Alright /p/, what do you think? Watermark your pictures yes or

>>2690913
yes

technically it's not the most original kind of way to shoot moderns ruin but it work well and i like how set back we are onto the corridor.


but don't expect every other anons to like it.

i just happen to do

>>2691016
They don't think it be like it is, but it do.

>>2691017
das exactly it, mane

I only ever watermark my photos whenever i do professional jobs, like paid portraits or weddings, its free advertising.

usually i downsize the finished photo and then watermark it, and post it to facebook then put the unwatermarked, high-res photos on a disc for the client

>>2690913
Only if you're taking a pic someone asked (payed) you to.

It's pretentious and looks ridiculous.

The same scenario plays out regardless of whether or not you place a watermark:

>"Oh Bob, nice photos of your family, who took those?"
>"Anon did, he's a great photographer"
>"Thanks, I think I'll message him"

>"Oh Bob, those photos are great. I see the watermark in the photo, would you recommend Anon for photographic my event?"
>"Ya, he's great"
>"Does he take the watermark out for you?"
>"Ya, always"
>"Thanks"

It's the same regardless. If people want your photos, they'll ask.

>>2691335

I completely agree. Even more absurd on Instagram. Like someone is going to steal your 100x100 pixel shit for marketing purposes and your watermark is going to stop them?

idk but DEFINITELY watermark your professional work before they have paid for it

Take a look at any famous photograph. Notice a single watermark? there's your answer.

>>2693976
also, if you feel you can't make enough money after your previous work is stolen you aren't going to survive the winter.

File: copyright.jpg (2MB, 4807x3184px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4807x3184px

Yeah watermarks are a no go for me. I know this one girl who does video and will take casual photos for her "production company" which technically doesn't even exist and she'll just fuckin plaster a huge COPYRIGHT MY PRODUCTION COMPANY 2015 right across the photo, obstructing most of the view of even seeing what the photo even is. She doesn't even do photography professionally, yet still plasters that shit for behind the scenes photos of snapshits.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D5100
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.7
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	858
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	52 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	4807
Image Height	3184
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2015:10:28 19:48:19
Exposure Time	1/500 sec
F-Number	f/1.8
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	125
Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Exposure Bias	1 EV
Metering Mode	Spot
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	35.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	4807
Image Height	3184
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>2691653
Didn't someone just make a shitload selling images he downloaded from Instagram?

I put a watermark on everything I post on facebook, twitter & tumbler, because I know it's going to get shared.

I don't do it for security, it's only for marketing, I want people to see who created the image.

Anything I post on my main website, flickr or 500px, no watermark.

>>2694043
are you me? i do literally everything you just said

>>2694054
I dunno, are you happy and handsome?

But seriously, I think it's the only way to do it. I can't tell you the number of times I've been on tumblr or facebook, seen an image that somebody has shared and thought, Man, I wish I knew who took that.

A simple, no-nonsense watermark would have driven me straight to your site.

>>2690913
>Watermark your pictures yes or no and why?
If you're trying to sell a single photo taken in the past, yes.

If you're selling yourself as a photographer, to be hired for your skills and style, no.

>>2694040
He screencapped which is part of how he got away with it.

Dudes thing is being an IRL troll anyway.

>>2694267
this, and almost all of my clients are white soccer moms paying to have their kid's portraits done, so im also pretty sure the watermark give them the "ohh he must be a professional" thought when they look at the finished photo.

this also applies to wedding photography, i mean, good god, my last job was like $2300, no one seems to know that wedding photography is almost more overpriced than diamonds