maxwellstudios wrote:
not against those who do not.. probably they just don't want to, but can anyone share.. why not? just curious

It wrecks everything as a pure image. I just can't remember if the picture ruins the logo or if the logo ruins the picture.

Leonard Gee Photography wrote:

It wrecks everything as a pure image. I just can't remember if the picture ruins the logo or if the logo ruins the picture.

In some cases I feel it's both.

Craig Allen Studio wrote:
I mark my images with a small unobtrusive name. a few others plaster shit so it can be seen from across the room.

I started a thread last year asking something similar...
Watermarks, deal breakers or dream makers?

yeah i used to have a bigger logo, and after awhile i try to make it smaller and "fill in" an empty space in the picture.. with a careful consideration not to affect the image too much

maxwellstudios wrote:
i notice some photographers pros and amateurs both uses watermark or logo in their images.. i for one tries to put one on my images.

but i also have noticed many do not.

not against those who do not.. probably they just don't want to, but can anyone share.. why not? just curious

lol... This reminds me of when I first came on Model Mayhem. Somebody started a thread like this and some idiot with a lot of posts on MM called me and anybody else who doesn't use a watermark a "GWC" (derogatory term for a pervert and poser photographer). I thought the comment was "arrogant", and he actually got me BANNED for 3 days for saying that. Really...

It is as you say though... there are both pros and amateurs who do and do not use watermarks. It's very much a personal preference, and nothing to judge anyone on either way. It's not necessary for copyright protection. If they're your images then Intellectual Property applies, with or without a watermark. If somebody wants to steal it, they're going to simply remove the watermark. If you post images only at web-size, then they will be limited on what they can do with it.
Having a watermark does make things easier if anything ever goes down in court. If the judge sees an intentional removal or cropping of a watermark, that's pretty much an instant guilty charge there.

Just a few things to think about...  Of course many people do it just because they think it's better marketing. Perhaps.

maxwellstudios wrote:
not against those who do not.. probably they just don't want to, but can anyone share.. why not? just curious

I think it's because using a graphic signature it's recognizing that you didn't accomplish to do it (a signature) in a visual way, just with your photography.

Ned Yeung wrote:
Just a few things to think about...  Of course many people do it just because they think it's better marketing. Perhaps.

i honestly use it for this purpose.. when my images posts on the model's agency website, i thought it wouldn't hurt if my logo/watermark would be seen by potential clients..

but then again sometimes i just can't find a placement for the logo in a pic where it wouldn't ruin the whole image.. so i go ahead and do without

TRPn Pics wrote:
Signing ones artistic work has been in practice since about the end of the middle ages, so it's not a new trend. In fact, not just art has received a mark, furniture, trinkets and nearly anything you see has someones mark on it. In some cases, the lack of an artists mark vastly effects the value of the piece.

That's not true for photography.

Actually, I never saw a real photograph from a real photographer signed "on" it. Even fine art, it's always on the border or in the back.

Real comercial photographers don't sign anything... They just get published and paid.

This thing about logos in corners is mainly a amateur web thing.

And again, looking deeper, it's all about (not) having a photography identity.

You don't need a sign to recognize Demarchelier, Avedon, Newton, Nam Goldin...

Not even for Terry Richardson!

That's why they're recognized as "Photographers". Almost everybody can take really good pictures, but theirs are remarkable! And they can make it all the time, always. They're talking about "something", their work has a body. That's all signature they need.

If Terry Richardson can, I think we should at least want it.

But that's just me...

photo212grapher wrote:
Nothing is as good of a theft deterrent as a crappy image

+1
That's why I only produce trash. Take that, thieves!

The first photography I had stolen (a South American ad company), they approached me first, showed me the image they wanted, I told them the price for the image or the cost to re-shoot, and then they just went ahead and stole it (it was watermarked).

I've been doing drawings/paintings for years, and have had multiples stolen out of galleries even. That's probably the highest compliment I've ever been given.

It is different for me since I really don't care, as it is not my main source of income. The closest I get to caring about it these days:
1) too lazy to take it off of old images that I have up and republish
2) don't see a reason to put it on anything new
3) I am not interested in stock photography, so the work I put up now gets me future work - it is not about the money for that particular image

For those offering proofs to residential clients, I can see marking things so that you can get future sales out of them (the high school portrait thing and the like), but for what I do, no real point.

To each their own - as with most questions on here, "it depends" on the context and one's personal preferences - there isn't really a right/wrong universal answer for it.

photo212grapher wrote:
Once you post an image to the internet, it is only a matter of time before someone steals it. Placing a watermark or logo is like using The Club on your car steering wheel. Sure, a thief can still steal your car, but it is more trouble than the car without The Club. I consider the watermark/logo a theft deterrent. Nothing is as good of a theft deterrent as a crappy image, but on a better image, you might as well make the thieves work a little harder to steal it.

I flip flop from placing the watermark where it is impossible to crop out to along the bottom where it is easily cropped.

You don't "post" a picture on internet, you just "give" to the internet.

And you don't get "steal"... You get "embraced".

Just take a look at flickr: 4000 images were uploaded in THE LAST MINUTE.

