Originally Posted by Lemur Lover Thanks for figuring this out Paul, really wasn't expecting you to do this, though much appreciated and hope it didn't put you to too much work. Thing is, as I pointed out in my last post, I think I'm going to run with the watermark I've already created at least for a while, but good to have your ideas as something I can fall back on should I decide to go in another direction. Thanks again and wishing you a great weekend ahead

Dunno about 'figuring it out' ... I suspect there are many ways of killing this particular cat - this is only one :)

I'd noted it at Bence's site because I thought it was a good idea (imo) for this issue - and all this thread did was get me to try it out - for my own benefit as much as yours.

I find it reasonable because it does cover the whole image in an unobtrusive manner - and thus doesn't provide a specific target for the viewer's eyes.

Ahhh the w/end ... I assume you mean for me to have some success in finding a vibrant /enthusiastic / noisy etc 'republican' street party to take photographic advantage of ... ?

pp

Originally Posted by puzzledpaul Dunno about 'figuring it out' ... I suspect there are many ways of killing this particular cat - this is only one :) I'd noted it at Bence's site because I thought it was a good idea (imo) for this issue - and all this thread did was get me to try it out - for my own benefit as much as yours. I find it reasonable because it does cover the whole image in an unobtrusive manner - and thus doesn't provide a specific target for the viewer's eyes. Ahhh the w/end ... I assume you mean for me to have some success in finding a vibrant /enthusiastic / noisy etc 'republican' street party to take photographic advantage of ... ? pp

If I hadn't have had an image in my mind of pretty much exactly what I was in the end able to create - with some wonderful help and support of Ace down under! - I probably would have been all over Bence's idea like white on rice

In fairness, I didn't take a look at too many of his photos with that watermark on it, as I'd already made up my mind to stick with the one I now have, and I think what spurred me on with this was wondering how on certain images with background colours I want to keep in tact, how much the covering of his watermark would bring down the overall strength of the background colour of the image, if that makes any sense.

And by 'republican' I'm assuming you mean a pub crawl, as I see you're in the UK (which is where I'm originally from!) and I can't think of any other Englishman who would use this word unless he was referring to the American republicans, though please correct my course where I may have strayed l

Plain and simple, whatever you're up to this weekend I'm hoping it brings you a lot of joy and happiness

Originally Posted by Lemur Lover ....and I think what spurred me on with this was wondering how on certain images with background colours I want to keep in tact, how much the covering of his watermark would bring down the overall strength of the background colour of the image, if that makes any sense.

Makes a lot of sense.

One thing I liked about the 'full monty overlay' is that, as a layer which can be superimposed over the image, it's also possible to add a layer mask to it and modify the way that it interacts with said image ... as well as changing the col(s) as previously mentioned.

I can obviously appreciate that you want an approach that isn't too time consuming, especially if lots of pics are involved, as in your case, and I've also read enough comments here (and elsewhere) about how ppl haven't been able to 'get past' the watermark ... to know it's unlikely there's a perfect solution.

Originally Posted by Lemur Lover And by 'republican' I'm assuming you mean a pub crawl, as I see you're in the UK (which is where I'm originally from!) and I can't think of any other Englishman who would use this word unless he was referring to the American republicans, though please correct my course where I may have strayed l

No ... I was referring to 'alternative' parties / gigs that aren't associated with HRH's 60th ...

Originally Posted by Lemur Lover Plain and simple, whatever you're up to this weekend I'm hoping it brings you a lot of joy and happiness

Judging by the weather, it's likely to be associated with editing / sorting / other stuff, rather than taking. If you're missing good 'ol Brit clouds, check here http://www.sat24.com

pp

Originally Posted by Lemur Lover Thing is, while I've seen many of my images "borrowed" and pasted up on other people's Facebook pages, Tumbler accounts, and other personal sites - though for the most part thankfully with my copyright in tact (a subtle one of which I've always placed in one of the lower corners) and often with my name credited - of course it's all too easy for less scrupulous individuals to make a screen shot of the photos on my website, crop out my copyright signature, thereby enabling them to use what remains for whatever they will.

Ashley...Another option is to embed your copyright information into the metadata. I have LR setup to do this automatically when importing my raw files. You can enter your same info as your watermark, along with business name and personal name and contact information if you want. There's several sections, you pick and choose what info you want to include in the metadata.

