Advice on Watermark/Signature

[thomascoe]

I spent a while the other day making myself a watermark to put in the bottom right of my photos when I upload them online, but I'm still not sure how much I like it so far... Something just doesn't look quite right to me, I would love any input on improvements I could make to it.

Here's the watermark:

watermark by thomascoe, on Flickr

And here are two pictures with the watermark applied:

DSC_0318 by thomascoe, on Flickr


DSC_0379 by thomascoe, on Flickr

I'm not sure about the white "glow" effect behind it, maybe it should be an oval shape instead of shaped like the letters? Feel free to edit the watermark however you'd like. I can supply the original jpeg of the signature as well, if anyone wants it

EDIT: By the way, these two shots were just some random pictures from a new years party I had, that's why they're so... weird, haha

 

[freezeman]

I like it just the way it is Tom. I've seen a lot worse.

 

[Light Artisan]

Not a fan of the repetition... either make the signature portion more legible or skip it in my opinion.

 

[bluetibby1]

Kinda reminds me Of signing a letter or recieveing a letter for the principal or someone important! I agree with light. Make it more legible.
Blue

 

[thomascoe]

Not a fan of the repetition... either make the signature portion more legible or skip it in my opinion.

Yeah, my handwriting is not very legible, especially my cursive. I thought about maybe just making a new signature in Illustrator or something, but I'm not very familiar with Illustrator at all. I don't want to use a generic cursive typeface either, it just doesn't seem very personal. I'm not sure how legible it would be if I just have the handwriting.

If someone could teach me an easy way to do it in Illustrator or Photoshop that would be great! I'm also open to other suggestions if you have any idea for a totally different approach on it that still involves my name.

 

[Dominantly]

I like the concept.

I use my initials that I signed on a blank PS file, and rather enjoy it's simplicity. I too did not want a generic font, and got inspiration from the way painters will sign their initials at the bottom corner of their paintings.

 

[HikinMike]

Just a thought...I wouldn't use your own signature as a watermark. I used to do the same thing until one day I realized that somebody CAN copy that and forge your documents. May not happen, but it could.

 

[thomascoe]

Just a thought...I wouldn't use your own signature as a watermark. I used to do the same thing until one day I realized that somebody CAN copy that and forge your documents. May not happen, but it could.

That's a good point, I just don't have any other good ideas for a watermark though. I think I might just make a signature in Illustrator, but make it a good bit different from my actual signature. That way my signature can't be used for something, and it would also be legible in my watermark so I wouldn't have to type it below.

 

[Dominantly]

Your signature doesn't have to look like your actual signature for someone to use it. I could scribble something vaguely similar and it would pass just fine. SO don't worry about that part of it.

 

[thomascoe]

If I can figure out Illustrator, I'll just try to make a legible signature with that. Does anyone have an idea how I could use the signature I have now in a watermark so that it's legible, but doesn't look repetitive?

 

[Gruen Photo 7 Design]

if that is your business logo, use it

 

[thomascoe]

if that is your business logo, use it

I have only started photography recently, I haven't really turned it into a "business" yet. During the school year I don't have that much spare time either, I expect I'll be able to devote much more time to this over the summer. For now, I just need a decent looking logo to put on my pictures when I post them online.

 

[c.cloudwalker]

A watermark and a signature are two different things.

A watermark's main purpose is to keep honest people honest (kind of like a lock on your front door) and make it harder for crooks to steal the image (kind of like a dead bolt.) The most common one I see is a copyright symbol right smack in the middle and over most of the image. I see those used mainly by stock agencies. Photogs who sell their own stock probably do the same.

The only other use I can think of right now is to keep an editor or designer from using an image that is not finished. They can use it for placement in the overall design but a large PROOF in the middle of it reminds them that the finished product is yet to come. I use that all of the time. Used to do the same in the days of film with a large Proof stamped in the middle of the prints.

When a pro or a serious stock agency sends a photo to a potential client, the quality of the image is not in question. The client is only looking for the best image to fit his needs (how the subject matter is handled, possible crops, etc) and the watermark is not a problem. But if a non-client was to get his hands on such an image, he would have a lot of work removing the watermark.


The signature, on the other hand, is used mostly by newbies to... feel better about themselves? In most cases they are placed in such a way that they can easily be removed by simple cropping. They can also be removed by someone with a few PS skills.

Now, in both cases, removal of the watermark or signature shows intent in breaking the copyright laws. It can help the pro but does very little to the average amateur who, most often, will not have the money to sue over the infringement. Not that suing is the only recourse but the signature is not absolutely necessary in order to prove ownership of the image and its copyright.

Just a couple things to think about.

 

[Robin Usagani]

A watermark and a signature are two different things.

A watermark's main purpose is to keep honest people honest (kind of like a lock on your front door) and make it harder for crooks to steal the image (kind of like a dead bolt.) The most common one I see is a copyright symbol right smack in the middle and over most of the image. I see those used mainly by stock agencies. Photogs who sell their own stock probably do the same.

The only other use I can think of right now is to keep an editor or designer from using an image that is not finished. They can use it for placement in the overall design but a large PROOF in the middle of it reminds them that the finished product is yet to come. I use that all of the time. Used to do the same in the days of film with a large Proof stamped in the middle of the prints.

When a pro or a serious stock agency sends a photo to a potential client, the quality of the image is not in question. The client is only looking for the best image to fit his needs (how the subject matter is handled, possible crops, etc) and the watermark is not a problem. But if a non-client was to get his hands on such an image, he would have a lot of work removing the watermark.


The signature, on the other hand, is used mostly by newbies to... feel better about themselves? In most cases they are placed in such a way that they can easily be removed by simple cropping. They can also be removed by someone with a few PS skills.

Now, in both cases, removal of the watermark or signature shows intent in breaking the copyright laws. It can help the pro but does very little to the average amateur who, most often, will not have the money to sue over the infringement. Not that suing is the only recourse but the signature is not absolutely necessary in order to prove ownership of the image and its copyright.

Just a couple things to think about.

You cant control the internet. Your photo may end up being posted somewhere. It would be nice to let people know where it was originated. A lot of people dont even know what exif data is. Most of the time the exif data is stripped. Yes it is true that it can be removed easily but that is not the point.

 

[Bram]

Hard to read.