|
Forums >
General Industry >
The Bigger the Watermark, the Smaller the.........
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! Mar 16 12 12:17 am Link  Mar 16 12 12:21 am Link Ideas of grandeur. It happens. Mar 16 12 12:24 am Link I don't see this going anywhere good... Mar 16 12 12:24 am Link Wonderhussy wrote: I saw a big watermark across the subject on one photographer - his work is utter crap, shot full-matic. Watermark gets in the way of the main subject, the model, destroying the entire pic composition. Mar 16 12 12:24 am Link The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts. -Bertrand Russell There are guys who think their photos are the best ever, and that everyone else is out there trying to steal them, or copy their ideas, etc etc. They'll talk about how they've spent thousands on the most expensive lenses, and that sort of thing. And the people who actually ARE good, don't think they're good... so they don't even feel confident enough to post their work, at all. Because they're too busy studying the greatest photographers of all time, and then looking at their work, and feeling it's not good enough. Mar 16 12 12:28 am Link I think it's a legitimate concern for photographers to want to protect their work but I find the watermark makes a photo completely unimpressive and yes, makes me think of ego. I know on flickr you can protect your photos from being saved but people can still print screen them. 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. Plus, I suppose you could be losing a paying client, but if they really want to use your photo for anything commercial they have to buy it off you anyway. Strange times! Mar 16 12 12:34 am Link dave phoenix wrote: Sometimes I think success and unrealistic ideas of self are combined. If you're confident in yourself selling yourself is so much easier. Mar 16 12 12:37 am Link Roberta H wrote: Agreed Mar 16 12 12:55 am Link 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. Mar 16 12 01:30 am Link not this guy:  Mar 16 12 01:32 am Link Nor this guy; one of my fav photographers!  Mar 16 12 01:35 am Link I wouldn't say this is true. I will say that I generally find that large watermarks detract from the image. Mar 16 12 01:35 am Link Those are great photos but I get distracted by giant watermarks. Also note, they're not covering the models face or body which I have seen happen. I also notice that both are more glamour/beauty style photos with more obvious lighting enhancement and skin retouching. I find that's a trend as well but I may be wrong. Mar 16 12 01:38 am Link Nico Simon Princely wrote: +1 Mar 16 12 01:51 am Link Miss Havisham Phtgrphy wrote: quis a inflatus ass Mar 16 12 02:01 am Link 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. That being said, I think a small, unobtrusive watermark is not objectionable to most people and is akin to a painter signing their painting. Mar 16 12 02:23 am Link Garrett Sanders wrote: +1 Disclaimer: I am not an expert, nor do I claim to be. Anyone who questions the weight of my opinion(s) is free to validate my words based upon their review of my work – which may/may not be supportive. Mar 16 12 05:28 am Link ...often serves to illustrate the photographer's deficits as a graphic designer. There are those cases where it's a blessing that it obscures some of the image. Mar 16 12 05:37 am Link The size of a watermark does not correlate to a photographers skill set as someone has already pointed out that some of the best photographers have large watermarks. It is the application of a watermark that connects to a photographers style. Done properly a watermark will bring attention to the image. Mar 16 12 05:47 am Link Jeffrey M Fletcher wrote: +1 ahahahahahahahahahaha Mar 16 12 05:51 am Link Actually the last example is very old school and still popular. When we made prints we would add credits to the white boarders (sometime with a typewriter lol ) Mar 16 12 05:57 am Link AJScalzitti wrote: That sounds bad ass! Mar 16 12 06:02 am Link I thought a watermark was a very small, semi-transparent mark to identify the creator, usually in the bottom corner, and almost never seen. Arent you talking about logos? Mar 16 12 06:16 am Link I don't know... However, I can tell you, that when I see no watermark it often equates to a smaller brain!  It is extremely frustrating to come across someones image, whether it be a photo or a work of art and have absolutely no idea who it is because they did not watermark. People right click and share images all the time - especially with social networking.. why in the world would you not want to get your name out there? People who think their work is so unique that it would be identifiable among millions upon millions of images on the internet, are truly the delusional one's with inflated egos. Second, it helps prevent theft. Notice I said "helps". It doesn't guarantee and yes, they can still steal your image. They are just much less likely to since there are a shitload of images with no watermark that they can go after. These are the two main reasons why I think people who don't watermark are dumb and/or delusional. Mar 16 12 06:26 am Link  Mar 16 12 07:13 am Link Moon Pix Photography wrote: Guilty as charged! Maybe I'll spend this rainy weekend slapping watermarks on my images...maybe. I'm not only dumb but lazy as well. lol Mar 16 12 07:27 am Link ... when they become utterly successful and well known... the watermark will get smaller. . Mar 16 12 07:27 am Link whats a watermark?..lol.. Mar 16 12 07:35 am Link Wonderhussy wrote: I know a few very well known photographers, whose watermark is quite big (one of them, the initials occupy almost 1/4 of the image) and their work is outstandingly stunning... Mar 16 12 07:59 am Link I stopped watermarking, I just want to bait people into unauthorized reproduction of my images so I can copyright troll them as a viable business plan but at one point I had like 5 watermarks, mainly for informative purposes (like website address) and to deter copying Mar 16 12 08:09 am Link I don't watermark photos because I don't like the way it looks. Watermarks look tacky and pretentious in 99% of cases. I'd rather take my chances of somebody not being able to trace me from one of my photos than for the majority of people who see it to think I'm an ass for watermarking it. Anybody who gets too precious about images they put on the web is focusing on the wrong thing. Once an image goes on the web it's fair game for anybody to steal, pass off, copy... whatever. If an infringement of my copyright comes to my attention then I may do something about it; if not, then what I don't know doesn't hurt me. Images I put on the web are effectively throwaway advertising materials to me, nothing more. Just my $0.02 Ciao Stefano www.stefanobrunesci.com Mar 16 12 08:12 am Link 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. Mar 16 12 08:15 am Link Farenell Photography wrote: +1 Mar 16 12 08:19 am Link I'm currently working on a way to have the most densely populated eXIF file on record and then figuring out a way to prevent websites from stripping it Mar 16 12 08:32 am Link Most of the examples here don't qualify as a watermark in the real world. A watermark is a low contrast low key large logo or text that renders the photo unusable, but tries not to cover up the image too much so that a trained eye can still see if they like the image or not. A big name over the top of the image like a magazine cover is not a watermark. It can be quite elegant and good marketing in some cases, but does not have the functionality of a watermark. Crop the top off and the photo can still be snitched, used in someones layout etc etc. It like calling retouching editing..... two different things. I am obliged to use a large watermark on postings of my celebrity clients due to websites stealing images left right and center. It is ridiculous out there. I have even had accessory makers steal images and put them on their website... and I'm talking about brands that sell in Bloomingdale's and a recognizable celebrity. It's a good source of income for me, but I prefer to avoid these problems. Mar 16 12 08:36 am Link Drew Smith Photography wrote: He is a great photographer. BUT, if you go to his actual website, you notice he doesn't watermark a lot of his images there. Mar 16 12 08:41 am Link Wonderhussy wrote: In general yes ---- Mar 16 12 08:43 am Link Drew Smith Photography wrote: This is not a watermark. It's a header. Very different. Mar 16 12 08:52 am Link Stefano Brunesci wrote: Sometimes you can lose work due to missuses of your images. Mar 16 12 08:58 am Link |
