I dunno -- with programmes like In-Paint (and many others like it) -- is it even WORTH trying to "watermark" your photos?

To do anything remotely effective, you'd have to pretty well COVER your photo with watermarks -- rendering it not only useless, but also so "ugly" it is no longer even interesting to display.

There are really only two alternatives -- either to COMPRESS a picture so heavily that it is extremely pixelated (as a way to establish that you do have a better version -- for a fee) -- or simply NOT to put your photos on the Internet, in the first place. Which is what I do.

It's sad, because you never get any compliments -- but you also can be sure that no advertising company on the other side of the world has "swiped" your photo -- and is using it, unpaid and uncredited, for a big advertising campaign.

Many amateur photographers would be only to happy to boast about such a thing (if they ever discovered it), but as a professional who has been "ripped off" quite enough, thank you, I'm not going to provide any of mine for free use.

Send them to a photo agency? Ha -- they (some of them, anyway) are even worse. They'll just send them for publication where they suppose you'll never see them, and if you ever DO -- they'll settle out of court! (That's what one photo agent told me, years ago -- and later, I discovered that is precisely what THEY were doing themselves -- with MY photos too!)

Unless things have changed for the better in the past few years (and I suspect, with DIGITAL photos, they have in fact changed for the WORSE) you'll only end up making peanuts -- with an occasional sprat thrown out to catch a mackerel.

About all this programme may be useful for, IMHO, is just for showing your name. If the pic is any good, and someone wants it -- it'll be "Gone in 60 Seconds".....

Tranmontane  –  8 years ago  –  Ritieni questo commento utile? sì | no (+13)

Traduci