# Where to position a watermark



## Drizzt321 (Apr 19, 2012)

So, was talking with a friend this evening, and he's saying put a watermark on an image on the lower left, whereas I have mine (currently) on the lower right. So, I'm turning to the community and asking what they consider is the best location for a watermark? I'm looking from the perspective of someone else, potential customer/whatever viewing the photo, generally online.


----------



## akiskev (Apr 19, 2012)

DEAD CENTER


----------



## Drizzt321 (Apr 19, 2012)

akiskev said:


> DEAD CENTER



Umm...how about a location which won't totally obscure the majority of the actual photo?


----------



## unkbob (Apr 19, 2012)

Drizzt321 said:


> akiskev said:
> 
> 
> > DEAD CENTER
> ...



There's two main purposes of a wm, a signature and protection against theft.

If you want to protect your photo because your work is being stolen on a regular basis or it's "high value" (perhaps for a commercial purpose and you need to ensure you retain control), have a faint watermark right across the image. If you want to add a signature, and to protect your credit if someone merely links to your work (as opposed to maliciously stealing it), put it in the corner. 

There's no right answer. You can also put it in negative space and get an elegant, modern look - like a film title or ad. I tend to go for bottom right, as it's the last place the eye looks (we read top to bottom and left to right) so it seems like a logical piece of final punctuation.


----------



## Mendolera (Apr 19, 2012)

For signature purposes I usually put it in the lower right corner (Lightroom setup) unless its a certain picture that would get distracted by having it there.


----------



## akiskev (Apr 19, 2012)

Hmm I got confused. I thought watermark and signature were two different things. My bad.
Ok, for signature purposes always bottom right, out of the picture area.


----------



## rhommel (Apr 19, 2012)

there should be a 'no watermark' option in the poll 

i don't put watermarks at all, it's just a distraction... 

my opinion


----------



## Bombsight (Apr 19, 2012)

unfocused said:


> In the trash can.
> 
> 99% of the people using watermarks have a grossly inflated idea of what their pictures are worth. I've found an inverse relationship between the size of watermarks and the quality of pictures. The bigger and more predominate the watermark, the crappier the image.


99% ??? ... Thats a bit extreme.

Lower right hand corner ... otherwise, put it where you want it. Its YOUR work/art.


----------



## Fatalv (Apr 19, 2012)

If you are worried about someone stealing your work and not giving you credit the edges are the worst place. 

Numerous shots I've taken people have just cropped and used on Facebook (granted most of these are candid/portrait shots that I don't care about). It's more or less audacity of not giving credit to the person who took them. Seems like Facebook/Twitter have just become breading grounds for "steal some cool looking picture and make it your banner".

Just my 2 cents though...


----------



## bvukich (Apr 19, 2012)

In the copyright field of the EXIF data. Anyone that actually cares will look there.


...but that's just _my_ opinion.


----------



## photoxication (Apr 19, 2012)

I put mine in the lower right via Lightroom which scales it automatically - keeping it small, lightly transparent, and barely noticeable in most photos, which I like. It keeps reminding me I need to SERIOUSLY update my website though since my watermark is a URL. I use a gothic font of some kind. It took me a while to settle on the font because the watermark just wasn't maintaining the amount of clarity I wanted when I converted pictures to JPEG and web appropriate sizes. I'm not concerned with copyright issues, but I like the watermark since I kinda think of it as a signature, nothing more.


----------



## Canihaspicture (Apr 19, 2012)

Sorry... I don't see the option to vote for no watermark, because people who use watermarks are  retarded err umm not bright.

You should scale down to an undesirable print resolution that would look good on screen and use exif data as mentioned previously. Otherwise you might as well go with DEAD CENTER and be crappy like that. Please take note of how many REAL professionals do that (Hint: None). If you are a middle aged photographer/soccer mom I can see how a watermark can be appealing.


----------



## helpful (Apr 19, 2012)

Watermarks help send all sorts of people to my website. Very small in lower right.

I know that Facebook takes it off when showing the people the center portion of the image (this is done automatically, not by people, by the way), but it shows up in the full image.

All sorts of people find my website, and I let my 720 pixel watermarked images go freely around the internet. It is like water down the river. It goes to the ocean, and then comes back to me again.

