Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 33 of 33

Thread: RANT: stupid placement of watermarks on photos

  1. #21

    Default Re: RANT: stupid placement of watermarks on photos

    Quote Originally Posted by Astin
    I actually think there are 2 purposes of watermark:
    1. This is my photo dont steal it
    2. If u got lobang let me know
    I agree with your #1 statement. That is the purpose of a watermark, and NOT to cover the image!

    Cant understand your #2 statement tho... can explain?

  2. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Beyond Space-Time Continuum
    Posts
    6,324

    Default Re: RANT: stupid placement of watermarks on photos

    it means " you like my pic?, can offer me a job?, This is who to look for."

  3. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Astin Studio
    Posts
    4,736

    Default Re: RANT: stupid placement of watermarks on photos

    Quote Originally Posted by michhy
    I agree with your #1 statement. That is the purpose of a watermark, and NOT to cover the image!

    Cant understand your #2 statement tho... can explain?
    #2, If any bosses want to hire a photographer, pls look for me. (aka self-advertisement)
    Example:

  4. #24

    Default Re: RANT: stupid placement of watermarks on photos

    Quote Originally Posted by Astin
    #2, If any bosses want to hire a photographer, pls look for me. (aka self-advertisement)
    Example:
    this is perfectly fine to me. i think what michhy was referring are those large ones that sit right in the middle of the photo or go right across it. totally spoils the photo.

  5. #25

    Default Re: RANT: stupid placement of watermarks on photos

    Quote Originally Posted by madmacs
    this is perfectly fine to me. i think what michhy was referring are those large ones that sit right in the middle of the photo or go right across it. totally spoils the photo.
    Yes, yes... those that steals the limelight from the photo itself... those obstrusive type. they are annoying. The one you used on your boat photo is fine, by all means. and oh by the way, that is a pretty nice photo. I cant get my eyes off it for more than 10 seconds...must die die see the details on the boats. veyr good composition.
    Last edited by michhy; 23rd November 2005 at 03:15 PM.

  6. #26
    Senior Member glennyong's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    5,587

    Default Re: RANT: stupid placement of watermarks on photos

    well.. watermark to prevent leeching and illegal use of ur pics.

    one. if u shoot and post online, theres high chances that people will leech ur pics and print it and use it as ur own. so yah.. ... its better to have them.

  7. #27
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Hong Kong, Pokfulam
    Posts
    1,157

    Default Re: RANT: stupid placement of watermarks on photos

    Quote Originally Posted by michhy

    go into any photography sites or stock photo sites and their photos have watermarks, but at a properly placed location, not dead centre, or somewhere covering the main subject of a photo or view of the viewer. I find this practise very annoying and childish. If a person is determined to steal your work, they can still do it anyway, so the watermark covering subject thing is annoying to average viewers like us.
    shutter stock has theirs in the dead centre. personally i don't find it childish. those people that steal our work (ok maybe not mine cos my stuff is terrible), is probably an average viewer just like u and me. so, just try to visualise the pic without the watermark and you'll be a happier person.
    Canon 300D, 30D, 5D. 17-40 f4 L, 24-105 f4 L, 70-200 f2.8 L IS

  8. #28
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Central
    Posts
    295

    Default Re: RANT: stupid placement of watermarks on photos

    I don't personally see what the fuss is all about. If people want to put watermarks on their photos, it's their prerogative to do so since it's their photo. If they want to put black boxes or mosaic over the eyes of their models, it's their prerogative to do so since it's their photo. If they want to post a completely blacked-out photo for comments, it's their prerogative to do so since it's their photo. Off the top of my head, I can think of any number of reasons why a watermark emblazoned right across the subject would be useful - it prevents leeches from ripping and posting onto a perverted website, or from using stock photos without paying, or from exploiting for commercial gain a model's photo without licence. It's not really that difficult to crop away a watermark or credit along the frame of a photo, but it really isn't much point for the potential leech to crop away the face of a model, or to slowly clone back the salient features. A lot of the guys and girls in here post up pictures of people without model releases, or with limited releases, and open themselves up to liability from leeches grabbing the same. Why shouldn't they be entitled to take whatever means they feel are necessary to protect themselves and their property?