GaryB

So, I always knew I'd work on a watermark and move away from the standard "proof"... and that time has come earlier than I had anticipated. The tutorials on SmugMug aren't perfect. For instance, maybe someone can explain this discrepancy to me:

I've uploaded a file and as I'm turning that image into a watermark... I'm given the option to have thumbnails watermarked. Huh? Elsewhere in the help section it mentions sizes smaller than 800 pixels on one side are not watermarked. Which statement is correct? How do I now go back and watermark all of my thumbnail images. Or is everyone here going to say that's a bad idea?

Now another way to do watermarks Lemur Lover, instead of copying and pasting, is to try the tile function for your watermark on SM. If you didn't notice this feature with your current watermark, try creating a smaller sized watermark... a third of your current watermark for a test... then upload the image to your SmugMug site, make into watermark, then try "tile" for location of the watermark.

Quick and simple. All that is needed is the size of the initial watermark needed to make a tiled watermark look like someone seamlessly copied and pasted everything in Photoshop. I'd prefer to make it a diagonal watermark. So, any ideas on the size needed to make one and have SM tile it for me? It must be getting late, but as I'm reading this before posting I'm thinking a watermark with less space on the ends of the text?

Anyways, the tutorial on SM suggested a file size of 1600 x 200 for a simple centered line. What size should we do if we wanted to copy and paste in Photoshop instead of using the tile feature on SM?

Any suggestions for font size, opacity, colors, etc. for tiled watermarks from any photographers successfully selling online that utilize tiled watermarks?

I've no idea (about the details of) how the SM tiling function works ... but I wonder if it allows user to alter the way (mainly opacity, but also colour, maybe) it interacts with images ... on an individual image basis?

I can see the benefits of having a global workflow - but if it can't cope with all types of images (as previously mentioned by LL) then that's worth knowing, imo.

A variant on the photoshop c/p route is to use Fill with defined pattern approach.

Angling a layer is simplicity itself of course if dealing with a complete layer ... but maybe needs a bit more care if tiled?

Re successful selling on line - I'd point back to Bence (link, post 17) as probably a fair starting point?

If the reason for adding a watermark is twofold - prevent (ease of) copying and to show details - then I'd suggest that for the latter aspect, a simple, easy to read typeface is used, because apart from the obvious, it'll probably stay easier to read when its transparency is set to a very low % (maybe 2%)

pp

Yes, I remember seeing a watermark that I liked similar to the ones used here:

http://www.matebence.hu/

I think the clients one is shooting for and how successful someone is would relate to this type of watermark. Personally, that would be good enough for me to lift a copy and not care to ever purchase the photo so that low of opacity won't work for the clients I'm hoping will purchase photos.

For the photos I want to watermark immediately, that might work or even a simple printmark type watermark in the corner.

At SmugMug, you can turn any image into a watermark as well as the opacity (they call it fade)... but you can't adjust it's color. The following options are available for the location of the watermark:

• center
• tile
• top
• right
• left
• bottom
• top right
• top left
• bottom left
• bottom right

How big your watermark image determines how many times it is tiled across an image.

Now for my other photographs, I like the "PROOF" watermark that is always centered but I'm starting to think that has too low of opacity. I'd like my name in the corner as well but that creates complications of having one watermark for portrait and landscape photos. Or is that what most people do... go in and apply watermarks individually by gallery? What if I wanted something in the corner and centered like "PROOF" is as well?

Then there are the photographs that I think a diagonal watermark tiled across it will be a better fit. So that's why I'm looking for suggestions on font size, opacity, colors, etc. from any photographers successfully selling online that utilize tiled watermarks?