So if you post something on internet and people not only see it, but replicate your work, no matter what they do with it, you're a winner!

People are selling pics for 70 cents on the web and calling it a "career". So if all your web activity and replications by pirates gives you just one 1000 dollar assignment in real world, they worth it.

And you can always sue the thief, in the case of a big shot using your pictures.

But most of the time people who steal pictures are just idiots who doesn't know what they're doing.

photo212grapher wrote:
Once you post an image to the internet, it is only a matter of time before someone steals it. Placing a watermark or logo is like using The Club on your car steering wheel. Sure, a thief can still steal your car, but it is more trouble than the car without The Club. I consider the watermark/logo a theft deterrent. Nothing is as good of a theft deterrent as a crappy image, but on a better image, you might as well make the thieves work a little harder to steal it.

I flip flop from placing the watermark where it is impossible to crop out to along the bottom where it is easily cropped.

If I'm afraid someone will steal my work I won't put it on the internet.  Watermarking isn't all about that.

Ken Marcus Studios wrote:
It's amazing how some peoples photographs can detract from their beautiful watermarks and prevent you from looking at their name.

LOL!

Ken Marcus Studios wrote:
It's amazing how some peoples photographs can detract from their beautiful watermarks and prevent you from looking at their name.

lol, bravo!

Thiago Lara wrote:

That's not true for photography.

Actually, I never saw a real photograph from a real photographer signed "on" it. Even fine art, it's always on the border or in the back.

Real comercial photographers don't sign anything... They just get published and paid.

This thing about logos in corners is mainly a amateur web thing.

And again, looking deeper, it's all about (not) having a photography identity.

You don't need a sign to recognize Demarchelier, Avedon, Newton, Nam Goldin...

Not even for Terry Richardson!

That's why they're recognized as "Photographers". Almost everybody can take really good pictures, but theirs are remarkable! And they can make it all the time, always. They're talking about "something", their work has a body. That's all signature they need.

If Terry Richardson can, I think we should at least want it.

But that's just me...

Yet their signature was there.

We aren't talking about commercial works and that that is published, for the most part anyway. An "amateur web thing", really? I've seen many pro's here mark their work, it's not just an amateur web thing. On that note, I've also seen pro's not watermark their work, it's a choice they make for their own reasons.

If I sell my work for commercial purposes there is no watermark, obviously. On the other hand, models on social networking sites do not always credit a photographer for whatever reason, I place my mark in a bottom corner so the viewer will know who took the shot even if I'm a nobody, which I may well be, nevertheless, whether you think it makes me look amateurish matters not to me. In fact, I highly doubt many publications give two shit's whether I mark my work for websites like MM because I doubt in the first place they are looking here to begin with. Which begs the question, when was the last time a publication saw your work here on MM and asked you to shoot something for them?

TRPn Pics wrote:
Signing ones artistic work has been in practice since about the end of the middle ages, so it's not a new trend. In fact, not just art has received a mark, furniture, trinkets and nearly anything you see has someones mark on it. In some cases, the lack of an artists mark vastly effects the value of the piece.

Thiago Lara wrote:
That's not true for photography.

Actually, I never saw a real photograph from a real photographer signed "on" it. Even fine art, it's always on the border or in the back.

Real comercial photographers don't sign anything... They just get published and paid.

This thing about logos in corners is mainly a amateur web thing.

-snip-

Portrait studios have placed watermarks on their works for years. The idea is that others will see the portraits and come to their studio for their own sitting. Watermarks/logos have been used as such for years.

It was also a means to mark the copyright, back when the (c) was required/customary. It helped the studios deter the local photoprocessor from making cheap copies of their work.

photo212grapher wrote:

Portrait studios have placed watermarks on their works for years. The idea is that others will see the portraits and come to their studio for their own sitting. Watermarks/logos have been used as such for years.

It was also a means to mark the copyright, back when the (c) was required/customary. It helped the studios deter the local photoprocessor from making cheap copies of their work.

Yep, Olan Mills comes to mind. Wonder how much they can attribute their success to their signature. Apparently, one would have us believe Olan Mills isn't professional photography, imagine that.

TRPn Pics wrote:
Yet their signature was there.

We aren't talking about commercial works and that that is published, for the most part anyway. An "amateur web thing", really? I've seen many pro's here mark their work, it's not just an amateur web thing. On that note, I've also seen pro's not watermark their work, it's a choice they make for their own reasons.

If I sell my work for commercial purposes there is no watermark, obviously. On the other hand, models on social networking sites do not always credit a photographer for whatever reason, I place my mark in a bottom corner so the viewer will know who took the shot even if I'm a nobody, which I may well be, nevertheless, whether you think it makes me look amateurish matters not to me. In fact, I highly doubt many publications give two shit's whether I mark my work for websites like MM because I doubt in the first place they are looking here to begin with. Which begs the question, when was the last time a publication saw your work here on MM and asked you to shoot something for them?

In the MM? HAHAHA! I'm real, man!

I don't think publication it's "something", anybody who's working is publishing.

You see, what "pro" means here on MM is very, very different from what's "pro" means in the real world.

