THIS PROGRAM IS DEAD. Trying to reinstall it won't work after today. Adobe removed support from their authorization/licensing server.

It hasn't worked on recent versions of MacOS or any Apple Silicon Macs sold since 2020.

If you have a working version of it, on a working Win 10 or Win 11 computer, and you can clone your drive, that might be a way to preserve it, but I doubt it.

It's time to decide whether to use DarkTable, or to use The Adobe Photography Plan (starting at $9.99/month), or whether to go in an entirely different direction.

First of all, this is a forum. So, folks can express their opinions and of course, there are going to be differences of opinion. Other folks, reading on, can come to their own conclusions. No one has to agree with me I do not create laws or rules for others to impose my ideas on others.

If you read my previous post you notice I am not arguing for or against watermarks. I only mentioned hand-applied signatures and noted where and how I use them.

I am a full-time professional photographer and I am simply stating what I do- other professional photographers, advanced amateurs, and rookies may do things differently. That's OK!

Would buy an image with a watermark? I don't know- I was neveroffered one! If I lie the picture is enough- I might.

Watermars are for amateurs? Perhaps? I have no idea- I am not an amateur.

As I mentioned, if you are a pro and have skin in the game, then maybe. But a pro photog is an amateur when it come to legal matters. But I am not an amateur when it comes to litigation matters....I've been deposed more times than I can remember. And dealt with a many legal matters when I worked (not an attorney, but ran a very large operation that was legal-centric. I have my name in a rather well known Calif appellate case where my decision prevailed.) I did expert wit work as well.

The entire matter really is comical when people want to "sue." Unless it is a personal damage case where an attorney will take it with the hopes of winning a settlement and taking part of the settlement (usually 40%), then suing people comes out of your pocket. As in paying an attorney $500 an hour and up. Which is why depositions often take days...its not because of some hidden discovery needs...its billable hours. Go to mediation? Mediators often get $7500 a day paid equally by the plaintiff and defendant. If you need an expert witness, to the tune of $400 an hour, you pay for that as well. People think in terms of right/wrong or winning/losing. So taking some over saturated photo and having some small company use the thing without permission? Go to court? The only winners are the lawyers and the mediator. Unless you have very deep pockets and simply want to make a point.

Skip the notion of watermarks as protection, my opinion only.

I don't even know why a signature, trademark, logo, or copyright notice digitally superimposed somewhere on a print or in a digital image is called a "watermark". An actual watermark appears on fine stationery (writing paper) and can only be seen when transilluminated. It may be a trademark of the paper manufacturer (Strathmore etc.) a corporate logo or name, or a family crest, etc. It's kind of a prestige thing.

By the way. the law society in my area has this to say- it is also published online and the linked article herein:

"Watermarks for pictures are not the objects of legal protection, because it is possible to find hundreds of thousands of “clean” images on the web and mark them with your own signs".

As far as signatures are concerned, I don't think there are any rules or strict or uniform standards imposed by galleries, etc. It is a matter of common sense and appropriateness and is up to the individual photographer and there na markets.

Fine photographic portrats or paintings are often signed by the artist or maker. I have signed a mortgage for years. If I forget to sign one, the client will usually ask that it be signed. I am no celebrity or famous photographer but this is what I do and why I have found to work. It seems appropriate on large canvas prints in formal frames, etc, and a 1-inch signature on a 30x40 image is not gonn be a distraction. No ego is involved. A craftsman/woman should haveis a trademark on his or her work- this is my philosophy! The same goes for fine art prints of any subject. There are many ways to distract from or spoil the impact of a mage. Poorly crafted mounting, framing, sigh, and proesntatn are some of the causes. A frame or matte that is not in keepg with the image, too gaudy, too modern, the wrong color, bad glazing or surface finishing, and lots more. Finishing and presentation are just as important an art as photographic craftsmanship.

On commercial work, there's seldom and credit line, signature, or "watermark" visible in the image. Legalites are agreed upon by contract and sometimes there are copyright notices on the back of prints it prints are submitted. Sometimes annual reports or certain types of corporate publications, I am given a credit line.

Photojournalistic images carry a credit line.


Prints or files submitted to competition never carry a signature or credits on the face of the image. Judging panels are usually not privy to makers' banes until the competition judging is completed.

Galleries and museums have their policies as to signatures.

If a piece is signed in pencil it is perminant. If the matte is signed, the print will become unidentified of the frame, or the matte is discarded.

Here is a very comprehensive and interesting article on "watermarking"
.
https://headendinfo.com/what-is-watermark/#:~:text=Watermarks%20are%20very%20helpful%20for%20Video

I don't even know why a signature, trademark, logo, or copyright notice digitally superimposed somewhere on a print or in a digital image is called a "watermark". An actual watermark appears on fine stationery (writing paper) and can only be seen when transilluminated. It may be a trademark of the paper manufacturer (Strathmore etc.) a corporate logo or name, or a family crest, etc. It's kind of a prestige thing.

By the way. the law society in my area has this to say- it is also published online and the linked article herein:

"Watermarks for pictures are not the objects of legal protection, because it is possible to find hundreds of thousands of “clean” images on the web and mark them with your own signs".

As far as signatures are concerned, I don't think there are any rules or strict or uniform standards imposed by galleries, etc. It is a matter of common sense and appropriateness and is up to the individual photographer and there na markets.

Fine photographic portrats or paintings are often signed by the artist or maker. I have signed a mortgage for years. If I forget to sign one, the client will usually ask that it be signed. I am no celebrity or famous photographer but this is what I do and why I have found to work. It seems appropriate on large canvas prints in formal frames, etc, and a 1-inch signature on a 30x40 image is not gonn be a distraction. No ego is involved. A craftsman/woman should haveis a trademark on his or her work- this is my philosophy! The same goes for fine art prints of any subject. There are many ways to distract from or spoil the impact of a mage. Poorly crafted mounting, framing, sigh, and proesntatn are some of the causes. A frame or matte that is not in keepg with the image, too gaudy, too modern, the wrong color, bad glazing or surface finishing, and lots more. Finishing and presentation are just as important an art as photographic craftsmanship.

On commercial work, there's seldom and credit line, signature, or "watermark" visible in the image. Legalites are agreed upon by contract and sometimes there are copyright notices on the back of prints it prints are submitted. Sometimes annual reports or certain types of corporate publications, I am given a credit line.

Photojournalistic images carry a credit line.


Prints or files submitted to competition never carry a signature or credits on the face of the image. Judging panels are usually not privy to makers' banes until the competition judging is completed.

Galleries and museums have their policies as to signatures.

If a piece is signed in pencil it is perminant. If the matte is signed, the print will become unidentified of the frame, or the matte is discarded.

Here is a very comprehensive and interesting article on "watermarking"
.
https://headendinfo.com/what-is-watermark/#:~:text=Watermarks%20are%20very%20helpful%20for%20Video