Since no one seems to have any idea on how to advise on a more complex watermark so far (dgrin or SM help desk)... how about some help with a simpler watermark?
standard text for bottom right corner:
text - light color (24pt - regular, strong; vertical scale 110, horizontal scale 100, tracking 75)
drop shadow - color black (opacity 100, distance 5, spread 0, size 5)
outer glow - dark color (opacity 42, noise 0, spread 27, size 24, range 50, jitter 0)
Since no one seems to have any idea on how to advise on a more complex watermark so far (dgrin or SM help desk)... how about some help with a simpler watermark?
What does 'complex' mean in this context, as far as you're concerned?
pp
edit
Re font size - I think target image size needs to be known first ... or at least what % across image watermark is going to be?
Typeface used is highly subjective imo - as some (flowery, ornate etc) ones that are used are difficult to read in their own right - let alone when used as feint overlay ... assuming the idea is to have a text string that is legible - rather than just a pattern to dissuade copiers.
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.
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.
For me, I hate the idea of people stealing my photos for most things. I have different watermarks for different viewers. But when I put images up on the internet I always have some form of watermark or signature line.
And even then I change them at times. Example of what I mean.
I used to do a lot of 4x4 wheeling with several groups of people and I would post photos of friends on forums with a smaller signature line either at the center bottom or bottom right corner. But then I will have the gallery hidden. That way only the people on the forum can find or have access to those clean images.
Then after a week or so I put a full watermark on them, and usually make them open for viewing by anyone. I am sure most people would hate mine. lol Do I care, nope! (Although I am not real happy with it either, It just doesn't feel professional enough to me.) I have seen too many stolen images being portrayed as being shot by someone else, or being used somehow without the permission and or payment to the photographer. Or read about people bragging how with the new software they have, they can, and do, easily remove/clone out photographers watermarks.
Example of my full watermark. I also keep the viewers size to the smallest size setting.
I've alwasy been very intrigued by Digimarc (http://www.digimarc.com/digimarc-for-images) for doing watermarks. I've never actually used them, but they seem like a great compromise between the classic watermark and nothing at all.
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.
In My Humble Opinion, I am not too impressed with the Digimarc system. I personally do not know anyone who uses it. If I did, maybe I would change my mind.
Ah, but if you put thousands of images online, there it is a real problem to do the searches to find all the stolen images. Are you going to search for those thousands of images, all the time? And then the problem of people stealing them in some overseas country who do not care, even if the photographer catches them.
I am on a Stock Photography forum and have read of some photographers doing searches (now with the Google Similar Image system) and finding hundreds of sites with their images. And then he has to track those down and try to go after the ones that could be brought to make payment or remove his images. It turns into a real big job just to track the images down on a continual basis.
[clipped] 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:
[clipped]
Or using a colored watermark with your web address that keeps repeating diagonally on several lines?
I could not agree more with your first line that I quoted above!
Thanks for the Getty watermark link. I like that idea a lot. I think I will try incorporate something like that.
I have been holding back from view, many of my images that I would hate to be stolen. And even with my large watermark I was worried. ( I have already filed and settled some copyright suits.) So Copyrights and controlling the use of my own images is a big deal to me.
For me, I hate the idea of people stealing my photos for most things. I have different watermarks for different viewers. But when I put images up on the internet I always have some form of watermark or signature line.
And even then I change them at times. Example of what I mean.
I used to do a lot of 4x4 wheeling with several groups of people and I would post photos of friends on forums with a smaller signature line either at the center bottom or bottom right corner. But then I will have the gallery hidden. That way only the people on the forum can find or have access to those clean images.
Then after a week or so I put a full watermark on them, and usually make them open for viewing by anyone. I am sure most people would hate mine. lol Do I care, nope! (Although I am not real happy with it either, It just doesn't feel professional enough to me.) I have seen too many stolen images being portrayed as being shot by someone else, or being used somehow without the permission and or payment to the photographer. Or read about people bragging how with the new software they have, they can, and do, easily remove/clone out photographers watermarks.
Example of my full watermark. I also keep the viewers size to the smallest size setting.
Copyrights and controlling the use of my own images is a big deal to me.
PaulThePhotographer
Hey Paul,
Thanks for posting an example of your watermark.
I am also looking to use the following different watermarks to use beyond the standard "PROOF" that I am currently using for many of my photos:
Bottom right corner
(already designed & mentioned in an earlier comment).
light color text with a darker color for an outer glow
Used for photos that get published
Color can be easily changed for whatever reason
Outer glow may be removed for those publishers that don't like it.
Also Used on galleries for friends and families (password protected) similar to how simple locks are used: to keep honest people honest.
Diagonal text is tiled (repeated) several times across the image
One similar to yours posted above:
Bottom right corner has a signature and your web address
Big C symbol in the middle
Centered text below the Big C symbol
Watermark option three is the type of watermark that is too complicated for the SmugMug (SM) help desk to advise on how to create, so if you have any suggestions please help.
Let me clarify, I have mentioned three watermark types so that means I only want a total of three watermarks for my SmugMug images, not six.
What pixel size png image is the best size to create for one watermark using option 3 that looks great for vertical photos as well as horizontal photos? Will the text be in the bottom right corner as well as whatever is put in the center of the photo be centered for both photo orientations?
I may not need both the big C symbol and text, but I would like at least something centered and in the lower right corner.
Overall, I thought this would be a better type of watermark to replace the standard "PROOF," but one needs to be careful with the graying out much less than 100% opacity look. I've seen numerous photos watermarked for visual pleasure but quite frankly the watermarks blends in so well, they don't show up on some photos, so if all I need is a digital copy... I'm set. When it doesn't blend in well and the grayed out opacity look shows up as intended on a photo... it still doesn't bother me. Which is probably one of the reasons why any of my photos at a $1 (4x6) in password protected galleries with the standard "PROOF" still have not sold nor has anyone requested me to print one for free (which I've offered). So, I'm thinking I need to replace the "PROOF" watermark sooner rather than later.