In the real world, "pro" means MONEY! And you just can't put a advertising in something you got paid for.

Regarding TFP and such, I don't know, I don't have this habit. I'm here on MM just about a week. Usually I get paid by my clients and pay my partners.

I'm here more because I'm a freak, and wanted to see the freak nudes, bondage stuff and such, from real people who are socializing around it. I'm not here for work. I'm sorry.

I just like the forums and the hardcore nudes. Actually, I'm planning to do some to post here.



www.thiagolara.com

B R U N O wrote:
Just cause people are lame enough to steal photos doesn't mean I should tramp stamp my stuff.  That's how I figure it.

Awesome.

Another quote I'll probably start using.  Don't be offended if I can't remember where I got it, I'm visual, and forget names, but I like the "Tramp stamp my stuff"

Freakin' awesome way to put it!!

Scott

Thiago Lara wrote:
I'm here more because I'm a freak, and wanted to see the freak nudes, bondage stuff and such, from real people who are socializing around it. I'm not here for work. I'm sorry.

I just like the forums and the hardcore nudes. Actually, I'm planning to do some to post here.

Awesome!  Honesty!

Maybe the face of MM will be changing.  We can only hope

Scott

BodyartBabes wrote:
Awesome!  Honesty!

Maybe the face of MM will be changing.  We can only hope

Scott

HAHA! You are one of my favorites! Really!

But AGAIN, I think the point people are avoiding is:

Thiago Lara wrote:
You don't need a sign to recognize Demarchelier, Avedon, Newton, Nam Goldin...

Not even for Terry Richardson!

That's why they're recognized as "Photographers". Almost everybody can take really good pictures, but theirs are remarkable! And they can make it all the time, always. They're talking about "something", their work has a body. That's all signature they need.

If Terry Richardson can, I think we should at least want it.

Your photography should be self-sufficient! That's my point.



www.thiagolara.com

Thiago Lara wrote:

In the MM? HAHAHA! I'm real, man!

I don't think publication it's "something", anybody who's working is publishing.

You see, what "pro" means here on MM is very, very different from what's "pro" means in the real world.

In the real world, "pro" means MONEY! And you just can't put a advertising in something you got paid for.

Regarding TFP and such, I don't know, I don't have this habit. I'm here on MM just about a week. Usually I get paid by my clients and pay my partners.

I'm here more because I'm a freak, and wanted to see the freak nudes, bondage stuff and such, from real people who are socializing around it. I'm not here for work. I'm sorry.

I just like the forums and the hardcore nudes. Actually, I'm planning to do some to post here.

Real? Please..........

"You see, what "pro" means here on MM is very, very different from what's "pro" means in the real world.

In the real world, "pro" means MONEY! And you just can't put a advertising in something you got paid for"

Professional has many meanings around here. Getting paid or published is usually the main indication and or criteria of being a professional I agree. I've been both and neither at times, it's a very competitive business as we are all to aware.

Commercial Editorial stuff, sure. However, like I said after that post and another poster here made note of, some portrait studios likely have their mark as the main reason for their success. Otherwise, who would have known?

Your reasons for being here are not my interest nor do I concern myself with how you choose to run your operation.

Photography by BE wrote:
None of this applies to me.. just some thoughts:

I bought a LINCOLN Navigator, and am so proud the name is across the back bumper... everyone knows they are expensive.

My wife is gonna get a North Face parka.  She is gonna be proud to wear it.. the logo is so cool, and shows we have money to spend.

I think I will buy a Remington painting.  His signature is so neat.  Or maybe I will settle for Norman Rockwell.

Hey, I saw this  photo in a store, but I don't think I want it.  The guy who shot it put his name on it.

I need to run.  According to my Rolex watch, which  has the name across the face, it is time to go. Bu-buy.

TRPn Pics wrote:
Your reasons for being here are not my interest nor do I concern myself with how you choose to run your operation.

You asked about me.

Stop trolling and get back to the point, please. We're in public.

Anything else, you can PM me.

About portrait work, it's not different from anything I've said. Your photography work should be recognizable within all that sh*t out there.

If it's not, that's because it's more shit.

And I also see my own work this way, if you wanna know. (Cause now you didn't ask )

I'm just not comfortable with it. And I'm not trying any shortcuts to solve it.



www.thiagolara.com

Photography by BE wrote:
None of this applies to me.. just some thoughts:

I bought a LINCOLN Navigator, and am so proud the name is across the back bumper... everyone knows they are expensive.

My wife is gonna get a North Face parka.  She is gonna be proud to wear it.. the logo is so cool, and shows we have money to spend.

I think I will buy a Remington painting.  His signature is so neat.  Or maybe I will settle for Norman Rockwell.

Hey, I saw this  photo in a store, but I don't think I want it.  The guy who shot it put his name on it.

I need to run.  According to my Rolex watch, which  has the name across the face, it is time to go. Bu-buy.

Do you really think it's all the same? Paintings, clothes, cars...

???

Sorry, now I got it all!

But overall, it's good that you liked the signatures on Remington and Rockwell paintings. You would be thrilled if you get a clue about WHY they worth what they worth.



www.thiagolara.com