C&C on the watermark please

[CaptainTom]

I'm developing an action to add a watermark when needed, and would like comments on this please.

[LDB]

Not sure how that plane is going to work on some shots but I like it.

[jonnydonut]

eh, I've never been a fan of watermarks myself.
if you're going to have one, it should just be enough to give you credit without taking away from the photo. It's distracting here. People are going to steal pictures no matter what.

[CaptainTom]

I think this version will help keep theft down. It would take a lot to clone out the watermark. I think ?

[CaptainTom]

Originally Posted by LDB

Not sure how that plane is going to work on some shots but I like it.

The plane is the photo and the T3 Studios is just the watermark.

[jeffkohn]

If you're posting proofs for clients to order from, sure I can see the utility if this. If you're posting personal work on a site such as this, I think it's just obnoxious and a good way to ensure that some people (myself included) won't comment on your images.

IMHO, people vastly overestimate the potential theft of their images.

Nothing personal Tom, just a pet peeve of mine and you did ask specifically about the watermark.

[groovyone]

Originally Posted by LDB

Not sure how that plane is going to work on some shots but I like it.

HAHAHAHA.

I like your second watermark better.

[CaptainTom]

Originally Posted by jeffkohn

Nothing personal Tom, just a pet peeve of mine and you did ask specifically about the watermark.

so you hate watermarks? I'm not fond of them either. But, if you HAD to watermark a photo what is your opinion of this specific attempt ? Too big/toosmall/toodark/light ? Just looking for opinions.

I'm not asking, or expecting critique on the photo. been there, done that.

[sniperkittie]

The second one; if you cannot read it, whats the use. You may want to try merging it as hard light and embossing it. Forgive me for butchering you Logo for my example.

[LDB]

Sorry, no offense meant earlier. I just have a strange sense of humor. I like smaller more than larger but I also like fainter more than bolder so they each score a +1 and a -1 and rank a tie.

[jonnydonut]

2nd a lot better

[PIC]

T,
Very distracting like Most WM's
Better at extreme lower corner imo ...
and may be just the T3. See my EL example ...
http://www.texasphotoforum.com/galle...62&limit=views
You know it can always be defeated viao PS
and even automated means ...
People can always steal actual photo
and the idea is whats stolen most of the time.
Is this for Proof Only ???
EL

[Joe_Lorenzini]

Hey Tom,

I tend to agree with Jeff's comments. That said, you might want to consider something like this:



Big 'ol COPYRIGHT symbol as the watermark and adding your logo down in a corner. It's not "that" obtrusive and it would be very simple to create an action that does both things automatically.

My two ©'d cents.

_/oe

[ka5txl]

Tom, I like #2 over #1 but I really prefer what Joe did. at first take it looked like a bulls eye over the surfer of course Tom if you put tail fins on your first watermark you could claim you are developing a new smart bomb for the air force

[zeroskillz]

JMO, but I think just the copyright symbol or the word 'copyright' are far better than sticking a logo on a shot--the symbol being the best.

I purchase a crapload of imagery for my job, and it's really annoying it when colorful logos are stuck over photos as watermarks. I find them much more distracting and visually confusing than simple watermarks.

Also, if having your company name on it is really important to you, I'd do what another poster suggested and put the name in a corner, with the (c) symbol over the image.

Big, colorful logos over images usually come off as amateurish and self indulgent.
Just my 2 cents...

HTH
-Ted