Originally Posted by puzzledpaul Makes a lot of sense. One thing I liked about the 'full monty overlay' is that, as a layer which can be superimposed over the image, it's also possible to add a layer mask to it and modify the way that it interacts with said image ... as well as changing the col(s) as previously mentioned. I can obviously appreciate that you want an approach that isn't too time consuming, especially if lots of pics are involved, as in your case, and I've also read enough comments here (and elsewhere) about how ppl haven't been able to 'get past' the watermark ... to know it's unlikely there's a perfect solution. No ... I was referring to 'alternative' parties / gigs that aren't associated with HRH's 60th ... Judging by the weather, it's likely to be associated with editing / sorting / other stuff, rather than taking. If you're missing good 'ol Brit clouds, check here http://www.sat24.com pp

Completely forgot about the queen's do and shindigs

Oh and thanks for the weather report, eye I sure do miss those clouds over Britain

Hope the editing, sorting, and other stuff went okay for you and wishing you, well, whatever it is you're wishing this week ahead to be

P.S. Not sure if I mentioned this before or not, but you have some excellent images in you Flickr galleries, particularly like the Mallard (I think it's a Mallard: _X1C4890Fm) straight at you through it's raised wings, perfect timing my friend!

Originally Posted by BroPhoto Ashley...Another option is to embed your copyright information into the metadata. I have LR setup to do this automatically when importing my raw files. You can enter your same info as your watermark, along with business name and personal name and contact information if you want. There's several sections, you pick and choose what info you want to include in the metadata. GaryB

Thanks Gary,

As if happens, I've known about metadata for some time now and my copyright's always embedded into my photos soon as I upload them from my cards by way of Lightroom 3.

Thing is, while embedded copyrights of course could win a case, you first have to find out that a picture has been stolen and used, and think it a worthwhile investment in time, energy and quite possibly money to pursue such a case. Visible watermarks serve more as a deterrent, which is to say there's probably a way around them too, but far fewer people would go to the lengths of removing watermarks IMO. If image theft and misuse is a concern, I think embedding copyrights and the use of watermarks in the way to go.

Originally Posted by Pure Energy Yes, I remember seeing a watermark that I liked similar to the ones used here: http://www.matebence.hu/ I think the clients one is shooting for and how successful someone is would relate to this type of watermark. Personally, that would be good enough for me to lift a copy and not care to ever purchase the photo so that low of opacity won't work for the clients I'm hoping will purchase photos. For the photos I want to watermark immediately, that might work or even a simple printmark type watermark in the corner. At SmugMug, you can turn any image into a watermark as well as the opacity (they call it fade)... but you can't adjust it's color. The following options are available for the location of the watermark: center tile top right left bottom top right top left bottom left bottom right How big your watermark image determines how many times it is tiled across an image. Now for my other photographs, I like the "PROOF" watermark that is always centered but I'm starting to think that has too low of opacity. I'd like my name in the corner as well but that creates complications of having one watermark for portrait and landscape photos. Or is that what most people do... go in and apply watermarks individually by gallery? What if I wanted something in the corner and centered like "PROOF" is as well? Then there are the photographs that I think a diagonal watermark tiled across it will be a better fit. So that's why I'm looking for suggestions on font size, opacity, colors, etc. from any photographers successfully selling online that utilize tiled watermarks?

Hi PE,

Unfortunately I can't speak from a position of one who has sold even a single image directly online, however, in the absence of others, I'm happy to offer an opinion.

Unless a photographer had been commissioned to shoot a particular set, be it a wedding, a family gathering, or perhaps a promotional event, whereby it's pretty much a foregone conclusion that photos will be purchased by the party that commissioned the work, I think the more distractions one adds to an image by way of blatant watermarks and copyrights the less likely casual visitors to one's site would be willing to look through more than a few photos that are so heavily protected.

My opinion is based on things I've heard or read other people say and my own experience of having come across what I regarded as overkill when it came to visible image protection that to me only served as a visual irritation.

Originally Posted by Lemur Lover Hi PE, Unfortunately I can't speak from a position of one who has sold even a single image directly online, however, in the absence of others, I'm happy to offer an opinion. My opinion is based on things I've heard or read other people say and my own experience of having come across what I regarded as overkill when it came to visible image protection that to me only served as a visual irritation.