In fact, maybe there is a reason why it is called a watermark even though there is no water involved with the digital type of watermark. It's because it truly is like water going to the ocean and then coming back again to me!


----------



## unfocused (Apr 19, 2012)

helpful said:


> Watermarks help send all sorts of people to my website. Very small in lower right.
> 
> I know that Facebook takes it off when showing the people the center portion of the image (this is done automatically, not by people, by the way), but it shows up in the full image.
> 
> ...



This is probably the most intelligent use of watermarks I have every heard of. I may have to reconsider my opinion of them.


----------



## cayenne (Apr 19, 2012)

bvukich said:


> In the copyright field of the EXIF data. Anyone that actually cares will look there.
> 
> 
> ...but that's just _my_ opinion.



I dunno...that's not a bad place to add it in _addition_ to on top of the image....but EXIF data is pretty trivial to scrape off an image. 

I read an article that at least up till 2010, that FB and Flickr were removing exif data: http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2010/04/22/flickr-and-facebook-still-strip-exif-data/

cayenne


----------



## Drizzt321 (Apr 19, 2012)

unfocused said:


> helpful said:
> 
> 
> > Watermarks help send all sorts of people to my website. Very small in lower right.
> ...



Perhaps I should have said signature, instead of watermark, although they are pretty similar in a lot of ways when applied visibly to a photograph.

For me, it's mostly in an effort to let people know who took the photo to more easily look me up, as well as a token effort in case someone _does_ take my image and use it (on the web, I only put up smaller sizes) commercially or otherwise. That way, if they remove it, it's definitely willful infringement. After all, they had to make an effort to remove it, not "oops, didn't know". More of a trip-wire, than real protection.


----------



## Fatalv (Apr 19, 2012)

Canihaspicture said:


> Sorry... I don't see the option to vote for no watermark, because people who use watermarks are  retarded err umm not bright.
> 
> You should scale down to an undesirable print resolution that would look good on screen and use exif data as mentioned previously. Otherwise you might as well go with DEAD CENTER and be crappy like that. Please take note of how many REAL professionals do that (Hint: None). If you are a middle aged photographer/soccer mom I can see how a watermark can be appealing.



Yes... because we are all retarded soccer mom photographers. Nice to be lumped into a category with all the mindless drones.

Anyway, back on topic. The OP asked a question. Maybe he meant signature and not watermark. If he meant watermark then EXIF is almost pointless. That data is stripped easily just by resaving a jpg and clicking an option. 

Either dead center as mentioned above (but I would go with a transparent gray/white, etc. something less noticeable at first glance but would show up in print) or basically don't put anything online that you wouldn't want ripped of or stolen.

If you meant watermark, bottom right hand corner works well. I believe someone already mentioned due to how we read (left -> right, top -> bottom).


----------



## archangelrichard (Apr 20, 2012)

Center of the subject (which may not be dead center)

The purpose of a watermark is to protect your copyright (which is why blank paper sometimes has a watermark) and they are called watermarks because they are almost completely transparent like water -- note: a watermark is often slanted across the image for better protection take a look here http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=8794978 (or look at any image on their site) or here http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-19259310-man-alone.php?isource=EN_PHOTOFMA

A signature, depends on your culture. Western based cultures read from the top left to bottom right so the bottom right is where it should be; Middle Eastern (Arab and Hebrew) read the other direction so the left is their choice; many asian cultures read top to bottom so the bottom right (spelled top to bottom) is best

Non-commercial stuff probably can be left un-watermarked


----------



## blaydese (Jul 9, 2012)

helpful said:


> Watermarks help send all sorts of people to my website. Very small in lower right.
> 
> I know that Facebook takes it off when showing the people the center portion of the image (this is done automatically, not by people, by the way), but it shows up in the full image.
> 
> ...



Agree +100

Now I need to find a way of 
putting a watermark on a 
picture. NOT TO PROTECT IT,
but to PROMOTE IT ! ;D 

:-[ I don't have photoshop, 
what else can I use? ???

Sorry to dig up an old thread, 
but I searched and searched and 
this was the best result, so shoot
me for using the search and not 
starting a new thread. : ???

Not sure how you folks are
on being a necro.
Peace! 8)


----------



## crasher8 (Jul 10, 2012)

Depends on possible crops.


----------