    At the end of the day, if somebody posts a picture for comments, give them the comments the picture deserves, for example, "Gee, nice picture, good framing, colors just right, a pity your watermark right across her boobs are distracting." Or, of course, everybody could just shoot film like I do, and run the risk of a really boring photo forum.

    Just my 2-cents worth: everybody seems to be bashing on about self-righteous artistic purity while not really taking the copyright problem seriously.
    Last edited by tingchiyen; 25th November 2005 at 02:43 PM.

  9. #29

    Default Re: RANT: stupid placement of watermarks on photos

    Quote Originally Posted by tingchiyen
    I don't personally see what the fuss is all about. If people want to put watermarks on their photos, it's their prerogative to do so since it's their photo. If they want to put black boxes or mosaic over the eyes of their models, it's their prerogative to do so since it's their photo. If they want to post a completely blacked-out photo for comments, it's their prerogative to do so since it's their photo. Off the top of my head, I can think of any number of reasons why a watermark emblazoned right across the subject would be useful - it prevents leeches from ripping and posting onto a perverted website, or from using stock photos without paying, or from exploiting for commercial gain a model's photo without licence. It's not really that difficult to crop away a watermark or credit along the frame of a photo, but it really isn't much point for the potential leech to crop away the face of a model, or to slowly clone back the salient features. A lot of the guys and girls in here post up pictures of people without model releases, or with limited releases, and open themselves up to liability from leeches grabbing the same. Why shouldn't they be entitled to take whatever means they feel are necessary to protect themselves and their property?

    At the end of the day, if somebody posts a picture for comments, give them the comments the picture deserves, for example, "Gee, nice picture, good framing, colors just right, a pity your watermark right across her boobs are distracting." Or, of course, everybody could just shoot film like I do, and run the risk of a really boring photo forum.

    Just my 2-cents worth: everybody seems to be bashing on about self-righteous artistic purity while not really taking the copyright problem seriously.
    and its michhy's perogative to comment/rant about the placement of the watermarks...yes?

    anyway its a free world. if ppl want to post photos on the net for comments/display/etc, they are of course free to put watermarks whereever they want. then again...leechers are probably free to leech too

  10. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    東京 Tokyo
    Posts
    10,193

    Default Re: RANT: stupid placement of watermarks on photos



    you guys don't know how bad this image leeching thing is. from what i see in many firms, it is TERRIBLE.

    for example, online magazines are pretty popular nowadays, and these don't need high res images for their commercial purposes.

    to put it frankly, even if the watermark is right at the centre, a fairly skilled DI artist will still be able to make good use of it. real protection comes with the real digital watermark which you need to register and pay for.

    most watermarks we use only serve to deter opportunistic online users who are not good with DI from using them.
    Last edited by eikin; 25th November 2005 at 09:39 PM.

  11. #31
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    東京 Tokyo
    Posts
    10,193

    Default Re: RANT: stupid placement of watermarks on photos

    Quote Originally Posted by Astin
    I actually think there are 2 purposes of watermark:
    1. This is my photo dont steal it
    2. If u got lobang let me know
    that's right

  12. #32

    Default Re: RANT: stupid placement of watermarks on photos

    Quote Originally Posted by sk_2
    Yo dude,

    wats eating you w/ e C2pig placement stuff ? ......
    see attached link
    http://forums.hardwarezone.com/showthread.php?t=1159128( scroll down page )


    hey..... here's my original CS thread,

    so how do you proof it's yours pic?

    Yup -->

    erm...can debate for ages and still be at square one. watermark, no watermark also no difference. as long as its posted somewhere the risk of getting leeched is there.

    so my point is...if you want to show off your photos, might as well show it off in all its glory. putting a huge logo smack in the middle will simply spoil the photo. and the funny thing is that wont stop the hardcore leeches. and so what if you own the copyright? yeah can prove the photos are yours. but its already posted on some shady website, and possibly already downloaded many times. sadly not all websites are as cooperative as hwz.

  13. #33

    Default Re: RANT: stupid placement of watermarks on photos

    Quote Originally Posted by sk_2
    why complicate matters,
    and lift off somebody's watermarked image from internet quietly ?
    i believe they have their reason(s)
    n so do i.

    One just need only 2 :

    i'll be more than happy 2 oblige.....
    as per example

    tat's sweet of her ~

    ah..if only everyone is like her, and if every photographer is like you lor. but unfortunate thats not the case most of the time

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •