Another signature on photos question

[butterflygirl]

I'm glad it all worked out in the end Butterflygirl.
BTW-is that you in the avatar? You're gorgeous!

Aww! Thanks! :hug:: Yep, that's me

 

[emogirl]

were these the proofs or final delivered prints? that makes a difference. If these were final delivered images, then as a customer, i would not expect a name on them. If they are proofs, i would expect your name right across them to prevent copying/scanning.

 

[leopardforest]

You already solved it but I think this still applies.
I think that it depends on the type of photos you are selling. If you are selling photos that are taken specifically for someone then I dont think they should be signed. But if you are selling more fine art prints then I think you should sign them. (Hopefully people don't try to erase Picasso's signature of his paintings) Though if you sell them the rights to the photo then it is probably better to leave them unsigned.

Unfortunatly that is the problem with today's technology, it is so easy to just edit someone's work.

 

[butterflygirl]

Unfortunately, they were not proofs. But I know many photographers, including the one I interned under, who have a photoshopped stamp of their signature on ALL finished work, including all sizes.

I think I'm leaning toward not signing, though, and putting a sticker on the back. That way people will still know it's me, but it won't be glaring on the front of the image. I am a beginner, so I guess you live and you learn. Of course if it was larger fine art print I'd sign it. But primarily I'm working with portraits currently.

Thanks everyone for your help in helping me decide on this matter - it helps! :hail: