[POLL] What do you think of auto watermarks in cameras?

[kfandst]

Hi,

I just had an idea while dreaming of the D70.

When we had film in the days not so far ago, we had the rights to the film since we had negatives.

Now with digital photography, it becomes difficult to identify who owns the rights to the photo since they can be easily shared and copied. People tend to place water marks in their photos to show that they own the photos. Instead of having to individually watermarking each photo, how about the camera do it for us automatically? The camera should allow us to upload our own "digital signatures".

Do you think this is a feature we can recommend to camera manufacturers?

[Raydar]

I think I would rather do it in PS, more options & effects can be achieved going that way, the in cam would be quite limited I think

Cheers
Ray

[MattC]

I think I would rather do it in PS, more options & effects can be achieved going that way, the in cam would be quite limited I think

Same here

Cheers

Matt

[sirhc55]

Definately not in camera - if you wish to do it then PS et al is the way to go

Chris

[kfandst]

I am thinking in the lines of losing the media when you've not had the chance to watermark it. Maybe you were busy swapping CF and happen to drop it, someone picking it up would not be able to claim it as theirs.

[gstark]

I am thinking in the lines of losing the media when you've not had the chance to watermark it. Maybe you were busy swapping CF and happen to drop it, someone picking it up would not be able to claim it as theirs.

Presuming that you're suggesting that you put a copyright message into the EXIF data in the camera - which I do - then you're still only as good as the finder of the CF is bad.

It's relatively easy to find an EXIF editor with which anything can be changed.

[kfandst]

gstark, didn't know you could now "program" the camera to include stuff like that?

I thought all the while that you would need to download the file and use PS to apply the watermark.

Looks like I am really ill-informed.

[sirhc55]

There is a difference between what is on the EXIF data and a watermark. By definition a watermark is something within the photo or paper or whatever.

If selling photos that have been exhibited on the web you could have an embedded watermark on the web pic but have the orginal without.

Chris

[gstark]

gstark, didn't know you could now "program" the camera to include stuff like that?

I thought all the while that you would need to download the file and use PS to apply the watermark.

Looks like I am really ill-informed.

If you use NC, you will see that there's a "user comments" field in the EXIF data. Given that it's a real PITA to try to alter that data on an image by image basis, it's equally a no brainer to set it (and then forget it) to include your copyright message, and this then gets embedded within every image that you make.

This is by no means a watermark as you might be intending, but it's about as good as you can expect with the consumer grade technology as it stands today.

But as I said, there is little one can do that would prevent anyone from messing with the exif data that's embedded within any image, unless of course you're using some of the security add-ins that Nikon and Canon have that agencies like the Police use when gathering evidentiary images.

As to embedding a watermark into an image prior to, say, presentation on the web ... I would start by making sure that image quality isn't sufficient for reproduction first; the web doesn't need high res images, so don't supply them, except upon request.

[redline]

iam totally against in camera watermarks, esp the date and time imprints on ps cameras.
it would be very hard to change or remove if you had to change company titles or jobs.
But i have heard stories that a sports shooter who dropped their card, someone eles picked it up and charge them to view the photos on their own website ouch!
I think its up to the photog to protect their images and limit their distrubution.

[Nnnnsic]

I'm not into watermarks of any sort, and much like a date back on a film camera would mark the image there, I think an automatic watermark would damage the image.

[goodrich62]

WHY
If you want one add one if applied in camera could you remove it
If not it sounds like something I would never use

[bago100]

I always put low quality on the web (72 dpi) to minimise download times for the many dialup users, especially for country folk.

Frankly, I wouldn't mind anyone using my images as long as the use is for non-commercial purposes.

As for autowatermarking - Not for me; but if it was something that could be turned on or off, it might suit some photographers.

Cheers

Graham

[mudder]

G'day,
Not for me, but I probably wouldn't have any images worth protecting either...

For photog's who do produce images worth protecting I assume they're performing at least some form of PP anyway and would probably prefer to have their own personalised style of watermark...

Cheers,
Mudder