To watermark or not to watermark?

Started 10 months ago | Discussions
rodskogj
Junior MemberPosts: 36
Like?
Re: To watermark or not to watermark?
In reply to RedFox88, 10 months ago

RedFox88 wrote:

rodskogj wrote:

I have never bought a photo from a website (I have plenty of my own to hang on the walls!), but whenever I browse photo sites that are heavily watermarked I find I quickly move on. Its too hard to see past the distracting text and I get no emotional attachment to the image because my eyes are drawn to the text, not the image. Just my 2 cents worth...

And your view is of a "taker" who wants to view everything without obstruction without compression. And is exactly making my point. Have you own photo gear to take your own pictures and doesn't have a regard for protecting images from those who might try and use it for some use - whether paid or non-paid it would still be unauthorized use of an image without permission/license. Many people on DPR are here only to talk gear and see photos from the hobbyist side of things and not from the artist/pro side of things.

I know what you are saying RedFox88, this is a real issue for people like Clueless Wanderer - I am not trying to belittle the issue at all. The only point I was trying to make is that buying a big print is expensive, and a sale is more likely to occur if the viewer gets emotionally attached to an image. That attachment happens easier when the watermark is not too prominent and does not compete with the viewers attention for the photo it is trying to protect.

Its a very difficult balance to get right, and in my view over doing it is as damaging as under doing it. But again, as you point out, I am not the target audience for Clueless Wanderer's photos, so I may be wrong.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
RodrigoMiguel
Junior MemberPosts: 43
Like?
Re: To watermark or not to watermark?
In reply to rodskogj, 10 months ago

Tery Radcliffe of Stuck in  Customs (whose HDR stuff you may or may not like) acutally does both: no watermakrs and sell prints.

This link shows his reasoning for no watermarks

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
zkz5
Contributing MemberPosts: 662Gear list
Like?
Re: To watermark or not to watermark?
In reply to Clueless Wanderer, 10 months ago

Clueless Wanderer wrote:

I haven't disabled right click, just done some java to negate 'save as'.

FYI, Java and Javascript are two completely different and distinct things. What you are using here is not Java.

Could you tell me how I can attempt to save an image with a work station, so I can test it out for myself?

In Firefox: Tools -> Page Info, then Media tab in the new window comes up. That's a list of every image shown by the browser complete with a "Save As..." button right there.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
zkz5
Contributing MemberPosts: 662Gear list
Like?
Re: No. I grant an expensive license...
In reply to InTheMist, 10 months ago

InTheMist wrote:

I would just send a bill as they've obviously agreed.

Which they would completely ignore just as they ignore people's copyrights...

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
RedFox88
Forum ProPosts: 21,843Gear list
Like?
Re: To watermark or not to watermark?
In reply to rodskogj, 10 months ago

rodskogj wrote:

RedFox88 wrote:

rodskogj wrote:

I have never bought a photo from a website (I have plenty of my own to hang on the walls!), but whenever I browse photo sites that are heavily watermarked I find I quickly move on. Its too hard to see past the distracting text and I get no emotional attachment to the image because my eyes are drawn to the text, not the image. Just my 2 cents worth...

And your view is of a "taker" who wants to view everything without obstruction without compression. And is exactly making my point. Have you own photo gear to take your own pictures and doesn't have a regard for protecting images from those who might try and use it for some use - whether paid or non-paid it would still be unauthorized use of an image without permission/license. Many people on DPR are here only to talk gear and see photos from the hobbyist side of things and not from the artist/pro side of things.

I know what you are saying RedFox88, this is a real issue for people like Clueless Wanderer - I am not trying to belittle the issue at all. The only point I was trying to make is that buying a big print is expensive, and a sale is more likely to occur if the viewer gets emotionally attached to an image. That attachment happens easier when the watermark is not too prominent and does not compete with the viewers attention for the photo it is trying to protect.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.  If you want to see photos big without watermark, go to a gallery or art show/festival.

Its a very difficult balance to get right, and in my view over doing it is as damaging as under doing it. But again, as you point out, I am not the target audience for Clueless Wanderer's photos, so I may be wrong.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Toccata47
Senior MemberPosts: 2,193
Like?
Re: To watermark or not to watermark?
In reply to Clueless Wanderer, 10 months ago

Clueless Wanderer wrote:

RedFox88 wrote:

Spot on from my comment above. His photographs are not stock images, they are fine art. Sorry if you cannot recognize the difference. OP: again be wary of "advice" received on here. I find nothing wrong with the size of your images but I would have some sort of watermark. IMHO small watermarks do little to protect an image as they can much more easily be removed/cloned out, etc. If someone cannot see "past" the watermark thinking it "ruins the viewing experience" they are unlikely those that would actually purchase from you. Keep that in mind!

Man, thanks for this

You have provided a really informative opinion with clear perspective.

