Great video as always, I agree no watermark. When you showed the two photos I noticed that the one with the watermark I read the watermark before looking at the photo. Which is not a good thing in my book!
Personally I only post watermarked photos on social media. I wouldn't expect a client to purchase a photo for print or a model to add it to their port or website with a watermark on it. They already know who I am. I use it only as a marketing tool. That being said, I think the use of the watermark should be subtle and not a distraction from the work itself. You're not trying to sell your logo.
I actually DID like that watermark placement in the flowers, Jessica. Looked professional, almost like the front page of a magazine. But I am like you most of the time, they take away from the picture. I guess it all depends on what you are using it for and who is seeing it. For general purpose I would say no. If you can cleverly place the watermark as you did in the flowers, then I suppose that would be okay.
Justin Borja lol, right.. it looked like a beautiful page in a magazine.. but generally I feel like water marks distract from the photo.. the eyes are always going straight to the mark
I like putting my watermark small and a little faded and I just kind of hide it somewhere in the image since it is just text there is no little cartoon or anything like that. that just makes me feel a little safe if my images ever do get stolen
Barbara Rodriguez I read vertically and very light its more hidden.. because we are so use to reading left to right our eyes immediately gravitate toward writing.. makes sense I guess. But I personally don't like water marks
Nice. I never use watermarks on any prints, I do some on digital posts (subtle, low opacity, & in corners) but I agree that if someone were to steal it, they would just crop it. I think the best defense is just resizing photos for web use and not posting the full-res versions.
So a couple years ago for my 15th birthday i wanted to have a photoshoot of myself and i found a photographer whose photos were really good and i liked her, but she had a huge watermark in the bottom right corner with her name on it, i hated that and didn't even bother to contact her. So yes, watermarks do make a difference.
Early when I was taking photos just for the fun of it and for developing my skills, I didn't put a watermark on. I put them on Facebook, but then I had two instances of people just straight up downloading and reuploading without acknowledgement (my privacy settings are that only friends can see those). I ask them about it and they ignored me and it just didn't sit right with me. In those two instances I was at events and had taken the photos quite seriously, making sure I got a good coverage of the event. It's not like you can enjoy the actual event as much if you are taking photos the whole time, while the people who stole my pictures got to enjoy the event and my photos. So yeah, now I watermark subtly in the corner with some transparency because then even if people don't acknowledge, it's still there.
great video! I use watermarks on my photographs and artwork. usually it's on the bottom right (because people normal read things from left to right, so I don't want a water mark distracting them), and I make my watermark aesthetically pleasing so it doesn't ruin the aesthetic of the picture, furthermore, my watermark isn't there to stop people from stealing my picture, it's just there to lead people back to my site or business, so I don't have some garish ugly watermark in a terrible font smack bang in the middle of my pictures or artwork.
Is that really where you would've placed your watermark for a client? I noticed it there immediately. I use a watermark, but with low opacity and positioned in an inconspicuous area. I know that if someone wants to use my photos without permission they will probably know how to erase my watermark. I don't use a watermark for that purpose, you mentioned branding and that is why I watermark my images. But I forget sometimes. (Thanks for making your videos Ms. Jessica, I enjoy them and your wonderful photographs.)
Hey! Don't be hating on Taco Tuesday Photography!! Nacho Monday was taken! :( lol I use watermarks but for me they are like signatures, I usually put them in the lower left side of the picture and the opacity is very low. Even then sometimes it can be annoying, yet I can't seem to get myself to not do it at all.
I personally don't like big obnoxious watermarks but I put on my photos and in a subtle way, barely there. Reason 1: I'm not a famous photographer and so I want people to know that I took the photos 2. I want to protect my models who are real daily people and not professional models from having their face splattered in some unexpected websites. I know if people want to steal they will do whatever but I'm trying to minimize the chances. 3. Because I post on Facebook and as we all know once you do that, you let go copyright of that particular image already, so hoping that if people see it, they know where it came from at least.
I mainly use watermarks for the market function and I've gotten to the point where I only use it for the photos that I post to my blog, just in case they would be shared and people are nice. Plus, I usually put the watermark in the corner either as an overlay or at a low opacity so that it is there, but doesn't take away from the picture.
I think a good looking "signature" actually adds to the image, kinda says: "This photo is a thing. Look at it". But it has to fit in. I don't use watermark myself though
I really liked the watermark. :) Its like an artists signature. I agree with you about the "big old watermark" thing, I think it is done without taste a lot of the time. Yours looks gorgeous though!
I enjoyed seeing it without the watermark because as you showed it, it was the first thing that caught my eye and in my opinion devalued the image. This video helped with whether I should put a watermark or not on my work. Really loved it.
I put my watermark on files that I have downsized and optimized for web use. For full sized files that are meant to be printed off of, no watermark. And I do put it along the bottom corner, never in the middle of the photo.
Jessica, thanks for tackling this polemic issue. I agree with you that the watermark should be discreet. As to its existence, think about a Mercedes Benz. with or without that famous logo on the front of the car, is still a Mercedes Benz, but there are so many people that get impressed by that logo that it adds perceived value to the car. I want it so that when someone sees my logo they will immediately identify with quality. As for which of your photos I liked better, really they were shown so fast, (and not repeated) that I didn't have a lot of time to decide,but in that short time I think the one with the logo was more interesting, however on that photo as a work of art I would go with the other one. God bless and keep clicking and teaching! - Christopher Soule - The American Photographer Down in Brazil.
To be honest with the example photo, i actually prefer the one with watermark. Reason is simple, the watermark in this example actually works well with the subject in terms making it more interesting to look at in a way, it added an subtle extra element to the portrait shot, which to me is actually more pleasing to look at rather than the unmarked version. I personally don't put watermake on any of my photos even many people has suggested me to, but as someone with a bit of photoshop back ground i know how easily they can be removed. I think a nicely designed and well placed watermark can sometime be a bonus to the display of a picture in the right situation.
LOL @ Taco Tuesday Photography! I feel the same about watermarks. Had a falling out with a mua recently because she was hell bent on putting her watermark on my images. Told her to put her watermark on the model's forehead instead :)
- Doesn't like watermarks - Uses watermark in video :D In all seriousness, I think a discrete watermark in the corner works best. Mine have steadily been getting smaller and smaller overtime but having a small symbol there, I feel, just makes it a little more official. As long as it's tastefully done and well designed, it doesn't really detract from the work. After that, if someone wants to go to the trouble of cropping it then that's on them. Like you said, it's not going to stop people from stealing your work, but it might make them think twice.
