Agreed. Unless you are a for-profit photographer who makes money on sites like 500px or Shutterstock why watermark in such a way? It draws the eye away from the actual composition.
Good question. I've read a bunch of for-profit togs who do weddings and other events who don't watermark their stuff and know (somehow) that the image will point to them. You can pack a lot of information, tags, etc., in the exif of a file.
That said, I watermark the stuff I review for this reason: I've had it ripped off by people here at Headfi and at a Canadian audiophile magazine as well as Russian and Chinese stuff. Now that is review stuff and not interesting but to a very small number of people, but getting some sleazy website pushing my images off as their own...
So for a while I used a low opacity watermark across the entire image. It looked awful. It was worse than getting knocked off by some lazy arses. So now I just put something in the lower right or left corner pushing them to my website. I have no idea if it works. I don't do a lot of reviews now. But I think there are many reasons to imprint images. I've not found the answer.
Recently I was in Canada to enjoy nature (still haven't found out how to do that in Japan) and took a number of images. Some are okay, some are awful. But I'll put a small watermark in the corner. They will be 'published' on my blog.
The watermark is there to deter fracktards from stealing the pics..mostly to deter facebook.. having experienced to a really small degree how much effort goes into putting up astro pics, the sleepless nights, treks in the dark tripping over yourself, braving the cold, yeah for someone to just steal that from you isn't a nice feeling.
I agree with your intent. It's infuriating when people use your work without giving credit to you. My take is that I would rather that and let people enjoy what I have created then mark-up the shot in such a way that it makes it distracting.
I learned a long time ago that as photographers we put too much value on our own work. I'm OK with someone "stealing" a shot of mine with the knowledge that it's out there for people to enjoy than to alter it in such a way that it screws with the composition... Unless money is involved. Then things change. Just my $0.02. I do respect your decision though.
Nice work by the way! I don't have the patience for astrophotography.
Originally Posted by SoulSyde /img/forum/go_quote.gif
...I'm OK with someone "stealing" a shot of mine with the knowledge that it's out there for people to enjoy than to alter it in such a way that it screws with the composition...
Unfortunately, although this is a fine sentiment on its own, this attitude makes it harder for those of us who actually make money selling out photography. I don't usually sell mine digitally so it's not such an issue, but for photographers who do it makes their job harder that a) the public has access to many decent photographs from people who don't give a damn if their work is pirated, and b) as a result many people don't seem to understand why a professional would want to protect their work from being copied. The fact is that in the modern world, there's no difference between posting a high resolution, un-watermarked image and giving anyone who wants to the ability to make prints from it. So you either go low resolution or you watermark it.
Personally, I prefer to post at a low enough resolution that you can't make a decent print from it and simply put a small bit of text with my name in the corner - but that's because I count on print sales, and people potentially reposting the image online doesn't really cut into that. It may actually help it, if they leave the URL text intact.
Anyway, just my view on the matter and an explanation of why some people feel the need to spoil their images with big watermarks. The unfortunate truth is that unless it's big enough to detract from the viewing enjoyment, it probably isn't big enough to prevent a theft of the image. A small, discrete watermark that blocks no important features is pretty easy to clone away.
PS: On the subject of cloning - I agree that cropping the leaves at the bottom of the lake weakens the image, but I think cloning them with water would help instead of hurt. Worth a try, at least.
The watermark is there to deter fracktards from stealing the pics..mostly to deter facebook.. having experienced to a really small degree how much effort goes into putting up astro pics, the sleepless nights, treks in the dark tripping over yourself, braving the cold, yeah for someone to just steal that from you isn't a nice feeling.
Okay i know i've been posting a bunch of pics.. but this one is probably the favorite of mine from last weekend. ANd I took the watermark down to its usual holding place.
Unfortunately, although this is a fine sentiment on its own, this attitude makes it harder for those of us who actually make money selling out photography.
If you ever happen to visit HK again (and want to shoot some more birdy pictures), be sure to visit the New Territories or the larg parks on the Peak. The wildlife there is pretty interesting! Almost stumbled into the web of a spider that was clearly too big for my liking....Oh and stay away from the apes in the New Territories.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
