New Watermark c+c

[bennielou]

Agreed. I think the siggy should be something that a person could actually Google. That's kinda the point of it. If a person doesn't like the photo, they certainly won't spend time researching the siggy. But if they like a photo, and want to buy it, or hire you to take photos, it doesn't make much sense to use one that can't be found.

 

[JohnHendry]

Got to agree that isn't searchable still it looks good to me and if your happy with it great

All the best

 

[GooniesNeverSayDie11]

This is the interesting thing I have seen over the years here. There is this desire to be "recognized" and "get thier name out there", by people who are still learning photography. This is the romantic side of being an artist and playing into being famous, or well known. The idea it seems, starts with logos and branding as being all important, rather than developing work that is head and shoulders above the average person with a camera. It is more about branding, than developing a style, a view, or work that is memorable.

I think you hit it spot on in terms of the romantic side of things, but what is wrong with that? I mean if you really want to dig deep, are you ever NOT learning photography? Even people like Joe McNally learn things constantly, especially in this ever changing digital age. So ( just as in the amatuer or professional arguments ) at what point are you able to take pride and credit for your work? There is ALWAYS someone better than you, so are you to just be a coward your whole life and wait for that magical day that may never come? Sure you may make things harder on yourself in the long run, but again, what does it matter? If you end up with stellar work, noone gives a sh!t how much you used to suck. Those crap shots fade into oblivion and your great work outshines it. Go listen to an old Demo from pretty much any top level musician and you will see how crappy and unrefined they sounded. That didn't stop them from making a demo. It also certainly does not sway anyone to dislike them now.

First of all, I love your name. Secondly, I think I'm madly in love with you.

Thanks, I gotta pay homage to such a cinematic masterpiece. Secondly, I get that alot..................and by alot, I mean pretty much never.

 

[dakkon76]

This is the interesting thing I have seen over the years here. There is this desire to be "recognized" and "get thier name out there", by people who are still learning photography. This is the romantic side of being an artist and playing into being famous, or well known. The idea it seems, starts with logos and branding as being all important, rather than developing work that is head and shoulders above the average person with a camera. It is more about branding, than developing a style, a view, or work that is memorable.

I think you hit it spot on in terms of the romantic side of things, but what is wrong with that? I mean if you really want to dig deep, are you ever NOT learning photography? Even people like Joe McNally learn things constantly, especially in this ever changing digital age. So ( just as in the amatuer or professional arguments ) at what point are you able to take pride and credit for your work? There is ALWAYS someone better than you, so are you to just be a coward your whole life and wait for that magical day that may never come? Sure you may make things harder on yourself in the long run, but again, what does it matter? If you end up with stellar work, noone gives a sh!t how much you used to suck. Those crap shots fade into oblivion and your great work outshines it. Go listen to an old Demo from pretty much any top level musician and you will see how crappy and unrefined they sounded. That didn't stop them from making a demo. It also certainly does not sway anyone to dislike them now.

I can agree with you. Totally. I don't have an issue with putting your name in the bottom corner of everything you do. I am speaking to meaningless logos, such as his, that isn't searchable. Logos are for brand recognition. That's what I have seen here again and again, laboring over a logo, when that energy can be put towards becoming fantastic!

... So now it's not pretentious?

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

Hey Bitter, you know I love ya right? But I will disagree with you here. My MOST stolen photo is one I took in the first year of photography. (It was a close up of a pretty bride with big eyes). I put it on a few photography forums, and then BAM, it's all over the place on other people's portfolios. (The folks on another forum keep finding them, and we shut down the sites, but as soon as one goes down, another pops up with the same blasted photo). At this point I just don't care anymore, but I learned my lesson. I also learned that I have to metadata my work to hell and back.

However, I agree with you on one point. If I were just taking random photos for crit, because I wasn't sure I was in love with them, or wanted feedback to do better, I probably wouldn't siggy them. I mean I do now, but when I was first starting out, I probably wouldn't have.

Of course I know you love me. The great thing is, some people can disagree on things and still have a positive relationship.

