login info join!
Forums > General Industry > Pro's and con's of having the photographers name Search   Reply
12last
Model
Stormee
Posts: 2,463
San Antonio, Texas, US


Oct 08 12 10:46 pm  Link  Quote 
Model
LizzyB
Posts: 2,168
Rochester, New York, US


well it can definitely be a con if it detracts from the image at all


the only pro i can think of really is that it may look good to a select few if they see you've worked with certain (elite?) photographers...



i really think it benefits the photographer (copyright, advertising) not the model
Oct 08 12 10:53 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Garry k
Posts: 26,409
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada


the pro for me with my avatar shot is that i don't think anyone has stolen it
Oct 08 12 10:57 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Good Egg Productions
Posts: 14,685
Orlando, Florida, US


I wouldn't suggest having it so large on there that people assume it's your name.
Oct 08 12 11:02 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Mike Kelcher
Posts: 12,619
Minneapolis, Minnesota, US


The better model agencies don't like text on the front of the images. So, for portfolio use in a major market, it'll hurt you in a print portfolio.

For on-line use, like any other use, you want to present yourself in the best way possible. So, for you, it's best if it doesn't detract the viewer's from you.  Many photographers ruin the aesthetic quality of online images by making sure nobody would want to steal them. What they end up with is junque from the model's point of view.
Oct 08 12 11:08 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
fullmetalphotographer
Posts: 2,533
Fresno, California, US


Kelly Anne-Marie wrote:
on your images, What's your opinion?

On your Avatar it is way over the top.
When I do put them on they tend to be more subtle.
In terms of the model I if it is more a TF situation I tend to not worry about it because I view it like a client I do not place copyright on those images. http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/ … p;denied=1 If the shoot is for a client then the tearsheets and images I will watermark.

http://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/090124/09/497b4b294f255_m.jpg

Oct 08 12 11:32 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Hill Country Vision
Posts: 90
Bangs, Texas, US


Mike Kelcher wrote:
Many photographers ruin the aesthetic quality of online images by making sure nobody would want to steal them. What they end up with is junque from the model's point of view.

Agree 100%, but it might be meant used to hide something undesirable.

Oct 08 12 11:44 pm  Link  Quote 
Model
TamaraBryant
Posts: 27
Lombard, Illinois, US


Depends on how big the watermark is... If it's subtle, then I think it looks nice/professional, otherwise it's distracting.
Oct 09 12 12:51 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Darren Brade
Posts: 2,714
London, England, United Kingdom


Most people never look beyond their MM profile, its amazing where your images turn up. In the past I've found my images (unmarked) lifted from model's profiles and used for other purposes, sometimes with the model's knowledge and sometimes without. In all cases it was without my permission.

I can understand why some people use big watermarks, I used to in the early days, now I use them just for marketing, people see my images on blogs and other websites and often get in touch. It's another networking tool for me.

Offline, images should never be marked, they are already easier to track.
Oct 09 12 02:39 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
natural beauties of qld
Posts: 2,079
Brisbane, Queensland, Australia


In general, I think watermarks detract from images and the larger they are, the more they detract.  Having said that, a few photographers (probably very few) manage to place large watermarks in an unobtrusive manner - Bare Pixels is one who comes to mind.

For several years, as a courtesy to models and despite the fact that one of my models advised me against the practice, I refrained from putting watermarks on my images. Then a model had one of my images published in Vogue Italia and claimed it as her own work (i.e she warranted that she was both the photographer and the copyright holder).

Since then, I always add an unobtrusive watermark.
Oct 09 12 06:08 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
natural beauties of qld
Posts: 2,079
Brisbane, Queensland, Australia


Darren Brade wrote:
Most people never look beyond their MM profile, its amazing where your images turn up. In the past I've found my images (unmarked) lifted from model's profiles and used for other purposes, sometimes with the model's knowledge and sometimes without. In all cases it was without my permission.

I can understand why some people use big watermarks, I used to in the early days, now I use them just for marketing, people see my images on blogs and other websites and often get in touch. It's another networking tool for me.

Offline, images should never be marked, they are already easier to track.

Just wondering what techniques you use to track down your images?

Oct 09 12 06:11 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Darren Brade
Posts: 2,714
London, England, United Kingdom


natural beauties of qld wrote:

Just wondering what techniques you use to track down your images?

