Watermarks are stupid

[TP1]

Catchy title, eh?
Am I the only one who finds watermarks on GT5 photos pointless to the point that it ruins the picture?
The pictures taken in GT5 belong to PD, so what becomes the point of a users watermark?
Is there a fear that someone will rob their pictures and go onto a spree of wealth & success?
Since it's the user himself posting the pictures, isn't that enough to know who took it?
Some pictures looks good enough to be wallpapers, but with a watermark taking away the quality it just doesn't look good. And I'm not reffering to some intricate, hidden in the background, watermark but those texts that were just pasted in paint.
Thoughts?

 

[Apok]

I think watermarks are fine. Some people like myself just like having something with which you can identify the picture as one of your own.
Though I do agree some can be a bit intrusive, I don't think they're stupid at all.

 

[RED3MON]

I know the watermarks are plain stupid... but it is very easy to take it off if you have photoshop CS5, simply use the "Lasso Tool" to circle the watermark area, then go to "edit" select "Fill" and viola the watermark is gone =)

 

[TP1]

I think watermarks are fine. Some people like myself just like having something with which you can identify the picture as one of your own.
Though I do agree some can be a bit intrusive, I don't think they're stupid at all.

Hypothetically speaking, if I find a picture I really like and use it from then on as my background. If a friend sees it and asks "Hey who took that picture?" chances are I will remember who took it or which thread I got it from. Rather than looking at a picture with a watermark, acknowledging it's great and then moving on to another one, simply because with a watermark I find no use for it. So the author has promoted his name, but to no avail as not many would want to use his work.
If I were to keep such a picture with a watermark as my desktop background and there would be a tiny text popping out of a corner (especially if it's too low to see fully) it would look awful and would obstruct the names of the files on top of it.

Even PD doesn't like the idea of a user watermark, hence why their latest idea keeps them anonymous.

I do understand the reason behind it (credit to author) but the negatives seem to outweight that? I think the real question would be: Is it worth having a watermark if it sacrifices the usability of that image?

 

[AstonMartinDBR9]

Yes but the authors watermark make sure other people cant steal their work, all the major artists in the world put their signature on the bottom of the painting, if the Mona Lisa had no signature anyone can claim they made it and the artists would not get the recognition they derserve.

 

[Scaff]

Hypothetically speaking, if I find a picture I really like and use it from then on as my background. If a friend sees it and asks "Hey who took that picture?" chances are I will remember who took it or which thread I got it from. Rather than looking at a picture with a watermark, acknowledging it's great and then moving on to another one, simply because with a watermark I find no use for it. So the author has promoted his name, but to no avail as not many would want to use his work.
If I were to keep such a picture with a watermark as my desktop background and there would be a tiny text popping out of a corner (especially if it's too low to see fully) it would look awful and would obstruct the names of the files on top of it.

Personally I add a watermark to my shots to identify them as mine and should that mean that someone would not want to use it as a wallpaper, etc then I can more than live with that.

For me its the final piece of the image, particularly if a lot of work has gone into creating it (pre or post).

Even PD doesn't like the idea of a user watermark, hence why their latest idea keeps them anonymous.

That will have nothing to do with PD not liking watermarks, if that is the case why does every photomode shot have a GT watermark?

The legal issues with identifying a shot to a person are huge and its much easier to force anonymity of the upload.


Scaff

 

[Apok]

Hypothetically speaking, if I find a picture I really like and use it from then on as my background. If a friend sees it and asks "Hey who took that picture?" chances are I will remember who took it or which thread I got it from. Rather than looking at a picture with a watermark, acknowledging it's great and then moving on to another one, simply because with a watermark I find no use for it. So the author has promoted his name, but to no avail as not many would want to use his work.
If I were to keep such a picture with a watermark as my desktop background and there would be a tiny text popping out of a corner (especially if it's too low to see fully) it would look awful and would obstruct the names of the files on top of it.

Even PD doesn't like the idea of a user watermark, hence why their latest idea keeps them anonymous.

I do understand the reason behind it (credit to author) but the negatives seem to outweight that? I think the real question would be: Is it worth having a watermark if it sacrifices the usability of that image?

No, I don't agree. If you find watermarks completely unbearable then that's your problem I'm afraid.
I personally have no problem with using a wallpaper with a watermark, especially if it's a watermark of someone whose work I really like.

 

[TP1]

Yes but the authors watermark make sure other people cant steal their work, all the major artists in the world put their signature on the bottom of the painting, if the Mona Lisa had no signature anyone can claim they made it and the artists would not get the recognition they derserve.

Very true. But we're talking about pictures taken in PD's world and of cars licensed to PD, using PD's digital camera. We would be bothered is Sony had their logo placed on the picture once you export it to the XMB, wouldn't we? Since they have as much of a right as PD to remind people that the picture was taken using Sony's PS3 hardware.

Personally I add a watermark to my shots to identify them as mine and should that mean that someone would not want to use it as a wallpaper, etc then I can more than live with that.

For me its the final piece of the image, particularly if a lot of work has gone into creating it (pre or post).

That will have nothing to do with PD not liking watermarks, if that is the case why does every photomode shot have a GT watermark?

The legal issues with identifying a shot to a person are huge and its much easier to force anonymity of the upload.

Scaff

I guess we just see things differently. As an author myself I would much rather have my work reach as many people as possibly, rather than pound them on the head about who made it.

This is especially true for a heavily modified image. Putting in so much effort to make it look exceptional, only for it to be posted once in a thread, and maybe quoted to give a 👍 by another user.

Regarding the GT logo. It's actually there for a functional reason. To remind the viewer that it was taken in a video game and is not a real world picture.
Plus since when taking the shot, we can move the camera so that later we can cut that logo out, it's not much of a problem. And it's also very short and not far too big. Whereas usernames tend to be long. Imagine if I were to put a watermark like "thepineapple1's photography" that would be a whole banner covering the picture

If you find watermarks completely unbearable then that's your problem I'm afraid.

