5

I recently started to use watermarks/signatures on my pictures and so I was obviously looking for feedback.

A lot of my followers think it fits perfect but in the past week 3 of my friends (all of them are hobby photographers as well) said that it doesn't fit because it's too conspicuous. How can I make the watermark more appealing?

Here are some example pictures:

Florence, Italy

Riegsee, Bavaria, Germany

Somewhere in Austria

Once again, Florence, Italy

closed as primarily opinion-based by flolilolilo, scottbb, Crazy Dino, Caleb, inkista Jun 12 '18 at 23:00

Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 2
    I'm sorry, but I'm voting to close this question as opinion-based ("What do you think?") Obviously, there are photographers around that do not use watermarks at all - and some that place them right in the middle of every_single_photo. I think(!) that everyone is free (and encouraged) to find their own style. And on the off-topic-front: Nice photos! – flolilolilo Jun 7 '18 at 11:00
  • @flolilolilo I'm glad you like my pictures. As I'm new to Photography Stack Exchange and I saw "photo-critique" in the tags I assumed that it is okay to ask for opinions. Is there any other way to put the question so that it complies with the rules? – user18596 Jun 7 '18 at 11:09
  • @CuntimusPrime Please see the following on the meta site. Specific critiques ("I'm trying to do A and I tried 1,2, & 3, but I'm still not satisfied...") are OK. Open ended critiques ("What do you think?") are not. Should Photo Critiques be allowed? – Michael C Jun 7 '18 at 11:15
  • 1
    "Watermark" usually makes me think of a more embossed look. You could also consider adding a url or some other identifier that would make it easier for people to find you. – xiota Jun 7 '18 at 20:02
11

As already noted, this question is at least borderline "opinion-based"...

But for my 2¢ I think the watermark is a) too prominent & b) in the wrong corner.
It looks more like an artist's signature than a copy-protection device.

This was just a quick 2 min tweak. I dropped it to 25% opacity & moved it bottom right.
I think if you're going to have a 'subtle' watermark, then do keep it subtle.
Bottom right may not always work, but down there it's almost the last thing you see, not the first.

enter image description here

Also, note how simple it is to remove a 'clean' watermark.
It's much harder if it's not one solid colour ;)

  • Thanks a lot, it actually looks way better now. I was unable to edit the question due to slow internet connection on my phone (I'm not at home at my PC). Will edit it now – user18596 Jun 7 '18 at 13:06
  • btw, if you put a subtle but contrasting drop-shadow or outer glow on it you can use it in light areas too. It does reduce legibility, but if the intent is copy-protection rather than 'signature' then it still serves its purpose. – Tetsujin Jun 7 '18 at 13:12
  • 1
    it's mostly meant as a signature, not a copy-protection. With "only" 150 followers I don't really think copy-protection is a necessary top priority. But thanks for your advice, I'm glad for any advice/critique/help I can get! – user18596 Jun 7 '18 at 13:20
  • @CuntimusPrime The reason for the watermark, whether it's simply a signature or copy-protection feature is an important factor that should be added to your question. "150 followers" - on what? Bear in mind that search engines can also discover and index images on other sites, so it may not be so hard for someone to stumble across your images on another platform - if that is a concern? – MrWhite Jun 7 '18 at 16:09
  • @MrWhite on Instagram. And no, currently I'm not really concerned about that – user18596 Jun 7 '18 at 16:23
4

There certainly seems to be a disconnect between the style of the photos and the style of the signature in the watermark.

It's like looking at an edifice built in the Greco-Roman temple style with the expectation that there will be words chiseled in bold upper-case Latin above the entrance, yet looking up and seeing an inscription in Comic San Serif. Or maybe an Art Deco building with Gothic script on the signage.

Beyond that, the watermark is so large and solid white as to be distracting from the photo. Placing it in the lower left corner also does not help, at least for people who live in parts of the world where we read from left to right and thus our eyes tend to start at the left edge of a photograph. With such a large and opaque watermark on the left edge, our eyes are never allowed to get past the watermark without being distracted by it sitting down there in the left corner begging for attention.

  • Haha. That would be awesome if it actually happened. – xiota Jun 7 '18 at 19:30

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.