Mainly Google Images, but I have come across them purely by accident. I've had a few clubs use images as posters which they got from the models, they turned up in my FB feed which was a surprise.

Oct 09 12 07:03 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Christopher Hartman
Posts: 53,208
Buena Park, California, US


Kelly Anne-Marie wrote:
on your images, What's your opinion?

For a printed portfolio?  LAME!!

For your own website that acts as an on-line resume?  LAME!!

Facebook and other networking sites?  It's fine, but I think a "real" photographer will allow you to promote yourself without their name stamped on your image.

Oct 09 12 07:08 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Aaron Lewis Photography
Posts: 5,076
Catskill, New York, US


Watermarks are a necessary evil. I have a couple of opinions on the subject. One is that I think everything should be watermarked, period.

Now, most images whether for print or digital viewing, should have a positively identifiable mark on it somewhere. There's is also back printing for certain print situations such as professional portfolios.

Now the other side of that is if an image is going anywhere near social networking sites it should have a HUGE watermark right across the front of it.  If you've ever had an image stolen I'm sure you'll agree.

If it's small they'll drop it off, even for print. So really, in an environment where images are likely to be reused ie stolen, it's the only answer.
Oct 09 12 07:08 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
L Bass
Posts: 891
Nacogdoches, Texas, US


The only way to keep a watermark from being edited out of a photo (in most cases) is to plaster it across the middle of the shot and I don't find that very appealing. If I wanted to generate more work than I could comfortably handle, I'd advertise by adding watermarks to photos that could possibly end up in public places. That's not my intention. I have watermarked some of my work over the years, but MM is not one of those instances.
Oct 09 12 07:41 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
M Pandolfo Photography
Posts: 12,113
Tampa, Florida, US


ON the image? Or plastered so large across the image that it BECOMES the image?
Oct 09 12 07:48 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
annie lomowitz
Posts: 257
WOODY CREEK, Colorado, US


Kelly Anne-Marie wrote:
on your images, What's your opinion?

well Kelly, the photographer's name should not be on an image you are using for you marc/ad.

the branding should relate to what is being sold.


annie.

Oct 09 12 07:50 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Keith92883
Posts: 137
Corona, California, US


I don't like it on your shot. It makes you look like an advertising billboard for this person. Put the focus back on you. Dump that crappy looking distraction. In addition,  experienced individuals with the proper software can easily remove these watermarks so it does nothing to "protect" the image.
Oct 09 12 07:51 am  Link  Quote 
Model
Libertad Green
Posts: 477
Los Angeles, California, US


Sometimes, when it's huge and "fancy", it looks like a tear sheet big_smile
Oct 09 12 08:01 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
L2Photography net
Posts: 2,474
University City, Missouri, US


Once the photo is out of the photographers hands, other don't respect the photographers work. They crop off the edge for Facebook, try to get them printed etc. I am trying to make them smaller but in a place that will be hard to cut out.
L2
Oct 09 12 08:08 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Fotografica Gregor
Posts: 3,964
Alexandria, Virginia, US


Since I very rarely shoot tradework,  the only reason I will take the time to edit images to give to models is to show appreciation for their work - and for the networking benefit.

Since so many models do not follow the appropriate conventions and post credits with their images especially on facebook, tumblr etc  I have to have at least my logo on those images in order for them being out there to do me any good.

my logo is small and unobtrusive.

If a model needs images for print I provide these without my logo

When I provide tears from magazine publications those may or may not have my information on them depending on the magazine.

The actual digital file has my trademark information and etc embedded.

Conversely I *always* credit the models I work with,  as well as everyone involved on the production team - when I submit images for publication or post them here or on my facebook or tumblr.....
Oct 09 12 08:15 am  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
Rays Fine Art
Posts: 5,629
New York, New York, US


Lizzy Borden wrote:
well it can definitely be a con if it detracts from the image at all


the only pro i can think of really is that it may look good to a select few if they see you've worked with certain (elite?) photographers...



i really think it benefits the photographer (copyright, advertising) not the model

+1

And if the watermark is over-sized and obscures the image, my feeling is that it does the photographer as much harm as the model.  Why?  Because it marks him as amateurish and egocentric--not a good image for attracting either TF or paid work from either models or commercial clients.

IMHO as always, of course.

