Folks, what are your favorite methods of adding watermarks to your photos?

I've been using Preview, which is a Mac pdf program. But it's clunky, I'd like to try something different that doesn't require photoshop. And I'm pretty sure the watermarks I make could be easily removed, it would be nice to use a method that would make watermark removal harder.

I use IrfanView for watermarks, it's a free program, I don't know if it would work with a Mac.

Catching up here after being away from the internet for awhile -- and showing my ignorance by not knowing what a watermark was in DSLR photography, I googled it. In case anyone else is wondering, this is an informative link: http://www.all-things-photogra...

And (of course) there are lots more links are out there... MR

I really think that a watermark detracts from a photo. I get the point about protecting your work, of course, but the damage that it does to the art... (and I've never been very shy about voicing my opinions).

Also, most of the watermarks that I see would be pretty easy to crop out if theft were the point.

If I were going to watermark my stuff, I think I'd look at a more steganographic solution. There are several out there.

An alternative for the photographs submitted here, at least, is to use the watermarking system available through Site Prefrences in the member profile. Can set to three different options, including a custom watermark.

evermorelawnless said:I really think that a watermark detracts from a photo. I get the point about protecting your work, of course, but the damage that it does to the art... (and I've never been very shy about voicing my opinions).

Also, most of the watermarks that I see would be pretty easy to crop out if theft were the point.

If I were going to watermark my stuff, I think I'd look at a more steganographic solution. There are several out there.

well, IF you have a professional photo displayed in full resolution for sale - it would make sense to put a watermark on it for viewing and remove it after the purchase.
as the inet photos go at 1000 pixels wide max - it's a low-res and cannot be used for any professional purposes, except may be putting it on some site (blog? on-line catalog?). which is a very minor infraction, so to speak...'cause it's hard to find and nobody really tracks stuff like that (unless you're a well known photographer and want to spend big bucks threatening with infraction lawsuit; but then you won't be putting stuff on-line left and right for free either ;)).
it's a personal choice of course, but i feel that protecting low-res snap shots is quite silly. it does detract from the picture, even the sigs at bottom 'copyright.. ' etc.
i don't stamp mine and don't watermark, but then i don't upload full photo's either ;). IF i were a pro or aspiring to such a career, perhaps i'd be more careful. but i am not and hence don't bother.

skylark said:...really smart, cogent stuff...

perfectly said. thanks.

thanks back! had to look up cogent

Cogent? what about " steganographic " ?? I looked it up and still don't think I understand it!

as it is applied to images, steganography is hiding data within the image without visibly changing it. it can be any data: text, numbers, message, another image. it can be achieved in various ways - too technical to even try to explain in plain words. when you have the key, you can extract the data (watermark in this case) - and restore the original image (that is done thru software). otherwise the embedded data persists, even as the image is manipulated. so for those who know how the watermark was created, it is possible to examine the image to determine whether it has a watermark (to determine a violation of user license, for example).
and it is impossible to remove the watermark, unless you had the key. e.g. it can involve pixel manipulation during image compression that does not visibly change the image itself. the reg user would not be aware that there is a hidden watermark at all.
so it makes it possible to track the secondary,tertiary,etc image to the original image, that was watermarked.
there's some interesting history on wiki and more, if you need:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...

skylark said:well, IF you have a professional photo displayed in full resolution for sale - it would make sense to put a watermark on it for viewing and remove it after the purchase.
as the inet photos go at 1000 pixels wide max - it's a low-res and cannot be used for any professional purposes, except may be putting it on some site (blog? on-line catalog?). which is a very minor infraction, so to speak...'cause it's hard to find and nobody really tracks stuff like that (unless you're a well known photographer and want to spend big bucks threatening with infraction lawsuit; but then you won't be putting stuff on-line left and right for free either ;)).
it's a personal choice of course, but i feel that protecting low-res snap shots is quite silly. it does detract from the picture, even the sigs at bottom 'copyright.. ' etc.
i don't stamp mine and don't watermark, but then i don't upload full photo's either ;). IF i were a pro or aspiring to such a career, perhaps i'd be more careful. but i am not and hence don't bother.

I get what you are saying, but I still want to mark my photos. Not because I think they are so artistically great - I know they're not - but because it irks me when people pass off other people's work as their own and even use the "borrowed" work to make money.

I am thinking of a woman I know who, at significant expense, imported a fancy strain of show chickens and started breeding and selling them. Naturally, she posted her own photos. A year or so later, she ran across her photos being used on a competitor website. She emailed the competitor and asked the person to either credit her for the photos or take them down. The competitor replied with an incredibly insulting email and insisted that the photos were original. My acquaintance had, however, watermarked and coded the metadata and was able to prove that the competitor was lying.

I just don't think that people should be able to get away with that crap. My acquaintance was not demanding royalties for the use of her photos - just credit. That is not the only story I know like that, but it is one of the most egregious.

"steganography is hiding data within the image without visibly changing it"

Thank you, Skylark -- as soon as I read that I knew what you were talking about...

jacqueg said:
I get what you are saying, but I still want to mark my photos...
My acquaintance had, however, watermarked and coded the metadata and was able to prove that the competitor was lying.

of course, if you're using photos for business purposes, watermarking them is prudent - i don't think anybody would argue the point.

The hidden internal secrets in stenographic styled text, encoded gracefully and naturally, offer good reliable additional protection here. (You read each anterior letter singly.) I may provide less exasperating, cryptically obscured demonstrations eventually.

I watermark most photos because I have had a few situations where someone has used them as their own. I, most times, share when I am asked for permission to do so. It depends on what it will be used for. I use software that is downloadable at
https://www.watermark-image.co...

Most of the time I watermark my photos. I ran into the problem of an outfit that was using one of my photos, claiming they had grown the shown plant in their nursery. And there at the bottom was my ATP watermark. Needless to say, if it had been a reputable business I wouldn't have minded them using my photo, but I sure don't want unhappy customers thinking that I, or ATP was connected to this nursery.

Hi,
You can get the software like Irfan View and Gimp ,you do not have to pay any money for the software.
With these software should be do all the tricks on images.
Prabhi S

As far as I can tell, watermarks are for professional photographers. I do have a PRO account on Flickr, but I still do not qualify:)

Lightroom can add watermarks to photos. Looks like an easy thing to do, but I have never used it. Side RANT, you can easily add a watermark, but adding simple text to a photo is difficult!

I do add a lot of metadata to my photos, but of course metadata can be easily removed.

I publish all my photos with a Creative Commons copyright, share and share alike.

I shoot in RAW and publish in JPEG.

Hello. I am a professional photographer and have been teaching photography for over 30 years. 98% of people I run into do not know how to properly watermark images. Which makes the images less enjoyable and/or easily high jacked anyways. In general, I doubt most people need to watermark images but there are occasions when it becomes necessary. About the only time I watermark images is when I am sending them to a publisher for review. Get a copy of a free watermark software program - there are many out there. This allows you to overlay the entire image with another image. Note - overlay the entire image! Putting your name or logo in a corner of the image is very lame and easy to work around. You have control over how opaque, obvious the 2nd image will be. Make it light, barely there so as not to detract from the viewing experience. But, just enough to make the image unusable as is. For the 2nd (over laid) image go to Google pix and get a large copy of a grid of lines. You might have to reverse it ( create a negative from it.) Overlay the image you are trying to protect with a light grid of lines. Works well. I can post an example if asked. Gene