"If someone cannot see "past" the watermark thinking it "ruins the viewing experience" they are unlikely those that would actually purchase from you" - RedFox88 - This is the kind of thing I was looking for when I originally posted, a perspective on potential buyers attitudes. Again, thanks

BTW, I knew I would have to filter a certain amount of responses

-- hide signature --

Ok well, I do buy photographs online but most are sold through galleries rather than individuals such as yourself. I'm certainly open to it if the photos are good. With your's it's hard for me to get a sense of what I'm looking at because the images, as I said previously are too small. In this past year I've probably added about $4,000 in prints but this has been an unusual year.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
SomebodyFamous
Regular MemberPosts: 324
Like?
Re: To watermark or not to watermark?
In reply to Clueless Wanderer, 10 months ago

It's like Microsoft and that stupid code number. The people who are going to steal stuff are going to do it anyway. You're never going to get money from them.

You have to realise that 10% will never steal anything. 10% will never pay for anything. The remaining 80% can be steered in the right direction with good customer service. It's the 10:80:10 principle,

You cannot make a dishonest person honest just as you cannot make an honest person commit a crime.

Watermarking brands all your viewers as potential criminals that you don't trust. It's also a stupid idea that a lot of amateurs use because they think mistakenly that somebody might want to copy the weirdly coloured landscape with the strangely coloured sky. Every website viewer will be looking at that picture and saying what the heck is that and why is it on that amateur's website?

-- hide signature --

I take photos for my own pleasure. I write books for my own pleasure too. If people buy them then fine. If not then I don't really care. The fun was in writing them. Income is just icing on top of the cake.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
AlphaTikal
Senior MemberPosts: 1,101Gear list
Like?
quoting insanity
In reply to Clueless Wanderer, 10 months ago

Why are you reply with 6 level of Quote if you just reply to last post? The previous postings can't be edited nor deleted. There is no point on doing that. I will never understand this.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/blackhole_eater/
(All photos are creative common licensed. Check them out.)

 AlphaTikal's gear list:AlphaTikal's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony a77 II Sony DT 16-50mm F2.8 SSM Tamron SP 90mm F2.8 Di VC USD 1:1 Macro Sony SLT-A65 +12 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Clueless Wanderer
Senior MemberPosts: 1,139Gear list
Like?
Re: To watermark or not to watermark?
In reply to Toccata47, 10 months ago

Toccata47 wrote:

Clueless Wanderer wrote:

RedFox88 wrote:

Spot on from my comment above. His photographs are not stock images, they are fine art. Sorry if you cannot recognize the difference. OP: again be wary of "advice" received on here. I find nothing wrong with the size of your images but I would have some sort of watermark. IMHO small watermarks do little to protect an image as they can much more easily be removed/cloned out, etc. If someone cannot see "past" the watermark thinking it "ruins the viewing experience" they are unlikely those that would actually purchase from you. Keep that in mind!

Man, thanks for this

You have provided a really informative opinion with clear perspective.

"If someone cannot see "past" the watermark thinking it "ruins the viewing experience" they are unlikely those that would actually purchase from you" - RedFox88 - This is the kind of thing I was looking for when I originally posted, a perspective on potential buyers attitudes. Again, thanks

BTW, I knew I would have to filter a certain amount of responses

-- hide signature --

Ok well, I do buy photographs online but most are sold through galleries rather than individuals such as yourself. I'm certainly open to it if the photos are good. With your's it's hard for me to get a sense of what I'm looking at because the images, as I said previously are too small. In this past year I've probably added about $4,000 in prints but this has been an unusual year.

As the whole website pages are 1024x768px and the 3:2 ratio images are 750x500px, They couldn't be much bigger and still leave space for the thumbnails that allow the user to browse at their own pace.

The images at their current size are also making the page weigh in the region of 1MB.  If they were any larger they would be dragging the download speed even more than what they are. Increased image size may help some visitors but a slow download speed will have far more of them clicking out and onto another website. Also page speed is a factor in Googles rankings.

 Clueless Wanderer's gear list:Clueless Wanderer's gear list
Nikon D200 Nikon D700 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/4D ED-IF Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II +21 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Clueless Wanderer
Senior MemberPosts: 1,139Gear list
Like?
Re: To watermark or not to watermark?
In reply to SomebodyFamous, 10 months ago

SomebodyFamous wrote:

It's like Microsoft and that stupid code number. The people who are going to steal stuff are going to do it anyway. You're never going to get money from them.

You have to realise that 10% will never steal anything. 10% will never pay for anything. The remaining 80% can be steered in the right direction with good customer service. It's the 10:80:10 principle,

You cannot make a dishonest person honest just as you cannot make an honest person commit a crime.

Watermarking brands all your viewers as potential criminals that you don't trust. It's also a stupid idea that a lot of amateurs use because they think mistakenly that somebody might want to copy the weirdly coloured landscape with the strangely coloured sky. Every website viewer will be looking at that picture and saying what the heck is that and why is it on that amateur's website?

-- hide signature --

I take photos for my own pleasure. I write books for my own pleasure too. If people buy them then fine. If not then I don't really care. The fun was in writing them. Income is just icing on top of the cake.