Oct 09 12 08:27 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Darren Brade
Posts: 2,714
London, England, United Kingdom


Eeek! They water marked my image, how dare they!


http://www.vogue.it/photovogue/en/Portf … 68e9/Image

That was a joke before anyone posts, I'm pretty chuffed to have their watermark on my image.

Original:
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid= … nt_count=1
Oct 09 12 08:58 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
TLPhotosWorks
Posts: 5
Richmond, Virginia, US


Everyone has different opinions on this matter. I think after finding your images where you didn't intend for them to be helps the decision process.

I've had models post pictures, crop out my watermark and never mention me as the photographer. I think that is not good for relations. At least ask how it should be handled to come up with a solution.

As a developing photographer in the business, I want my name out there. This means watermarking as a means to promotion. I understand that models don't want the photographer's name to stand out beyond their work, but the photographer needs to market as well. I think my watermarking does not distract from the model at all. I try to make it something more in line with what you might see in a magazine.

And, since Model Mayhem allows for right clicking photos sooo easily, I don't see why anyone would not watermark their images here. Print for either party is another issue, but that all depends on the use of the photo.

Everyone knows that, in most cases, the model's picture was taken by a photographer (unless it's a self-portrait that is usually mentioned).

My take, watermark it! But, be mindful of the model's needs. At the very least, discuss it!
Oct 09 12 09:25 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Cherrystone
Posts: 35,181
Columbus, Ohio, US


Christopher Hartman wrote:

For a printed portfolio?  LAME!!

For your own website that acts as an on-line resume?  LAME!!

Facebook and other networking sites?  It's fine, but I think a "real" photographer will allow you to promote yourself without their name stamped on your image.

A real photographer might also know some of the legal fine points of marking an image that is posted online.

Anyone who stamps a hard print heading to agency use is an idiot.

Oct 09 12 09:27 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Star
Posts: 17,896
Los Angeles, California, US


Christopher Hartman wrote:
For a printed portfolio?  LAME!!

For your own website that acts as an on-line resume?  LAME!!

Facebook and other networking sites?  It's fine, but I think a "real" photographer will allow you to promote yourself without their name stamped on your image.

I'm a real photographer, and there are many times that I send out images with a small watermark on the right bottom corner. This is after many designers used images that they knew, meaning written licensing agreement, were for web usage only. These images have been used in postcards for tradeshows, etc...

With celebrities i find the images all over the internet, and send bills as I find usage violations. Eventually I will have to watermark everything I place up, I already watermark a great deal of etsy and other gallery listings.

I also watermark images sent to designers after a publication shoot. I am fine sending them images, but for them the value they were promised was the tear sheet. Anything more and it is gravy. Of all the people I work with clothing designers seem to be the ones who will abuse their licensing agreements the most. So now they get watermarked images.

Oct 09 12 09:38 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
DAN CRUIKSHANK
Posts: 1,774
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada


I put my name on images that are going to go on Facebook, MM, tumblr, etc... But would never watermark anything for print or on my personal website. Social media images get watermarked for branding purposes more than for theft prevention (because removing a watermark isn't exactly difficult). If someone likes one of my photos I want them to be able to find my name easily and hopefully that will lead them to search for more of my stuff.

Personally, I like seeing a clean, professional watermark on images. If I like something chances are I will want to see more of the photographers work... Having their name right there in front of me tells me exactly who to search for.
Oct 09 12 09:54 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
DougBPhoto
Posts: 36,923
Portland, Oregon, US


Kelly Anne-Marie wrote:
on your images, What's your opinion?

The bigger the name of the photographer, the bigger the name on the images, and I've seen some pretty big names printed on images.

On one hand, with all the image theft, I can understand wanting to protect your work, but at the same time, many people feel it destroys the look of the images.

Ultimately, it might be something for a model to consider prior to a shoot and factor that into whether you want to take the gig or not. 

If you don't like the photographer's watermark and they are pretty insistant upon it, you should probably negotiate that sort of thing BEFORE the shoot.

Oct 09 12 10:00 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Eridu
Posts: 623
Boston, Massachusetts, US


unmarked images = paid work

marked images = trade or public (see cyber) promotion

No reputable photographer will provide unmarked images on trade alone.
Oct 09 12 10:08 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Eridu
Posts: 623
Boston, Massachusetts, US


Darren Brade wrote:
Eeek! They water marked my image, how dare they!


http://www.vogue.it/photovogue/en/Portf … 68e9/Image

That was a joke before anyone posts, I'm pretty chuffed to have their watermark on my image.

