft with watermarks then you might as well not watermark at all?

http://mercphoto.exposuremanager.com/p/car_portfolio/20090404_041_9

Take this for example.

1. You have your page set up so that you can not right-click and download the image.
2. The image is very low resolution, rendering it useless for print purposes.

So, what is the need for the overlay? (As opposed to a small copyright notice in the corner?)

How would you feel if AMC (or any TV channel for that matter) started putting their overlay in the center of the screeen?? Would you still watch that channel?

If a watermark steals focus from the photograph, then it has ceased to be a watermark and has become an advertisement.

In all fairness to you mercphoto, your overlay is at least attractive. However, I still view it as more of a promotional tool than a protection tool. Surely there are much better ways to protect.

jh4wvu

I see both sides and still struggle with trying to find a happy medium.

I shoot for a college marching band...at first I only put a small watermark in the lower corner. Members would copy the photo and crop out the watermark and post to Facebook, Myspace, etc. rather than buying the images. So rather than get any advertising I would get none. So know I have a watermark over the entire photo....they still post them on Facebook but they at least cannot remove the watermark and I get advertising.

Due to the arrangement I don't get paid to actually take the photos so my only revenue stream is from the actual sale of photos.

I wish Smugmug would offer a web size download option so I could at least make some money off of the downloaded photo.

Example of my watermark: http://gallery.wvuband.org/Specialty-Prints/Enlargements/8753539_upPii

I have thought about changing it to be like the style mercphoto is using but using the bands logo with the gallery link underneath it (Large enough so folks can't crop it out though). So if someone uses it at least there is the organizations brand as well as mine on the photo.

Just my thoughts....

Chris

CaiusMartius wrote: »

http://mercphoto.exposuremanager.com/p/car_portfolio/20090404_041_9

Take this for example.

1. You have your page set up so that you can not right-click and download the image.
2. The image is very low resolution, rendering it useless for print purposes.

So, what is the need for the overlay? (As opposed to a small copyright notice in the corner?)

How would you feel if AMC (or any TV channel for that matter) started putting their overlay in the center of the screeen?? Would you still watch that channel?

If a watermark steals focus from the photograph, then it has ceased to be a watermark and has become an advertisement.

In all fairness to you mercphoto, your overlay is at least attractive. However, I still view it as more of a promotional tool than a protection tool. Surely there are much better ways to protect.

CaiusMartius

jh4wvu wrote: »

So rather than get any advertising I would get none.

Again, is the point to protect or promote? How are they downloading the image? Can that be prevented? (Outside of taking a screen shot, I am not seeing how to download from your page, but I am no hacker.) If students are posting copyrighted material, then you could either contact the school or facebook.

mercphoto

CaiusMartius wrote: »

http://mercphoto.exposuremanager.com/p/car_portfolio/20090404_041_9

Take this for example.

1. You have your page set up so that you can not right-click and download the image.
2. The image is very low resolution, rendering it useless for print purposes.

So, what is the need for the overlay? (As opposed to a small copyright notice in the corner?)

How would you feel if AMC (or any TV channel for that matter) started putting their overlay in the center of the screeen?? Would you still watch that channel?

If a watermark steals focus from the photograph, then it has ceased to be a watermark and has become an advertisement.

In all fairness to you mercphoto, your overlay is at least attractive. However, I still view it as more of a promotional tool than a protection tool. Surely there are much better ways to protect.

Part of my watermark is certainly for promotional purposes. People can always screen grab, you cannot stop that. But given your two points above are you seriously suggesting that I have no watermark whatsoever?

mercphoto

jh4wvu wrote: »

I see both sides and still struggle with trying to find a happy medium.

I shoot for a college marching band...at first I only put a small watermark in the lower corner. Members would copy the photo and crop out the watermark and post to Facebook, Myspace, etc. rather than buying the images. So rather than get any advertising I would get none. So know I have a watermark over the entire photo....they still post them on Facebook but they at least cannot remove the watermark and I get advertising.

Due to the arrangement I don't get paid to actually take the photos so my only revenue stream is from the actual sale of photos.

This is why using a watermark is essential if you want to have any reasonable revenue stream. Are watermarks obnoxious? They certainly can be. But consider this experiment I did in 2005 back in the days where the only watermark Smugmug gave you was a big "PROOF" right across the middle of the image. Certainly obnoxius. But for one month where I did two kart races and two motocross races I did not watermark any image that was up for sale (right-click protection was still enabled, of course!). For the month revenues dropped by 90%. You read that right. The next month watermarks go back on. Web hits are still at levels they should be, and revenues bounce right back up where they should have been.

Was the watermark obnoxious? Yes. But did it protect revenue? Yes. Did it deter sales? Obviously not.

jh4wvu

There are programs you can use to capture photos, video, etc. and believe me people are using them. I use Screenshot Plus on my Mac. If you are using Safari, you can use the activity log to get a direct url to the image...

http://api.smugmug.com/photos/774472903_jmkLA-M.jpg

I think if you are counting on the revenue then you have to protect your assets. I, for one, can't afford to not watermark my images and I know there are others that can't either. I think I have made sales because folks want a print without the watermark.

Granted, I have seen people have photos hanging in their cube with watermarks printed on them. I have also had the lady at Sam's Club (she knows me) tell me there have been a few people actually try to print the photos with the watermark.

Again...it doesn't bother me to see it on other photos because I know the reason behind it. So basically it is both...advertising and protecting.

Chris

CaiusMartius wrote: »

Again, is the point to protect or promote? How are they downloading the image? Can that be prevented? (Outside of taking a screen shot, I am not seeing how to download from your page, but I am no hacker.) If students are posting copyrighted material, then you could either contact the school or facebook.

Art Scott

All you have to do is look at at photo on your computer and it is yours....right in your cache.....that is why mine are watermarked the way they are and are staying that way until a lot larger publishing company says they find it offending in someway and offer me insurance against any thievery at all....so far all publishers have given kudo for the WM.....

is it protection....there is absolutely no protections against internet theivery......does it deter it maybe.....does it keep it from being printed....only at legitimate labs....you can print at home and i will not know.

Is it promotional.....HELL YES IT IS.....YOU STEAL IT.....I WANT WANT EVERYONE TO KNOW WHERE IT CAME FROM..........

mercphoto

Art Scott wrote: »

Is it promotional.....HELL YES IT IS.....YOU STEAL IT.....I WANT WANT EVERYONE TO KNOW WHERE IT CAME FROM..........

Yes! Exactly. And I have often thought of, but never been brave enough, to have a watermark that says "This Image Stolen From Mercury Photography".

CaiusMartius

Maybe the happy medium is to just not watermark images posted to this site. The point of this site is share photographs.

Maybe I am just out of place here, but I got involved with dgrin for recreational purposes. I am a seriously amateur photographer. (I probably have to qualify that futher to say that I own a camera and take pictures with it.)

Perhaps there is a site like this that has less professionals running around. It just ruins the sense of community for me when people are touting their wares as opposed to just genuinely sharing their passion for taking photographs.

mercphoto

CaiusMartius wrote: »

Maybe the happy medium is to just not watermark images posted to this site.

Sorry... but no.

Foques

if that were to become a requirement, i wouldn't be posting anything at all.. Thats waaaaay too much work.. Got to have dupes of all shots with and without logo? no thanks :P

Art Scott

some like WM's .....some do not......some use them, not because they like them, but because they are trying to keep the theft to a minimum........some give their work away and donot care that it is killing the true professional.......some won't give their work away for free because it is how they make a living and once you give it away none of your work is worth anything any longer..............you see it is just a vicious circle........not everyone has the same taste....if we did then we would all have Nikons and shoot the exact same things and give it all away for free to whom every wanted it then there would be no need of WM's of any sort............

takeflightphoto

No, the purpose of this site (DGrin) is for photographers, both professional and amateur to have a forum to discuss things like watermarks, sharing photos. Read the header, or is it not clear enough? Digital Grin Photography Forum. SmugMug is the sharing site, and SmugMug has options for both Professionals and amteurs/hobbyists/enthusiasts.

I'm a professional and I have a passion for taking photographs. I think this (DGrin) is a great community that allows people of all levels of skill and passion to share their ideas and thoughts. The purpose of MY SmugMug site and of YOUR SmugMug site and each OTHER members' SmugMug site is to share their photos as they see fit, either for free or for sale. For you to question others' passion or touting shows that you aren't much part of the community unless it suits your definition....and that's not community.

CaiusMartius wrote: »

Maybe the happy medium is to just not watermark images posted to this site. The point of this site is share photographs.

Maybe I am just out of place here, but I got involved with dgrin for recreational purposes. I am a seriously amateur photographer. (I probably have to qualify that futher to say that I own a camera and take pictures with it.)

Perhaps there is a site like this that has less professionals running around. It just ruins the sense of community for me when people are touting their wares as opposed to just genuinely sharing their passion for taking photographs.

jmphotocraft

CaiusMartius wrote: »

http://mercphoto.exposuremanager.com/p/car_portfolio/20090404_041_9

Take this for example.

1. You have your page set up so that you can not right-click and download the image.
2. The image is very low resolution, rendering it useless for print purposes.

So, what is the need for the overlay? (As opposed to a small copyright notice in the corner?)

So that when people take screenshots or pluck the image out of browser cache (right-click protection only weeds out the computer illiterate), your image has your identification on it. Like your company name and/or URL.

Do you lock your doors when you leave your house for the day or longer? Why? Anyone who wants to get in will just break a window.

Surely there are much better ways to protect.

Not really. People will get the image one way or another if it is online. Even if it is embedded in Flash (which SM doesn't do), people can still take screenshots. Then at least the image is really low-res, but it is still perfectly usable for facebook, email, etc. And then they don't need to buy it.

Art Scott

I have played with this and i have taken screen shots...cleaned them up in PS and then run them thru GF Print Pro and you know what I had.....a usable and very clear and sharp 8x10......this was an image that started out on my website at 4x6" at 72 dpi............

An another reason for watermarking...
is that every tom, Dyck and Harriet has photoshop and Genuine Fractals or some other decent uprezing software.....they are out there for free and they work perfectly well just like our store bought paid thru the nose copies do....so i know that a low rez image can be made decent quality and printed.........I took it one step farther.....i rephotographed the 8x10 with a Konica Minolta A2 (8mp) .......it was good up 40 x 60" after GF................

This is why I watermark as I do........i know what can be done with a web image...............

jh4wvu

Foques wrote: »

Got to have dupes of all shots with and without logo? no thanks :P

Not if you use Smugmug...You just upload your originals and they process the watermarks for you. It doesn't effect the original file at all...just the web versions.

Chris

CaiusMartius

Ok, I had no idea how dog eat dog it was out there. I guess that explains the level of caution that you guys exhibit. I don't have to enjoy it, but I can understand it.

Hopefully we can just let this thread die.

Art Scott

CaiusMartius wrote: »

Ok, I had no idea how dog eat dog it was out there. I guess that explains the level of caution that you guys exhibit. I don't have to enjoy it, but I can understand it.

Hopefully we can just let this thread die.

I know we sound quite brazen about this but it really isn't the soccer mom or the junior high brat that has PS craks and warez that I have a problem with........it is the publishers that will actually steal you hard earned work of art crop off the signature or copyright statement open a new layer and make a few slight coloration changes and then clone out a nice artistic watermark and charge his client several thousands dollars for something he stole and then he screams it is fair use cause it was on the net when he gets caught.......

The worst of it is that a lot of the very best work is done by people who cannot aford a legal team to fight these unscrupulous souls

For the event shooters however it is the soccer mom and her kids they have to actually fear..........it sucks when yoiu have to go to such lengths to try and secure your income avenues like this and I cannot think of one person that WM's that really likes it.......I know I don't.

gratefulsugaree

Well I am going through something right now that is making me want a bigger watermark.....I picked the biggest size font but yet, it isn't as big as i thought it would be?! And I want it to stay in the middle of the pics...sometimes it doesn't on here...it's at the bottom of some, in the middle of others...

I just had a band steal some photo's of mine...which TOTALLY flabbergasted me since I was already talking to them, and had already agreed to let them use some pics.
Guess they couldn't wait...cause 22 hours ago they added 5 of my pics on their site...along with my watermarks still on them.

Any suggestions? Oh and I had just sent the zip file to them with some pictures...like 5 minutes before I seen that they had done this.
I am angry. I take what i do very serious...and I bust my butt at concerts and festivals....

jmphotocraft

Yes, this is all part of the "anything digital must be free" mentality. We can thank the mouth-breathing nerd communists in the open-source software movement, and also the music industry for keeping CD prices artificially inflated, thus giving rise to the Napster generation.

:P

mercphoto

gratefulsugaree wrote: »

Well I am going through something right now that is making me want a bigger watermark.....I picked the biggest size font but yet, it isn't as big as i thought it would be?! And I want it to stay in the middle of the pics...sometimes it doesn't on here...it's at the bottom of some, in the middle of others...

I just had a band steal some photo's of mine...which TOTALLY flabbergasted me since I was already talking to them, and had already agreed to let them use some pics.
Guess they couldn't wait...cause 22 hours ago they added 5 of my pics on their cite...along with my water mark still on them.

Any suggestions? Oh and I had just sent the zip file to them with some pictures...like 5 minutes before I seen that they had done this.
I am angry. I take what i do very serious...and I bust my butt at concerts and festivals....

Did you have anything in writing before hand? If so then you have some leverage. I'd also be very unlikely to photograph for that outfit in the future. I'm suspecting though they probably thought 'you already agreed' and 'the watermark is exposure for you'. As if "exposure" helps pay the mortgage...

gratefulsugaree

All I know is that i am sad that this happened. I really do bust my hump trying to get the best shots, I am self taught something I take pride in....and now this...someone being a punk and taking my pics?
I need a new watermark...bigger (and my program isn't gonna do it) and I need it to stay in place, Not wonder all over the picture...
Sigh... Okay I need to just go outside and enjoy my day. Enough with this...what is done, is done.