I feel that they distract from the image.

unfortunate necessity for people who depend on their work for income and/or who don't want others claiming credit . In most cases it damages the image enough I wouldn't fav it because the pleasure of viewing it again is gone. I have seen a few images where the watermark actually added an interesting element but that is very rare

Watermarks has been an ongoing argument around here for a long time now. Personally I don't like them at all. I think a signature as part of the picture would be better. But, I also have to agree, they can be a necessary evil. Have a great week, and don't forget your camera.

They are distracting, but they're a necessary evil sometimes. I've had a lot of friends here that have others claim their work on other sites, and watermarking does help prevent that.

Have you had your work pop up in other places without getting credit for it?

to be honest Taya, I don't like them at all. They distract from the image itself and ... I don't know, I am one of these people that prefer their photos this way.

subtle watermarks that do not destroy the image are fine... the DA watermark detracts too much IMHO.

As long as they're small and don't destroy the picture, they're alright

Watermarks are a sheer catastrophe.
They look terrible - if you take a good picture, why would you bother to upload it if the watermark is going to ruin it anyway?

(JaimeIbarra doesn´t use a watermark - he adds a kind of signature to his photos. Doesn´t do the job in protecting him from art theft, he complains about it often enough.)

I don't like those big flashy ones because they ruin the picture. But if you find some way to kind of incorporate the watermark into the picture, they're fine.

i don't agree watermark ruins the picture..like they said,eh,jaimeibarra's watermark don't ruin his awsome pictures
i use watermark,so people knows that's my work,hehe