Watermarked Photos, whatcha think?

**ScottieMommy** · 11-08-2007, 08:31 PM

What do you think of this watermark? I read a thread the other day and seen people online actually steal photos from forums as using them as their own. For xmas i am getting a really good cam and i want to start putting watermarks on my pics. What do you think? Is this good enough? Just a quick sample.

It will say "Leila's Photography"

**Kfamr** · 11-08-2007, 08:35 PM

Eh, I'm not a fan of "watermarks" across the whole photo, especially one with such opacity. It takes away from the photos, IMO. While people can still photoshop them out, a lot of professionals just use one of the bottom corners.

**ScottieMommy** · 11-08-2007, 08:38 PM

Thanks, and another question i wanted to ask you. What cam do you own? I was thinking on getting one of those. I heard you talking about it the other day. I LOVE the photos it takes. My cam is over 8 years old worn out

**Kfamr** · 11-08-2007, 08:58 PM

I currently have two cameras - Canon PowerShot SD1000 and a Canon Rebel XTi. The newest photos I took were with the XTi, but I don't recommend it unless you plan to sell your photography.

**ScottieMommy** · 11-08-2007, 09:24 PM

Thanks so much, i like the first you named if pretty good.

**Kalei** · 11-08-2007, 09:29 PM

I always wondered about the watermarks too. I like them for the fact that it makes it that much harder for someone to take your photo and say its their's. But I like it better when its down in a corner or something

**Catlady711** · 11-08-2007, 11:23 PM

Originally Posted by Kfamr

I currently have two cameras - Canon PowerShot SD1000 and a Canon Rebel XTi. The newest photos I took were with the XTi, but I don't recommend it unless you plan to sell your photography.

I haven't sold my photography in years, but I love my new XTi, the advanced features of my SLR with the benefits of a digital and I can use all my old EF lenses on it, can't beat the combo for the price.

**pitc9** · 11-09-2007, 12:09 PM

If you just have something little in a bottom corner, can't that just be cropped out??

**Kfamr** · 11-09-2007, 06:38 PM

I just really think the "watermark" takes too much away. Honestly, if someone wants to crop/repost my photos and claim it as their own, it's not going to hurt me. *I* know who originally took the photo. If they REALLY wanted to they could even claim to be Kay Knapp, "Leila's Photography", or whoever else and keep the text in the photo. It's actually rather easy to photoshop "watermarks" out and doesn't take too much time.

Besides, it'd be rather hard for them to get money out of a resized photo. To create a quality print you would need the original photo. A photo I resize for the forums (or anywhere I post them) will not make a quality print. Even if a company saw a photo they were claiming, they'd ask for the original. In that case, they wouldn't have the original.

I put my name on the photos for two reasons. 1, to deter others from taking it. 2, to get my name out there. As I'm starting my freelance photography, I'm trying to get my name out there. I've already had one person see pictures I've taken on someone's MySpace (with my permission) and they've contacted me to do a session.

**K9soul** · 11-09-2007, 08:44 PM

I understand putting something on a photo if you want to identify it as yours but unless you make your living off your photography or have photos of something spectacular and rare, I don't see why people worry so much about someone else posting a photo and claiming its theirs. Sure it's lame and if I found someone posting pictures of my dogs and saying the photos were theirs I'd say something to them, but it's not something I'm going to sweat over trying to prevent. I personally think smacking a water mark in the middle of a picture just to post on a forum is a bit much, and it truly does distract away from the photo for me. I can certainly understand when a pro photographer with an online gallery to showcase their work does it though.

**dukedogsmom** · 11-10-2007, 10:04 PM

Sorry guys. Read things the wrong way. I guess I'm overly sensitive right now. It's Duke's one year mark this weekend.

**crow_noir** · 11-10-2007, 03:04 AM

The problem is when people calling themselves breeders steal photos of others' dogs so they can make a quick buck. (off of people who buy dogs and puppies sight unseen.)

There's a couple that are notorious for it and the authorities have yet to catch them. They change kennel names often and surf the web all over. Even when people have found their dog posted elsewhere online they don't know who to contact.

**sandragonfly** · 11-10-2007, 09:23 AM

with great pictures anyone makes, I'd hate if someone else ruins it because it's not right claiming as theirs if it's not. it just is not. you pay the photographer. you pay to download a music. you pay for a page of thumbnail designs.. list goes on. you can deter theives but also deter scandals.

again, I really don't have problem with mine, many pet talkers and I too know I've been posting them and we can just point it out when needed. sometimes I'd have PMs asking me if I could make pictures a bit bigger so they can see them better, wasn't a problem emailing them in originals.

I forgot to mention - as a picture thread devoter - I started smallize my pictures so it'd be easier for dailuppers here. there were so many pet talkers complaining about how long it takes to upload the page and it has been a habit since (and easier work as it'd only border-frame any pictures less than 400x400 all at once). no...I'm not exactly lazy.

I once saw a website that had three watermarks in each picture.

I can understand, especially going through this experience of stealing. they were nice color-striking pictures!

I'd do what kay does, only on my own website - more work effort and it's more official (and professional) there. but here, it's only a pet forum. kay, just so you know your pictures CAN be printed in 3x5 and 4x6 in some companies without grains.

**.sarah** · 11-10-2007, 09:37 AM

I don't worry about watermarks on the picture as much as I worry about embedding it in the picture. As soon as I take photos off of my camera I embed my copyright information in the image. This means that if someone saves it and edits out my watermark on the image, my contact information (website, city, and business phone # for me) are still in the image. You can't take that out. If they were to save all of my photos on a CD and take them to a lab, my copyright information is still there and the photos should not be printed. I feel safer with that there.

I do think it's a little silly to watermark at all if you are not looking to sell your photos, but I can understand the concern. I go back and forth as to whether or not my photos will have a watermark just to post on forums, but my information is always embedded in each and every photo I post. I just started my website where you can purchase my photos online (although the prices aren't up there yet but will be soon) and I have my information embedded in the photos AND a watermark with my website name on it. I did that for several reasons, but one is because the photos show up larger on this website than if I had resized them myself and I don't want anyone to make a small print from it.

But, then again, I am a "professional photographer" (though that still seems odd to me!) and I am now doing engagement photos, weddings, etc. and I feel like I need to protect my images very well.

**.sarah** · 11-10-2007, 10:45 AM

Okay, it's been pointed out to me that it's easier than I thought to get rid of embedded info too.

.... If you post your photos online, you're at risk for people stealing them. But, depending on what you want to gain out of putting them on the internet, the benefits could be better ... you could gain clients, etc. I don't really worry TOO much about people stealing them because I figure I'm the only one who has the original. I never, ever give out my original photos unless if I trust someone whole-heartedly with them.