The 10:80:10 rule is very interesting. No you can't make dishonest people honest, but maybe you can deter opportunists.

Its like protecting your car from theft. If they want it, they will get it. However if the one next to yours is going to be easier to steal than yours, then they will go for that one instead and your security measures saved your car this time.. Years ago in the UK when I had a decent car I would park it next to ones that had no security measures, no alarm light flashing, no steering wheel lock, etc. Yeah, it wouldn't stop them taking mine if they wanted to, but maybe the ease of the one next to it could tempt them away..

If you saw two images and you were in the market to 'save as'. One of them you rated at 8 out of 10 and it carried a watermark the other 7 out of 10 but no water mark, which one would you take?

.So that's why Im watermarking

 Clueless Wanderer's gear list:Clueless Wanderer's gear list
Nikon D200 Nikon D700 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/4D ED-IF Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II +21 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Toccata47
Senior MemberPosts: 2,193
Like?
Re: To watermark or not to watermark?
In reply to Clueless Wanderer, 10 months ago

Clueless Wanderer wrote:

Toccata47 wrote:

Clueless Wanderer wrote:

As the whole website pages are 1024x768px and the 3:2 ratio images are 750x500px, They couldn't be much bigger and still leave space for the thumbnails that allow the user to browse at their own pace.

The images at their current size are also making the page weigh in the region of 1MB. If they were any larger they would be dragging the download speed even more than what they are. Increased image size may help some visitors but a slow download speed will have far more of them clicking out and onto another website. Also page speed is a factor in Googles rankings.

I think you're stumbling on the details and missing the big picture. I can't think of a single time a slow down load kept me from viewing a print I was considering for purchase. On the other hand, I've left in frustration several sites that don't allow you to see high quality images. You're not remaking flickr, this is a business.

Similarly, page ranks will have zero impact in your sales unless people are googling "prints for sale". If people are going to your site it will be because of name recognition and/or advertising/web presence.  That's the real work.

Anyway, good luck. I hope some of this is helpful.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
RedFox88
Forum ProPosts: 21,843Gear list
Like?
Re: To watermark or not to watermark?
In reply to SomebodyFamous, 10 months ago

SomebodyFamous wrote:

Watermarking brands all your viewers as potential criminals that you don't trust. It's also a stupid idea that a lot of amateurs use because they think mistakenly that somebody might want to copy the weirdly coloured landscape with the strangely coloured sky. Every website viewer will be looking at that picture and saying what the heck is that and why is it on that amateur's website?

Written by someone truly ignorant about the topic.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Clueless Wanderer
Senior MemberPosts: 1,139Gear list
Like?
Re: To watermark or not to watermark?
In reply to Toccata47, 10 months ago

Toccata47 wrote:

Clueless Wanderer wrote:

Toccata47 wrote:

Clueless Wanderer wrote:

As the whole website pages are 1024x768px and the 3:2 ratio images are 750x500px, They couldn't be much bigger and still leave space for the thumbnails that allow the user to browse at their own pace.

The images at their current size are also making the page weigh in the region of 1MB. If they were any larger they would be dragging the download speed even more than what they are. Increased image size may help some visitors but a slow download speed will have far more of them clicking out and onto another website. Also page speed is a factor in Googles rankings.

I think you're stumbling on the details and missing the big picture. I can't think of a single time a slow down load kept me from viewing a print I was considering for purchase. On the other hand, I've left in frustration several sites that don't allow you to see high quality images. You're not remaking flickr, this is a business.

Similarly, page ranks will have zero impact in your sales unless people are googling "prints for sale". If people are going to your site it will be because of name recognition and/or advertising/web presence. That's the real work.

Anyway, good luck. I hope some of this is helpful.

..Some interesting points
This is my first website and I've built it from scratch so for now its about getting it up and running. Then I can hopefully sit back and analize for improvements. Marketing is the next learning curve I gotta get my head round :-/

 Clueless Wanderer's gear list:Clueless Wanderer's gear list
Nikon D200 Nikon D700 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/4D ED-IF Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II +21 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Clueless Wanderer
Senior MemberPosts: 1,139Gear list
Like?
Re: To watermark or not to watermark?
In reply to Clueless Wanderer, 10 months ago

Follow up:

The feedback/help from the responder's to this posting was extreemely valuable in opening my eyes to what needed to be done and just how serious I needed to be in my approach to this kind of thing. I tested two types of watermark removal software and then 'constructed' a watermark that would be more difficult for removal software to deal with than just a run of the mill opacity changed water mark. This also goes for photoshop removal.

Due to the balancing act of double watermarking 240 images for 'some' security v's viewer experience, I had to to go through 2960 variations :-o But hey, it was what was needed.
After finishing the watermarking, the best compliment I got from a friend was "Don't you think you should water mark the images against theft?" Awesome that comment made the slog of it all worth while
I want to thank all who responded to my original posting

-- hide signature --
 Clueless Wanderer's gear list:Clueless Wanderer's gear list
Nikon D200 Nikon D700 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/4D ED-IF Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II +21 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads