Printmark for digital downloads too small

Delbean

Just trying to figure this one out... If I offer a printmarked digital download, the printmark is supposed to only be able to cover 1% of the image. I want people who view it on the web to be able to actually SEE my copyright and web address on the pic. How can I offer a printmarked download that has a printmark that's actually big enough? I really like my watermark, but can't use that as a printmark, right? It'll be too small.

http://www.rsmithimagesphotography.com/Competitions/Noses/20593868_2nBpN3

Please help me figure this one out.

Andy

Here's an example

Delbean

Thanks Andy, but I really would like it to be larger. Any way to do that?

Art Scott

Delbean wrote: »

Thanks Andy, but I really would like it to be larger. Any way to do that?

Any larger and it would be quite intrusive....think of all the paintings in museums, the artists sig is not very large...but large enuff that you can see it...even tho a lot of are illegible ... ... ...
My sigmatures are added to my files after sizing the file to the final dimensions which is usually at 300-450dpi at what ever size I want...then add the siggy, if the client orders and 8x10 the signature is small and if they order a 40x60 it will be larger....I would prefer them to be exactly the same size but that can only happen if you use a gold stamping machine and use the same slugs for all images or if the Siggy is added during a print delay... ...

Delbean

Yes, I understand why you'd want them to be small on an actual print, but for a digital download, I want it to be large enough so that people won't have trouble seeing the copyright and my web address. And most importantly, large enough so that it would act as a watermark in case someone decides to do a screen capture to try and steal it...

Art Scott

so are you needing a printmark or watermark...guess I misunderstood your op... if your website is thru Smugmug then watermarks can easily be made as a .png and centered on your image or it is there for screen grabs and your print mark will be there for prints ...or you can just make a watermark in photoshop or other processing software add that to your image file the size you want and upload to your site...and if your selling prints...have a print delay so you can change it out....

hope this helps...head all clogged up with allergy out break, so still may be missing point.

jasonscottphoto

I agree with the OP. For digital downloads, I would love to be able to price a watermarked version of photos (to help attract future customers when someone posts a digital download they purchased to facebook, etc with a watermark on it) at a lower price than a non-watermarked version. The printmark is just to small and too easy to crop out, so I don't bother with it.

Delbean

If I offer a digital download, I'd like to have the mark large enough to make it difficult for the image to be stolen. If it is going on the internet, facebook, etc, there is more potential for theft than with a print, I would think. It's almost like there should be no distinction between a printmark or watermark. Just whether or not you want it printed and/or on the download.

The gallery I am referring to has almost 900 images. Too large to do over at this point. Just about each dog has a different handler (unique situation), so with close to 100 clients, it wouldn't be practical either.

SamirD

What I've observed over the last few years about the transition from prints to digital is that once you give the digital copy, it's public domain. It will be remixed, duplicated, and distributed without your permission. If you watermark it in a way that can't be cropped, you render the image useless. If you make it so the digital copy can only be linked, you can't sell the image, but it's protected.

So the question is one of revenue. Is it worth the revenue to sell the digital copy and all the rights? Or is it worth it to use it as marketing material and then charge more for the shoot itself? A hybrid approach has losses from the digitals out in public domain without any type of protection/watermark.

My approach is to lock down digitals with no sales and a watermark, but free and easy linking so the word gets out. This leads to shoots where the revenue comes from. Any print sales are just bonus.

Delbean

"If you watermark it in a way that can't be cropped, you render the image useless"

To me, that's the purpose of a watermark. And as the creator of that image, I should be able to put the mark on the image in whatever size I like. I'd like to see SM offer something like LR, where you can permanently watermark digital downloads. I'm not saying to be obnoxious about it, just judicious and sensible when it comes to putting something ont he internet.

SamirD

Delbean wrote: »

"If you watermark it in a way that can't be cropped, you render the image useless"

To me, that's the purpose of a watermark. And as the creator of that image, I should be able to put the mark on the image in whatever size I like. I'd like to see SM offer something like LR, where you can permanently watermark digital downloads. I'm not saying to be obnoxious about it, just judicious and sensible when it comes to putting something ont he internet.

I should have clarified that it would be useless for being remixed, duplicated, and distributed without your permission. That was my point.

SM's watermark feature can be incorporated with gallery presets to always watermark newly uploaded images with your watermark if you use that preset. I actually forgot about the feature because I use it so often that I thought SM was automatically watermarking all my images.