As for watermark option 2... I think it will drive sales but I am not sure how much opacity to give the watermark. I see it used more for sports so it might be inappropriate to use on anything but sports. I've seen it used by one successful photographer but it looks like he has it at 100% opacity (not clear see through at all) but I'm worried that would block some detail that might be critical for deciding whether to purchase or not. Too little for viewing pleasure and my site might as well be everyone else's personal website.
And then option 1, the easiest to adjust with lots of options. Which do people prefer to throw into the corner? Why should someone not include any of the following in a simple watermark?:
I am not sure exactly what you mean in some of these statements.
I believe you MAY be talking about two different things. A Watermark, which gets removed when the image gets either printed or licensed, or a Signature, (called a "Printmark" by SmugMug which will be printed on the printed product as your "Signature". Is that correct?
I am also looking to use the following different watermarks to use beyond the standard "PROOF" that I am currently using for many of my photos:
Bottom right corner
(already designed & mentioned in an earlier comment).
light color text with a darker color for an outer glow
Used for photos that get published
Color can be easily changed for whatever reason
Outer glow may be removed for those publishers that don't like it.
Also Used on galleries for friends and families (password protected) similar to how simple locks are used: to keep honest people honest.
Diagonal text is tiled (repeated) several times across the image
One similar to yours posted above:
Bottom right corner has a signature and your web address
Big C symbol in the middle
Centered text below the Big C symbol
Watermark option three is the type of watermark that is too complicated for the SmugMug (SM) help desk to advise on how to create, so if you have any suggestions please help.
Let me clarify, I have mentioned three watermark types so that means I only want a total of three watermarks for my SmugMug images, not six.
What pixel size png image is the best size to create for one watermark using option 3 that looks great for vertical photos as well as horizontal photos? Will the text be in the bottom right corner as well as whatever is put in the center of the photo be centered for both photo orientations?
I may not need both the big C symbol and text, but I would like at least something centered and in the lower right corner.
Overall, I thought this would be a better type of watermark to replace the standard "PROOF," but one needs to be careful with the graying out much less than 100% opacity look. I've seen numerous photos watermarked for visual pleasure but quite frankly the watermarks blends in so well, they don't show up on some photos, so if all I need is a digital copy... I'm set. When it doesn't blend in well and the grayed out opacity look shows up as intended on a photo... it still doesn't bother me. Which is probably one of the reasons why any of my photos at a $1 (4x6) in password protected galleries with the standard "PROOF" still have not sold nor has anyone requested me to print one for free (which I've offered). So, I'm thinking I need to replace the "PROOF" watermark sooner rather than later.
If you have the viewer size limited in your galleries then that is a size to start with. If not, well, lets see.
(Whoops, I just noticed I need to change the date on that old Coupon. Yikes! I have been remiss in my duties! :cry)
My Signature in the bottom right was put on the image by me, before i uploaded to SmugMug. (These are old images.) and NOT part of the Watermark.
These full Copyright Watermarks by me are 1600 pixels SQUARE. That is important to maintain the Horizontal verses Vertical watermarking on the images.
The ONLY way for me to think of having the Watermark Centered and still have the ability to have a "signature" line, in the corner, and still be part of the Watermark would have to be to have one Watermark for Vertical images and one Watermark for Horizontal images.
As for watermark option 2... I think it will drive sales but I am not sure how much opacity to give the watermark. I see it used more for sports so it might be inappropriate to use on anything but sports. I've seen it used by one successful photographer but it looks like he has it at 100% opacity (not clear see through at all) but I'm worried that would block some detail that might be critical for deciding whether to purchase or not. Too little for viewing pleasure and my site might as well be everyone else's personal website.
I believe marketing is much more important that these matters. IMHO. I have read on other "professional" forums that heavy duty watermarking is REQUIRED for anything related to sports or other personal photography. Don't listen to that "oh, but it destroys the nice look "viewing pleasure" of the website and photographs. If you want to sell the images to people themselves, then watermark them. and IMHO, don't be shy.
And then option 1, the easiest to adjust with lots of options. Which do people prefer to throw into the corner? Why should someone not include any of the following in a simple watermark?:
Almost every "publisher" I know does NOT want a "Watermark/Signature/Photographers Information" on a image. Now unless you mean BEFORE the publisher licenses the image and you have sent them a 'trial" image for layout reasons. And you want to make sure they don't just use it without you knowledge. (Trust me, that is very possible they might do that!)
Almost all of my "signatures" are put on my images myself. They are that way because I did a lot of these previous to SmugMugs 'Printmark" feature. Which I might use instead. The problem with my old system was if someone, lets say cropped a 8x12 image of mine to PRINT a 8x10 image then the "signature on the image" could very well get removed or cut or something. That is why the 'Printmark" is better in that respect. Now I have to admit, it has been a while since I looked at that feature.
(I just reviewed the 'Printmark" feature of SmugMug. Now I remember some of my problems with it. As far as I know, It does NOT get printed on Digital downloads, it does NOT show on the Website, which might make some people upset if they purchase a print, only to see the signature line after purchasing. Arrrgghhhh! lol)
To me any 'Watermark" that does not hide/change the main subject is of little use as a "Watermark". A smaller corner watermark will, as you say, keep honest people honest. Which is NOT what I am concerned about.
But if you want a corner signature line for Family and Friends, then it depends on different factors. If they take those images and put them on certain forums, the forums themselves MIGHT have "Branding" which might cover a corner placement.
