Watermark software?

[rgugler]

Hello!

I just cleaned out my Flickr account of personal photos, and am planning to upload some of my better photos in a more professional manner. It would be awesome if I could offset the cost of gear now and then, but it would also just be nice to have my best photos all together. I'd like to watermark my photos, and I am wondering what is the best way to do that. Is there a difference between a watermark and putting text on a photo?

 

[Jermonic]

First of all, I've only used Lightroom for placing watermarks. The watermarks themselves I've made in photoshop on a transparent background.

Secondly, I've seen SO many photos destroyed, so please either settle with a small, simple RANDOM BLOKE 2014 (or what your name or website is) in a good font, or go all in and design an elaborate and loveable watermark in good style.

Here's an article about watermarks that might be useful:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/content/pros-and-cons-watermarks

 

[Replytoken]

Do you want to mark them for marketing or theft prevention?

--Ken

 

[rgugler]

I don't plan on plastering it across the picture. Unless a bunch of my photos are stolen for profit, I mostly want the recognition. I also don't understand everybody claiming the picture is ruined. The watermarked image will be a lower resolution copy. If somebody does want to buy it from me for commercial purposes, they would get the large, unwatermarked image.

Saying a watermark ruins an image is like saying a security tag ruins a clothing item from my viewpoint. It might be a distraction, but it is there for a purpose.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

 

[Replytoken]

Text is a subset of watermarking. Try creating a few different marks on sample images. You should be able to get a feel for what you like. I have opted for a very subtle watermark on my images posted at my blog.

--Ken

 

[james121]

Hello!

I just cleaned out my Flickr account of personal photos, and am planning to upload some of my better photos in a more professional manner. It would be awesome if I could offset the cost of gear now and then, but it would also just be nice to have my best photos all together. I'd like to watermark my photos, and I am wondering what is the best way to do that. Is there a difference between a watermark and putting text on a photo?

I use this tool software called Mass Watermark to Bulk Watermark,resize,add exif and directly export my pics to Flickr.The good thing is that the software allows you to do these stuff in a single workflow.Its not free i got it for around $15-50% discount.I think the actual cost is $30

Take a look at this video,its about Direct Flickr Watermarking using this tool
[video=youtube;vGGVHPK6hqI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGGVHPK6hqI[/video]

 

[old.swede]

well, i simple and free solution could be Faststone, http://www.faststone.org/FSViewerDetail.htm.
Can add both text and picture watermarks

 

[Jermonic]

I also don't understand everybody claiming the picture is ruined. The watermarked image will be a lower resolution copy. If somebody does want to buy it from me for commercial purposes, they would get the large, unwatermarked image.

Saying a watermark ruins an image is like saying a security tag ruins a clothing item from my viewpoint. It might be a distraction, but it is there for a purpose.

Only problem being that as a whole, your image will look like amateur work in my eyes, and thus, you will distract me from the actual beauty of the image. At least, that's how I'm wired, I usually have less interest in photos if they're plastered with bad looking watermarks. Other peoples experience may differ.

I'm just saying, FFS, use half an hour shaping that watermark out to be something of beauty instead of an eyesore like 70% of the watermarks out there. Please don't be in that 70% percentage group.

 

[G1 User]

I use FastStone also for a simple boarder and my name... like this
View attachment 351541

 

[rgugler]

When you upload photos to Flickr, do you upload the original file and regulate the size that can be seen by people, upload a lower quality version that looks good on a screen, but won't print well, or just upload the original and hope nobody steals it?

 

[G1 User]

When you upload photos to Flickr, do you upload the original file and regulate the size that can be seen by people, upload a lower quality version that looks good on a screen, but won't print well, or just upload the original and hope nobody steals it?

With Flickr, since this only for my Street Photography, I upload an original with a boarder and my name.. but, it is compressed a little with FastStone Resize software... maybe 10% of so..

others can embed/download up to 1024 (wish it was 640 though)

I am not that concerned about theft... it may happen... but, it is not as rampid as many fear. It has more media coverage then warrants the %'g of theft...The Media has caused this by over reporting.

But, it does happen, and if you feel the need to have absolute theft protection. There is tracking software that embeds in a image file, and you can track every download...
it is a monthly fee based software

 

[agnieszka]

Hi, i'm just reviving this old post to keep similar info together - if this is outside the bounds of forums rules, please let me know.