Thank you for tackling this subject. I like that you gave insight to both sides. Personally I like a small tasteful watermark as more of a signature of a master artist. I do not care for watermarks displayed across an image. People will always find a way to steal, I would mostly use a watermark to give people who randomly share photos with each other a chance to find my website. A true thief will their hands on just about anything.
i always had the mindset of having a watermark for, say, a preview photo from a shoot and when the photos are actually given to the client not having one. sort of the way a school picture day went. you were given a sample photo and then would pay for one without the watermark. personally, i don't really mind watermarks? it does kinda look like an advertisement, but at the same time it adds a break in the picture that i like.
I recently got myself into liparts, and lots of people suggest me to use a watermark cause lip photos is the biggest form of theft in makeup industry however i agree with you, it took away the whole experience of the photo hahahha
Fascinating video. I use small watermarks in the corners of my images because I find it's a good balance. It's not in the way, but at the same time it does help someone recognize who took the photo. And especially with digital photography it's not like you can't have a version with and a version without anyway.
Watermarks can look nice on some photos, and be a distraction to others. Plus, you have to figure out where you are going to place the watermark based on the photo subject. When a client pays you for a picture of their family, should they advertise your business? Some people are brand conscious, so if you are a big name photographer, they like to show. I realize it is a personal preference. I personally do not like putting watermarks on my photos. It also creates extra work, because LR does not make it easy if you need to move a watermark around.
I'm against using large obstructive watermarks, but I like to put a discreet watermark on my photos, for social media or gallery exhibitions, like painters signing on their paintings.
The watermark was well placed so it depends where it's placed. It think the issue is placement and neutrality. If the watermark created a high contrast and distracts, change it. I actually do like the presentation of elegant and well placed watermarks. It's like brand names on devices, Sony, Canon, Cadillac,...you get my drift.
Hi, Alexa here. At This Is Saipan, we’ve taken watermarks OFF of our images and stepped-up our game. My grandpa comes from the old days of photography and the military. He showed us a way to protect all of our images with ZERO visibility. It isn’t new, yet very few artists, creatives and photographers use it. It’s called: STEGANOGRAPHY. It’s been around since George Washington and the Militia used it way back when. Grandpa took it a step further (he worked in the U.S. Army SID, Asia for a time), by using simple freeware programs to create a complex cipher. Not even Facebook can strip it away as it’s directly embedded in the image itself. He created a QR code with our vital details. He then used a steganography program to password protect and embed the code into our photos. It cannot be located, even by keyword strippers, since it’s not actually metadata, it’s an image within an image, but could just as easily be text, audio or video. If someone is really intent on stealing and misusing our images, we can prove true ownership no matter how many times they try to strip data away. An obvious watermark is unnecessary at this point, but may help with copyright issues should they arise. If we use one at all, it is set to a font size that is very small and placed along a “vertical edge.” This is akin to the days of magazines placing image copyrights along the “spine” side of their pages. Of course, magazines listed photographer credits as well. Watermarks have there places. One such place to use them is on social/sharing network sites. Others may include stock photography & micro-stock websites, photography hosting sites and others. They certainly don’t need to be on your website. It is your site after all. They don’t need to be on samples sent to potential or current clients either since most prospects are provided with full media packets before hiring you. While we refuse to except “works for hire” contracts, some photographers will. This is definitely one place a watermark MUST be made visible and stipulated it cannot be removed or obscured in any way. No one should ever freely give up legal ownership/rights to their images, they are protected for the full life of the owner plus 70 years after death (Title 17 USC on Copyright). As an end note, one more way of preventing theft is to “STEP ON,” your photos. We shoot only in RAW and use only MANUAL settings. Our Canon images can reach 50MB in size, or more for HDR and panoramics, which can exceed 3GB. Not practical sizes to upload anywhere. We shoot, edit, convert, export, reduce their frame sizes to 1600 pixels on the longest side @75 to 96 dpi, then reduce the image quality to 80 or 85% for uploading. Truly unsuitable for enlargement or commercial purposes by the time they reach the Web.
Love this video. You're right, the watermark totally takes away from the photo. Instead of my focus being on the model's face, my focus was drawn to the flowers with the watermark
No watermark for me, but I would still put a little signature in the corner, so it's not distracting. When someone steals the photo, you can prove that it is yours.
I like subtle, small watermarks that are semi-transparent - it gives context to the picture. If the image is for client use, it shouldn't have a watermark. Just discovered your channel - fun topics - good delivery!
My Dad places his watermark small but across his Tulsa Skyline images and we found someone using it on their website. And my Dad was able to immediately prove to the company it was his work by saying, my name runs across the image, look closer, it kind of blends in but it's there. But here's the cool part, the company assumed that their web developer had already paid for it, they apologized and sent my Dad a check. It's good to use google image search every now and then and use your most popular images that have received a lot of likes or people have bought for stock images in the past, put the image in google image search and see where else the image comes up. Sometimes your image has been stolen by someone in a land far, far away but sometimes it is local and you can get a response and get paid for your work.
Interesting video. Watermarks are obnoxious, but so are people who steal your photo and then when you ask them about it they refuse to say, "I like your photo." You made a lot of good points about the cons of the watermark though and I agree that the cons outweigh the pros.
Yes of course if it's in the middle of the picture or cover it all it's not nice but when you put small logo or just your name type on the down corner it's more than ok and you should do it
When you post your photos onto certain social media sites, you may be giving up copyright ownership to your images and or/your metadata is removed from them. Many people don't know this and this is why some people may still use watermarks. Check the fine print in the terms of use to be sure you're not giving up your rights. Here's the information to back this up: iptc.org/news/many-social-media-sites-still-remove-image-rights-information-from-photos/ You can also do additional research on what sites actually do this.
I actually enjoyed both photos! I think the fact that your watermark was well designed and well placed contributed to 99% of the fact that it was enjoyable to look at. However, I dislike big ugly watermarks across the whole picture. Great video!
I had a water mark but i tried to have it on the corner and be small plus a bit transparent so it doesnt distract but as i test other designs i can clearly see how it can be distracting, maybe i could just use the logo water mark for my avatar picture on social media more than on every single picture.
I personally use a watermark which is basically my name but, it's not distracting.I always put it in place far away from the main object. The thing is that I've had people use my pictures and edit them without my permission or making it look like they took the picture. Which is the main reason I use the watermark. So that people know I was the one who took the picture. I just really don't feel comfortable not using it. Though I wish I didn't have to.