So sometimes now I use a Bottom-center for just a signature line for family and friends.
And personally, I don't like the idea of changing these things "for whatever reason". I am sad to say many of my images have "different" signatures that I have changed and used through the years. I believe that looks unprofessional to me. So I have a lot of work for myself to fix all my own images.
See below for one of my "Newer" Signature lines".
Also for "Fine Art" sales, personally I would NOT put the website or anything other than my "real signed signature" on it, but I would and use the back-printing feature to include that information.
Again it depends on the what the image is marketed for? And if it is just a WATERMARK or a SIGNATURE! But IMHO concerning your list.
photo by (insert your name) - PTP Answer -> Too much stuff for an image. Forget it. Why "photo by"!
copyright symbol - PTP Answer -> Ok for Watermark, drop it for Signature. Not really needed for Copyright Protection. (REGISTRATION is much more important!)
year - PTP Answer -> I don't like putting Dates on my images. It might limit licensing. Actually, most of my file names have the date in them. Something I need to change also.
web address - PTP Answer -> Watermark Yes, Signature No.
photographers signature - PTP Answer -> Watermark Yes, Signature Yes, except for most all Publishers who do not want anything on the image.
the above on one line or two lines? - PTP Answer -> Watermark, makes no difference, Signature than IMHO, Smaller is better.
Hopefully that helps some. Whew! lol
But if you need to see my "Master Big Copyright SmugMug" Photoshop file, I could upload it for you.
Just remember, these are just my humble opinions, and others could disagree.
Thanks Paul. I'll be sure to re-read your reply and hopefully others before fully commenting but wanted to clarify a few things real quick.
Firstly, I am looking for a watermark, not a printmark. A printmark sounds good for digital sales (and it is on digital photos sold if you dot your i's and t's) but beyond that, I don't know when I should consider using printmarks.
Secondly, I guess I'm used to seeing "photo by (me)" and other photgraphers on the back of photographs as well as in various publications so that's why I've used "photo by (me)." Obviously, the watermark I have in the corner would not be there on a file meant for print media but it would be there for publishing somewhere online.
Finally, I heard back from a photographer that uses a diagonal tiled watermark and it sounded like he sets the opacity to 40% with two different colors used. I'll be creating one to see how it looks for the files I want to upload next.
I used to use a faded opacity for a watermark for most of my event photography until someone bragged to me how they just photoshoped it out and then posted to facebook. I have added the words "stolen from" to the watermark in the effort hopefully embarrass them to their parents, friends and future employers, and still find it on facebook.
"A photo is like a hamburger. You can get one from McDonalds for $1, one from Chili's for $5, or one from Ruth's Chris for $15. You usually get what you pay for, but don't expect a Ruth's Chris burger at a McDonalds price, if you want that, go cook it yourself." - me
How does the new "stolen from" watermark differ? Couldn't they just photoshop that out too?
I did receive a suggestion that even thumbnails should be watermarked because those are good enough for some things as well now.
Guess my response wasn't clear. I went from a watermark tiled across the image at 50% opacity. That is when someone had bragged that they had photoshoped it out, I guess since you could tell what was originally under it, it made it easier to heal out using photoshop. So I went to full opacity and then added stolen from. The image is too low res to make a decent print, but I have found what happens most is that they want to share it with others on facebook. So I regularly have to send some DCMA notices to facebook. The individuals usually learn then, as facebook then won't allow them to upload a photo for a month.
"A photo is like a hamburger. You can get one from McDonalds for $1, one from Chili's for $5, or one from Ruth's Chris for $15. You usually get what you pay for, but don't expect a Ruth's Chris burger at a McDonalds price, if you want that, go cook it yourself." - me
Whilst the discussion about the 'mechanics' of watermarking is of some interest, I find it more intriguing - in view of the fact that the OP is a w/life photographer - that some other well known practitioners don't bother at all.
(last added as thought might be of general interest to OP)
Whilst the discussion about the 'mechanics' of watermarking is of some interest, I find it more intriguing - in view of the fact that the OP is a w/life photographer - that some other well known practitioners don't bother at all.
pp
Not a bad catch. And an interesting viewpoint.
But I am sure there are many other Wildlife Photographers, that DO employ Watermarks, as do the Stock Agencies.
But it only took one Copyright Infringement for me to change my outlook on this matter. It was when a Nationally Known and Awarded Artist purchased some on my prints at a Fine Art Outdoor Art show, for the sole purpose to "copy" them into his paintings. And while purchasing them, never mentioning who he was or what he was going to do with them.
And then that "Artist" actually used a projector to COPY every single feather and pose of my photos, (I overlaid a Transparency of my photos over his "Artwork" and it matched feather for feather.) into his Five foot tall Painting, that he intended to sell for at least $5,000.
To make matters even worse, he made his real money with "Limited Edition" Prints from this infringement of my photos. Selling editions of 1,800 or so. Ranging on price from $80, to $40 Wholesale. So he could have easily made over $75,000 from COPYING my photographs. Without a penny to me or any acknowledgement to me. Not that I would have settled for an acknowledgement.
And then my head really exploded off my shoulders, when I read an article in a big newspaper about him, where the reporter just praised the "Artist" for REALLY capturing the special "characteristics and feelings" of the birds in his paintings and that is what made "his" painting so special. WHAT a bunch of BS!!!!!! He did NOT capture anything. He STOLE my images and used them as his own. I was one who sat for hours on so many days, shooting roll after roll after roll of Fuji Slide Film, trying to capture just those special moments and the "Essence" of those birds. And I did it. Not him!!!!!! AAARRRRRGGGGHHHHH!!!!!
Let that happen to you once and see how you feel about preventing others from doing the same thing!....
Not to mention all of a sudden finding out some large company has been using my photos without my permission or payment to me for years and years and in many products.
I think it is a little reasonable to be kind of Gun-Shy about the theft of images, so the thief can NOT make tons of money off photographers, skills, sweat and hard work, without paying the photographer one dime.
But I am sure there are many other Wildlife Photographers, that DO employ Watermarks, as do the Stock Agencies.
Indeed there are ... but there's certainly a fair number around that don't ... or use fairly small / insignificant ones that are easily removed etc.
One aspect with the (very) well known wildlife photographers could possibly be their revenue obtained from running courses / workshops / tours etc + having a fair range of 'regular, respectable' customers for their output?
Let that happen to you once and see how you feel about preventing others from doing the same thing!....
You, together with anyone else in a similar situation had every right to be hopping mad.
It is, however a somewhat different situation from what's been discussed upto this point in a way ... because even a (very?) heavily watermarked image could have been used as a reference image for a painting /drawing, methinks ... let alone a fine art print that (presumably) wasn't watermarked in a conspicuous manner.
One of the few (possible) approaches that might be a way around this is to adopt the 'picture in a picture' route.
eg the frame on the website depicts a small detail of the original image, with maybe 25% of that frame showing the whole pic.
That way, viewer gets both an impression of the whole pic and the level of detail - in one frame.
The rip-off scenario sort of reminds me of an individual (US iirc) who used to have a pitch at a very well known (official) street market in London, also selling large drawings (not paintings).
His pitch was between mine and the gents, so, over the years, one got to see stuff ... like the massed rolls of prints in his van, together with the 'pretend' adding of the finishing touch ... as prospective punters were walking by.
Whilst I thought these antics laughable and it didn't bother me personally (or commercially) I saw how it affected some of the really good (water colour) artists.
I would like some feedback on my image watermark. Like others that have posted here, I have had folks copy my images and use them on Facebook. I switched my watermark to cover more of the image, but I kept the opacity so as to not disturb the image too much.
Jon Jeffress Deep South Focus Photography
Mobile, AL
I was thinking about watermarks yesterday when I was watching tv. There I am watching a popular show on TNT and realized that the TNT logo was watermarked in the corner for nearly the entire show, if not all of it, as well as there being other logos somewhat cluttering the bottom edge. Think about it.
If you really loved that show or recorded a bunch of shows to watch later, does that tiny watermark prevent you from recording it on your DVR, VCR or Betamax and watching it later? I'm sure for some of you there are shows you've recorded and won't even consider buying official copies... ever.
It's the same thing with images online but worse in many respects.
I forget who said this and I don't have any data to back this up, but it was like... "the more agressive the watermark, the more you will sell."
First off, I'd go with less opacity and add in the color blue from your logo to tie in more to your brand. Or at the minimum, make some adjustments so that the focus corners or text does not blend in too much with certain photographs. You want someone to clearly see all focus corners not half of them.
No matter what style you go with, I would consider adding something similar to the watermark used by http://www.matebence.hu/ . I remember a photo I downloaded a long time ago for research and I enlarged it on my screen to check out the details. That's when I noticed the extremely tiny little words: "company's name" repeating over every inch of the photograph with very little to no spacing between words and lines. They were so subtle in comparision to http://www.matebence.hu/ that if anyone thought they got away with cropping out watermarks in the corners they would be in for a surprise if and when they tried to upsize the image for viewing or printing. To stress the importance of watermarking by this company, I think the site only had three images posted online that were meant for downloading.
I would like some feedback on my image watermark. Like others that have posted here, I have had folks copy my images and use them on Facebook. I switched my watermark to cover more of the image, but I kept the opacity so as to not disturb the image too much.
IMHO
I personally do NOT like including the Year on the image! It dates the image. I have licensed some images that were very old.
I also would NOT worry about "disturbing the image too much". Again I have licensed images with large obtrusive watermarks without a problem.
No matter what style you go with, I would consider adding something similar to the watermark used by http://www.matebence.hu/ . I remember a photo I downloaded a long time ago for research and I enlarged it on my screen to check out the details. That's when I noticed the extremely tiny little words: "company's name" repeating over every inch of the photograph with very little to no spacing between words and lines. They were so subtle in comparision to http://www.matebence.hu/ that if anyone thought they got away with cropping out watermarks in the corners they would be in for a surprise if and when they tried to upsize the image for viewing or printing. To stress the importance of watermarking by this company, I think the site only had three images posted online that were meant for downloading.
I looked pretty close at his spoonbill photo, and I am not sure that the "Watermark" on that image would be very hard for someone to remove. On the bird itself, the watermark only seems visible on a small section of the body. Even when "zoomed in"! And with photoshop and other photo manipulation software out there, I would think it would be pretty simple to select the background and put a little blur on the background, and the watermark would be essentially gone.
----
I believe that is why the new "Getty" watermark is better. With a larger squared part of the image being opaqued completely different than the rest of the image, it would be a "LOT" harder to use software to match or fix that large section of the main point of the image.
Also, I am a fan of "Stroking" the text with the opposite color, to show the watermark on light AND dark colored images.
I looked pretty close at his spoonbill photo, and I am not sure that the "Watermark" on that image would be very hard for someone to remove. On the bird itself, the watermark only seems visible on a small section of the body. Even when "zoomed in"! And with photoshop and other photo manipulation software out there, I would think it would be pretty simple to select the background and put a little blur on the background, and the watermark would be essentially gone.
----
I believe that is why the new "Getty" watermark is better. With a larger squared part of the image being opaqued completely different than the rest of the image, it would be a "LOT" harder to use software to match or fix that large section of the main point of the image.