+1


Ashley - yes, you did previously mention looking at my pics (thanks again) ... and said that you'd not seen pics displayed on a Flickr gallery in that way before.
(mostly luck re frame mentioned, btw)

As I've done absolutely nothing out of the ordinary re Flickr - just using std. display options etc - I'm not sure what you mean?

pp

As I lived / worked in west + central Africa for 4 yrs ...I can also (just) remember cloudless skies :)

Since no one seems to have any idea on how to advise on a more complex watermark so far (dgrin or SM help desk)... how about some help with a simpler watermark?

standard text for bottom right corner:

• text - light color (24pt - regular, strong; vertical scale 110, horizontal scale 100, tracking 75)
• drop shadow - color black (opacity 100, distance 5, spread 0, size 5)
• outer glow - dark color (opacity 42, noise 0, spread 27, size 24, range 50, jitter 0)
• bevel - light color (inner, smooth, depth 164, size 5, soften 0, highlight screen 69, shadow 71)
  • contour 50
• stroke - black (size 1, opacity 100)

The pixel length of the text is 290 with the canvas stretched to 325 to accommodate the spread of the outer glow and add extra room on the right.

There are probably different ways to do this, but I like the boldness of the text.

• Is the outer glow (which could be done with just the drop shadow?) too much?
  • should it be more or less pronounced?
• Because I'm not using the standard b&w for text colors with an outer glow, maybe I should ditch the outer glow completely?
• Is the text too large?
  • (I think it looks good on landscapes, but maybe too large on portraits)

Any suggestions? Like or dislike? (If you can't picture it or make one quickly, I'll try to find one on the net that is similar).

Originally Posted by Pure Energy Since no one seems to have any idea on how to advise on a more complex watermark so far (dgrin or SM help desk)... how about some help with a simpler watermark?

What does 'complex' mean in this context, as far as you're concerned?

pp


edit
Re font size - I think target image size needs to be known first ... or at least what % across image watermark is going to be?

Typeface used is highly subjective imo - as some (flowery, ornate etc) ones that are used are difficult to read in their own right - let alone when used as feint overlay ... assuming the idea is to have a text string that is legible - rather than just a pattern to dissuade copiers.

Decided to re-visit the standard and have a play.
Created in Illustrator > into PShop as paths.

Allows for scaling to any size with no IQ hit, colour / opacity / blend mode etc as desired.
Could obviously be any design.

Create / store a range in a file and just drag 'n drop onto image.

pp



top L 2%
bot L 20%
bot R 20%
centre 5%

Originally Posted by Lemur Lover I'm about to take the plunge and finally act on the advice I've been given by others to use a watermark on all my photos, something I've never wanted to do previously for the simple reason that I find watermarks that slice through the most prominent parts of an image, no matter how low the opacity is set, serves as a serious distraction that may well spoil a viewer's enjoyment and have them leaving my photos long before they may otherwise have if they were able to see the photos free of such a watermark. Being that I sell my work through my own physical gallery here in Thailand and I'm looking to try and break into online sales, right now I'm torn between the logic of watermarking my photos for the best means of protection and my preference to leave them relatively unblemished while hoping for the best.

For me, I hate the idea of people stealing my photos for most things. I have different watermarks for different viewers. But when I put images up on the internet I always have some form of watermark or signature line.

And even then I change them at times. Example of what I mean.

I used to do a lot of 4x4 wheeling with several groups of people and I would post photos of friends on forums with a smaller signature line either at the center bottom or bottom right corner. But then I will have the gallery hidden. That way only the people on the forum can find or have access to those clean images.

Then after a week or so I put a full watermark on them, and usually make them open for viewing by anyone. I am sure most people would hate mine. lol Do I care, nope! (Although I am not real happy with it either, It just doesn't feel professional enough to me.) I have seen too many stolen images being portrayed as being shot by someone else, or being used somehow without the permission and or payment to the photographer. Or read about people bragging how with the new software they have, they can, and do, easily remove/clone out photographers watermarks.

Example of my full watermark. I also keep the viewers size to the smallest size setting.

Originally Posted by Helvegr I've alwasy been very intrigued by Digimarc (http://www.digimarc.com/digimarc-for-images) for doing watermarks. I've never actually used them, but they seem like a great compromise between the classic watermark and nothing at all. I suppose that is the other consideration with watermarking. On one hand, you try to watermark your image to the point that nobody will want to even try to steal it. The other idea is that you are simply more prepared to catch the people that do steal it. I think the digimarc idea is toward the latter.

In My Humble Opinion, I am not too impressed with the Digimarc system. I personally do not know anyone who uses it. If I did, maybe I would change my mind.

Ah, but if you put thousands of images online, there it is a real problem to do the searches to find all the stolen images. Are you going to search for those thousands of images, all the time? And then the problem of people stealing them in some overseas country who do not care, even if the photographer catches them.

I am on a Stock Photography forum and have read of some photographers doing searches (now with the Google Similar Image system) and finding hundreds of sites with their images. And then he has to track those down and try to go after the ones that could be brought to make payment or remove his images. It turns into a real big job just to track the images down on a continual basis.

Originally Posted by Pure Energy [clipped] but you're posting to sell images... not provide viewing pleasure to non-buying clients. You posted it elsewhere, but here's a link to the new Getty watermarks, not that I can remember the old one. I guess they didn't get the memo for having only one line: [clipped] Or using a colored watermark with your web address that keeps repeating diagonally on several lines?

I could not agree more with your first line that I quoted above!

Thanks for the Getty watermark link. I like that idea a lot. I think I will try incorporate something like that.

I have been holding back from view, many of my images that I would hate to be stolen. And even with my large watermark I was worried. ( I have already filed and settled some copyright suits.) So Copyrights and controlling the use of my own images is a big deal to me.

PaulThePhotographer

Originally Posted by PaulThePhotographer For me, I hate the idea of people stealing my photos for most things. I have different watermarks for different viewers. But when I put images up on the internet I always have some form of watermark or signature line. And even then I change them at times. Example of what I mean. I used to do a lot of 4x4 wheeling with several groups of people and I would post photos of friends on forums with a smaller signature line either at the center bottom or bottom right corner. But then I will have the gallery hidden. That way only the people on the forum can find or have access to those clean images. Then after a week or so I put a full watermark on them, and usually make them open for viewing by anyone. I am sure most people would hate mine. lol Do I care, nope! (Although I am not real happy with it either, It just doesn't feel professional enough to me.) I have seen too many stolen images being portrayed as being shot by someone else, or being used somehow without the permission and or payment to the photographer. Or read about people bragging how with the new software they have, they can, and do, easily remove/clone out photographers watermarks. Example of my full watermark. I also keep the viewers size to the smallest size setting. Copyrights and controlling the use of my own images is a big deal to me. PaulThePhotographer

Hey Paul,

Thanks for posting an example of your watermark.

I am also looking to use the following different watermarks to use beyond the standard "PROOF" that I am currently using for many of my photos:

1. Bottom right corner
   • (already designed & mentioned in an earlier comment).
   • light color text with a darker color for an outer glow
   • Used for photos that get published
   • Color can be easily changed for whatever reason
   • Outer glow may be removed for those publishers that don't like it.
   • Also Used on galleries for friends and families (password protected) similar to how simple locks are used: to keep honest people honest.
2. Diagonal text is tiled (repeated) several times across the image
3. One similar to yours posted above:
   • Bottom right corner has a signature and your web address
   • Big C symbol in the middle
   • Centered text below the Big C symbol

Watermark option three is the type of watermark that is too complicated for the SmugMug (SM) help desk to advise on how to create, so if you have any suggestions please help.

Let me clarify, I have mentioned three watermark types so that means I only want a total of three watermarks for my SmugMug images, not six.

What pixel size png image is the best size to create for one watermark using option 3 that looks great for vertical photos as well as horizontal photos? Will the text be in the bottom right corner as well as whatever is put in the center of the photo be centered for both photo orientations?

I may not need both the big C symbol and text, but I would like at least something centered and in the lower right corner.

Overall, I thought this would be a better type of watermark to replace the standard "PROOF," but one needs to be careful with the graying out much less than 100% opacity look. I've seen numerous photos watermarked for visual pleasure but quite frankly the watermarks blends in so well, they don't show up on some photos, so if all I need is a digital copy... I'm set. When it doesn't blend in well and the grayed out opacity look shows up as intended on a photo... it still doesn't bother me. Which is probably one of the reasons why any of my photos at a $1 (4x6) in password protected galleries with the standard "PROOF" still have not sold nor has anyone requested me to print one for free (which I've offered). So, I'm thinking I need to replace the "PROOF" watermark sooner rather than later.

As for watermark option 2... I think it will drive sales but I am not sure how much opacity to give the watermark. I see it used more for sports so it might be inappropriate to use on anything but sports. I've seen it used by one successful photographer but it looks like he has it at 100% opacity (not clear see through at all) but I'm worried that would block some detail that might be critical for deciding whether to purchase or not. Too little for viewing pleasure and my site might as well be everyone else's personal website.

