Free Photo Watermark Software

[Aereldor]

I'm looking to publish about 40 photos I took during my travels to a few social media pages, and wanted to batch-watermark them before doing so. 

 

What's a good free program that I can use to watermark all the photos in a single process? Also, if the program is a free trial that adds an additional watermark unless you purchase it, then I won't consider the recommendation.

 

Regards,

Aereldor.

[iamdarkyoshi]

@.spider. How do you place the logo on your photos?

[KenjiUmino]

irvanview can do batch watermarking, resizing and whatnot ... and it is free

[vanished]

If you're doing any work serious enough that you'd actually bother considering watermarking them, you must already have editing software like Photoshop, or at least GIMP, and any program that can do that should be able to do some sort of Batch operation.

 

ImageMagick can do it too I believe.

[TheRandomness]

-Thread moved to Photography and Videography.

[Guest]

Just now, Ryan_Vickers said:

If you're doing any work serious enough that you'd actually bother considering watermarking them, you must already have editing software like Photoshop, or at least GIMP, and any program that can do that should be able to do some sort of Batch operation.

 

ImageMagick can do it too I believe.

Well it seems GIMP is command based from what I can tell so not really user friendly but if taken time and effort maybe it would work https://www.gimp.org/tutorials/Basic_Batch/

[vanished]

Just now, deXxterlab97 said:

Well it seems GIMP is command based from what I can tell so not really user friendly but if taken time and effort maybe it would work https://www.gimp.org/tutorials/Basic_Batch/

You always pay a price for fancy features... it's up to the user if that price is in time or money though

[waterjug]

Microsoft Paint

[Aereldor]

4 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

If you're doing any work serious enough that you'd actually bother considering watermarking them, you must already have editing software like Photoshop, or at least GIMP, and any program that can do that should be able to do some sort of Batch operation.

I think they're good photos and I don't want them stolen, regardless of whether or not I edit them. In this case, I haven't. 

[vanished]

Just now, wii8cookies said:

Microsoft Paint

That doesn't have any batch capabilities that I'm aware of, unless they've updated it significantly in the last few years

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

You always pay a price for fancy features... it's up to the user if that price is in time or money though

Taran with his AHK knowledge could find a way to quickly copy paste a watermark with macro keys. It's free

[vanished]

Just now, deXxterlab97 said:

Taran with his AHK knowledge could find a way to quickly copy paste a watermark with macro keys. It's free

And how long would it take to get good enough with AHK to be able to do that?  

[vorticalbox]

27 minutes ago, KenjiUmino said:

irvanview can do batch watermarking, resizing and whatnot ... and it is free

http://www.livefreedietravelling.com/tech-web/adding-watermarks-to-your-photos-using-infranview-awesome-free-program/

 

[Aereldor]

It feels scummy to do this, but I ended up using a solution that nobody here suggested and wanted to mark the thread solved.

I ended up using CNET's most popular photo editor- PhotoScape: http://download.cnet.com/s/digitalphoto-editing-processing/windows/

There's basically no learning curve, and it suits my purposes just fine.

 

Thank you for all your inputs.

[AkiraDaarkst]

Adobe LR has a batch watermarking template manager and tool.  In Photoshop you can just create an action.  In other image editing tools, some might have watermark templates to work with or you can add the watermark as a layer.

 

The question is: Are your photos worth watermarking?

[Aereldor]

4 hours ago, AkiraDaarkst said:

Adobe LR has a batch watermarking template manager and tool.  In Photoshop you can just create an action.  In other image editing tools, some might have watermark templates to work with or you can add the watermark as a layer.

 

The question is: Are your photos worth watermarking?

Lightroom is not free. Photoshop is not free. You missed/ignored both the thread title and the original post.

Whether they're worth watermarking or not is up to me. I already think they're worth watermarking, which is why I'm asking for a way to watermark them in the first place. I thought this was obvious. So no, that's not the question at all. 

The question was whether there's a free program I can use to watermark my photos. You suggested two paid programs, which goes to say that you haven't even understood the question.

 

[AkiraDaarkst]

2 hours ago, Aereldor said:

Lightroom is not free. Photoshop is not free. You missed/ignored both the thread title and the original post.

Whether they're worth watermarking or not is up to me. I already think they're worth watermarking, which is why I'm asking for a way to watermark them in the first place. I thought this was obvious. So no, that's not the question at all. 

The question was whether there's a free program I can use to watermark my photos. You suggested two paid programs, which goes to say that you haven't even understood the question.

 

Oh I didn't miss what you wrote, you completely did not understand what I wrote.  I didn't say I was recommending them or suggesting them.  I explained two ways in which software will allow you to add watermarks to your photos.  Either via a template and batch application tool or via applying layers.

 

As to the question whether your photos are worth watermarking or not, I guess they're not if the only solution you want is "I don't care, I just want whatever is free." then I guess you probably don't place too much value on them to use perhaps what might be a better tool.  Me, because I actually sell my photos or submit them to publications, I prefer having a tool that does a good job and can create something stylish that represents both my branding and the care I put into my work.

 

Watermarks do not ensure any security for your photos, they can be cropped out.  And most social media services tend to strip out the metadata info for a photo, especially the bit that contains copyright info and contact details.

[AkiraDaarkst]

8 hours ago, wii8cookies said:

Microsoft Paint

Nothing more free than this.

[Aereldor]

50 minutes ago, AkiraDaarkst said:

Oh I didn't miss what you wrote, you completely did not understand what I wrote.  I didn't say I was recommending them or suggesting them.  I explained two ways in which software will allow you to add watermarks to your photos.  Either via a template and batch application tool or via applying layers.

 

As to the question whether your photos are worth watermarking or not, I guess they're not if the only solution you want is "I don't care, I just want whatever is free." then I guess you probably don't place too much value on them to use perhaps what might be a better tool.  Me, because I actually sell my photos or submit them to publications, I prefer having a tool that does a good job and can create something stylish that represents both my branding and the care I put into my work.

 

Watermarks do not ensure any security for your photos, they can be cropped out.  And most social media services tend to strip out the metadata info for a photo, especially the bit that contains copyright info and contact details.

Yes, which is why a big semi-transparent watermark stripe is the way to go, with opaque bits here and there.

Watermarks don't have to be stylish. They have to be functional, and can be stylish if desired. You don't need something flashy and extravagant to show commitment and sincerity. 

I know it can be done through those programs, but that doesn't help, as I don't own them and have no intention of paying for one. 

[.spider.]

4 hours ago, AkiraDaarkst said:

 

  Me, because I actually sell my photos or submit them to publications, I prefer having a tool that does a good job and can create something stylish that represents both my branding and the care I put into my work.

Like these mediocre chocolate box snapshots?

You are funny.

[AkiraDaarkst]

4 hours ago, Aereldor said:

Yes, which is why a big semi-transparent watermark stripe is the way to go, with opaque bits here and there.

If you put a big watermark like this, think about how the audience will see the photo.  You may not care, but for me a watermark should not be big that it prevents people from enjoying the photo.  I treat a watermark like the artist's signature on a painting.  I'll worry about people stealing and claiming copyright for my photos in other ways.

[AkiraDaarkst]

3 hours ago, .spider. said:

Like these mediocre chocolate box snapshots?

You are funny.

Ahh really, guess I need to rethink my photography.... OH wait, nevermind, I got PAID for those photos and the company that hired me to create them loved it.

 

Man, you're a JOKE!

[.spider.]

42 minutes ago, AkiraDaarkst said:

 

Man, you're a JOKE!

It's ok don't be too funny. 

[Aereldor]

4 hours ago, AkiraDaarkst said:

I got PAID for those photos and the company that hired me to create them loved it.

 

12 hours ago, AkiraDaarkst said:

I actually sell my photos or submit them to publications, I prefer having a tool that does a good job and can create something stylish that represents both my branding and the care I put into my work.

 

12 hours ago, AkiraDaarkst said:

if the only solution you want is "I don't care, I just want whatever is free." then I guess you probably don't place too much value on them to use perhaps what might be a better tool.

 

18 hours ago, AkiraDaarkst said:

The question is: Are your photos worth watermarking?

 

Wow, this really is insecurity central.

[AkiraDaarkst]

30 minutes ago, Aereldor said:

 

 

 

 

Wow, this really is insecurity central.

Amateurs... they think they know it all.

 

You can lead a dog to water but if the dog prefers mud, I guess nothing can be done about it.