I am also looking to use the following different watermarks to use beyond the standard "PROOF" that I am currently using for many of my photos:
Bottom right corner
(already designed & mentioned in an earlier comment).
light color text with a darker color for an outer glow
Used for photos that get published
Color can be easily changed for whatever reason
Outer glow may be removed for those publishers that don't like it.
Also Used on galleries for friends and families (password protected) similar to how simple locks are used: to keep honest people honest.
Diagonal text is tiled (repeated) several times across the image
One similar to yours posted above:
Bottom right corner has a signature and your web address
Big C symbol in the middle
Centered text below the Big C symbol
Watermark option three is the type of watermark that is too complicated for the SmugMug (SM) help desk to advise on how to create, so if you have any suggestions please help.
What pixel size png image is the best size to create for one watermark using option 3 that looks great for vertical photos as well as horizontal photos? Will the text be in the bottom right corner as well as whatever is put in the center of the photo be centered for both photo orientations?
Earlier I wrote in this thread about some different types of watermarks I wanted so here's an update on what I've learned.
I have a few galleries that have had relatively no traffic in quite awhile and at the low prices the prints are... there should be no reason someone can't afford prints of the whole gallery. Thus, I don't really care how obtrusive the watermark is.
A few rules I'm using are
nice bright vivid colors for the text with a darker color for the outline
an outer glow to tint the area around the text
and 100% opacity (which I don't know when or if I'll ever make easier to see through)
First simple watermark was for friends/family and was in lower right corner:
photo by me
Then I got a hold of a family member's photos so I threw them up on my site with a 2-lined watermark in the lower right corner:
Those two lines don't look too bad to me so I might consider changing some of my galleries to that.
Second (not so) simple watermark was for those co-workers/frenemies that are getting a great deal on some photos but mostly do not appreciate it. For this group, I wanted the big standard "PROOF" from SM centered as usual but with my name in the lower right corner.
"PROOF" (centered vertically and horizontally)
"photo by me" (in lower right hand corner)
Easier said than done but I needed my name in the lower right corner to relatively match the size of my name in the other above mentioned watermark. Since I was going with a slightly different font, there was an immediate noticeable difference. I don't recommend changing fonts but I wanted this particular font for this group. And I don't recommend changing colors, but I did that too since both the font and the color matches the style of that group. I haven't changed the outer glow color but that probably should be changed some other day when I'm bored.
After centering the big bold "PROOF" in a solid vivid color, I then added my name to the lower right corner. Then I did a few tests on matching up font sizes and changed my watermarks in the galleries. Unfortunately, the watermark squishes my name and puts it nowhere near the lower right corner on vertical photos, so I needed a new vertical watermark. You'd think a new watermark at 800x600 would be good to go... but it's not. So I had to take a look at the actual display size of a vertical medium-sized image on my site (450x300) and I simply doubled it to 900x600 for the watermark I would create in Photoshop.
watermark for horizontal images --- 600x800
watermark for vertical images --- 900x600
I haven't looked at all of the photos I've just watermarked with this new watermark but I did notice two similar group photos that the watermark makes it very hard to know who is in the photo or which group shot is better. At the price I've listed prints at for these few galleries, they should print them both but it'll be interesting to see what happens when the gallery is made known to the people in the photo.
And until someone notices and gets word to me, I'm in no rush to play around with the opacity levels on a few galleries that are at the highest risk to be jacked for free or spread onto FB for free. If ever there was a photo gallery in need of a watermark to obstruct the images... this is it and now I've got a watermark ready for it and any other galleries I should choose.
What's left of my three different watermark styles to discuss is the watermark I'm choosing for the majority of my images... the tiled diagonally watermark.
Comments
standard text for bottom right corner:
- text - light color (24pt - regular, strong; vertical scale 110, horizontal scale 100, tracking 75)
- drop shadow - color black (opacity 100, distance 5, spread 0, size 5)
- outer glow - dark color (opacity 42, noise 0, spread 27, size 24, range 50, jitter 0)
- bevel - light color (inner, smooth, depth 164, size 5, soften 0, highlight screen 69, shadow 71)
- contour 50
- stroke - black (size 1, opacity 100)
The pixel length of the text is 290 with the canvas stretched to 325 to accommodate the spread of the outer glow and add extra room on the right.There are probably different ways to do this, but I like the boldness of the text.
- Is the outer glow (which could be done with just the drop shadow?) too much?
- should it be more or less pronounced?
- Because I'm not using the standard b&w for text colors with an outer glow, maybe I should ditch the outer glow completely?
- Is the text too large?
- (I think it looks good on landscapes, but maybe too large on portraits)
Any suggestions? Like or dislike? (If you can't picture it or make one quickly, I'll try to find one on the net that is similar).What does 'complex' mean in this context, as far as you're concerned?
pp
edit
Re font size - I think target image size needs to be known first ... or at least what % across image watermark is going to be?
Typeface used is highly subjective imo - as some (flowery, ornate etc) ones that are used are difficult to read in their own right - let alone when used as feint overlay ... assuming the idea is to have a text string that is legible - rather than just a pattern to dissuade copiers.
Flickr
Created in Illustrator > into PShop as paths.
Allows for scaling to any size with no IQ hit, colour / opacity / blend mode etc as desired.
Could obviously be any design.
Create / store a range in a file and just drag 'n drop onto image.
pp
top L 2%
bot L 20%
bot R 20%
centre 5%
Flickr
For me, I hate the idea of people stealing my photos for most things. I have different watermarks for different viewers. But when I put images up on the internet I always have some form of watermark or signature line.
And even then I change them at times. Example of what I mean.
I used to do a lot of 4x4 wheeling with several groups of people and I would post photos of friends on forums with a smaller signature line either at the center bottom or bottom right corner. But then I will have the gallery hidden. That way only the people on the forum can find or have access to those clean images.
Then after a week or so I put a full watermark on them, and usually make them open for viewing by anyone. I am sure most people would hate mine. lol
Example of my full watermark. I also keep the viewers size to the smallest size setting.
In My Humble Opinion, I am not too impressed with the Digimarc system. I personally do not know anyone who uses it. If I did, maybe I would change my mind.
Ah, but if you put thousands of images online, there it is a real problem to do the searches to find all the stolen images. Are you going to search for those thousands of images, all the time? And then the problem of people stealing them in some overseas country who do not care, even if the photographer catches them.
I am on a Stock Photography forum and have read of some photographers doing searches (now with the Google Similar Image system) and finding hundreds of sites with their images. And then he has to track those down and try to go after the ones that could be brought to make payment or remove his images. It turns into a real big job just to track the images down on a continual basis.
I could not agree more with your first line that I quoted above!
Thanks for the Getty watermark link. I like that idea a lot. I think I will try incorporate something like that.
I have been holding back from view, many of my images that I would hate to be stolen. And even with my large watermark I was worried. ( I have already filed and settled some copyright suits.) So Copyrights and controlling the use of my own images is a big deal to me.
PaulThePhotographer
Hey Paul,
Thanks for posting an example of your watermark.
I am also looking to use the following different watermarks to use beyond the standard "PROOF" that I am currently using for many of my photos:
- Bottom right corner
- (already designed & mentioned in an earlier comment).
- light color text with a darker color for an outer glow
- Used for photos that get published
- Color can be easily changed for whatever reason
- Outer glow may be removed for those publishers that don't like it.
- Also Used on galleries for friends and families (password protected) similar to how simple locks are used: to keep honest people honest.
- Diagonal text is tiled (repeated) several times across the image
- One similar to yours posted above:
- Bottom right corner has a signature and your web address
- Big C symbol in the middle
- Centered text below the Big C symbol
Watermark option three is the type of watermark that is too complicated for the SmugMug (SM) help desk to advise on how to create, so if you have any suggestions please help.Let me clarify, I have mentioned three watermark types so that means I only want a total of three watermarks for my SmugMug images, not six.
What pixel size png image is the best size to create for one watermark using option 3 that looks great for vertical photos as well as horizontal photos? Will the text be in the bottom right corner as well as whatever is put in the center of the photo be centered for both photo orientations?
I may not need both the big C symbol and text, but I would like at least something centered and in the lower right corner.
Overall, I thought this would be a better type of watermark to replace the standard "PROOF," but one needs to be careful with the graying out much less than 100% opacity look. I've seen numerous photos watermarked for visual pleasure but quite frankly the watermarks blends in so well, they don't show up on some photos, so if all I need is a digital copy... I'm set. When it doesn't blend in well and the grayed out opacity look shows up as intended on a photo... it still doesn't bother me. Which is probably one of the reasons why any of my photos at a $1 (4x6) in password protected galleries with the standard "PROOF" still have not sold nor has anyone requested me to print one for free (which I've offered). So, I'm thinking I need to replace the "PROOF" watermark sooner rather than later.
As for watermark option 2... I think it will drive sales but I am not sure how much opacity to give the watermark. I see it used more for sports so it might be inappropriate to use on anything but sports. I've seen it used by one successful photographer but it looks like he has it at 100% opacity (not clear see through at all) but I'm worried that would block some detail that might be critical for deciding whether to purchase or not. Too little for viewing pleasure and my site might as well be everyone else's personal website.
And then option 1, the easiest to adjust with lots of options. Which do people prefer to throw into the corner? Why should someone not include any of the following in a simple watermark?:
I am not sure exactly what you mean in some of these statements.
I believe you MAY be talking about two different things. A Watermark, which gets removed when the image gets either printed or licensed, or a Signature, (called a "Printmark" by SmugMug which will be printed on the printed product as your "Signature". Is that correct?
If you have the viewer size limited in your galleries then that is a size to start with. If not, well, lets see.
I played around a lot in Photoshop and the "Watermark" feature in SmugMug to get the © Copyright symbol that way. It actually took quite a bit of playing around with both, to get it to that look.
But once you have a "Master" photoshop file, you can do all sorts of EXTRA watermarking stuff with it.
As an example, here is a "Watermark" with a "Discount Coupon at Last Image" that I have played with.
And the Gallery that images is in: Click -> Here!
(Whoops, I just noticed I need to change the date on that old Coupon. Yikes! I have been remiss in my duties! :cry)
My Signature in the bottom right was put on the image by me, before i uploaded to SmugMug. (These are old images.) and NOT part of the Watermark.
These full Copyright Watermarks by me are 1600 pixels SQUARE. That is important to maintain the Horizontal verses Vertical watermarking on the images.
The ONLY way for me to think of having the Watermark Centered and still have the ability to have a "signature" line, in the corner, and still be part of the Watermark would have to be to have one Watermark for Vertical images and one Watermark for Horizontal images.
I believe marketing is much more important that these matters. IMHO. I have read on other "professional" forums that heavy duty watermarking is REQUIRED for anything related to sports or other personal photography. Don't listen to that "oh, but it destroys the nice look "viewing pleasure" of the website and photographs. If you want to sell the images to people themselves, then watermark them. and IMHO, don't be shy.
Almost every "publisher" I know does NOT want a "Watermark/Signature/Photographers Information" on a image. Now unless you mean BEFORE the publisher licenses the image and you have sent them a 'trial" image for layout reasons. And you want to make sure they don't just use it without you knowledge. (Trust me, that is very possible they might do that!)
