Photographer
fine art nudes by paul
Posts: 3296
Oakland, California, US
c_h_r_i_s wrote:
I recently had a national paper ask me for pic's of a model they were doing an article/interview on.
They (editor) suggested a watermark on the pic's wanting to review them thinking I'd place the Wm at the bottom on the pic's.
'I have very little trust in this np', so I slammed a massive Wm thou' the middle of the pic's and made them very low res.
They thanked me for sending them the pic's and liked them but didn't ask any more. i interned with a commercial photographer years back and he'd send the unfinished images to whatever magazine he was working with with a huge "FOR PLACEMENT ONLY" (or something to that effect) watermark slapped dead center. He'd also send it super low res (under 1000 pixels on either side). Just like the watermark said, it was used for placement only during the layout phase, and was obvious enough that you'd have to be blind to not replace it with the final before sending it to print.
Photographer
WIP
Posts: 15973
Cheltenham, England, United Kingdom
There are certain UK np's that you can't trust.
Photographer
Sungoddess Studios
Posts: 5191
Keyport, New Jersey, US
Nikki Magnusson wrote:
whats a watermark?..lol.. Coffee Stains.
Photographer
FEN RIR Photo
Posts: 725
Westminster, Colorado, US
But I have a really short name 
Photographer
GCobb Photography
Posts: 15898
Southaven, Mississippi, US
Wonderhussy wrote:
Does anyone notice a correlation between the size of a photographer's watermark and the quality of his work?
Is this akin to the "guys who drive big trucks" rule?
Discuss! Uh, no.
Photographer
GER Photography
Posts: 8463
Imperial, California, US
Say it loud!! Say it proud!!:-)
Photographer
Marcio Faustino
Posts: 2811
Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
BrandonLuong wrote:
I think who cares enough to steal your image. It sucks, if I am going to steal an image I want to steal a good one My images are crap and there were people stealling it...
Photographer
The Dave
Posts: 8848
Ann Arbor, Michigan, US
Wonderhussy wrote:
Does anyone notice a correlation between the size of a photographer's watermark and the quality of his work?
Is this akin to the "guys who drive big trucks" rule?
Discuss! ![https://www.daplv.com/vcg/CopyrightLogoW.jpg]()
I guess this means.... nevermind...
Photographer
Yani S
Posts: 1101
Los Angeles, California, US
I'm almost good enough to enlarge my watermark! Untill then I have a small one Hahaha
Photographer
PhotoSeven
Posts: 1194
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, US
Wonderhussy wrote:
Does anyone notice a correlation between the size of a photographer's watermark and the quality of his work?
Is this akin to the "guys who drive big trucks" rule?
Discuss! HA! I was just thinking about this the other day.
Photographer
PhotoSeven
Posts: 1194
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, US
R Michael Walker wrote:
Right..All the biggies like Avedon, Penn, Helmut Newton, Steven Meisel, Albert Watson, Annie Leibovitz, Bruce Weber and Mario Testino Watermark their work. And all the best clients request watermarked images too. NOT! Some here on MM make it work for them as a graphic element. Most don't. And if someone wants to steal your work they will. Only way to avoid that is don't put it on line. Not to get into a pissing match, but I disagree...I just went to bruceweber.com and Annie Leibovitz gallery page and didn't see any water marks...even after you click on them to enlarge them (those were the only two that I went to out of your list)
Photographer
Philipe
Posts: 5302
Pomona, California, US
Wonderhussy wrote:
Does anyone notice a correlation between the size of a photographer's watermark and the quality of his work?
Is this akin to the "guys who drive big trucks" rule?
Discuss! I have no problem matching my work against anyone you shot with.
I've had a few of my pictures stolen.. and most of the models I shoot, request a picture with my name on their picture.
I do give models photos with out my name as well.
Photographer
David Hirsh
Posts: 2379
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Farenell Photography wrote:
Its the web & people steal shit (& randomly repost it elsewhere).
If people want to view the work w/o those "unsightly" watermarks, I'm sure the photographer will sell you a hard copy print for a small fee. If you think a watermark somehow protects an image from theft, give me any photo and 10 seconds with Photoshop (maybe 2 minutes for a more intricate logo/watermark), to perhaps change your opinion.
When I use a watermark/logo, it's simply for branding and identification purposes. To believe it deters theft is simply fooling oneself. I think most people understand this.