This thought is a slight tangent, and I am sure you have seen it before. If you don't want your work stolen and used without permission, don't put it online, watermark, signature or not. Period. I too have images that are being used in website banners, blog articles, etc, that I did not give permission to use. Fortunately, most of what I have found, I am given credit, and a link back. But for every 1 that does credit and linkback, how many don't? I don't put a signature or watermark on my images. I don't like them. If I did anything it would be my name in the bottom corner. But going into this knowing full well, that anything I put online can be used, or "stolen", I am resigned to not care. I made the choice to put it out there. I also know that having my name on my 3 most used images of Koi, will not "get my name out there" or get me "recognized".

Yes I still find logos on beginner work pretentious.

 

[Gaerek]

Something else to consider. Is your purpose to get your name (or brand, as you will) recognition? If that's the case, why not look at what some of the top pros do for signatures. These are the first 5 photographers I thought of, so I wasn't choosing them based on their signature/watermark at all.

Scott Bourne's Recent Alaska Trip and Photofocus.com (Scott Bourne, and other's blog) - No signature/watermark

Scott Kelby's Online Portfolio - No signature/watermark

Rick Sammon's Online Portfolio - No signature/watermark

Joe McNally's Photo Gallery - No signature/watermark

Matthew Jordon Smith's Website - No signature/watermark

Nearly all of the photos listed in the above galleries are easily right-clickable and savable. It could be argued that they have no need for a signature, as it were, however, do you think a signature is what got them to where they are today? No, it's from hard work, and amazing photographs. I suppose this is to reiterate what Bitter had mentioned about spending less time worrying about a logo and more time shooting. This is a list of people that could potentially benefit from having a "brand" yet they choose not to. Anyway, just something to think about.

 

[Robin Usagani]

My main reason for having a signature is to advertise. If someone steals my photo and use it on their portfolio, it DOES NOT damage my business. I will still do something about it and contact the a$$hole. Probably make fun of the photographer on my facebook.

 

[bennielou]

Hey Bitter, you know I love ya right? But I will disagree with you here. My MOST stolen photo is one I took in the first year of photography. (It was a close up of a pretty bride with big eyes). I put it on a few photography forums, and then BAM, it's all over the place on other people's portfolios. (The folks on another forum keep finding them, and we shut down the sites, but as soon as one goes down, another pops up with the same blasted photo). At this point I just don't care anymore, but I learned my lesson. I also learned that I have to metadata my work to hell and back.

However, I agree with you on one point. If I were just taking random photos for crit, because I wasn't sure I was in love with them, or wanted feedback to do better, I probably wouldn't siggy them. I mean I do now, but when I was first starting out, I probably wouldn't have.

Of course I know you love me. The great thing is, some people can disagree on things and still have a positive relationship.

This thought is a slight tangent, and I am sure you have seen it before. If you don't want your work stolen and used without permission, don't put it online, watermark, signature or not. Period. I too have images that are being used in website banners, blog articles, etc, that I did not give permission to use. Fortunately, most of what I have found, I am given credit, and a link back. But for every 1 that does credit and linkback, how many don't? I don't put a signature or watermark on my images. I don't like them. If I did anything it would be my name in the bottom corner. But going into this knowing full well, that anything I put online can be used, or "stolen", I am resigned to not care. I made the choice to put it out there. I also know that having my name on my 3 most used images of Koi, will not "get my name out there" or get me "recognized".

Yes I still find logos on beginner work pretentious.

Glad we can agree to disagree.

As for putting stuff online.....it makes me money. Simple as that.

It peeves me to get ripped off by some random idiot in London, or Serbia, or wherever, but I kinda chuckle knowing he/she is selling MY work, and will probably totally screw up whatever jobs he/she might sell, and they will soon be out of business. I mean if you have to resort to stealing photos, you probably suck. Anyhoo that is off track.

I still think it's a good idea to promote your biz with siggies. But I also agree that it's a bad idea if you are just slapping a logo up there just because.

 

[bennielou]

Something else to consider. Is your purpose to get your name (or brand, as you will) recognition? If that's the case, why not look at what some of the top pros do for signatures. These are the first 5 photographers I thought of, so I wasn't choosing them based on their signature/watermark at all.