Almost all of my "signatures" are put on my images myself. They are that way because I did a lot of these previous to SmugMugs 'Printmark" feature. Which I might use instead. The problem with my old system was if someone, lets say cropped a 8x12 image of mine to PRINT a 8x10 image then the "signature on the image" could very well get removed or cut or something. That is why the 'Printmark" is better in that respect. Now I have to admit, it has been a while since I looked at that feature.
(I just reviewed the 'Printmark" feature of SmugMug. Now I remember some of my problems with it. As far as I know, It does NOT get printed on Digital downloads, it does NOT show on the Website, which might make some people upset if they purchase a print, only to see the signature line after purchasing. Arrrgghhhh! lol)
To me any 'Watermark" that does not hide/change the main subject is of little use as a "Watermark". A smaller corner watermark will, as you say, keep honest people honest. Which is NOT what I am concerned about.
But if you want a corner signature line for Family and Friends, then it depends on different factors. If they take those images and put them on certain forums, the forums themselves MIGHT have "Branding" which might cover a corner placement.
So sometimes now I use a Bottom-center for just a signature line for family and friends.
And personally, I don't like the idea of changing these things "for whatever reason". I am sad to say many of my images have "different" signatures that I have changed and used through the years. I believe that looks unprofessional to me. So I have a lot of work for myself to fix all my own images.
See below for one of my "Newer" Signature lines".
Also for "Fine Art" sales, personally I would NOT put the website or anything other than my "real signed signature" on it, but I would and use the back-printing feature to include that information.
Again it depends on the what the image is marketed for? And if it is just a WATERMARK or a SIGNATURE! But IMHO concerning your list.
Hopefully that helps some. Whew! lol
But if you need to see my "Master Big Copyright SmugMug" Photoshop file, I could upload it for you.
Just remember, these are just my humble opinions, and others could disagree.
PaulThePhotographer.
Firstly, I am looking for a watermark, not a printmark. A printmark sounds good for digital sales (and it is on digital photos sold if you dot your i's and t's) but beyond that, I don't know when I should consider using printmarks.
Secondly, I guess I'm used to seeing "photo by (me)" and other photgraphers on the back of photographs as well as in various publications so that's why I've used "photo by (me)." Obviously, the watermark I have in the corner would not be there on a file meant for print media but it would be there for publishing somewhere online.
Finally, I heard back from a photographer that uses a diagonal tiled watermark and it sounded like he sets the opacity to 40% with two different colors used. I'll be creating one to see how it looks for the files I want to upload next.
I did receive a suggestion that even thumbnails should be watermarked because those are good enough for some things as well now.
Guess my response wasn't clear. I went from a watermark tiled across the image at 50% opacity. That is when someone had bragged that they had photoshoped it out, I guess since you could tell what was originally under it, it made it easier to heal out using photoshop. So I went to full opacity and then added stolen from. The image is too low res to make a decent print, but I have found what happens most is that they want to share it with others on facebook. So I regularly have to send some DCMA notices to facebook. The individuals usually learn then, as facebook then won't allow them to upload a photo for a month.
(last added as thought might be of general interest to OP)
eg
http://www.dannygreenphotography.com/
http://www.northshots.com/
http://niallbenvie.photoshelter.com
http://markhamblin.com/
http://imagesfromtheedge.com/blog/
pp
Flickr
Not a bad catch. And an interesting viewpoint.
But I am sure there are many other Wildlife Photographers, that DO employ Watermarks, as do the Stock Agencies.
But it only took one Copyright Infringement for me to change my outlook on this matter. It was when a Nationally Known and Awarded Artist purchased some on my prints at a Fine Art Outdoor Art show, for the sole purpose to "copy" them into his paintings. And while purchasing them, never mentioning who he was or what he was going to do with them.
And then that "Artist" actually used a projector to COPY every single feather and pose of my photos, (I overlaid a Transparency of my photos over his "Artwork" and it matched feather for feather.) into his Five foot tall Painting, that he intended to sell for at least $5,000.
To make matters even worse, he made his real money with "Limited Edition" Prints from this infringement of my photos. Selling editions of 1,800 or so. Ranging on price from $80, to $40 Wholesale. So he could have easily made over $75,000 from COPYING my photographs. Without a penny to me or any acknowledgement to me. Not that I would have settled for an acknowledgement.
And then my head really exploded off my shoulders, when I read an article in a big newspaper about him, where the reporter just praised the "Artist" for REALLY capturing the special "characteristics and feelings" of the birds in his paintings and that is what made "his" painting so special. WHAT a bunch of BS!!!!!! He did NOT capture anything. He STOLE my images and used them as his own. I was one who sat for hours on so many days, shooting roll after roll after roll of Fuji Slide Film, trying to capture just those special moments and the "Essence" of those birds. And I did it. Not him!!!!!! AAARRRRRGGGGHHHHH!!!!!
Let that happen to you once and see how you feel about preventing others from doing the same thing!....
Not to mention all of a sudden finding out some large company has been using my photos without my permission or payment to me for years and years and in many products.
I think it is a little reasonable to be kind of Gun-Shy about the theft of images, so the thief can NOT make tons of money off photographers, skills, sweat and hard work, without paying the photographer one dime.
----
PaulThePhotographer
Indeed there are ... but there's certainly a fair number around that don't ... or use fairly small / insignificant ones that are easily removed etc.
One aspect with the (very) well known wildlife photographers could possibly be their revenue obtained from running courses / workshops / tours etc + having a fair range of 'regular, respectable' customers for their output?
You, together with anyone else in a similar situation had every right to be hopping mad.
