Watermarks can be very distracting and off-putting if they are large and cover what otherwise would be a lovely image of, for example, a bloom. Today I noticed a variety of sizes and positions of watermarks on some images, as if an experiment is going on. I would encourage the use of the more subtle, smaller images placed in an out of the way location rather than the in-your-face large ones that block the images. If some users, object, would it be possible to offer a choice?

You have your choices already. Go to your "Site preferences" under your personal menu at the top right of any page. There is where you will find it.

It might be a good idea to go through all the options on the whole list of preferences. You will likely find some other things you didn't know......

Hi Carol,

All members have a choice as to how they watermark their photos. Some people chose to watermark their images before uploading.

Otherwise, as Rick mentioned, you can go to Site Preferences and choose between the NGA logo, a default text string, a custom text string or no watermark.

There have been many discussions on watermarks in the past. Here are just a few:
The thread "..... seems ive run afoul of watermark "etiquette"" in Irises forum
The thread "Why do you copyright your photos?" in Site Talk forum
The thread "Custom text in your image watermarks" in Site Talk forum
The thread "Watermarks!" in Photography Tips & Techniques forum

My personal choice is no watermark, and typically won't give thumbs or nuts to photos with them. I find watermarks distracting and unattractive. But, to each their own. It's always nice to have a choice.

Ditto to Deb's remarks. There have been some wonderful pictures of iris with the watermark a crossed the haft beard area. Spoils it for me. But, as Deb said, to each his own.

I came here to search about Watermarks, and lo and behold it was the top thread.

Rick, I think she's talking about photos other than her own. (Mine even.)

Joshua I haven't read all those links but will see if I can garner some information there.

I don't like the way the watermark looks on my photos either. I did choose to watermark, but I didn't recall there were different option of different watermarks. I would prefer mine as faint as possible.

I would guess unless you were in a business where you sell plants, take your own photos, you could/would not understand why folks in such circumstances would. I work too hard for everything I have. I work hard taking photos and editing them, etc. Other people gather photos online and use them on eBay for instance. Who can monitor eBay all the time to see if people are using their photos. It is a shame that it happens, but it does, and probably more often than I know.

My question was if I could watermark each photo on an individual basis. Sorry to say, but I would want to watermark all my daylily, Iris and Lily photos. But as for my landscape photos, I do not want to watermark them. But then how easy is it for those companies who actually *sell photos*, to pick up and use photos from here?

Thanks for posting this Carol.

I'm at the other end of the spectrum. There are only so many issues I can stew about, and someone misappropriating a photo I've posted online is pretty low on my list. That said, I do get that it is important to others and hence the watermarks. Apparently not fail-safe in and of itself. Shrug.

I did change my preferences, a choice for a small watermark, but haven't viewed any of my posted photos to see what it looks like. I may try to design my own and see what I can come up with.

For my business I write T's Flowers & Things across those. May look like crap, but they are usually looking for that particular plant, and so . . . But even on my website, sometimes I forget to put my name on them. Whatever happens happens. But I do try to make the wording of my name colorful and match the photo. Here I've seen where people have written their individual name or a date stamp on their photos. Is that less distracting?

I like to hear all points of view.

Not to get off topic Carol, but "Hope is the simple trust that God has not forgotten the recipe for manna." I know He hasn't, I don't have to hope, it's Potato Chips!!

Not to get off topic Carol, but "Hope is the simple trust that God has not forgotten the recipe for manna." I know He hasn't, I don't have to hope, it's Potato Chips!! They just come in more flavors now.


Edited to say "Oops, this was supposed to be and edited post of the above post; not sure how it posted twice".