Scott Bourne's Recent Alaska Trip and Photofocus.com (Scott Bourne, and other's blog) - No signature/watermark

Scott Kelby's Online Portfolio - No signature/watermark

Rick Sammon's Online Portfolio - No signature/watermark

Joe McNally's Photo Gallery - No signature/watermark

Matthew Jordon Smith's Website - No signature/watermark

Nearly all of the photos listed in the above galleries are easily right-clickable and savable. It could be argued that they have no need for a signature, as it were, however, do you think a signature is what got them to where they are today? No, it's from hard work, and amazing photographs. I suppose this is to reiterate what Bitter had mentioned about spending less time worrying about a logo and more time shooting. This is a list of people that could potentially benefit from having a "brand" yet they choose not to. Anyway, just something to think about.

You are missing the point. Yes, we all know how easy photos are to rip off. Anyone in business for a few years has experienced it. The point is, IMO at least, is that siggys can help sell you deals. It's done so for me.

I can also give you a VERY long list of successful photogs who DO brand their images.

 

[bennielou]

My main reason for having a signature is to advertise. If someone steals my photo and use it on their portfolio, it DOES NOT damage my business. I will still do something about it and contact the a$$hole. Probably make fun of the photographer on my facebook.

Same here, although it's happened so often that I now just chuckle about my imagination of watching them crash and burn. I siggy for clients. I know that they are easy to remove. My metadata is also easy to find.

Bonus!

It used to bother me ALOT, but I'm over it. Kharma is a *****.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

I still think it's a good idea to promote your biz with siggies. But I also agree that it's a bad idea if you are just slapping a logo up there just because.

Keyword.

 

[GooniesNeverSayDie11]

Something else to consider. Is your purpose to get your name (or brand, as you will) recognition? If that's the case, why not look at what some of the top pros do for signatures. These are the first 5 photographers I thought of, so I wasn't choosing them based on their signature/watermark at all.

Scott Bourne's Recent Alaska Trip and Photofocus.com (Scott Bourne, and other's blog) - No signature/watermark

Scott Kelby's Online Portfolio - No signature/watermark

Rick Sammon's Online Portfolio - No signature/watermark

Joe McNally's Photo Gallery - No signature/watermark

Matthew Jordon Smith's Website - No signature/watermark

Nearly all of the photos listed in the above galleries are easily right-clickable and savable. It could be argued that they have no need for a signature, as it were, however, do you think a signature is what got them to where they are today? No, it's from hard work, and amazing photographs. I suppose this is to reiterate what Bitter had mentioned about spending less time worrying about a logo and more time shooting. This is a list of people that could potentially benefit from having a "brand" yet they choose not to. Anyway, just something to think about.

I am not going to debate anymore on the whole logo/signature or not thing overall, since I think we have all raised valid arguments for the most part or atleast understandable points of view, however, I will point out flaws in your example. These are successful mainstream photographers. There are several reasons they do not need to watermark their images:

1)credibility as well as resources should their copyrights be infringed upon.

2)making more than a comfy living, not really worried about some Joe Schmoe posting their pics to their facebook or flickr since it really has little if any impact on the money they are raking in.

3) ( and the main one that works against the whole no logo or signature argument ) Their names are well known already. They got that way by branding. Their names are plastered all over everything they do. Scott Kelby doesn't put out books and videos that say "By some unpretentious photoshop guru" And McNally isn't "some random dude that likes playing with flashy things". They have spent their careers branding themselves in many ways. Now they have no reason to work towards that, they can sit back and enjoy the fruits of their labor with enough credibility and recognition to easily crush anyone who tries to violate their copyrights. ( although my main point is about recognition, not copyright protection )

 

[KmH]

What makes a good logo?

What makes a good logo? | David Airey, graphic designer

 

[bennielou]

Holy crap, that was funny.....again, I adore you.

 

[Gaerek]

Something else to consider. Is your purpose to get your name (or brand, as you will) recognition? If that's the case, why not look at what some of the top pros do for signatures. These are the first 5 photographers I thought of, so I wasn't choosing them based on their signature/watermark at all.

