• New Patreon Tier and Early Access Content available. If you would like to support AVForums, we now have a new Patreon Tier which gives you access to selected news, reviews and articles before they are available to the public. Read more.

Watermarking

topgazza

Distinguished Member
I can see Digimarc in CS5 and have applied it to a couple of pictures but it is not visible...which is a good thing...but when does it "show" to let people know the photo is copyright ?
 

shotokan101

Banned
I can see Digimarc in CS5 and have applied it to a couple of pictures but it is not visible...which is a good thing...but when does it "show" to let people know the photo is copyright ?

Have you see this ?

 

topgazza

Distinguished Member
I just realised you have to subscribe to Digimarc... hoping there is some free software out there. I only want to protect some of Kate's paintings. I've added another layer with small copyright words at the bottom of one with opacity turned down but digital is best of course
 

topgazza

Distinguished Member
What is the general consensus on watermarking ? Obtrusive or vital to protect an image ?
 
What is the general consensus on watermarking ? Obtrusive or vital to protect an image ?

You can't really protect the image. The only option is to limit where it appears and at what size.

Photoshop is the devil. On one hand you have the powers to add watermarking and on the other you have the power to remove it with ease.

You may want to look at deviantART: where ART meets application! to see how some people do it on that.
 

topgazza

Distinguished Member
So perhaps the best bet is to save on Flickr which has a standard copyright statement on the web site and upload at low res...say 200K ?
 
So perhaps the best bet is to save on Flickr which has a standard copyright statement on the web site and upload at low res...say 200K ?

What statement is that ?????

You could do that but its really a double edge sword. Some people upload at full resolution and don't really mind. It creates more coverage/exposure for them as an artist. I would maybe ask your daughter what she wants to do. After all its her work.

I upload at 1024 x 768. I really could give access to full resolution images but I don't. I did think about changing my resolution recently but I will just keep it as it is.
 

topgazza

Distinguished Member
Where you can choose what privacy level you want under Owner Settings for your photos. I choose "All rights reserved"

Its a minefield though to be fair. Kate wants to have some protection but I don't think it matters too much at this stage of her career
 

shotokan101

Banned
There was very good photographer who posted/posts on here who had a great unobtrusive way of embedding his watermark in his shots - I'm not sure but I thought it was "Some Bloke/Mark Sykes" but could be wrong... perhaps someone else will remember...

Jim
 

RajP

Distinguished Member
shotokan101 said:
There was very good photographer who posted/posts on here who had a great unobtrusive way of embedding his watermark in his shots - I'm not sure but I thought it was "Some Bloke/Mark Sykes" but could be wrong... perhaps someone else will remember...

Jim

It certainly is Mark Sykes Photography.. He was very creative in how the embedded watermark flowed in with the features in the image.. And he does post as Some Bloke on here..

Look him up on the web or ping him here....
 

shotokan101

Banned
Cheers Raj :)
 

The latest video from AVForums

Fidelity in Motion's David Mackenzie talks about his work on disc encoding & the future of Blu-ray
Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Full fat HDMI teeshirts

Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom