Teh "watermark"

Marcin Wuu

In all honesty, I have no idea where to put this, so I chose this place. Anyone working for the powers that be: feel free to move this where you think it will fit better.

This done with, here I go:

I noticed, after spending some time in the galleries, that lots of people have a habit of putting a logo of some kind on their pictures. Sometimes this is a small copyright, and sometimes its a big ugly text in extremely obtrusive font and color, covering important part of the photo. Now I've been pondering this for awhile and I'm still in the dark. It's not a safety measure of any kind because, to be honest - most of the photographs marked this way don't represent any kind of value to a potential copyleftist. Artistic value aside, they are simply too small for print (and I say this as a printer with many a year of experience. So, why? Why butcher your own work? Don't you like it? Don't you see how ruining this "watermarks" are for the photograph?

Ohiohiker

Here is my $.02 worth. I have the image sizes controlled to prevent blatant theft of my image. I use a watermark in case a small image is taken from my site and used on Facebook, Twitter, Etc. This is not so I can prosecute/sue, this is to get my logo and name out there. Every client get a CD with low resolution, watermarked images when they place a print order. These images are for them to use on Facebook and other social media. The watermark to me is mainly marketing!

Marcin Wuu wrote: »

In all honesty, I have no idea where to put this, so I chose this place. Anyone working for the powers that be: feel free to move this where you think it will fit better.

This done with, here I go:

I noticed, after spending some time in the galleries, that lots of people have a habit of putting a logo of some kind on their pictures. Sometimes this is a small copyright, and sometimes its a big ugly text in extremely obtrusive font and color, covering important part of the photo. Now I've been pondering this for awhile and I'm still in the dark. It's not a safety measure of any kind because, to be honest - most of the photographs marked this way don't represent any kind of value to a potential copyleftist. Artistic value aside, they are simply too small for print (and I say this as a printer with many a year of experience. So, why? Why butcher your own work? Don't you like it? Don't you see how ruining this "watermarks" are for the photograph?

eoren1

I'm with Chris. I started watermarking my photos on the blog mostly for marketing reasons. I have a small square mark on the bottom lefthand corner. In most photos it could be easily cropped out. I do offer downloads of my photos as desktop/iPad backgrounds and this, along with other basic measures, keeps the technologically less literate from simply grabbing the photo for that use.