Options
Watermarks:
Lemur Lover
Registered Users Posts: 180 Major grins
Hi,
Not sure if this is the best forum to post this in and happy to receive suggestions of which one would be better if not!
I'm about to take the plunge and finally act on the advice I've been given by others to use a watermark on all my photos, something I've never wanted to do previously for the simple reason that I find watermarks that slice through the most prominent parts of an image, no matter how low the opacity is set, serves as a serious distraction that may well spoil a viewer's enjoyment and have them leaving my photos long before they may otherwise have if they were able to see the photos free of such a watermark.
Thing is, while I've seen many of my images "borrowed" and pasted up on other people's Facebook pages, Tumbler accounts, and other personal sites - though for the most part thankfully with my copyright in tact (a subtle one of which I've always placed in one of the lower corners) and often with my name credited - of course it's all too easy for less scrupulous individuals to make a screen shot of the photos on my website, crop out my copyright signature, thereby enabling them to use what remains for whatever they will.
Being that I sell my work through my own physical gallery here in Thailand and I'm looking to try and break into online sales, right now I'm torn between the logic of watermarking my photos for the best means of protection and my preference to leave them relatively unblemished while hoping for the best.
Any thoughts on this would be greatly appreciated, and thanks in advance!
P.S. Just yesterday I tried a number of different styles of watermarks at varying different strengths of opacity in one of my less frequented galleries. If you like to take a quick look at a few of the images in that and offer an opinion I'd also be very grateful, here's the link: http://natureimpressions.smugmug.com/Animals/Reptiles-1/17377609_ttjGfr
Not sure if this is the best forum to post this in and happy to receive suggestions of which one would be better if not!
I'm about to take the plunge and finally act on the advice I've been given by others to use a watermark on all my photos, something I've never wanted to do previously for the simple reason that I find watermarks that slice through the most prominent parts of an image, no matter how low the opacity is set, serves as a serious distraction that may well spoil a viewer's enjoyment and have them leaving my photos long before they may otherwise have if they were able to see the photos free of such a watermark.
Thing is, while I've seen many of my images "borrowed" and pasted up on other people's Facebook pages, Tumbler accounts, and other personal sites - though for the most part thankfully with my copyright in tact (a subtle one of which I've always placed in one of the lower corners) and often with my name credited - of course it's all too easy for less scrupulous individuals to make a screen shot of the photos on my website, crop out my copyright signature, thereby enabling them to use what remains for whatever they will.
Being that I sell my work through my own physical gallery here in Thailand and I'm looking to try and break into online sales, right now I'm torn between the logic of watermarking my photos for the best means of protection and my preference to leave them relatively unblemished while hoping for the best.
Any thoughts on this would be greatly appreciated, and thanks in advance!
P.S. Just yesterday I tried a number of different styles of watermarks at varying different strengths of opacity in one of my less frequented galleries. If you like to take a quick look at a few of the images in that and offer an opinion I'd also be very grateful, here's the link: http://natureimpressions.smugmug.com/Animals/Reptiles-1/17377609_ttjGfr
0
Comments
One thing you could try is give the text an inner bevel/emboss effect, then set the FILL to 0%. That will remove the text but show the effect. It will be readable on a much wider variety of backgrounds. You can also drop the opacity if you still feel the text effect is too strong.
Personally, I don't like the two lines of text ... but if you look at my website I'm pretty sure you will hate my watermark!! (but a LOT of my visitors are local kids and they have no concept of copyright ... lol! I would try to have the watermark take up just one line?
www.acecootephotography.com
Plus I think with their professional package, their image search will even find your images on the web that contain your digital watermark.
I suppose that is the other consideration with watermarking. On one hand, you try to watermark your image to the point that nobody will want to even try to steal it. The other idea is that you are simply more prepared to catch the people that do steal it. I think the digimarc idea is toward the latter.
Lenses: Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR II | Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 | Nikon 50mm f/1.4
Lighting: SB-910 | SU-800
Many thanks for your response and helpful suggestion Ace, definitely sounds interesting, now all I need to do is figure out how to create an inner bevel/emboss effect
Seriously, this is something I'm going to work on today, and thanks again
BTW, I liked this suggestion of yours so much that I decided to share it with others on Denise's related thread (http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?p=1780689#post1780689), hope you don't mind.
