I would consider my watermark to be on the more "secure" side.  I have made that choice for a variety of reasons, but periodically I start to wonder if I am being overly cautious and am doing more harm than good for my photos and myself.

I'd like to hear some thoughts from other photographers who are using watermarks OR have made the choice to not use them.

So to get the ball rolling, what category would you consider yourself in:

a)  It's my photo, and I want a watermark that will ensure that no one will be able to use the photo without my permission without a fair amount of work.

b) It's my photo, and I use a watermark, but I don't want my watermark to detract from my photo based on the slim possibility that someone will have the desire and know-how to "steal" it.

c) It's my photo, and I think my watermark is just a great way to brand and market my work.  I don't care if someone uses my photo, as long as I get credit.

d) I don't use a watermark, but I only allow low resolution images online.

e) What's a watermark?

I'm sure there's other variations. 

For example, I'm generally an "a", but for my IPhone gallery, I have a watermark that could be taken off pretty easily.  If you really need IPhone camera art, and you really want mine, then more power to you.

If anyone has ever heard any feedback from CLIENTS (potential and existing) regarding watermarks, that information would be welcome as well.

 I would go with A,   Over the years, I have found some of my images on other peoples web sites without payment or credit.

My philosophy is a variation on b and c: I don't want my watermark to detract from my photos.  I accept that some people are going to grab the images without my approval, and when that happens, I'd like the watermark to serve as branding of some sort.  At this point, I'm not overly worried about people maliciously cutting off the watermark.

Also, I think it depends on who your audience is, and why they would buy the image.  If it's someone looking for a photo of his son or daughter, he's generally going to know if he wants the photo regardless of whether it's obscured or not.  On the other hand, if someone is looking at a fine-art print, the decision to buy the image or not might likely depend on the feelings that image evokes in her.  If she's put off by an unsightly watermark, she might just move on, when she might have liked the image were the watermark not there (or not as intrusive).

--xsdg

I'm going with "a".  If I shoot something as a favor (i.e. I don't expect to be paid), I just leave off the watermark, make it available for DL to anyone and just don't worry about it.  If you goal is to maintain your copyright, and to be properly credited / compensated go with method "a"

It took me some time to find my way with watermarking. On the one side I want to protect my images as much as possible but on the other side the watermark shall not detract from photo. Then I found that I was thinking a little to technical. Why not use the watermark for promoting my name and website.

I use the watermark for branding and if someone downloads and prints one image or shares it I have my name and website included with the photo and posted somewhere in the net. Currently I think this can be some marketing, but have no expierience feedback right now.