Forums > Model Colloquy > The Good, the Bad, & the Horrible Watermarks


Bill M

Posts: 79

West Boylston, Massachusetts, US

Most of them are distracting, at the least, to me, and many are just plain awful. I presume it's not something considered "artistic" that the photog is splattering...
It does seem like some of the models like it, though... esp beginners that are easily impressed. Go figure people ~~

Dec 11 12 10:56 am Link



Posts: 4355

Los Angeles, California, US

Huge watermarks make me a sad panda.

Dec 11 12 12:57 pm Link


Sleepy Weasel

Posts: 4723

Castle Rock, Colorado, US

I've seen a few nice ones that look really professional (IMO)--2 come to mind (I don't want to out, but one is the antelope logo, which is pretty cool, and the other one is initials GG).

But I dislike the ones that are colored to where the contrast with the photo and are extremely noticable, or go across the middle of the image. That's just awful.

Dec 11 12 01:57 pm Link


Ali Choudhry Photo

Posts: 185

Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

I watermark all images on social media sites (MM, Facebook, etc).
After all, it's so easy to share these images that I'd rather get more traffic back to my online portfolio.

I don't watermark anything on my website or my hard portfolio.

I send a model watermarked internet quality versions of all images (usually 10-20 per shoot) and usually 3-5 unwatermarked print quality images.

I've never had complaints.

Dec 11 12 06:16 pm Link


BMI Fashion and Glamour

Posts: 264

Henrietta, New York, US

I try to keep my watermark off the llama when possible and either in the corner or in dead space of the image. I also accommodate llamas by sending a full resolution image that they can use for prints in addition to the watermarked one for web posting. I may not have the prettiest watermark but its simple and gets the job done.

Dec 12 12 10:10 am Link


Shot By Adam

Posts: 7033

Las Vegas, Nevada, US

Northern Lights Images wrote:
I agree that some watermarks are crap.

who is stealing your intellectual property that you need your name all over it.

your shit isn't hold and people aren't stealing your awful pics of some girl in a bikini on a hood of your Hyundai.

You would be shocked at who steals what out there. Some of my best work never gets stolen and yet the photos of mine that often are frequently shock me that people steal them. I've had a simple photo of a bachelorette party on my blog get stolen over 50 times in the last two years. Never underestimate the power of stupid.

Dec 12 12 10:16 am Link



Posts: 102

Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

Yes I have skipped out on photographers with huge watermarks and those who take great photos with really, horrible fonts (Comic Sans anyone?). I will politely suggest that the watermark takes the attention but if they refuse to make a middle compromise then not much I can do.

Though I like the really clever watermarks which are incorporated with the photo... makes you double take: … exiuss.jpg

Dec 17 12 05:12 am Link


Undead Threads

Posts: 574

Greenville, South Carolina, US

I hate watermarks , but I shoot for my retail shop and if you don't use them people on ebay who sale the same (or some times not the same) product . will steel the crap out of them ,

Dec 17 12 05:23 am Link


Jen B

Posts: 3747

Clarksville, Tennessee, US

asianbella wrote:
Has anyone else turned down or passed up a photographer because their watermark was too obnoxious?

I've seen some very good watermarks which blend into the photo.
Some are the average. You can see them they don't really go with the photo but don't necessarily clash either.
Then there's the ones that make me cringe, those crazy coloured, take up 1/4 of the photo watermarks.

On a shoot that I paid for I couldn't see the previews for the HUGE horrible watermark. I was less than impressed with what I thought I saw under them, but, I couldn't see under them. I passed on everything.

Dec 17 12 06:03 am Link


O Team Photography

Posts: 40

Duncan, British Columbia, Canada

When we first got into serious photography, we opened an account on a commercial web page.  We did not put a copyright notice any where asa we thought it would look "Tacky".  Lo and Behold some SOB in India was ripping off our work and flogging it on his own. Copyright notice (very small, on the edge of the photo) is now standard.  It will not stop theft, but it might slow it down a bit.

Dec 17 12 07:58 am Link


Vanished Gone

Posts: 2531

Los Angeles, California, US

4 R D wrote:
there is no such thing as a "good" watermark


For me, it's completely useless to shoot with someone for photos unless I can be guaranteed to receive NON watermarked images.

Dec 17 12 01:45 pm Link



Posts: 1619

Wichita, Kansas, US

Dan K Photography wrote:

My eye is drawn to the watermark way before anything else in the photo.


Dec 17 12 02:07 pm Link


nyk fury

Posts: 2918

Port Townsend, Washington, US

i am more than willing to reduce and move watermarks should any llama desire that. and should i actually find some llamas to shoot.

as a side note: llamas who splatter graffiti all over their bodies are essentially watermarking themselves. those kind are a lot harder to [re]move. but i doubt any of those llamas would be on this thread complaining about photographers doing this.

Dec 17 12 04:51 pm Link