Wishing you a great weekend ahead
http://NatureImpressions.smugmug.com
Hi Helvegr,
Many thanks for your suggestion too and for providing the link to Digimark, something else I'll be looking into today!
As I just wrote to Ace: I liked this suggestion of yours so much that I decided to share it with others on Denise's related thread (http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?...89#post1780689), hope you don't mind.
Thanks again Helvegr and wishing you a wonderful weekend ahead
http://NatureImpressions.smugmug.com
Hi Ace,
I also agree that two lines of text in the watermark appears like one too many: only reason for me having chosen to do that previously was that some of the watermarks in some images sliced through vital parts of the subject (e.g. one or both eyes), and as great a feature as SmugMug's watermarking is, we're somewhat restricted in the number of places we can situate the watermark; on a horizontal plain, it's pretty much either along the top, the bottom, or bang in the middle, and there's no way of nudging a watermark up or down to reposition it better.
As soon as I read your suggestion this morning on an emboss-styled watermark, an instant picture of how this would look popped into mind, however, try as i may, I can't seem to replicate that mental image accurately on my screen.
What I have now is certainly an improvement on what I'd done previously, but what I'm really aiming for is the sort of embossed look where the characters I'm using are the exact same colours of the pixels under it. In other words, I'm looking to create merely the illusion of the characters in a raised or sunken transparent form.
If that makes sense to you - and I'm praying that it does
BTW, I worked in PS CS5 going Layer > Layer Style > Bevel and Emboss. I experimented with several of the styles and ended up with this as the result: http://natureimpressions.smugmug.com/Animals/Reptiles-1/i-SFtzn6K/11/L/101117Lumpini0036-L.jpg
The closest font colour I could think of to create a sort of transparency was white, which is what I used. As I couldn't seem to find the word "fill" in the Layer Style options panel, I left the Opacity at a 75% default, thinking you were referring to the "fill" adjustment once I was working with the watermark over in SmugMug. The zero setting in SmugMug is equal to 100% opacity (which is momentarily confusing!), and, for me, way too much. So the example you can see by way of the image/link above is actually at a SmugMug fill setting of 45%.
Thanks for you time, consideration and, hopefully, assistance in advance!
http://NatureImpressions.smugmug.com
- copyright symbol
- year
- your name and
- smugmug address
I'm not so sure two lines couldn't be tastefully done as well as one line, but you're posting to sell images... not provide viewing pleasure to non-buying clients.You posted it elsewhere, but here's a link to the new Getty watermarks, not that I can remember the old one. I guess they didn't get the memo for having only one line:
http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/Creative/Frontdoor/NewWatermark?esource=21920_UKI_New_Watermark_em
What about using a printmark in a corner on your watermark as part of your watermark?
Or using a colored watermark with your web address that keeps repeating diagonally on several lines?
I have emailed you a couple of examples Ashley.
www.acecootephotography.com
Thanks for your thoughts and comments Pure!
I've pretty much latched onto the idea of going with a transparent embossed watermark, which is what I'm current working on with the kind assistance of Ace.
Being that I am indeed looking to increase sales of my prints, the only logical solution to tip those already close to the edge of making a decision on buying one, rather than either downloading what they can or simply enjoying it by visiting my site, is to use a watermark that just mildly detracts from full viewing pleasure. Maybe this will work and perhaps it won't, but I feel this is the way to go right now for me!
http://NatureImpressions.smugmug.com
Many thanks Ace, much appreciate your time and assistance with this my friend. Already responded to your email, looking forward to hearing back from you and wishing you a great weekend meantime
http://NatureImpressions.smugmug.com
After having some of my images stolen early on, I began watermarking them. Then when people bragged how them edited them out I aggressively watermarked them. Recently I have added "Stolen from" to the watermark, because of continued abuse, so as to let their friends, family, and potential future employers know that they are thiefs. This coming fall I doubt I will be allowing clients to purchase online anymore. Either they purchase bulk download rights, or order from a image contact sheet. They only have themselves to blame for the abuse. I am really tired of having to report DCMA to facebook.