My wife and I had one of our photos shared by a page on Facebook with credits given to some mystery photographer. We have no idea how this person was given credit, but they got 12,000 (by the time we found out) people to see this photo as theirs. The funny thing is, our logo is in the bottom right corner of the image. We were able to contact the person running the FB page, and have their post corrected to give us our due credit, but we had already lost out on a considerable amount of exposure. Without our logo, it would have been a bit more difficult to prove it was, in fact, our photo. Had our actual company name been on the photo, this would not have been a problem at all. We work far too hard to have others receive credit for our work. People complain that an image can look like an advertisement, but that is exactly what it is. I do not like obnoxious watermarks, but think of all the images you've seen, throughout your life, without any idea of whom took them.
With the watermark I was mostly looking on the text because it seemed to give me more clues of what the photo is about, like you know, on memes. Without the picture I was looking at the models face and eyes, which made me realize it's a wedding photo.
I fully support the usage of watermarks. I almost always put a watermark on a photo that I've taken. I don't use watermarks when delivering photos, but whenever I post any photo online I will almost always add a watermark. I believe that a watermark supports your brand. I know that adding a watermark isn't going to prevent art theft but at least it will detour some from stealing a photo. When I post the photos online I make sure that a watermark is not in the middle of a photo, and I set it to around a 40% opacity so that the watermark is not distracting. Before I started using watermarks, some of my clients downloaded my photos that I was going to get printed for them anyway. They took the images, printed the photos at Walmart, and then never payed me. After that incident I decided to start adding watermarks. It all comes down to personal preference but I honestly believe that some times it is a necessity to have a watermark on an image.
I actually use a small watermark that's almost see through and have seen pros use obnoxious watermarks in the middle of the photo. Never made sense to me. But I actually think having a small nice watermark below ur pics is ok.
Watermarking seems to be an issue of experience and your personal journey. I loved the pros and cons When I first started digital photography back in 2007 I was so concerned about people stealing photos for flyers. Also, I wanted people to be able to find me and my website the same way i found talented photographers' sites, by their watermark. Times have changed, and the internet has changed since then. I'm not worried about people stealing photos to use for party fliers (there's pinetrest for that!) I'm shooting better models and not "cute girls". Instagram and Google image enable you to track down the metadata of almost any photo. The second problem is that many photogs design their own logo and watermark, and many are not that good. Photos with large, busy watermarks, or worse, watermarks that change position in every photo SCREAM bad design and bad decision making. In the end, you'll decide what works for you, and this video is a great help!
Personally I don't bother, but I'd say make it small and unobtrusive if you must have one. I've seen a number of really well done ones that make it look like part of the photo itself, so it isn't something you'd instantly notice as being a watermark. But like you said, if someone wants to steal it badly enough they'll also get rid of the thing anyway.
I actually agree with what you said about people stealing your work. Especially nowadays, if someone really wants to steal it, they can easily crop the photo or remove it in photoshop. I've been really on the fence about using one. For some reason, I had this perception that all "professional" photographers used watermarks which made me feel pressured, but then I realized that almost every photographer I follow/look up to on social media and etc. do not use them. Really made me think. Of course, I would never use them in a portfolio or any type of published work, but I am debating if I will use them in social media.. It does really take away from the photo sometimes, but I still believe it makes it easier for people to find me which leads to more exposure/clients.. Granted, I will make it very small and inconspicuous. Also lowering the opacity really helps. Great video, though!
I've always hated watermarks and still do to an extent. Part of the reason is that I noticed early on that the most gawdy "in your face!" marks always seemed to be on the most "ho hum" and quite frankly, amateurish, images. And then one day I discovered one of my more popular photos on a web site with someone else's watermark on it (and had it for sale). Over the years I've found many of my pictures on web sites and usually I was always credited as well as the image being no where near its original size so I never made a big deal about it. But in this case seeing someone blatantly put their own mark on it and claim it as their own really set me off. Now obviously someone could have stolen it had I had a watermark on it already but I feel it would have been a subtle "I am watching you" step for the thief in question. Right now I put a very subtle web address on (most of) my photos. I never want it to get in the way of the image but I always want it to point directly to my web site if anyone is interest -no "company name" that would then make someone Google it to find out its source. This is the image in question that was stolen. No watermark on any of them shown on my site. ONLY ones that I post on social media. www.wayneslandphotography.com/Central-Arizona/i-v9QBDV4
The example you gave here had the watermark huge relative to the size of the photo so the obvious reaction for many people would be to choose the photo without it. I use my watermarks but they're all small and just text; no intricate artwork, just text. I agree on everything except people searching far and wide if they really love your work. I don't think they should have to. Many people will miss out on a lot of my work if I relied only on word of mouth, where people had to go through a million people to find out who took the photo. I guess i could have made a long story short by saying that I personally prefer a small watermark lol. Not for deterring thieves but it's just right there on the picture, in a small corner, so they can just look me up. At least they have a name to work with if they need to ask people who I am and how to get in contact with me. I feel the easier it is for the viewer the better it is for me. Love your channel. Keep up the great work. Love your photos :)
I fall on the side of no water mark personally. Most of the successful photographers I know are successful by building themselves a strong brand through word of mouth - and they don't use watermarks. I kind of think that if you 100% want to make sure that you never have an image stolen, then you should probably never post them online..
Can you make a video of your thoughts of naming your photography business name or brand, having a hard time trying to figure out if I should used my full name or just last name or make-up a name but I want it to be professional. Help!
I really dont like watermarks, the only times i use them is if i did a heck of alot of special effects work in photoshop and even then it's small and in the corner at a 30% opacity of just text
you saying your name makes people remember it, especially for the ones that clicked on one of your videos accidentally :p your voice is so sweet and soothing too
Love your videos! Would love to see more videos on editing and portfolios! Maybe for portfolios like how to decide what to put in it or things to make your portfolio stand out... But for sure more editing! Love your editing style!! :D
i spend a lot of time editing my photos to make them look beautiful so i dont want anybody stealing my photos,just a thought.You have beautiful eyes and eyebrows by the way.
Over the years I've had a several photos end up on the television news ...and almost always, they crop out my watermarked logo. When asked about it, they told me it was because they don't allow "free advertising" on their station.
I wanted to put a picture of me holding a knife and making a mean face ( kinda like a movie actor ) on my facebook to show what kind of photos I do but have a worry that some one might steal it and use to say that " this is my boyfriend and he is going to get you"! So I was thinking about putting a big water mark in the middle so that if any body tried to use it will have to somewhat ruin it. Are my thoughts valid? Or am I just being paranoid?
If watermark is badly placed (middle of the screen) then yeah, bad idea... But in some corner, small font no big deal. And it is good for recognition - not anti steal purpose.
I personally don't like watermarks. I think it takes away from the photo. I did see someones watermark though that was really small and not super visible and it was down on the left hand corner and I didn't even see it at first. That kind of watermark is fine but i just don't personally like them! Thanks for the video!
I place my Watermark across the image and set it at 5% opacity. Hard to photoshop out. Have to protect my work. If I put in the corner or such, they can be easily cropped or cloned out.
For me I just want answer one question, "Why in this video you put 'jk' as a watermark?" So it will be the answer. Just put a small watermark and choose a right color, position, size and less the opacity look as a dim one. Then it should be okay and never disturb the photo. The simple and nice example of watermark is as in this video. ;)
I totally agree with you. Watermarks originated to be professional, but I can't stand when I see a "photographer" with a bright pink watermark in the middle of their pictures. That's not even a watermark anymore lol...
as an editorial illustrator you CANNOT put your name in it in any way. they credit you in the magazine and if your really worried about copyright issues then do that in Adobe Bridge where it really matters and not by disrupting the image. that's my thoughts anyways
I started with wm than I decided its better to keep pictures free from wm. Like you jess I think its cleaner without wm and makes pepole appreciate more yr work
If you are buying a painting, would you want one the is signed or one that is not signed? The one that is signed is worth a lot more $$. So you are saying your photograph is not ART and not worth signing. Plus nothing says a watermark needs to be huge and impact the photograph like your example. Don't be afraid to sign your work.
Not the same. A photograph is not an original. It's a digital image. A painting is an original piece and unique. There is only one. So the signature not only makes sense, it adds value. To sign a limited edition print makes sense as well. To watermark a web image is dumb. But watermarks on Facebook and Instagram posts or in your own portfolio is cheap and amateurish.
I totally agree ! I came to photography from art, all sorts of art. Especially graffiti, which basically was signing my name everywhere, and I agree if you sign something it'll be worth more, it'll reflect more, it'll expose you more, etc. I use a small watermark on the bottom right of my pictures and nobody has ever complained or said that it's distracting. Some people even say they don't notice it.
No one noticed the “JK” watermark in the lower right of her video? I love your videos and have watched many. The take away for me, as an up and coming photographer, is to have a small and discrete watermark in a corner...for advertising purposes
spanish. ink I maybe mistaken but I believe she covered in another video that she doesn’t send any work to the client until full payment is made. At least that method makes the most sense to me.
My big problem is with Facebook who strips out all the metadata from the image. No proof of theft. Yes, thieves can also remove metadata but it makes it harder to find a person when you are looking for one. “Who took that photo you posted? I love it!” “I don't know. I found it on the web,” he said. “Where?” “How am I supposed to remember that,” he said. “It's called, giving attribution. No worries. I'll just drag the image into my viewer and…. Hmm. No metadata.” “What's metadata,” he asks? “It's data about the data, such as attribution.” “What's attribution,” he asks? “Never mind. I'll just do a Google image search and…. Hmm. It's on so many different Facebook timelines. That's helpful.” “Yeah,” he said. “I shared it with all 4,593 of my friends. Now everyone knows how good that photo is!” “But who is the photographer?” “Does it matter,” he asks? Facebook claims it strips metadata to save space but really, I don't think that in the big picture, metadata is the number one (or two) consumer of space on their servers, and I know a number of cats who would agree with me in their videos. It is a disservice to do that. They should, at the very least, leave photographer, publisher, copyright, title, description, and date & time. Nevertheless…. I give clients (depending on what kind of client) two or three sets of images; a full size “Prints” set with a faint or no watermark, and a “social media” sized set with a noticeable (but not prominent) watermark so that their 4,593 Facebook friends can find me. The third set may be an Intranet, publication or presentation sized set with no watermark. All sets will have complete metadata -XMP, IPTC, Makernote (yes, my camera puts ‘photographer“ & “copyright” info into the Makernote), and EXIF- inserted during my workflow, until they are posted on Facebook. :-( The point is, my problem really is not theft. That will always happen. It is not clients. They will always give attribution. Its the average Joe, looking at my social media feeds, copy/pasting away, not giving attribution. So there is a place for (subtle) watermarks and it is not in a portfolio or certain client work (like comp-cards, etc.).
If people would respect the copyrights, the artists wouldn't watermark their artworks. Right? When you like for e.g. a photo, and you would like to get that photo without watermarks, then you just have to pay a small fee to the hard working artist. As simple is that. But nowadays it has become a common practise to use everything for free. We give a f*ck on what's right or wrong. We disrespect other's rights. We steal everything from the internet for free, and use it on Instagram and TH-cam and make money by adds and clicks, while the artist gets nothing. And some people even take videos of that criminal actions, for getting likes and clicks ... and money.
Great video as always, I agree no watermark. When you showed the two photos I noticed that the one with the watermark I read the watermark before looking at the photo. Which is not a good thing in my book!
A big bold 72 point Ferrari red font right across the face of the model is the best.
Personally I only post watermarked photos on social media. I wouldn't expect a client to purchase a photo for print or a model to add it to their port or website with a watermark on it. They already know who I am. I use it only as a marketing tool. That being said, I think the use of the watermark should be subtle and not a distraction from the work itself. You're not trying to sell your logo.
I like your comment, 2 years late hehe.
I actually DID like that watermark placement in the flowers, Jessica. Looked professional, almost like the front page of a magazine. But I am like you most of the time, they take away from the picture. I guess it all depends on what you are using it for and who is seeing it. For general purpose I would say no. If you can cleverly place the watermark as you did in the flowers, then I suppose that would be okay.
Justin Borja lol, right.. it looked like a beautiful page in a magazine.. but generally I feel like water marks distract from the photo.. the eyes are always going straight to the mark
Cat with floaties. Taco Tuesday Photography 😂😂😂
Cameron Barr stolen or not you have to keep that watermark 😂😂😂
sounds legit
Love her humor😂
I like putting my watermark small and a little faded and I just kind of hide it somewhere in the image since it is just text there is no little cartoon or anything like that. that just makes me feel a little safe if my images ever do get stolen
Barbara Rodriguez I read vertically and very light its more hidden.. because we are so use to reading left to right our eyes immediately gravitate toward writing.. makes sense I guess. But I personally don't like water marks
Nice. I never use watermarks on any prints, I do some on digital posts (subtle, low opacity, & in corners) but I agree that if someone were to steal it, they would just crop it. I think the best defense is just resizing photos for web use and not posting the full-res versions.
So a couple years ago for my 15th birthday i wanted to have a photoshoot of myself and i found a photographer whose photos were really good and i liked her, but she had a huge watermark in the bottom right corner with her name on it, i hated that and didn't even bother to contact her.
So yes, watermarks do make a difference.
Maybe for customer's it's best to keep in mind to ask them if a watermark would be desired or not.
I agree with you. It's so tacky.
Early when I was taking photos just for the fun of it and for developing my skills, I didn't put a watermark on. I put them on Facebook, but then I had two instances of people just straight up downloading and reuploading without acknowledgement (my privacy settings are that only friends can see those). I ask them about it and they ignored me and it just didn't sit right with me. In those two instances I was at events and had taken the photos quite seriously, making sure I got a good coverage of the event. It's not like you can enjoy the actual event as much if you are taking photos the whole time, while the people who stole my pictures got to enjoy the event and my photos.
So yeah, now I watermark subtly in the corner with some transparency because then even if people don't acknowledge, it's still there.
great video! I use watermarks on my photographs and artwork. usually it's on the bottom right (because people normal read things from left to right, so I don't want a water mark distracting them), and I make my watermark aesthetically pleasing so it doesn't ruin the aesthetic of the picture, furthermore, my watermark isn't there to stop people from stealing my picture, it's just there to lead people back to my site or business, so I don't have some garish ugly watermark in a terrible font smack bang in the middle of my pictures or artwork.
Jess, thanks again for this interesting watermark topic, i personally feel a small watermark is important.
Is that really where you would've placed your watermark for a client? I noticed it there immediately. I use a watermark, but with low opacity and positioned in an inconspicuous area. I know that if someone wants to use my photos without permission they will probably know how to erase my watermark. I don't use a watermark for that purpose, you mentioned branding and that is why I watermark my images. But I forget sometimes. (Thanks for making your videos Ms. Jessica, I enjoy them and your wonderful photographs.)
Hey! Don't be hating on Taco Tuesday Photography!! Nacho Monday was taken! :( lol
I use watermarks but for me they are like signatures, I usually put them in the lower left side of the picture and the opacity is very low. Even then sometimes it can be annoying, yet I can't seem to get myself to not do it at all.
I personally don't like big obnoxious watermarks but I put on my photos and in a subtle way, barely there. Reason 1: I'm not a famous photographer and so I want people to know that I took the photos 2. I want to protect my models who are real daily people and not professional models from having their face splattered in some unexpected websites. I know if people want to steal they will do whatever but I'm trying to minimize the chances. 3. Because I post on Facebook and as we all know once you do that, you let go copyright of that particular image already, so hoping that if people see it, they know where it came from at least.
I mainly use watermarks for the market function and I've gotten to the point where I only use it for the photos that I post to my blog, just in case they would be shared and people are nice. Plus, I usually put the watermark in the corner either as an overlay or at a low opacity so that it is there, but doesn't take away from the picture.
I think a good looking "signature" actually adds to the image, kinda says: "This photo is a thing. Look at it". But it has to fit in. I don't use watermark myself though
I really liked the watermark. :) Its like an artists signature. I agree with you about the "big old watermark" thing, I think it is done without taste a lot of the time. Yours looks gorgeous though!
I enjoyed seeing it without the watermark because as you showed it, it was the first thing that caught my eye and in my opinion devalued the image. This video helped with whether I should put a watermark or not on my work. Really loved it.
I put my watermark on files that I have downsized and optimized for web use. For full sized files that are meant to be printed off of, no watermark. And I do put it along the bottom corner, never in the middle of the photo.
Jessica, thanks for tackling this polemic issue. I agree with you that the watermark should be discreet. As to its existence, think about a Mercedes Benz. with or without that famous logo on the front of the car, is still a Mercedes Benz, but there are so many people that get impressed by that logo that it adds perceived value to the car. I want it so that when someone sees my logo they will immediately identify with quality. As for which of your photos I liked better, really they were shown so fast, (and not repeated) that I didn't have a lot of time to decide,but in that short time I think the one with the logo was more interesting, however on that photo as a work of art I would go with the other one. God bless and keep clicking and teaching! - Christopher Soule - The American Photographer Down in Brazil.
To be honest with the example photo, i actually prefer the one with watermark. Reason is simple, the watermark in this example actually works well with the subject in terms making it more interesting to look at in a way, it added an subtle extra element to the portrait shot, which to me is actually more pleasing to look at rather than the unmarked version. I personally don't put watermake on any of my photos even many people has suggested me to, but as someone with a bit of photoshop back ground i know how easily they can be removed.
I think a nicely designed and well placed watermark can sometime be a bonus to the display of a picture in the right situation.
LOL @ Taco Tuesday Photography! I feel the same about watermarks. Had a falling out with a mua recently because she was hell bent on putting her watermark on my images. Told her to put her watermark on the model's forehead instead :)
- Doesn't like watermarks
- Uses watermark in video
:D
In all seriousness, I think a discrete watermark in the corner works best. Mine have steadily been getting smaller and smaller overtime but having a small symbol there, I feel, just makes it a little more official. As long as it's tastefully done and well designed, it doesn't really detract from the work. After that, if someone wants to go to the trouble of cropping it then that's on them. Like you said, it's not going to stop people from stealing your work, but it might make them think twice.
Thank you for tackling this subject. I like that you gave insight to both sides. Personally I like a small tasteful watermark as more of a signature of a master artist. I do not care for watermarks displayed across an image. People will always find a way to steal, I would mostly use a watermark to give people who randomly share photos with each other a chance to find my website. A true thief will their hands on just about anything.
i always had the mindset of having a watermark for, say, a preview photo from a shoot and when the photos are actually given to the client not having one. sort of the way a school picture day went. you were given a sample photo and then would pay for one without the watermark. personally, i don't really mind watermarks? it does kinda look like an advertisement, but at the same time it adds a break in the picture that i like.
I recently got myself into liparts, and lots of people suggest me to use a watermark cause lip photos is the biggest form of theft in makeup industry however i agree with you, it took away the whole experience of the photo hahahha
Fascinating video.
I use small watermarks in the corners of my images because I find it's a good balance. It's not in the way, but at the same time it does help someone recognize who took the photo. And especially with digital photography it's not like you can't have a version with and a version without anyway.
Watermarks can look nice on some photos, and be a distraction to others. Plus, you have to figure out where you are going to place the watermark based on the photo subject. When a client pays you for a picture of their family, should they advertise your business? Some people are brand conscious, so if you are a big name photographer, they like to show. I realize it is a personal preference. I personally do not like putting watermarks on my photos. It also creates extra work, because LR does not make it easy if you need to move a watermark around.
