There are many software products offering to watermark your images in batch without individually selecting the images. Is it common to use this kind of software or would photographers do it in Photoshop, manually, as needed?What are the advantages of using such paid tools
closed as not a real question by John Cavan♦, coneslayer, Itai, jrista♦ Jun 2 '12 at 16:57
It's difficult to tell what is being asked here. This question is ambiguous, vague, incomplete, overly broad, or rhetorical and cannot be reasonably answered in its current form. For help clarifying this question so that it can be reopened, see the FAQ.
There are really two questions here:
I don't know any pros who are using any tools outside their normal workflow to accomplish watermarking. Maybe some people do, but Lightroom, Aperture, etc. have really made these tools somewhat irrelevant for photography and they are outside the normal workflow (more on this later).
In answer to the second question, the advantage would be that you could do a large batch of files without thinking about them. It seems appealing until you discover that you still have to look at the result for instances where the watermark was less than optimal (like in a cloud or over a shadow).
Most people are moving or have moved to a workflow that allows their main image processing tool -- Lightroom, Capture One, Aperture -- to apply the watermark to images exported with a given setting. That way, you start with the most resolution you have, create a watermark in a location that makes sense, and then say "export". Still in the same workflow.
And finally... someone once told me that "locks are for honest people." If someone really wants to steal your image, your watermark won't protect it, they'll just get creative with the clone tool. If you are looking to leave attribution on your image (that's what I do), then watermarking will work just fine.