Scott Bourne's Recent Alaska Trip and Photofocus.com (Scott Bourne, and other's blog) - No signature/watermark

Scott Kelby's Online Portfolio - No signature/watermark

Rick Sammon's Online Portfolio - No signature/watermark

Joe McNally's Photo Gallery - No signature/watermark

Matthew Jordon Smith's Website - No signature/watermark

Nearly all of the photos listed in the above galleries are easily right-clickable and savable. It could be argued that they have no need for a signature, as it were, however, do you think a signature is what got them to where they are today? No, it's from hard work, and amazing photographs. I suppose this is to reiterate what Bitter had mentioned about spending less time worrying about a logo and more time shooting. This is a list of people that could potentially benefit from having a "brand" yet they choose not to. Anyway, just something to think about.

I am not going to debate anymore on the whole logo/signature or not thing overall, since I think we have all raised valid arguments for the most part or atleast understandable points of view, however, I will point out flaws in your example. These are successful mainstream photographers. There are several reasons they do not need to watermark their images:

1)credibility as well as resources should their copyrights be infringed upon.

2)making more than a comfy living, not really worried about some Joe Schmoe posting their pics to their facebook or flickr since it really has little if any impact on the money they are raking in.

3) ( and the main one that works against the whole no logo or signature argument ) Their names are well known already. They got that way by branding. Their names are plastered all over everything they do. Scott Kelby doesn't put out books and videos that say "By some unpretentious photoshop guru" And McNally isn't "some random dude that likes playing with flashy things". They have spent their careers branding themselves in many ways. Now they have no reason to work towards that, they can sit back and enjoy the fruits of their labor with enough credibility and recognition to easily crush anyone who tries to violate their copyrights. ( although my main point is about recognition, not copyright protection )

Just to respond to your points:

1) These photographer have more to lose over having their copyrights infringed upon than you, me, the OP, or whomever. My main point was in my first post, however, that a logo distracts from the image. A logo (as has been shown) is cake to remove. A logo (or sig, for that matter) isn't there to keep someone from stealing something. It's to promote the photographer. If I see a random photo posted somewhere, I don't know if it was shot by GooniesNeverSayDie11 or Scott Bourne, without a sig of somekind. But for some reason, Scott Bourne chooses not to add "promotion" to his photos. Why is that? It has NOTHING to do with copyright infringment.

2) If you think these people don't care if someone posts their pics where they don't belong, you're kidding yourself. Granted, it's impossible to go after everyone, but Scott Bourne, for example, has stated he's almost always in a perpetual state of taking legal action against someone. Joe Shmoe posting a Scott Bourne on his Facebook? Probably doesn't care. Joe the Plumber using a Scott Bourne to promote his plumbing business? You better believe he'll be contacted at some point by Bourne's lawyers. However, this point is moot anyway, because sigs/logos have nothing to do with infringment anyway.

3) And did a signature help them get known? I'm going to guess it has more to do with their photos. I understand, most of these guys are authors, speakers, whatever. But in the end, to them, all that matters is their final image. A big ugly graphic in the corner of a frame looks tacky and distracts from the photo. They know this. THIS is why they don't do it. THIS is why I don't do it. THIS is why anyone not concerned with selling a photo shouldn't do it. And if you are trying to sell photos...be tasteful with it. Use something that can get someone back to your portfolio. A random, ugly logo can't do that.

You are missing the point. Yes, we all know how easy photos are to rip off. Anyone in business for a few years has experienced it. The point is, IMO at least, is that siggys can help sell you deals. It's done so for me.

I can also give you a VERY long list of successful photogs who DO brand their images.

Should have been more clear. Check out my first post in this thread for my point. My point is that a logo distracts from the image, and this is the reason these pros don't use them. They have money/lawyers/registered copyrights to protect them. They don't need an easy to remove signature. But if your argument was correct, and that a sig can help drum up business, how come these pros don't do it? They're not stupid. They know their stuff gets linked all over (with and without credit). If a logo can help them sell more photos (or books, or whatever they're trying to sell) how come they don't "brand" their photos? Bottom line is that they're ugly, tacky, and take away from the photo they meant to make.