You say hi for the people who found your videos in a web search or seeing your videos for the first time.
I'm against using large obstructive watermarks, but I like to put a discreet watermark on my photos, for social media or gallery exhibitions, like painters signing on their paintings.
The watermark was well placed so it depends where it's placed. It think the issue is placement and neutrality. If the watermark created a high contrast and distracts, change it. I actually do like the presentation of elegant and well placed watermarks. It's like brand names on devices, Sony, Canon, Cadillac,...you get my drift.
Hi, Alexa here.
At This Is Saipan, we’ve taken watermarks OFF of our images and stepped-up our game. My grandpa comes from the old days of photography and the military. He showed us a way to protect all of our images with ZERO visibility.
It isn’t new, yet very few artists, creatives and photographers use it. It’s called: STEGANOGRAPHY. It’s been around since George Washington and the Militia used it way back when.
Grandpa took it a step further (he worked in the U.S. Army SID, Asia for a time), by using simple freeware programs to create a complex cipher. Not even Facebook can strip it away as it’s directly embedded in the image itself.
He created a QR code with our vital details. He then used a steganography program to password protect and embed the code into our photos. It cannot be located, even by keyword strippers, since it’s not actually metadata, it’s an image within an image, but could just as easily be text, audio or video.
If someone is really intent on stealing and misusing our images, we can prove true ownership no matter how many times they try to strip data away. An obvious watermark is unnecessary at this point, but may help with copyright issues should they arise.
If we use one at all, it is set to a font size that is very small and placed along a “vertical edge.” This is akin to the days of magazines placing image copyrights along the “spine” side of their pages. Of course, magazines listed photographer credits as well.
Watermarks have there places. One such place to use them is on social/sharing network sites. Others may include stock photography & micro-stock websites, photography hosting sites and others. They certainly don’t need to be on your website. It is your site after all. They don’t need to be on samples sent to potential or current clients either since most prospects are provided with full media packets before hiring you.
While we refuse to except “works for hire” contracts, some photographers will. This is definitely one place a watermark MUST be made visible and stipulated it cannot be removed or obscured in any way. No one should ever freely give up legal ownership/rights to their images, they are protected for the full life of the owner plus 70 years after death (Title 17 USC on Copyright).
As an end note, one more way of preventing theft is to “STEP ON,” your photos. We shoot only in RAW and use only MANUAL settings. Our Canon images can reach 50MB in size, or more for HDR and panoramics, which can exceed 3GB. Not practical sizes to upload anywhere.
We shoot, edit, convert, export, reduce their frame sizes to 1600 pixels on the longest side @75 to 96 dpi, then reduce the image quality to 80 or 85% for uploading. Truly unsuitable for enlargement or commercial purposes by the time they reach the Web.
Love this video. You're right, the watermark totally takes away from the photo. Instead of my focus being on the model's face, my focus was drawn to the flowers with the watermark
No watermark for me, but I would still put a little signature in the corner, so it's not distracting. When someone steals the photo, you can prove that it is yours.
I like subtle, small watermarks that are semi-transparent - it gives context to the picture. If the image is for client use, it shouldn't have a watermark.
Just discovered your channel - fun topics - good delivery!
My Dad places his watermark small but across his Tulsa Skyline images and we found someone using it on their website. And my Dad was able to immediately prove to the company it was his work by saying, my name runs across the image, look closer, it kind of blends in but it's there. But here's the cool part, the company assumed that their web developer had already paid for it, they apologized and sent my Dad a check. It's good to use google image search every now and then and use your most popular images that have received a lot of likes or people have bought for stock images in the past, put the image in google image search and see where else the image comes up. Sometimes your image has been stolen by someone in a land far, far away but sometimes it is local and you can get a response and get paid for your work.
Interesting video. Watermarks are obnoxious, but so are people who steal your photo and then when you ask them about it they refuse to say, "I like your photo." You made a lot of good points about the cons of the watermark though and I agree that the cons outweigh the pros.
Yes of course if it's in the middle of the picture or cover it all it's not nice but when you put small logo or just your name type on the down corner it's more than ok and you should do it
When you post your photos onto certain social media sites, you may be giving up copyright ownership to your images and or/your metadata is removed from them. Many people don't know this and this is why some people may still use watermarks. Check the fine print in the terms of use to be sure you're not giving up your rights. Here's the information to back this up: iptc.org/news/many-social-media-sites-still-remove-image-rights-information-from-photos/ You can also do additional research on what sites actually do this.
I actually enjoyed both photos! I think the fact that your watermark was well designed and well placed contributed to 99% of the fact that it was enjoyable to look at. However, I dislike big ugly watermarks across the whole picture. Great video!
I had a water mark but i tried to have it on the corner and be small plus a bit transparent so it doesnt distract but as i test other designs i can clearly see how it can be distracting, maybe i could just use the logo water mark for my avatar picture on social media more than on every single picture.
agree. The first thing I saw was your watermark on that pic. I notice that with all watermarked photos now.
I personally use a watermark which is basically my name but, it's not distracting.I always put it in place far away from the main object. The thing is that I've had people use my pictures and edit them without my permission or making it look like they took the picture. Which is the main reason I use the watermark. So that people know I was the one who took the picture. I just really don't feel comfortable not using it. Though I wish I didn't have to.
I myself have been using them, on most if my work I made a new favorite today it is a Color Splat with Audrey Aguillard Photography
Weirdly something about the one with the watermark appealed to me more...
Because it looked like a magazine cover. But imagine that on your wedding photos
My wife and I had one of our photos shared by a page on Facebook with credits given to some mystery photographer. We have no idea how this person was given credit, but they got 12,000 (by the time we found out) people to see this photo as theirs. The funny thing is, our logo is in the bottom right corner of the image. We were able to contact the person running the FB page, and have their post corrected to give us our due credit, but we had already lost out on a considerable amount of exposure. Without our logo, it would have been a bit more difficult to prove it was, in fact, our photo. Had our actual company name been on the photo, this would not have been a problem at all. We work far too hard to have others receive credit for our work. People complain that an image can look like an advertisement, but that is exactly what it is. I do not like obnoxious watermarks, but think of all the images you've seen, throughout your life, without any idea of whom took them.
With the watermark I was mostly looking on the text because it seemed to give me more clues of what the photo is about, like you know, on memes. Without the picture I was looking at the models face and eyes, which made me realize it's a wedding photo.
I fully support the usage of watermarks. I almost always put a watermark on a photo that I've taken. I don't use watermarks when delivering photos, but whenever I post any photo online I will almost always add a watermark. I believe that a watermark supports your brand. I know that adding a watermark isn't going to prevent art theft but at least it will detour some from stealing a photo. When I post the photos online I make sure that a watermark is not in the middle of a photo, and I set it to around a 40% opacity so that the watermark is not distracting. Before I started using watermarks, some of my clients downloaded my photos that I was going to get printed for them anyway. They took the images, printed the photos at Walmart, and then never payed me. After that incident I decided to start adding watermarks. It all comes down to personal preference but I honestly believe that some times it is a necessity to have a watermark on an image.
I actually use a small watermark that's almost see through and have seen pros use obnoxious watermarks in the middle of the photo. Never made sense to me. But I actually think having a small nice watermark below ur pics is ok.
I feel like the watermarked one looked like an advertisment
Watermarking seems to be an issue of experience and your personal journey. I loved the pros and cons
When I first started digital photography back in 2007 I was so concerned about people stealing photos for flyers. Also, I wanted people to be able to find me and my website the same way i found talented photographers' sites, by their watermark.
Times have changed, and the internet has changed since then. I'm not worried about people stealing photos to use for party fliers (there's pinetrest for that!) I'm shooting better models and not "cute girls". Instagram and Google image enable you to track down the metadata of almost any photo.
The second problem is that many photogs design their own logo and watermark, and many are not that good. Photos with large, busy watermarks, or worse, watermarks that change position in every photo SCREAM bad design and bad decision making.
In the end, you'll decide what works for you, and this video is a great help!
I personally don't use a watermark, but several of the photographers in my area do. I don't mind it as long as it doesn't take away from the image
Personally I don't bother, but I'd say make it small and unobtrusive if you must have one. I've seen a number of really well done ones that make it look like part of the photo itself, so it isn't something you'd instantly notice as being a watermark. But like you said, if someone wants to steal it badly enough they'll also get rid of the thing anyway.
I actually agree with what you said about people stealing your work. Especially nowadays, if someone really wants to steal it, they can easily crop the photo or remove it in photoshop. I've been really on the fence about using one. For some reason, I had this perception that all "professional" photographers used watermarks which made me feel pressured, but then I realized that almost every photographer I follow/look up to on social media and etc. do not use them. Really made me think. Of course, I would never use them in a portfolio or any type of published work, but I am debating if I will use them in social media.. It does really take away from the photo sometimes, but I still believe it makes it easier for people to find me which leads to more exposure/clients.. Granted, I will make it very small and inconspicuous. Also lowering the opacity really helps. Great video, though!
who are your favorite fashion photographers? they dont have to be on youtube:) just wondering! love your work xx
Some photographers only include watermarks when they have provided a free/voluntary/collab service? Thoughts?
I think a watermark in lower left corner is good.
I've always hated watermarks and still do to an extent. Part of the reason is that I noticed early on that the most gawdy "in your face!" marks always seemed to be on the most "ho hum" and quite frankly, amateurish, images. And then one day I discovered one of my more popular photos on a web site with someone else's watermark on it (and had it for sale). Over the years I've found many of my pictures on web sites and usually I was always credited as well as the image being no where near its original size so I never made a big deal about it. But in this case seeing someone blatantly put their own mark on it and claim it as their own really set me off. Now obviously someone could have stolen it had I had a watermark on it already but I feel it would have been a subtle "I am watching you" step for the thief in question. Right now I put a very subtle web address on (most of) my photos. I never want it to get in the way of the image but I always want it to point directly to my web site if anyone is interest -no "company name" that would then make someone Google it to find out its source.
This is the image in question that was stolen. No watermark on any of them shown on my site. ONLY ones that I post on social media.
www.wayneslandphotography.com/Central-Arizona/i-v9QBDV4
The example you gave here had the watermark huge relative to the size of the photo so the obvious reaction for many people would be to choose the photo without it. I use my watermarks but they're all small and just text; no intricate artwork, just text. I agree on everything except people searching far and wide if they really love your work. I don't think they should have to. Many people will miss out on a lot of my work if I relied only on word of mouth, where people had to go through a million people to find out who took the photo. I guess i could have made a long story short by saying that I personally prefer a small watermark lol. Not for deterring thieves but it's just right there on the picture, in a small corner, so they can just look me up. At least they have a name to work with if they need to ask people who I am and how to get in contact with me. I feel the easier it is for the viewer the better it is for me. Love your channel. Keep up the great work. Love your photos :)
I fall on the side of no water mark personally. Most of the successful photographers I know are successful by building themselves a strong brand through word of mouth - and they don't use watermarks. I kind of think that if you 100% want to make sure that you never have an image stolen, then you should probably never post them online..
without. but i lighter subtle one in a corner or the same spot would be a bit nicer
Can you make a video of your thoughts of naming your photography business name or brand, having a hard time trying to figure out if I should used my full name or just last name or make-up a name but I want it to be professional. Help!
I really dont like watermarks, the only times i use them is if i did a heck of alot of special effects work in photoshop and even then it's small and in the corner at a 30% opacity of just text
you saying your name makes people remember it, especially for the ones that clicked on one of your videos accidentally :p
your voice is so sweet and soothing too
Love your videos! Would love to see more videos on editing and portfolios! Maybe for portfolios like how to decide what to put in it or things to make your portfolio stand out... But for sure more editing! Love your editing style!! :D
i spend a lot of time editing my photos to make them look beautiful so i dont want anybody stealing my photos,just a thought.You have beautiful eyes and eyebrows by the way.
Over the years I've had a several photos end up on the television news ...and almost always, they crop out my watermarked logo. When asked about it, they told me it was because they don't allow "free advertising" on their station.
The intro is hilarious 😂😂😂
I may be weird, but I loved the watermark, it looked really professional and straight out of a magazine
Alexander lamadrid the one on the flowers right? It’s looked straight out of a magazine like you mentioned. I thought “Vogue”!
What if you have just a tiny watermark in the bottom corner of the image? Not a big one in the middle.
Watermarks remind me of the mom's that are wanna-be photographers who way overcharge for their services
Interesting enough I liked more the watermark one without the sign
I wanted to put a picture of me holding a knife and making a mean face ( kinda like a movie actor ) on my facebook to show what kind of photos I do but have a worry that some one might steal it and use to say that " this is my boyfriend and he is going to get you"! So I was thinking about putting a big water mark in the middle so that if any body tried to use it will have to somewhat ruin it. Are my thoughts valid? Or am I just being paranoid?
If watermark is badly placed (middle of the screen) then yeah, bad idea... But in some corner, small font no big deal. And it is good for recognition - not anti steal purpose.
what ive noticed is that some people see watermarks as a symbol of professionalism, while we see them as something amateurs use
I personally don't like watermarks. I think it takes away from the photo. I did see someones watermark though that was really small and not super visible and it was down on the left hand corner and I didn't even see it at first. That kind of watermark is fine but i just don't personally like them! Thanks for the video!
The watermark was the first thing I noticed on the photo... I think you are totally right, it's not doing the photos any good.
I place my Watermark across the image and set it at 5% opacity. Hard to photoshop out. Have to protect my work. If I put in the corner or such, they can be easily cropped or cloned out.
For me I just want answer one question, "Why in this video you put 'jk' as a watermark?" So it will be the answer.
Just put a small watermark and choose a right color, position, size and less the opacity look as a dim one. Then it should be okay and never disturb the photo. The simple and nice example of watermark is as in this video. ;)
I totally agree with you. Watermarks originated to be professional, but I can't stand when I see a "photographer" with a bright pink watermark in the middle of their pictures. That's not even a watermark anymore lol...
as an editorial illustrator you CANNOT put your name in it in any way. they credit you in the magazine and if your really worried about copyright issues then do that in Adobe Bridge where it really matters and not by disrupting the image. that's my thoughts anyways
I started with wm than I decided its better to keep pictures free from wm. Like you jess I think its cleaner without wm and makes pepole appreciate more yr work
I stopped using watermarks a 6-7 months ago. Even though it was small and in the bottom corner, it was distracting.
Since the watermark was large it kinda reminded me of a magazine cover.
If you are buying a painting, would you want one the is signed or one that is not signed? The one that is signed is worth a lot more $$. So you are saying your photograph is not ART and not worth signing.
Plus nothing says a watermark needs to be huge and impact the photograph like your example.
Don't be afraid to sign your work.
I found a troll. ^Daniel Klemann
Not the same. A photograph is not an original. It's a digital image. A painting is an original piece and unique. There is only one. So the signature not only makes sense, it adds value. To sign a limited edition print makes sense as well. To watermark a web image is dumb. But watermarks on Facebook and Instagram posts or in your own portfolio is cheap and amateurish.
I totally agree ! I came to photography from art, all sorts of art. Especially graffiti, which basically was signing my name everywhere, and I agree if you sign something it'll be worth more, it'll reflect more, it'll expose you more, etc. I use a small watermark on the bottom right of my pictures and nobody has ever complained or said that it's distracting. Some people even say they don't notice it.
Clay Butler where the hell did you come up with that? If YOU took a photograph, it is yours ... it is an original.
As a 30 year pro, there's no way I'd put proofs out there without a watermark. Clients will scan or use proofs however they wish without it.
No one noticed the “JK” watermark in the lower right of her video? I love your videos and have watched many. The take away for me, as an up and coming photographer, is to have a small and discrete watermark in a corner...for advertising purposes
A small icon on a corner would be good, I think!
just like your channel logo(bottom right corner) on your youtube videos.
Jessiiicaaaaaaa where do you recommend to get a studio kit, like a backdrop and lights and stuff :)
Taco Tuesday photography 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Thank you so much for this! I didnt know if i had to put it or not
Watermarks only suck for those who want to steal photos. But of course, make it as least obtrusive as possible while still retaining a footprint
regarding PIXIESET :What about if you are profing and your client download the images and decide not to pay you? Its any way to avoid that?
spanish. ink I maybe mistaken but I believe she covered in another video that she doesn’t send any work to the client until full payment is made. At least that method makes the most sense to me.
I agree, not too big watermarks. They really can distract the art from the photo. id prefer people searching to find more of my work.
what if you have your watermark in the corner of an image and someone crops it out of the image?
My big problem is with Facebook who strips out all the metadata from the image. No proof of theft.
Yes, thieves can also remove metadata but it makes it harder to find a person when you are looking for one. “Who took that photo you posted? I love it!”
“I don't know. I found it on the web,” he said.
“Where?”
“How am I supposed to remember that,” he said.
“It's called, giving attribution. No worries. I'll just drag the image into my viewer and…. Hmm. No metadata.”
“What's metadata,” he asks?
“It's data about the data, such as attribution.”
“What's attribution,” he asks?
“Never mind. I'll just do a Google image search and…. Hmm. It's on so many different Facebook timelines. That's helpful.”
“Yeah,” he said. “I shared it with all 4,593 of my friends. Now everyone knows how good that photo is!”
“But who is the photographer?”
“Does it matter,” he asks?
Facebook claims it strips metadata to save space but really, I don't think that in the big picture, metadata is the number one (or two) consumer of space on their servers, and I know a number of cats who would agree with me in their videos. It is a disservice to do that. They should, at the very least, leave photographer, publisher, copyright, title, description, and date & time. Nevertheless….
I give clients (depending on what kind of client) two or three sets of images; a full size “Prints” set with a faint or no watermark, and a “social media” sized set with a noticeable (but not prominent) watermark so that their 4,593 Facebook friends can find me. The third set may be an Intranet, publication or presentation sized set with no watermark. All sets will have complete metadata -XMP, IPTC, Makernote (yes, my camera puts ‘photographer“ & “copyright” info into the Makernote), and EXIF- inserted during my workflow, until they are posted on Facebook. :-(
The point is, my problem really is not theft. That will always happen. It is not clients. They will always give attribution. Its the average Joe, looking at my social media feeds, copy/pasting away, not giving attribution. So there is a place for (subtle) watermarks and it is not in a portfolio or certain client work (like comp-cards, etc.).
What about watermarks on proofs? An aside, what I do is put a littler (8-14 pt. "") way down in the (L) corner. ;-)
If people would respect the copyrights, the artists wouldn't watermark their artworks. Right? When you like for e.g. a photo, and you would like to get that photo without watermarks, then you just have to pay a small fee to the hard working artist. As simple is that. But nowadays it has become a common practise to use everything for free. We give a f*ck on what's right or wrong. We disrespect other's rights. We steal everything from the internet for free, and use it on Instagram and TH-cam and make money by adds and clicks, while the artist gets nothing. And some people even take videos of that criminal actions, for getting likes and clicks ... and money.
Agree, But i think Very small transparent hidden watermark in the bottom is ok
seeing it without. like what you said, it made me wonder who took it if i didn't know it was you.