Watermark, seeking your opinion

[decodelighted]

Man those are some unsightly inclusions!

 

[kenny]

Man those are some unsightly inclusions!

Then I'll have to send the lot to EGL for new reports.

 

[Laila619]

I think 25% opaque is good. I like that one.

 

[TooPatient]

Kenny -- I like the first option. (25% might be even better, but I can't see it for some reason). The colors in the others were a bit distracting and took away from the stones some. The first is a lot less intrusive and doesn't detract from the stones.

 

[Enerchi]

Based on the 4 pics above, I'd go with #4 - it is full across the photo which is good, and it is light enough that its there but it is not obscuring the diamonds.

I'd still go with a trial run of an angle or a patterned font, similar to Haven's "ScreenShot" one on the elephants above. I know nothing of this sort of thing but when I'm looking at google images, I like faint obscurity and yet, as the original photographer, I think you should be credited and protected somewhat by copy right infringement (or what ever that would be...).

http://0.tqn.com/d/photography/1/0/z/-/-/-/3-Basic-Watermark.jpg
http://www.shutterfreaks.com/Actions/WatermarkSignatures/SampleDiagonal.jpg

I say, protect your photos. Whether you go for professional status or not, they are yours and I feel you are due the credit. But that's just me... I agree with JF that I've also heard somewhere "people vary".

 

[Haven]

I like the version with 25% opacity best.

 

[that_someone_special]

Man those are some unsightly inclusions!

I suppose I could take them off of his hands then.... I don't mind inclusions

 

[Beacon]

I think you are wise to do a watermark. Some other PSers I know have had their photos reposted elsewhere and it made them uncomfortable. I like the lighter watermark colors - it does not reduce my enjoyment of your collection. A collection, I notice, which has grown considerably from last time I saw it. So lovely Kenny!! Beautiful stones.

 

[JewelFreak]

I like the last 25% sample, except I agree that angling it so it covers more is a good idea. The watermark in Enerchi's example from Shutterfreaks is too small & is placed over the least complex element in the photo -- I could get rid of that so you'd never know it was there, & I'm not Michelangelo on photoshop. And adding pattern does make it harder to photoshop out.

It does not detract from the beauty of your diamonds or your skill at photographing them, either.

--- Laurie

 

[kenny]

Well, click on this and scroll down.
Kudos to John Rosen GG, GJ.

I asked, and he removed my pic - which used to be at the bottom of this link - the very first image you see when you do a google image search on "fancy colored diamonds".

http://gemandjewelrydoctor.com/2012/03/17/coloured-diamonds-proving-to-be-a-good-investment/#comment-2714

 

[distracts]

I wouldn't put a watermark at all. It's a picture you posted on the internet. Somebody else re-posted it. You've re-posted other people's pictures before, too, even when they had specifically requested that no one did so. I'd just get over it.

I do agree that the most effective watermarks are the ones that are really hard to remove, but in order to do that, they have to obscure parts of the image you need to see. I think if you ever manage to put a watermark on your pictures that renders them un-takeable without it, you'll have destroyed their value to those of us who like to look at them. I think if you are really concerned about this for business reasons, this is the way you'll have to go. I'll be very sad to not be able to clearly see your pictures though!

Now if your intention is to give credit, I think a non-obtrusive "Kenny at Pricescope.com" is perfectly fine. Most people who do things like re-pin or post because they like them aren't going to remove that, and then anyone who likes the pics and wants to find out more can.