It is, however a somewhat different situation from what's been discussed upto this point in a way ... because even a (very?) heavily watermarked image could have been used as a reference image for a painting /drawing, methinks ... let alone a fine art print that (presumably) wasn't watermarked in a conspicuous manner.
One of the few (possible) approaches that might be a way around this is to adopt the 'picture in a picture' route.
eg the frame on the website depicts a small detail of the original image, with maybe 25% of that frame showing the whole pic.
That way, viewer gets both an impression of the whole pic and the level of detail - in one frame.
The rip-off scenario sort of reminds me of an individual (US iirc) who used to have a pitch at a very well known (official) street market in London, also selling large drawings (not paintings).
His pitch was between mine and the gents, so, over the years, one got to see stuff ... like the massed rolls of prints in his van, together with the 'pretend' adding of the finishing touch ... as prospective punters were walking by.
Whilst I thought these antics laughable and it didn't bother me personally (or commercially) I saw how it affected some of the really good (water colour) artists.
pp
Flickr
Deep South Focus Photography
Mobile, AL
http://DeepSouthFocus.com
If you really loved that show or recorded a bunch of shows to watch later, does that tiny watermark prevent you from recording it on your DVR, VCR or Betamax and watching it later? I'm sure for some of you there are shows you've recorded and won't even consider buying official copies... ever.
It's the same thing with images online but worse in many respects.
I forget who said this and I don't have any data to back this up, but it was like... "the more agressive the watermark, the more you will sell."
First off, I'd go with less opacity and add in the color blue from your logo to tie in more to your brand. Or at the minimum, make some adjustments so that the focus corners or text does not blend in too much with certain photographs. You want someone to clearly see all focus corners not half of them.
No matter what style you go with, I would consider adding something similar to the watermark used by http://www.matebence.hu/ . I remember a photo I downloaded a long time ago for research and I enlarged it on my screen to check out the details. That's when I noticed the extremely tiny little words: "company's name" repeating over every inch of the photograph with very little to no spacing between words and lines. They were so subtle in comparision to http://www.matebence.hu/ that if anyone thought they got away with cropping out watermarks in the corners they would be in for a surprise if and when they tried to upsize the image for viewing or printing. To stress the importance of watermarking by this company, I think the site only had three images posted online that were meant for downloading.
IMHO
I personally do NOT like including the Year on the image! It dates the image. I have licensed some images that were very old.
I also would NOT worry about "disturbing the image too much". Again I have licensed images with large obtrusive watermarks without a problem.
But, honestly, there is something that kind of bothers me about your watermark. I can't really put a finger on it. Maybe it is the large Text across the middle of the image. My brain seems to constantly to want to "focus" (no pun intended) on the words, and thusly, make it hard for me to visualize the image behind it. That is why on my watermark, I made the text smaller, and off center, and centered a large © symbol, which is also shadowed, to make it harder for thieves to retouch the main point of the image.
Also, I am a fan of "Stroking" the text with the opposite color, to show the watermark on light AND dark colored images.
No offense meant. Just giving my two cents worth.
I looked pretty close at his spoonbill photo, and I am not sure that the "Watermark" on that image would be very hard for someone to remove. On the bird itself, the watermark only seems visible on a small section of the body. Even when "zoomed in"! And with photoshop and other photo manipulation software out there, I would think it would be pretty simple to select the background and put a little blur on the background, and the watermark would be essentially gone.
----
I believe that is why the new "Getty" watermark is better. With a larger squared part of the image being opaqued completely different than the rest of the image, it would be a "LOT" harder to use software to match or fix that large section of the main point of the image.
IHMO
PaulThePhotographer
Some good advice Paul.
Earlier I wrote in this thread about some different types of watermarks I wanted so here's an update on what I've learned.
I have a few galleries that have had relatively no traffic in quite awhile and at the low prices the prints are... there should be no reason someone can't afford prints of the whole gallery. Thus, I don't really care how obtrusive the watermark is.
A few rules I'm using are
- nice bright vivid colors for the text with a darker color for the outline
- an outer glow to tint the area around the text
- and 100% opacity (which I don't know when or if I'll ever make easier to see through)
First simple watermark was for friends/family and was in lower right corner:www.mysite.smugmug.com
Second (not so) simple watermark was for those co-workers/frenemies that are getting a great deal on some photos but mostly do not appreciate it. For this group, I wanted the big standard "PROOF" from SM centered as usual but with my name in the lower right corner.
"photo by me" (in lower right hand corner)
First step was to look at SM display sizes at http://help.smugmug.com/customer/portal/articles/93250-what-are-the-smugmug-display-sizes. Not sure how a watermark would be upsized in case I go with a larger display size sometime, but I chose to make this watermark sized at 600x800 for horizontal photos.
After centering the big bold "PROOF" in a solid vivid color, I then added my name to the lower right corner. Then I did a few tests on matching up font sizes and changed my watermarks in the galleries. Unfortunately, the watermark squishes my name and puts it nowhere near the lower right corner on vertical photos, so I needed a new vertical watermark. You'd think a new watermark at 800x600 would be good to go... but it's not. So I had to take a look at the actual display size of a vertical medium-sized image on my site (450x300) and I simply doubled it to 900x600 for the watermark I would create in Photoshop.
watermark for vertical images --- 900x600
And until someone notices and gets word to me, I'm in no rush to play around with the opacity levels on a few galleries that are at the highest risk to be jacked for free or spread onto FB for free. If ever there was a photo gallery in need of a watermark to obstruct the images... this is it and now I've got a watermark ready for it and any other galleries I should choose.
What's left of my three different watermark styles to discuss is the watermark I'm choosing for the majority of my images... the tiled diagonally watermark.