Also very true. But shouldn't it bother the author that his work is being used by fewer people, just because of a watermark?
Obviously you've come to a compromise (using the image, no matter the watermark, rather than not using it at all) but if you had the choice of selecting the same image without the watermark, wouldn't you pick it over the one with?

 

[Apok]

Obviously you've come to a compromise (using the image, no matter the watermark, rather than not using it at all) but if you had the choice of selecting the same image without the watermark, wouldn't you pick it over the one with?

I suppose, but it means next to nothing to me (if the watermark is within it's limits of course. Obviously I don't want a banner across a large part of the image). If it did mean anything to me I could remove the watermark myself.

 

[Giulietta73]

Its easy to get your composition, zoom out a fraction, then crop the image in photoshop or gimp (or microsoft's tools) and completely lose the watermark altogether - no tedious editing required.

 

[Moglet]

I always add a small logo to my images so that people know who has taken it, which is especially good if someone wants to reference it from a poll to make a comment or give feedback since usernames aren't included in those.

My logo is tiny in comparison to the size of the image though, it's basically my avatar placed so that it merges with the border of the image.

EDIT: To those of you commenting on the GT logo watermark and how easy it is to remove, read the first post! The OP was making a comment on user added watermarks, not the in game one.

 

[Giulietta73]

^^This is the part of the OP I was referring to.👍

Some pictures looks good enough to be wallpapers, but with a watermark taking away the quality it just doesn't look good.
Thoughts?

 

[gtuned]

So what you're saying is Every shot we take, we don't actually take. PD owns every single shot, every single different combination.
Yeah no. GT5 is nothing different than a Rendering Program or a Camera, where each of us uses it different to create vastly different shots.

As for the watermarks, maybe it's just preference? I don't see why you needed to come onto our section and basically try to troll us :/

 

[CakeConjuror]

I like watermarks, it makes me feel like I'm actually viewing somebody's work and not just another stock photo or something like that. Watermarks add a certain touch of personalization so as long as it subtle and doesn't demand attention away from the picture itself or something huge and untasteful

 

[TP1]

So what you're saying is Every shot we take, we don't actually take. PD owns every single shot, every single different combination.
Yeah no. GT5 is nothing different than a Rendering Program or a Camera, where each of us uses it different to create vastly different shots.

As for the watermarks, maybe it's just preference? I don't see why you needed to come onto our section and basically try to troll us :/

Legally speaking PD owns every single picture taken in GT. They allowed it to be copyright free and that is why we're free to export it and post it wherever we want. There is no reason to even discuss this.

Yes it is preference. And I'm not quite sure what you mean by "our" and "us" because I also take pictures in GT5, post them here on the forums and am an active user.
I created this thread to see what the general opinion is on the matter, I see nothing that may resemble trolling even the slightest.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

I guess we just see things differently. As an author myself I would much rather have my work reach as many people as possibly, rather than pound them on the head about who made it.

My having a watermark doesn't compromise how many people my images reach. It might compromise how many of them use the images as wallpapers... But I'm not concerned with that, as my primary goal with a gallery and GT5 images in general is not to be a wallpaper service. My images are only meant to be viewed in the context of how they are presented: however, I do have a wallpaper template, for specifically that use, when I do want it.

This is especially true for a heavily modified image. Putting in so much effort to make it look exceptional, only for it to be posted once in a thread, and maybe quoted to give a 👍 by another user.

I'd argue the heavily edited shots deserve personal watermarks even more: someone who's modified an image with realistic damage, wear and tear, new body kits, or other things like that have definitely added their own touch to the image, and wanting some recognition for that isn't unreasonable

Regarding the GT logo. It's actually there for a functional reason. To remind the viewer that it was taken in a video game and is not a real world picture.

Well now, personal watermarks are there for a functional reason too

Plus since when taking the shot, we can move the camera so that later we can cut that logo out, it's not much of a problem. And it's also very short and not far too big. Whereas usernames tend to be long. Imagine if I were to put a watermark like "thepineapple1's photography" that would be a whole banner covering the picture

I'll readily admit a poorly executed watermark/logo can detract from an image; it should be small enough to not be the main focus, and preferably, one colour for simplicity's sake. Moglet's, bmxmitch's, and Zerox' come to mind. My watermark is slightly smaller than the GT one, more transparent, and in the same location, for example.

Also very true. But shouldn't it bother the author that his work is being used by fewer people, just because of a watermark?
Obviously you've come to a compromise (using the image, no matter the watermark, rather than not using it at all) but if you had the choice of selecting the same image without the watermark, wouldn't you pick it over the one with?

See first paragraph: I'm not concerned with how many people use my images: I'm sharing them because I personally enjoy them, and want others to see them. If I share wallpapers, it's because I personally wanted them; I released iPhone backgrounds a few months ago for exactly that reason.

Diff'rent strokes, of course, but a reminder of who's image I'm looking at doesn't bother me much at all. The community is too large to remember every shot's creator,for the average person

 

[mu]

Look at that subtle off-white coloring, the tasteful thickness of it. Oh, my god. It even has a watermark.

 

[arora]

Either way to me is fine, non issue imo. My 'art' is so distinguished I don't need one, it's priceless

 

[DustDriver]

Priceless, that's 1 way of putting it...

 

[BkS]

Watermarks are there to identify the author of the photo. I always put my watermark on a photo, be it my newly made "symbol" or the "text" version, they are small enough to let people see, but not detract from the main object itself.

The way I see it, my watermark is there to let people know that it's MY work. It has a function just like the GT watermark does.