Original:
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid= … nt_count=1

Those doity rats!

Oct 09 12 10:09 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Woven Thought
Posts: 328
Petersburg, Virginia, US


fullmetalphotographer wrote:
http://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/090124/09/497b4b294f255_m.jpg

This is the way I prefer them.  With the text running up the side, it does not distract from the image, in my opinion.  When I see them running like regular text, my eye is drawn to that wanting to read it.  I don't like it.

I recognize the theft aspect, but should you make your art less because of that?  I think the price is too high.

Oct 09 12 10:19 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
RKD Photographic
Posts: 3,255
Iserlohn, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany


If you 'need' unwatermarked images then buy them - it's really that simple.
Everything I give out free/TFP gets watermarked.
Oct 09 12 10:34 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
natural beauties of qld
Posts: 2,079
Brisbane, Queensland, Australia


TLPhotos wrote:
I've had models post pictures, crop out my watermark and never mention me as the photographer. I think that is not good for relations.

It is even less good for relations when the model takes the image and submits it elsewhere as her own work.

It is unfortunate that MM's policy against outing protects the models who do this.

Oct 09 12 04:20 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
natural beauties of qld
Posts: 2,079
Brisbane, Queensland, Australia


natural beauties of qld wrote:
Just wondering what techniques you use to track down your images?
Darren Brade wrote:
Mainly Google Images, but I have come across them purely by accident. I've had a few clubs use images as posters which they got from the models, they turned up in my FB feed which was a surprise.

Thanks for that advice. I checked Google images and found none of MM images (my privacy is set to exclude search engines, so I guess it is working).

However, it was an entirely different story on Photo.net.  Even images in hidden folders are being picked up by google.

Oct 09 12 04:23 pm  Link  Quote 
Makeup Artist
Lauren Reynolds Makeup
Posts: 282
London, England, United Kingdom


I think watermarks look unprofessional - especially if its in a MUA/model/stylist etc portfolio. I know I wouldn't test with someone if I was only going to get watermarked images back. Look at the images of highly successful, actively working photographers/etc - no watermarks. In the context of YOUR portfolio and your promotion, the image represents you, and having the photographer's name stamped over it looks a bit desperate on the photographer's part if you ask me - certainly distracting. Watermarks ain't gonna stop people using your images anyway.
Oct 09 12 04:57 pm  Link  Quote 
Model
Julia Francesca
Posts: 2,304
Maumee, Ohio, US


idk why, but i like them. at least, i like the ones on my port's photos. the photographers i've worked with use subtle watermarks.
Oct 09 12 05:00 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Moon Pix Photography
Posts: 3,889
Syracuse, New York, US


Kelly Anne-Marie wrote:
on your images, What's your opinion?

Pro

Oct 09 12 05:01 pm  Link  Quote 
Model
Miss AY
Posts: 8,164
Portland, Maine, US


depends on the photographer and the logo. if it's a cool logo and a really great photographer, I show it off with pride.

However some name logos/watermarks are just way too distracting and obnoxious.
Oct 09 12 05:07 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
J Welborn
Posts: 2,552
Clarksville, Tennessee, US


Mike Kelcher wrote:
The better model agencies don't like text on the front of the images. So, for portfolio use in a major market, it'll hurt you in a print portfolio.

For on-line use, like any other use, you want to present yourself in the best way possible. So, for you, it's best if it doesn't detract the viewer's from you.  Many photographers ruin the aesthetic quality of online images by making sure nobody would want to steal them. What they end up with is junque from the model's point of view.

Exactly right ---for agencies they would be rejected

Oct 09 12 05:11 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
J Welborn
Posts: 2,552
Clarksville, Tennessee, US


Libertad Green wrote:
Sometimes, when it's huge and "fancy", it looks like a tear sheet big_smile

For the photographers promotion not the models --yes

Oct 09 12 05:14 pm  Link  Quote 
12last   Search   Reply



main | browse | casting/travel | forums | shout box | help | advertising | contests | share | join the mayhem

more modelmayhem on: | | | edu

©2006-2014 ModelMayhem.com. All Rights Reserved.
MODEL MAYHEM is a registered trademark.
Toggle Worksafe Mode: Off | On
Terms | Privacy | Careers