And then option 1, the easiest to adjust with lots of options. Which do people prefer to throw into the corner? Why should someone not include any of the following in a simple watermark?:

• photo by (insert your name)
• copyright symbol
• year
• web address
• photographers signature
• the above on one line or two lines?

Hey Pure, lol

I am not sure exactly what you mean in some of these statements.

I believe you MAY be talking about two different things. A Watermark, which gets removed when the image gets either printed or licensed, or a Signature, (called a "Printmark" by SmugMug which will be printed on the printed product as your "Signature". Is that correct?

Originally Posted by Pure Energy I am also looking to use the following different watermarks to use beyond the standard "PROOF" that I am currently using for many of my photos: Bottom right corner (already designed & mentioned in an earlier comment). light color text with a darker color for an outer glow Used for photos that get published Color can be easily changed for whatever reason Outer glow may be removed for those publishers that don't like it. Also Used on galleries for friends and families (password protected) similar to how simple locks are used: to keep honest people honest. Diagonal text is tiled (repeated) several times across the image One similar to yours posted above: Bottom right corner has a signature and your web address Big C symbol in the middle Centered text below the Big C symbol Watermark option three is the type of watermark that is too complicated for the SmugMug (SM) help desk to advise on how to create, so if you have any suggestions please help. Let me clarify, I have mentioned three watermark types so that means I only want a total of three watermarks for my SmugMug images, not six. What pixel size png image is the best size to create for one watermark using option 3 that looks great for vertical photos as well as horizontal photos? Will the text be in the bottom right corner as well as whatever is put in the center of the photo be centered for both photo orientations? I may not need both the big C symbol and text, but I would like at least something centered and in the lower right corner. Overall, I thought this would be a better type of watermark to replace the standard "PROOF," but one needs to be careful with the graying out much less than 100% opacity look. I've seen numerous photos watermarked for visual pleasure but quite frankly the watermarks blends in so well, they don't show up on some photos, so if all I need is a digital copy... I'm set. When it doesn't blend in well and the grayed out opacity look shows up as intended on a photo... it still doesn't bother me. Which is probably one of the reasons why any of my photos at a $1 (4x6) in password protected galleries with the standard "PROOF" still have not sold nor has anyone requested me to print one for free (which I've offered). So, I'm thinking I need to replace the "PROOF" watermark sooner rather than later.

If you have the viewer size limited in your galleries then that is a size to start with. If not, well, lets see.

I played around a lot in Photoshop and the "Watermark" feature in SmugMug to get the © Copyright symbol that way. It actually took quite a bit of playing around with both, to get it to that look.

But once you have a "Master" photoshop file, you can do all sorts of EXTRA watermarking stuff with it.

As an example, here is a "Watermark" with a "Discount Coupon at Last Image" that I have played with.



And the Gallery that images is in: Click -> Here!

(Whoops, I just noticed I need to change the date on that old Coupon. Yikes! I have been remiss in my duties! )

My Signature in the bottom right was put on the image by me, before i uploaded to SmugMug. (These are old images.) and NOT part of the Watermark.

These full Copyright Watermarks by me are 1600 pixels SQUARE. That is important to maintain the Horizontal verses Vertical watermarking on the images.

The ONLY way for me to think of having the Watermark Centered and still have the ability to have a "signature" line, in the corner, and still be part of the Watermark would have to be to have one Watermark for Vertical images and one Watermark for Horizontal images.

Originally Posted by Pure Energy As for watermark option 2... I think it will drive sales but I am not sure how much opacity to give the watermark. I see it used more for sports so it might be inappropriate to use on anything but sports. I've seen it used by one successful photographer but it looks like he has it at 100% opacity (not clear see through at all) but I'm worried that would block some detail that might be critical for deciding whether to purchase or not. Too little for viewing pleasure and my site might as well be everyone else's personal website.

I believe marketing is much more important that these matters. IMHO. I have read on other "professional" forums that heavy duty watermarking is REQUIRED for anything related to sports or other personal photography. Don't listen to that "oh, but it destroys the nice look "viewing pleasure" of the website and photographs. If you want to sell the images to people themselves, then watermark them. and IMHO, don't be shy.