Photographer
Farenell Photography
Posts: 18832
Albany, New York, US
David Hirsh wrote:
If you think a watermark somehow protects an image from theft, give me any photo and 10 seconds with Photoshop (maybe 2 minutes for a more intricate logo/watermark), to perhaps change your opinion. Never said it did completely protect it. People are lazy.
Look at it this way. If a person leave their bike outside unlocked by (I dunno) say the local library & another person locks theirs up, which do you think a thief is gonna take. The unlocked one. Why? Because its the path of least resistance.
Photographer
Darren Brade
Posts: 3351
London, England, United Kingdom
Nico Simon Princely wrote:
This thread is based on ignorance of what and why pros use watermarksand it seems many of the responses are also.
A watermarking for...
1. Protecting one's work from unauthorized use.
2. Branding - if have studied any advanced marketing psychology you will understand why this isso important.
3. Publicity and marketing when your images do get stolen and they will always get stolen, saved, passed around on the web without a watermark there is no way to gt credit for the images. This is no different than if a company ran a print add without their logo. Which would be utterly stupid,make goes for not watermarking I the digital world.
4. It Helps to prevent some Asshole from trying to Pass your work off as theirs to get jobs and try to get models to TF with them.
If we were only in print then yes maybe it would not be as nessary but that's not the case and some unobtrusive watermark can be easily cropped out leaving you with no credit. Often if the client likes your work they ask for a watermarked copy be use they want people to see they shot with you'll to give you publicity.
I don't think my work sucks and from my comments and client many other people tend to agree and I have a big watermark. So do some of the best photographers on here in fact many go across the middle of the image. From what I have seen some of the best have the biggest watermarks as they actually have something to protect and they know it. Me personally I'm just a fanatic about protecting my copyrights as I have been ripped off before and had to sue and settled for $10k. +1
Photographer
Darren Brade
Posts: 3351
London, England, United Kingdom
Roberta H wrote:
in a more positive light though, wouldn't it be awesome if people kept stealing your photos and advertising your work because it was so unbelievably amazing? I can understand that it would be super frustrating for someone else to take the credit but whoever does that is not really worth the time of day. Nope, as someone who has had his work passed off as someone else, no! It can damage your own credibility if some low life starts claiming its their image.
Photographer
Darren Brade
Posts: 3351
London, England, United Kingdom
Garrett Sanders wrote:
I have heard that the top photographers "watermark" their images by their style. That is, their style is so unique and distinctive that people recognize their work without need of a watermark. People often overlook the fact that the big names have been PAID top dollar to create the picture, had it published, and no longer have anything to gain not having it naked in the wild.
"Lead not emulate!"
Photographer
devpics
Posts: 839
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
I detest watermarked images but understand why some people need to have them
Photographer
Vamp Boudoir
Posts: 11446
Florence, South Carolina, US
Internet theft is rampant.
Tumblr......enough said!
Even selling art pieces, copies reduce the value unless we all use such low rez thumb nails... and large enough watermarks to read... then viewers can't really see the image. (Catch 22)
Google the images that have marketability for spas, gyms, night clubs (businesses that rarely last >5 years). Sure it'd be nice to file a copyright claim, but to what end? For the most part, those companies have no real assets!
Socialism is the politically correct position of the day.
I hate Socialism! Which brings me to Facebook....who continues to strip EXIF data and basically orphans images.
Photographer
See Sharp Photo
Posts: 45
Sausalito, California, US
Newton, Liebovitz, Testino, Bresson . . . I might be wrong but I never remember seeing a watermark on their work. But then again, maybe their work isn't good enough to have to worry about theft.
I don't watermark in hopes that someone will steal my crappy work!
Too many Ego maniacs out there.
To be fair though, this is not my way of making a living. I might feel differently if it was.
Model
E_V_A
Posts: 1722
Redondo Beach, California, US
One of my most favorited shots comes with a huge watermark, lets see if you can find it 
Photographer
Spree Photos
Posts: 403
Atlanta, Georgia, US
Nico Simon Princely wrote:
This thread is based on ignorance of what and why pros use watermarksand it seems many of the responses are also.
A watermarking for...
1. Protecting one's work from unauthorized use.
2. Branding - if have studied any advanced marketing psychology you will understand why this isso important.
3. Publicity and marketing when your images do get stolen and they will always get stolen, saved, passed around on the web without a watermark there is no way to gt credit for the images. This is no different than if a company ran a print add without their logo. Which would be utterly stupid,make goes for not watermarking I the digital world.