On the issue of watermarking software - i am looking to find out if any software out there can automatically create the copyright text from the EXIF copyright (or similar) field (as opposed to a default text in the software settings, because the year is already stored, and i may be watermarking older photos) and put it in a corner of the photo in a default font - non-destructively, and perhaps at export (directly to, say, Flickr instead of first exporting to harddisk)?

Thx.

 

[Aushiker]

Hi, i'm just reviving this old post to keep similar info together - if this is outside the bounds of forums rules, please let me know.

On the issue of watermarking software - i am looking to find out if any software out there can automatically create the copyright text from the EXIF copyright (or similar) field (as opposed to a default text in the software settings, because the year is already stored, and i may be watermarking older photos) and put it in a corner of the photo in a default font - non-destructively, and perhaps at export (directly to, say, Flickr instead of first exporting to harddisk)?

Thx.

I am at work and not home so do not have access to Lightroom to double check myself but you might want to have a look at Jeffrey Friedl's Lightroom plug-in ... it might do the trick as it can re-publish with a watermark IIRC.

Andrew

 

[agentlossing]

I doubt you will find a program that can read the exif and translate that into a watermark in the image. Seems like that would be a pretty involved process, and cameras don't all allow the same formatting in the custom exif field if I remember aright.

 

[Cederic]

Only problem being that as a whole, your image will look like amateur work in my eyes, and thus, you will distract me from the actual beauty of the image.

Necrothread, to share my agreement on this. I was just browsing elsewhere on the site and someone's genuinely lovely photographs sadly failed miserably to appeal to me because the watermark detracted and distracted from them.

I understand that putting one in the border makes it easy to crop out and some people do want to have one for various reasons, but when the watermark becomes the subject of the image that may be just a teensy bit too noticeable.

 

[grcolts]

Corel's AfterShot Pro3 has a nice watermarking option as well. You might want to check it out.
GR

 

[CWRailman]

To watermark or not will be discussed for decades with no logical resolution however when uploading to social media or some hosting site like Flickr, like someone else noted upload a very low quality image. I usually restrict my uploads to 1200 x 1200. Also make sure you have your copyright information loaded into the EXIF file. I use Lightroom for all of my work and when loading from Lightroom up to Flickr or when I use them on my personal WEB site the copyright information goes along for the ride.

By the way, about five years ago I had one individual attempt to steal my hobby related images and claimed they were his. However, when he was legally challenged by letter from my lawyer friend, he could not produce the original full size files because he had stolen the downsized images, which at that time were 640 x 640, from my WEB site. He was then forced to remove the images from his WEB site.

 

[Thai-Mike]

I use the LR plug-in Finding LR/Mogrify 2
LR/Mogrify 2 - Add Watermarks, Border and Text Annotions to Images Exported by Adobe Lightroom 2

There are so many options to great watermarks, border with it.

 

[PakkyT]

So a couple thoughts.

1st, if you are in the USA (I can not speak for other countries' laws), there is not a whole lot of point going to a lot of work watermarking a shot if you don't bother to register your photos with the US copyright office. Even if someone does steal your shots and posts them to their website, prints them in a magazine, puts them on a poster, etc. without the photo being registered there is a big limit on what kind of damages you can claim and basically, unless you have a family member or close friend who is a lawyer and will put a take down notice on their official letter head, most lawyers are not going to be willing to take your case. Leaving you with the sole option of sending a take down notice yourself and hoping the thief complies. And if they don't, well then what?

2nd, some of the best water marks I have seen, usually only noticed when pointed out by the photographer, are the ones you don't see in the photograph unless you know where to look. Big obvious watermarks will prevent only the simply take and repost types. But if your shot is really good, then a good thief is going to know how and spend the time to get rid of your water mark. Easy to do if you made it in 72 point font spread across the entire photo. Hard to miss what needs to be removed. On the other hand, if your water mark is a tiny copyright notice that is only a slight shade different than the color of the spider's leg you are hiding it on, if it comes to it, it will be easy to show in court (see first paragraph above about registering) "their" photo happens to have your copyright notice on it since they didn't even know it was there and so was never removed.