Originally Posted by Pure Energy And then option 1, the easiest to adjust with lots of options. Which do people prefer to throw into the corner? Why should someone not include any of the following in a simple watermark?:

Almost every "publisher" I know does NOT want a "Watermark/Signature/Photographers Information" on a image. Now unless you mean BEFORE the publisher licenses the image and you have sent them a 'trial" image for layout reasons. And you want to make sure they don't just use it without you knowledge. (Trust me, that is very possible they might do that!)

Almost all of my "signatures" are put on my images myself. They are that way because I did a lot of these previous to SmugMugs 'Printmark" feature. Which I might use instead. The problem with my old system was if someone, lets say cropped a 8x12 image of mine to PRINT a 8x10 image then the "signature on the image" could very well get removed or cut or something. That is why the 'Printmark" is better in that respect. Now I have to admit, it has been a while since I looked at that feature.

(I just reviewed the 'Printmark" feature of SmugMug. Now I remember some of my problems with it. As far as I know, It does NOT get printed on Digital downloads, it does NOT show on the Website, which might make some people upset if they purchase a print, only to see the signature line after purchasing. Arrrgghhhh! lol)

To me any 'Watermark" that does not hide/change the main subject is of little use as a "Watermark". A smaller corner watermark will, as you say, keep honest people honest. Which is NOT what I am concerned about.

But if you want a corner signature line for Family and Friends, then it depends on different factors. If they take those images and put them on certain forums, the forums themselves MIGHT have "Branding" which might cover a corner placement.

So sometimes now I use a Bottom-center for just a signature line for family and friends.

And personally, I don't like the idea of changing these things "for whatever reason". I am sad to say many of my images have "different" signatures that I have changed and used through the years. I believe that looks unprofessional to me. So I have a lot of work for myself to fix all my own images.

See below for one of my "Newer" Signature lines".



Also for "Fine Art" sales, personally I would NOT put the website or anything other than my "real signed signature" on it, but I would and use the back-printing feature to include that information.

Again it depends on the what the image is marketed for? And if it is just a WATERMARK or a SIGNATURE! But IMHO concerning your list.

Originally Posted by Pure Energy photo by (insert your name) - PTP Answer -> Too much stuff for an image. Forget it. Why "photo by"! copyright symbol - PTP Answer -> Ok for Watermark, drop it for Signature. Not really needed for Copyright Protection. (REGISTRATION is much more important!) year - PTP Answer -> I don't like putting Dates on my images. It might limit licensing. Actually, most of my file names have the date in them. Something I need to change also. web address - PTP Answer -> Watermark Yes, Signature No. photographers signature - PTP Answer -> Watermark Yes, Signature Yes, except for most all Publishers who do not want anything on the image. the above on one line or two lines? - PTP Answer -> Watermark, makes no difference, Signature than IMHO, Smaller is better.

Hopefully that helps some. Whew! lol

But if you need to see my "Master Big Copyright SmugMug" Photoshop file, I could upload it for you.

Just remember, these are just my humble opinions, and others could disagree.

PaulThePhotographer.

Thanks Paul. I'll be sure to re-read your reply and hopefully others before fully commenting but wanted to clarify a few things real quick.

Firstly, I am looking for a watermark, not a printmark. A printmark sounds good for digital sales (and it is on digital photos sold if you dot your i's and t's) but beyond that, I don't know when I should consider using printmarks.

Secondly, I guess I'm used to seeing "photo by (me)" and other photgraphers on the back of photographs as well as in various publications so that's why I've used "photo by (me)." Obviously, the watermark I have in the corner would not be there on a file meant for print media but it would be there for publishing somewhere online.

Finally, I heard back from a photographer that uses a diagonal tiled watermark and it sounded like he sets the opacity to 40% with two different colors used. I'll be creating one to see how it looks for the files I want to upload next.

I used to use a faded opacity for a watermark for most of my event photography until someone bragged to me how they just photoshoped it out and then posted to facebook. I have added the words "stolen from" to the watermark in the effort hopefully embarrass them to their parents, friends and future employers, and still find it on facebook.

How does the new "stolen from" watermark differ? Couldn't they just photoshop that out too?

I did receive a suggestion that even thumbnails should be watermarked because those are good enough for some things as well now.