4. It Helps to prevent some Asshole from trying to Pass your work off as theirs to get jobs and try to get models to TF with them.
If we were only in print then yes maybe it would not be as nessary but that's not the case and some unobtrusive watermark can be easily cropped out leaving you with no credit. Often if the client likes your work they ask for a watermarked copy be use they want people to see they shot with you'll to give you publicity.
I don't think my work sucks and from my comments and client many other people tend to agree and I have a big watermark. So do some of the best photographers on here in fact many go across the middle of the image. From what I have seen some of the best have the biggest watermarks as they actually have something to protect and they know it. Me personally I'm just a fanatic about protecting my copyrights as I have been ripped off before and had to sue and settled for $10k. touche. very well said.
i have seen a number of graphic designers and print establishments use images they copied from the Internet on advertising flyers, club promos, etc., all over the place.
i guess it's because many people tend to think of anything on the Web as being FREE.
i do not think that one has to splash his or her copyright info across the face of a model in an effort to protect one's work... however, i can understand folks wanting to protect their work. whether or not their work is exceptional, professional or award-winning is of no consequence. after all, it belongs to them.
Photographer
Novus Photography
Posts: 586
Nanaimo, British Columbia, Canada
I didn't read the whole thread - the first 5 or so responses was all I needed to see. But here's how I see it...
I don't put anything online that doesn't have a watermark on it. Granted, I'm a hack, and my work is shit, but it's still MINE and it's worth something to ME. It's way too easy for image thieves to just save an image, and use it as their own. I've had it happen to me, by the CBC for one.
I try to make my watermark as unobtrusive as possible, opacity at 40%, and not running through the middle of the image. But I want A: for it to be hard to remove, and B: it's advertising.
If people don't like watermarks on images, it's probably because they wanted it, and are annoyed that it was "flawed". Mission accomplished.
*EDIT*
After reading the post quoted above this one, (which I agree with 1000%!) yeah, I think I'll be making my watermark a bit more intrusive. Having it along the bottom makes it easy to snip off.
Do I think I'm so good that everyone wants to steal my images? Hell no. But it's the ONE douchebag thief that I'm protecting myself from. Nobody gets ripped off, until they get ripped off.
Retoucher
GregWatson
Posts: 754
Mount Airy, North Carolina, US
I guess this is too big for web size  ![https://i39.tinypic.com/iq917d.png]()
Model
Deadlynightshade
Posts: 4774
Los Angeles, California, US
dave phoenix wrote:
 +1
Photographer
Dan D Lyons Imagery
Posts: 3447
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
David Hirsh wrote:
When I use a watermark/logo, it's simply for branding and identification purposes. To believe it deters theft is simply fooling oneself. I think most people understand this. But...it's mah *ahem* 'copyright notice'! Hehe! It's tiny anyways, and anyone petty enough to crop-out my mark is aiming after similar Bee Ess clients. I book on my book (pun intended!), not this low-res 8-bit horsecrap you see online. Jpeg looks like sh** compared to a 16-bit retouched image. In my not-too-humble opinion 
~Danny
http://www.dbiphotography.com/
Photographer
Novus Photography
Posts: 586
Nanaimo, British Columbia, Canada
Farenell Photography wrote:
Look at it this way. If a person leave their bike outside unlocked by (I dunno) say the local library & another person locks theirs up, which do you think a thief is gonna take. The unlocked one. Why? Because its the path of least resistance. +1
Model
Mischa Marie
Posts: 7892
Sacramento, California, US
Philipe wrote:
I have no problem matching my work against anyone you shot with.
I've had a few of my pictures stolen.. and most of the llamas I shoot, request a picture with my name on their picture.
I do give llamas photos with out my name as well. Yes, but your name is something llamas desire in their port!
Photographer
Tom Winstead
Posts: 551
Raleigh, North Carolina, US
Yeah, but it's not just guys. Some of the "soccer mom" wanna-be photogs in my area have the biggest, most obnoxious watermarks imaginable.
Photographer
Optix
Posts: 225
Boston, Massachusetts, US
A Raw Muse wrote:
I don't see this going anywhere good... Me neither, but proved to be quite the ride.
Photographer
EVEhome Productions
Posts: 37
Oakland, California, US
Post hidden on Apr 03, 2012 07:58 am Reason: violates rules Comments: Spam
|
