Watermark, seeking your opinion

[kenny]

I think I may start putting a watermark on my pics.
I've read if you make it very small and place it at the bottom or in a corner people just crop it off and steal your pic anyway.
Putting it in the middle prevents cropping but it detracts from the image and looks like graffiti.

If I am to put it where the pic is useless if they crop it out I want it to be faint so it does not detract too much, but still visible enough to discourage the image from traveling all over the web, especially to places that profit.

There are 3 pics below and the watermark gets slightly darker in each one.
Which of these 3 seems the best compromise to you? or should it be even darker?

Should I use my real last name too, or will that make me a crime target since a zillion people know that some kenny owns those goodies?
Should I use Kenny of Pricescope, or would that cause issues if I go pro?
Should I register a business name and put that in the watermark ... like XYZ Photography?

Also I'm open to ALL feedback regarding this topic, even criticism.

 

[Enerchi]

I'd go with a business name which removes it from being easily associated with you. Sure, people could look up the company and track you down ,but that's more work, so could be a deterrent.

I like the darker version because it is present but not " in your face " and clear enough to be obvious without distracting fom the picture. Are you keeping it as or would you angle and go 30-45 degrees across the image?

 

[kenny]

Well that didn't take long.

 

[kenny]

I'd go with a business name which removes it from being easily associated with you. Sure, people could look up the company and track you down ,but that's more work, so could be a deterrent.

I like the darker version because it is present but not " in your face " and clear enough to be obvious without distracting fom the picture. Are you keeping it as or would you angle and go 30-45 degrees across the image?

I'm not sure.
I think an angle would be even more distracting and I do want people to enjoy the pic with as little distraction as possible.

 

[Enerchi]

True about the angle, unless you have the colour a very faint colour...? or make it in white? Can you mock up some alternate options and post those?

(how rude to post that 4th option! )

 

[kenny]

True about the angle, unless you have the colour a very faint colour...? or make it in white? Can you mock up some alternate options and post those?

(how rude to post that 4th option! )

Yes, later today I may have time to post other suggestions.

Oh, it's okay about the 4th option.
It's all for fun.

 

[VRBeauty]

Kenny - I don't pay much attention to PS consumer vs. trade member responsibilities, so I don't know about the PS ramifications of you going "pro."

That said, I think it's time for you to start thinking about registering a business or email or something, if the goal if for people to get your permission (and pay) before using your photos.

 

[Haven]

I think the most effective watermarks are those that are faint and opaque, yet they are very large and span across the entire image. The way you've placed your watermarks makes it really easy for anyone to go in and erase them. If your goal is to have your images credited to you, the watermark won't help achieve that if it's only placed between the important parts of the images.

For example, I downloaded your third watermarked image to my computer, opened it in Photoshop, and blurred it out in under a minute. And I have the most basic of Photoshop skills, so if I can do it anyone can do it. (I added the new white credit to you because I didn't want to upload a totally uncredited image of yours, but I don't know how to make text opaque in Photoshop so it's not really a watermark.)

The Shutterstock image I posted below is a good example of an effective watermark, IMO. It isn't easily blurred out because it goes right across the image in its most textured area.

 

[Mico]

I think the most effective watermarks are those that are faint and opaque, yet they are very large and span across the entire image. The way you've placed your watermarks makes it really easy for anyone to go in and erase them. If your goal is to have your images credited to you, the watermark won't help achieve that if it's only placed between the important parts of the images.

For example, I downloaded your third watermarked image to my computer, opened it in Photoshop, and blurred it out in under a minute. And I have the most basic of Photoshop skills, so if I can do it anyone can do it. (I added the new white credit to you because I didn't want to upload a totally uncredited image of yours, but I don't know how to make text opaque in Photoshop so it's not really a watermark.)

The Shutterstock image I posted below is a good example of an effective watermark, IMO. It isn't easily blurred out because it goes right across the image in its most textured area.

I agree, diagonally across the whole image, large and faint like the shutterstock example would be perfect

 

[Laila619]

I think the second or third one are good.

I'd put Kenny @ Pricescope, or Kenny @ PS. That way people can't steal your pics to use them to sell their own stones in ad listings. It indicates that the pics are just for Pricescope purposes.

 

[Enerchi]

Haven, I think the shutterstock is a perfect example of what I was trying to spit out--- unsuccessfully! I like that 'blurred but faint' image and def across the main photo somehow - straight on or angled - either way but fully across the image to prevent stealing of the image.

