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.
skylark said:...really smart, cogent stuff...
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...
My acquaintance had, however, watermarked and coded the metadata and was able to prove that the competitor was lying.