tagging photographs

[ourkind (Carlos)]

Hi all,

Why do some feel the need to tag their photographs?

Is it personal advertising or are you afraid of photo theft? is there another reason?

I'm not having a dig at anyone, but personally I do prefer to see un tagged images.

Maybe I need to tag my images? I really don't know sorry, I am quite naive in this sense.




Cheers

[ZeroID (Brent)]

Tag ? Do you mean Watermark or GeoTag ( Location) ?
Watermark is protection hopefully to stop your picture being pirated off by someone else to use.
GeoTag is used to identify where the pic was taken when you want to bore friends with yor holiday snaps .... Or holiday guides or there are other good reasons I can't quite think of now.
Why would a 'tag' in whatever form it is annoy you ?

[stardust steve (Steve)]

Hi Carlos.
After having some of my images "borrowed" without permission ( i have seen them on two different websites), i now put a watermark on all my images just in case.
Although with one of the images, they deliberately cropped out the watermark.
It is unfortunate it had got this this as some people think an image on the internet is fair game.
Sometimes i like to put down the bottom which object, total exp, date of imaging etc to give the viewer any info straight up without me having to track it down later.
I don't know about others but when i saw my image without permission on another persons website, i can say i was not a happy little photographer
I would suggest you watermark your image too, especially your latest eclipse images, they are beauties as someone might feel they need it more than you one day

[ourkind (Carlos)]

Thanks Brent yep I meant 'watermark'.

I don't like it because it disturbs the picture I'm staring at and it doesn't look good as a wallpaper.

Famous paintings are signed by their makers but they don't make them obvious do they? Often you need a magnifying glass or an expert to point them out.

A pirate just needs to get a hold of some good photo editing software to do away with most watermarks, is that really why it's done then?

Most of the beauties coming from Hubble are not watermarked and can be reproduced at high quality.

Have there been any cases in this forum where someone's art has been stolen?

Those on this forum that do watermark is their prerogative, I was just curious why

[ourkind (Carlos)]

Oh ok thanks Steve

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Ah, I think tagging, watermarking or only displaying it in very low res etc largely just makes the photographer feel special and lifts their ego, like their photo might be so good that someone will use it to make lots of money or something...yeh right Anyone, or a company, actually with the sort of money to make it worthwhile wouldn't steal the thing in the first place in my opinion and would ask first.

Just my thoughts on it....perhaps Apple or Microsoft will steal one of my images one day...then I could have some fun

Mike

[bartman (Bart)]

Originally Posted by strongmanmike

....perhaps Apple or Microsoft will steal one of my images one day...then I could have some fun

Mike

Too True Mike!
Bartman

[ZeroID (Brent)]

Originally Posted by ourkind

Thanks Brent yep I meant 'watermark'.

I don't like it because it disturbs the picture I'm staring at and it doesn't look good as a wallpaper.

Famous paintings are signed by their makers but they don't make them obvious do they? Often you need a magnifying glass or an expert to point them out.

A pirate just needs to get a hold of some good photo editing software to do away with most watermarks, is that really why it's done then?

Most of the beauties coming from Hubble are not watermarked and can be reproduced at high quality.

Have there been any cases in this forum where someone's art has been stolen?

Those on this forum that do watermark is their prerogative, I was just curious why

'Disturbs' is the idea to stop piracy.
When I did Motorsports photography I used to only use low resolution shots and watermark them in a critical position so as to make them uneditable or uncroppable without destroying the main subject. I did this after finding one of my shots being used as front page picture in a promotional brochure for a well known rally team without either acknowledement or payment.
Whether it is a wallpaper or whatever if it affects my livelihood and I depend upon it to eat and pay my bills then user pays. I have to live as well.

Hubble pics are placed in the 'Public Domain' by NASA to engender interest and support. Different idiom altogether although they charge for high resolution LandSat images to pay their bills.

Never again ....

[bartman (Bart)]

Originally Posted by ZeroID

'Disturbs' is the idea to stop piracy.
When I did Motorsports photography I used to only use low resolution shots and watermark them in a critical position so as to make them uneditable or uncroppable without destroying the main subject. I did this after finding one of my shots being used as front page picture in a promotional brochure for a well known rally team without either acknowledement or payment.
Whether it is a wallpaper or whatever if it affects my livelihood and I depend upon it to eat and pay my bills then user pays. I have to live as well.

