Watermarks image size hurting sales?

ballentphoto

I have been doing more fine art photography lately and posting my images on my site (http://www.ballentphoto.com) and all the images have a watermark on the bottem right of the image. People have complained that the watermark is detracting from the image. I have also read that putting the right click copy protection turns off ad agencies that may use the image for a mock up, as well as not having large enough images so people can see the details. So are the watermarks and smaller images potentially hurting sales? :scratch

Shay Stephens

ballentphoto wrote:

So are the watermarks and smaller images potentially hurting sales?

Sales, I doubt it. Free wallpaper for people, yes.

I paid a visit and the only advice I have about the watermark is that it is hard to read the way it disappears into the distance in 3d fashion. A 2d watermark might work better for legibility (one of the main purposes) and most people find it easy to look past a 2d watermark.

For example, I can't read the watermark on this image:
http://www.ballentphoto.com/popular/#90360878

You would do much better with a standard watermark in the right corner. If you really want the 3d effect, then make it fit with the scene like they do in some TV shows. But twisting it just makes it hard to read and doesn't blend with the scene in a natural way.

JESTER

I agree with Shay. Change your watermark but keep it on the photos. The people you are talking about are just trying to get something for nothing. Now, I could understand if your watermark was big and across the middle of the photo like I have seen on some photos but yours are in the right hand corner and you can still see the photo.

Halliday

Yep. Keep a watermark on them. Even with right-click protection on some of my photos still ended up on myspace and I wish they had been watermarked for at least some free advertsing

xtnomad

Here is mine. It is huge and intrusive and ment to be. But it would not work for everyone . While this works for me, only do what you feel you need.

dogwood

Hurting sales? I find watermarks actually improve sales-- folks can't swipe so they have to buy 'em. Strange how that works.

And I can't imagine a marketing or advertising company that doesn't know how to screen-capture for a mock-up. I've actually had this happen then the web designer sent me the link to the mock-up! He didn't understand why I was upset-- yes, even a mock-up requires my permission to use my photo. Needless to say, clients who grab your images for mock-ups without your permission are probably not the kind of clients you want anyway-- they're usually the ones who say, "We'll credit you" and that's considered payment. When was the last time your mortgage company took a photo credit as payment?

mercphoto

ballentphoto wrote:

So are the watermarks and smaller images potentially hurting sales?

I did an experiment in 2005 and found out that watermarks definitely do hurt sales. What I mean is the LACK of a watermark hurts sales. If they can grab a freebie off the Internet they will. Guaranteed. Sales plunged. Watermarks went back in and people had to buy it if they wanted it. Now the only thing hurting sales is all the people who bring their own cameras.

I still don't know whether to laugh or cry at the 14-year-old kart racer who asked me (seriously, and with a straight face) "how can I get my photos without PROOF written across them?"

bham

ballentphoto wrote:

I have been doing more fine art photography lately and posting my images on my site (http://www.ballentphoto.com) and all the images have a watermark on the bottem right of the image. People have complained that the watermark is detracting from the image. I have also read that putting the right click copy protection turns off ad agencies that may use the image for a mock up, as well as not having large enough images so people can see the details. So are the watermarks and smaller images potentially hurting sales?

Maybe turning down the opacity some. My goal with watermarks, if they steal it, then everybody will know where they got it. Legible and repetitive but at about 65% opacity so you can appreciate the image. I can see how 3D watermark can pull attention to it and away from the image, keep it 2D. If its more obvious and simple, I think it is easier to look past and appreciate just the image.

Daphotos

Maybe there's another way...
What if you right click blocked and additionally, blocked people from dragging your photos to the desktop? I know that the is a way.. as I've done it (but forgotten the code).

It could be an alternative to a large watermark. But if people are going to steal work... they're going to do it regardless and by any means needed.

mercphoto

Daphotos wrote:

What if you right click blocked and additionally, blocked people from dragging your photos to the desktop? I know that the is a way.. as I've done it (but forgotten the code).

None of that stops screen grabbing.

claudermilk

...or digging through the cache. Remember, if they see it on their screen they have it on their drive. Gotta have a watermark (reminds me, I need to revise mine...).

dragon300zx

Watermarking is very very important, right click protecting is very very important as well. These people just want stuff for free.

Let me through out another little tip to you as well.

If you let people link your image (for embedding in a forum for example), then you are giving them a backdoor to steal your image.