Thanks for your feedback Bham! Sorry to hear of your frustrating experiences. I tried out tineye.com a while back, uploading a popular image of mine I know has been circulating widespread over the web for some time, and within a instant the message came up that tineye.com had somehow searched something like 50 trillion sites (OK, a slight exaggeration, but you get the point!) and not one single duplicate was found!
Now I like speedy service, but when it's done in the blink of an eye and the result comes back as nothing found, c'mon, what do they expect me to think?
I know this particular image is on several different sites, not least of all the ones I posted them on, so how come they didn't come up with anything at all? That's more of a rhetorical question than one posed in hope of an actual answer, but if you do have some insight on this I'd be more than happy for you to share
http://NatureImpressions.smugmug.com
I think tineye is still in the process of trying to index the entire internet (it says it has done 2.15 Billion images so far), which is a large task. Obviously they haven't yet. Have you tried google yet?
I just searched on google an image from the dgrin 2007 photo of the year, and found it used a few places it probably shouldn't be, but also in use by the model in the photo.
So I guess "50 trillion" was a little off the mark as I suspected
Nope, haven't yet tinkered with Google's new toy yet, though may give it a try in the future.
In some ways I may be far better off not knowing if any image of mine is being used all over the place, as in any case where there might be some recourse to be had the possible investment in time, effort and money may well fall a long way short of anything remotely positive that might come by way of a result. Of course if I ever find out that a large company has used any of my work without my consent, well that would be another matter entirely
http://NatureImpressions.smugmug.com
Original
New watermark idea
Its somewhat faded, what do you think?
While I like the thought process and level of creativity, I do find your new watermark to be a little too much of a distraction, though watermarks IMO will always prove to be a distraction no matter how subtle they are.
The main issue with this new watermark for me is that the overlay completely changes the subject's natural tones, or at least the tones of the actual image. It also seems to turn a portrait image into something more abstract, although I have to say I do find the abstract appealing, I don't think this is really what you're aiming for.
Don't know if you've checked out my site (the link's in my signature below), but I've now added my new watermark to all my images. Not saying it's the best to be found, but I felt the need to get one in place and the main thing I wanted was to have it as transparent as possible (i.e. zero fill), using an embossed effect, so that in most cases any colours showing through it would be those colours in the picture directly beneath it. Not sure if this would work for you, but you might want to take a look.
http://NatureImpressions.smugmug.com
http://www.matebence.hu/
pp
Flickr
Thanks for the link Paul, he's an excellent photographer and I'd love to have the opportunity to use one of his hides for a few days; what an exquisite variety of exotic birds they have over in Costa Rica!
His watermark that virtually covers each image is certainly nothing I've even seen before and it's definitely far from obtrusive, only thing is I wouldn't have much of a clue as to how I'd make one the same
I guess if I asked around (perhaps he'd be willing to tell me himself, should I send him an email) I could figure it out, although for the time being I think I'm going to keep the one I've got at the moment and see what feedback I get.
BTW, very much enjoyed looking through the photos on your site too, and first time I've seen Flickr images displayed in that way. Keep up the good work and thanks again
http://NatureImpressions.smugmug.com
Ashley - just had a quick play, and imo it's pretty straightforward.
Open image at size to be displayed
Type whatever text string you want
Copy / paste it until it fills the frame
'Suck it and see' ... ie see how it looks
Change size / typeface as required - start with white, maybe
Once satisfied with this, rasterise the text layer (Layer > Rasterise > text)
Lock transparency of the (now rasterised) text layer - this allows you to mess around at will with this overlay.
So - you can leave the overlay all one colour - or use the (linear) gradient fill to change fill colour between a light sky and dark background (for example) ... or drag diagonally across the frame etc.
Obviously alter opacity / fill as required - or use a blending mode if you think it's necessary (I don't think so)
Save this overlay in a separate file and open same when wanting to add to a pic - just drag / drop.
Having the means of changing colour will allow you to cater for a wide range of pics imo.
Hth
pp
thx for comments, btw - appreciated.