Hubble pics are placed in the 'Public Domain' by NASA to engender interest and support. Different idiom altogether although they charge for high resolution LandSat images to pay their bills.

Never again ....

Well said Brent.....

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Originally Posted by ZeroID

'Disturbs' is the idea to stop piracy.
When I did Motorsports photography I used to only use low resolution shots and watermark them in a critical position so as to make them uneditable or uncroppable without destroying the main subject. I did this after finding one of my shots being used as front page picture in a promotional brochure for a well known rally team without either acknowledement or payment.
Whether it is a wallpaper or whatever if it affects my livelihood and I depend upon it to eat and pay my bills then user pays. I have to live as well.

Hubble pics are placed in the 'Public Domain' by NASA to engender interest and support. Different idiom altogether although they charge for high resolution LandSat images to pay their bills.

Never again ....

Yeah...and I guess that's fair enough too!

Mike

[CapturingTheNight (Greg)]

I am one of those people who "disturbs" all my images that I post on-line. As much as I would love to not do it, it is (in my opinion) an absolute must if you wish to protect your work. Yes, anyone will a simple image editing program could clone out or crop out most of my watermarks quite easily, so if anyone really wanted my image badly enough they could. The only way to really stop that is have a watermark right across the middle of the image and in a hard to clone area. I think this goes a bit to far so I always try to have it in a corner in a reasonably unobtrusive area.
I must say that I also use it as a means of promoting my work. I upload my work to a number of different photography/art and social media websites and I go by a number of different user names. By having my water mark as my website name, it links all those sites back to my website where I hope to start selling prints very soon.

The other way to protect your work is to only upload resized low res images so that, yes, someone could certainly post it online as their own if they wish but they certainly wouldn't be able to get a 20" x 30" print from it. The best anyone will get from me is a crappy 6 x 4.

While I have seen a lot of my images turn up in some very weird places I have not as yet (touch wood), found anyone trying to pass them off as their own. They have always had the watermark intact.

[iceman (Mike)]

I started watermarking my images in the past couple of months, and wish I'd done it earlier.

My 'bungle bungles milky way' images has been shared in many different places by many different people, many times without any credit whatsoever.

Like Greg, it's mainly for advertising. I only ever upload max 1200px wide images so that's low-enough res people can't do much with it commercially.

[jjjnettie (Jeanette)]

Mike, there was that image of yours that that woman in the US was entering into photo comps too.
I only ever post low res shots, and if you don't put your name on your work, how else are people going to know who took the shot? Or where they can purchase the image in full res?
If you don't put yourself "out there", you will never get known.

[CapturingTheNight (Greg)]

Originally Posted by jjjnettie

I only ever post low res shots, and if you don't put your name on your work, how else are people going to know who took the shot? Or where they can purchase the image in full res?
If you don't put yourself "out there", you will never get known.

[ourkind (Carlos)]

Thank you all for your responses, everyone has made valid points for and against. I appreciate your thoughts and reasons.

In our community there is a mix of professional and amatuer photographers/astronomers etc and we must respect each others work.

Despite my personal preferance I am grateful that the likes of Gary, Mike, Nettie and others share their wonderful work.

Thanks again

[ourkind (Carlos)]

Originally Posted by strongmanmike

Ah, I think tagging, watermarking or only displaying it in very low res etc largely just makes the photographer feel special and lifts their ego, like their photo might be so good that someone will use it to make lots of money or something...yeh right Anyone, or a company, actually with the sort of money to make it worthwhile wouldn't steal the thing in the first place in my opinion and would ask first.

Just my thoughts on it....perhaps Apple or Microsoft will steal one of my images one day...then I could have some fun

Mike

Mike I reckon you should start using that little 'S' Superman galaxy you imaged not long ago as your watermark nice and subtle

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

I guess I should clarify, I think putting your name or logo in the corner of an image can be a nice touch and can look quite good but putting a see-through watermark across the main image itself..? well, I just think that looks a little silly and I question the real necessity to do so, that's all, seems to me it just deprives the viewer of the full experience and for what...?

Yes the S galaxy..hmmm?.... "SuperSid Photography"

Mike

[jjjnettie (Jeanette)]

On some sites, if you read the fine print, you are handing over some of your rights to your work, agreeing that they may publish them on other media. And who gets paid for that? Not you. If that is the case, I would seriously think about doing the watermark across the face of the image thing, or just not post there.