Kenny - see if you can mock up a few of that style image...

 

[ame]

The stock photography sites have it right--the faint gray x with the site name in the middle. That's what I would do, and I would use a business name, not your name,

 

[diamondringlover]

I really have no opinion on the watermark, but just wanted to say I really love that picture of your purty diamonds

 

[decodelighted]

I think you know how *I* voted .... but here's the rub: putting a watermark on your photos (especially of the sort Haven is suggesting) is going to really impact how people see the gems & view your photos. I'm sure that's partly why you've positioned your "test marks" so they don't obscure the gems themselves. But if they don't obscure the gems, Haven's right -- anyone can just photoshop them out.
Catch 22.

What's your real purpose in putting a watermark anyway? To *claim* the photo? To *claim* the stones? To prevent re-posting? To feel a sense of more control in an innately chaotic world? To link back somehow to a (potential, future) business endeavor?

Because you have to decide if any of those things are worth JUNKING UP the very things you're most proud of.

 

[Tacori E-ring]

I don't understand the point of a watermark either.

 

[sonnyjane]

I think the most effective watermarks are those that are faint and opaque, yet they are very large and span across the entire image. The way you've placed your watermarks makes it really easy for anyone to go in and erase them. If your goal is to have your images credited to you, the watermark won't help achieve that if it's only placed between the important parts of the images.

Kenny, Haven (and the others) are absolutely right in that the way you have your watermark now, anyone (myself included) could easily just open the image in Photoshop and delete your watermark. Unfortunately, the most effective watermark is one like the sample shown that spans the entire image and can't be easily edited out. The real drawback is that it's going to make your awesome photos harder for us to enjoy around here

 

[Mayk]

I picked #3... Important to see the photographer but still able to appreciate the photo quality and the beautiful diamonds...

Deco has a good point about the motivation behind the watermark, depends on how you feel about reuse...

 

[Guilty Pleasure]

I agree with others that have said your current placement can be easily removed. As for what to write, if your goal is just to discourage the willy nilly posting and reposting of your photos, and you're not particularly looking for credit or potential buyers, you could just use "do not copy" as your watermark. In the future, if you decide you want credit linked to a business, then you can change it to your business name.

If the purpose of your watermark is to prevent people from using your photos to scam people by selling your diamonds, then your watermark could be "not for sale"

or a combo of the two.

 

[Gypsy]

Kenny, I'm getting a "It's my picture and I'll watermark if I want to" vibe from this. I GET a watermark if there is some money to protect. Photographers, places that sell image, etc. But unless you have a business interest you REALLY plan to institute, it reads a bit like a tantrum. You see interior designers post pics on blogs all the time, and their pics are imported everywhere, including Pinterest, and no attribution is given. And they, it can be argued, do have an interest in attribution (so people know who created the design should they want to hire the designer). Sometimes it's just the nature of the net, and you accept it, and are flattered when you pic is the one used. If you really must do this, and I voted for number 4 along with 9 others, would keep it to a C for copyright and "Kenny PS" at the bottom. If someone photoshops it out, so be it.

 

[kenny]

Thanks all for the input.
It is helpful to hear the range of opinions.
Lots of excellent points have been made and I appreciate everyone's responses.

 

[Jennifer W]

Kenny, I believe that the phrase was actually self involved J-hole... (sorry, just kidding, couldn't resist).

Seriously, I think your best watermark is your own photography style. One of the things we have to do at DBL occasionally is take others to task for using our photographs without permission, to sell their own wares (slightly different, I know). The photos are immediately recognisable - I always know them when I spot them, even in the wrong place or context. As others have pointed out, watermarks can be photoshopped out unless they cross a significant part of the image. The style, and as you mentioned, the resolution should be enough unless you have a very specific purpose in mind.

I just found a couple of my own rings on Pinterest, btw. It's a bit weird seeing your own hand up there on a complete stranger's board.

 

[ame]

I honestly don't see any reason NOT to protect your work. And unfortunately, to prevent anyone photoshopping it out, it needs to somehow obscure the image. If you're seriously considering professional gem photography, I think it's smart to start that immediately, though it's obviously too late to do anything about old shots. I don't think this is anything to do with self-involved/arrogance. If I do work, I want credit for it, and not to have people out there taking those images/the work and claiming it as their own. I don't want to see someone else get ripped off by a conperson who is using my work to get business, and then that person left holding the bag. And you have to make the mark very hard to eliminate, or you end up with people stealing work, setting up whole businesses using someone else's photos. I don't know how common that is in your diamond photography world vs in the wedding industry where it's RAMPANT.

 

[that_someone_special]

Psh. It needs to be Kenny @ Pricescope.com

If someone doesn't like it, well, you don't need to be posting pictures at all, now do ya?

Recently(like last week!) there was an issue with Sinful Colors nail polish stealing some high quality blogger pictures and producing a pamphlet that was given away in stores like Walgreens. They had small watermarks so they were easy to photoshop out. Apparently, if it's online it's fair game right? Bullshit. People should know better (and do!) but the more that image is passed around without proper credit to the author, the more people are going to think it's ok to do so.

Kenny, you are a great photographer, now start acting like it and protect your images. I don't give a crap if it's watermarked because I respect YOU, the artist, enough to understand that you gotta do what you've gotta do.

 

[Laila619]

I honestly don't see any reason NOT to protect your work. And unfortunately, to prevent anyone photoshopping it out, it needs to somehow obscure the image. If you're seriously considering professional gem photography, I think it's smart to start that immediately, though it's obviously too late to do anything about old shots. I don't think this is anything to do with self-involved/arrogance. If I do work, I want credit for it, and not to have people out there taking those images/the work and claiming it as their own. I don't want to see someone else get ripped off by a conperson who is using my work to get business, and then that person left holding the bag. And you have to make the mark very hard to eliminate, or you end up with people stealing work, setting up whole businesses using someone else's photos. I don't know how common that is in your diamond photography world vs in the wedding industry where it's RAMPANT.

Good post.

 

[movie zombie]

your stones, your pictures: do what you want and don't mind us.

if you are going to do it, though, i like what Haven did.

 

[TooPatient]

Kenny,

I haven't voted because there isn't a good option that fits my opinion.

I LOVE your photographs. Your collection is amazing and I truly appreciate getting to see the awesome pictures you take. I'd be sad to see a watermark interfering with your beautiful stones.

BUT...

If you are looking at business options I can certainly understand why you would need a watermark. I think all of the options you posted aren't very good as they really don't protect you at all. As everyone else has mentioned, it takes all of 2 minutes to open up the photo and edit the watermark out. If you decide you need to use a watermark it should be something like Haven posted.

I wonder if there is some way to make it part of the background so that the picture has a watermark across the entire thing, but leave the stones in front of the watermark? That way your stones aren't all blurred up but in order for a person to photoshop out your watermark, they'd have to put a bit more time into it so it might deter some. (I'm not talented enough with photoshop to really give a picture of what I'm saying -- hopefully you understood?)

 

[JewelFreak]

I'm no Photoshop pro, TP, but I use the simpler parts of it a lot. A watermark behind the stones would take very little time to edit out. It does need to go over the main part of the picture to be effective, unfortunately. Kenny, if you make it stretch across the diamonds but keep it as clear as possible, maybe w/a little pattern to require more work to clone it out, viewers could see through it & still enjoy the photo. If it's too small, somebody will take it out & the edited photo could be passed around, so big enough is better.

+1 to MZ. Do whatever makes you comfortable on this issue. People vary (I heard that somewhere).

--- Laurie

 

[kenny]

Which of these 4 do you like best?
They are 50% opaque so you can see through them to the diamond beneath, but they DO color the diamond so you can't remove the text without messing up the diamond.

Maybe 25% opaque would be better.

1, 2, 3, or 4?

 

[partgypsy]

I'm not going to take issue on why Kenny wants a watermark. He owns the gemstones, and he took the photography. He doesn't want some one else either posting or using without his permission, or even taking credit of either (that they are their gemstones for some fradulent purpose, or that they took the photos). I get it.

I feel the most successful watermarks are ones that is larger and go across the scene. So
I would go with probably level 2, but a whole lot bigger, and across the image.

Good luck! Those gemstones are just scrumptious looking

If I had to pick I like #1 above (the colors are distracting) but maybe angled to cover more ground

eta - I like the 25% opaque.

 

[kenny]

Here is 25% opaque.

I'm using Elements, which is a cheapo sripped down version of Photoshop.
You create a new layer, add a text box, then merge down the layers.