Flickr
Thanks for figuring this out Paul, really wasn't expecting you to do this, though much appreciated and hope it didn't put you to too much work. Thing is, as I pointed out in my last post, I think I'm going to run with the watermark I've already created at least for a while, but good to have your ideas as something I can fall back on should I decide to go in another direction.
Thanks again and wishing you a great weekend ahead
http://NatureImpressions.smugmug.com
Dunno about 'figuring it out' ... I suspect there are many ways of killing this particular cat - this is only one
I'd noted it at Bence's site because I thought it was a good idea (imo) for this issue - and all this thread did was get me to try it out - for my own benefit as much as yours.
I find it reasonable because it does cover the whole image in an unobtrusive manner - and thus doesn't provide a specific target for the viewer's eyes.
Ahhh the w/end ... I assume you mean for me to have some success in finding a vibrant /enthusiastic / noisy etc 'republican' street party to take photographic advantage of ... ?
pp
Flickr
If I hadn't have had an image in my mind of pretty much exactly what I was in the end able to create - with some wonderful help and support of Ace down under! - I probably would have been all over Bence's idea like white on rice
In fairness, I didn't take a look at too many of his photos with that watermark on it, as I'd already made up my mind to stick with the one I now have, and I think what spurred me on with this was wondering how on certain images with background colours I want to keep in tact, how much the covering of his watermark would bring down the overall strength of the background colour of the image, if that makes any sense.
And by 'republican' I'm assuming you mean a pub crawl, as I see you're in the UK (which is where I'm originally from!) and I can't think of any other Englishman who would use this word unless he was referring to the American republicans, though please correct my course where I may have strayed :loll
Plain and simple, whatever you're up to this weekend I'm hoping it brings you a lot of joy and happiness
http://NatureImpressions.smugmug.com
Makes a lot of sense.
One thing I liked about the 'full monty overlay' is that, as a layer which can be superimposed over the image, it's also possible to add a layer mask to it and modify the way that it interacts with said image ... as well as changing the col(s) as previously mentioned.
I can obviously appreciate that you want an approach that isn't too time consuming, especially if lots of pics are involved, as in your case, and I've also read enough comments here (and elsewhere) about how ppl haven't been able to 'get past' the watermark ... to know it's unlikely there's a perfect solution.
No ... I was referring to 'alternative' parties / gigs that aren't associated with HRH's 60th ...
Judging by the weather, it's likely to be associated with editing / sorting / other stuff, rather than taking. If you're missing good 'ol Brit clouds, check here http://www.sat24.com
pp
Flickr
Ashley...Another option is to embed your copyright information into the metadata. I have LR setup to do this automatically when importing my raw files. You can enter your same info as your watermark, along with business name and personal name and contact information if you want. There's several sections, you pick and choose what info you want to include in the metadata.
GaryB
“The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it!” - Ansel Adams
I've uploaded a file and as I'm turning that image into a watermark... I'm given the option to have thumbnails watermarked. Huh? Elsewhere in the help section it mentions sizes smaller than 800 pixels on one side are not watermarked. Which statement is correct? How do I now go back and watermark all of my thumbnail images. Or is everyone here going to say that's a bad idea?
Now another way to do watermarks Lemur Lover, instead of copying and pasting, is to try the tile function for your watermark on SM. If you didn't notice this feature with your current watermark, try creating a smaller sized watermark... a third of your current watermark for a test... then upload the image to your SmugMug site, make into watermark, then try "tile" for location of the watermark.
Quick and simple. All that is needed is the size of the initial watermark needed to make a tiled watermark look like someone seamlessly copied and pasted everything in Photoshop. I'd prefer to make it a diagonal watermark. So, any ideas on the size needed to make one and have SM tile it for me? It must be getting late, but as I'm reading this before posting I'm thinking a watermark with less space on the ends of the text?
Anyways, the tutorial on SM suggested a file size of 1600 x 200 for a simple centered line. What size should we do if we wanted to copy and paste in Photoshop instead of using the tile feature on SM?
Any suggestions for font size, opacity, colors, etc. for tiled watermarks from any photographers successfully selling online that utilize tiled watermarks?
I can see the benefits of having a global workflow - but if it can't cope with all types of images (as previously mentioned by LL) then that's worth knowing, imo.
A variant on the photoshop c/p route is to use Fill with defined pattern approach.
Angling a layer is simplicity itself of course if dealing with a complete layer ... but maybe needs a bit more care if tiled?
Re successful selling on line - I'd point back to Bence (link, post 17) as probably a fair starting point?
If the reason for adding a watermark is twofold - prevent (ease of) copying and to show details - then I'd suggest that for the latter aspect, a simple, easy to read typeface is used, because apart from the obvious, it'll probably stay easier to read when its transparency is set to a very low % (maybe 2%)
pp
Flickr
http://www.matebence.hu/
I think the clients one is shooting for and how successful someone is would relate to this type of watermark. Personally, that would be good enough for me to lift a copy and not care to ever purchase the photo so that low of opacity won't work for the clients I'm hoping will purchase photos.
For the photos I want to watermark immediately, that might work or even a simple printmark type watermark in the corner.
At SmugMug, you can turn any image into a watermark as well as the opacity (they call it fade)... but you can't adjust it's color. The following options are available for the location of the watermark:
- center
- tile
- top
- right
- left
- bottom
- top right
- top left
- bottom left
- bottom right
How big your watermark image determines how many times it is tiled across an image.Now for my other photographs, I like the "PROOF" watermark that is always centered but I'm starting to think that has too low of opacity. I'd like my name in the corner as well but that creates complications of having one watermark for portrait and landscape photos. Or is that what most people do... go in and apply watermarks individually by gallery? What if I wanted something in the corner and centered like "PROOF" is as well?
Then there are the photographs that I think a diagonal watermark tiled across it will be a better fit. So that's why I'm looking for suggestions on font size, opacity, colors, etc. from any photographers successfully selling online that utilize tiled watermarks?
Completely forgot about the queen's do and shindigs
Oh and thanks for the weather report, eye I sure do miss those clouds over Britain :giggle
Hope the editing, sorting, and other stuff went okay for you and wishing you, well, whatever it is you're wishing this week ahead to be
P.S. Not sure if I mentioned this before or not, but you have some excellent images in you Flickr galleries, particularly like the Mallard (I think it's a Mallard: _X1C4890Fm) straight at you through it's raised wings, perfect timing my friend!
http://NatureImpressions.smugmug.com
Thanks Gary,
As if happens, I've known about metadata for some time now and my copyright's always embedded into my photos soon as I upload them from my cards by way of Lightroom 3.
Thing is, while embedded copyrights of course could win a case, you first have to find out that a picture has been stolen and used, and think it a worthwhile investment in time, energy and quite possibly money to pursue such a case. Visible watermarks serve more as a deterrent, which is to say there's probably a way around them too, but far fewer people would go to the lengths of removing watermarks IMO. If image theft and misuse is a concern, I think embedding copyrights and the use of watermarks in the way to go.
http://NatureImpressions.smugmug.com
Hi PE,
Unfortunately I can't speak from a position of one who has sold even a single image directly online, however, in the absence of others, I'm happy to offer an opinion.
Unless a photographer had been commissioned to shoot a particular set, be it a wedding, a family gathering, or perhaps a promotional event, whereby it's pretty much a foregone conclusion that photos will be purchased by the party that commissioned the work, I think the more distractions one adds to an image by way of blatant watermarks and copyrights the less likely casual visitors to one's site would be willing to look through more than a few photos that are so heavily protected.
My opinion is based on things I've heard or read other people say and my own experience of having come across what I regarded as overkill when it came to visible image protection that to me only served as a visual irritation.
http://NatureImpressions.smugmug.com
+1
Ashley - yes, you did previously mention looking at my pics (thanks again) ... and said that you'd not seen pics displayed on a Flickr gallery in that way before.
(mostly luck re frame mentioned, btw)
As I've done absolutely nothing out of the ordinary re Flickr - just using std. display options etc - I'm not sure what you mean?
pp
As I lived / worked in west + central Africa for 4 yrs ...I can also (just) remember cloudless skies
Flickr