|
Forums >
Model Colloquy >
Models who don't like watermarks. Why?
Not very often, but occasionally I run across a model who doesn't want photog's watermarks. Nor do they give credit for the image when uploading it. They profess to like and use networking and appreciate exposure on the shooter's page, but won't reciprocate. If they like the image well enough to use it, what do they gain by not giving credit? It's not like they're keeping me to themselves. LOL. Edit to say this handle is my alternate handle for mostly non-MM ladies. I have a much more established handle with MM models in my port and the question above applies to them. IOW, I always give credit when there's an ID to list. Feb 15 17 02:01 pm Link There are a few reasons: 1. Some photographers put on a gigantic obnoxious watermark on their images 2. Models prefer non watermark images when they want to make a print. 3. Some modes do not know any better. They often forget to give credits to other artists. This also happens to many photographers because they don't want to share thinking she is their person property. LOL I put a very small watermark on the images that I give to models, just in case that they forget to credit me. However, I always tell models that if they want to make a print for their book, just ask me I will provide you a high resolution file ready to print. Edited: Occasionally, a few models will request that don't credit her when posting on MM. This means that the work you do sucks or they do not want other to see their work with you. This happens occasionally about nude shoot. Many models shoot nudes with a selective photographers, and they don't want every guys on MM write her to shoot nudes. LOL Feb 15 17 02:19 pm Link I never add a watermark to my work. Never saw the importance of a watermark on a low res image Feb 15 17 08:38 pm Link Personally I don't care for them, but I always credit photographers and artists who want to be credited. Like models, some photographers and artists also have day jobs and don't want their nude work getting back to their employer. If a watermark or other identification has to be used, I'm OK with a small subdued one that is in the corner and isn't bold or distracting. There's nothing worse than one which you are immediately drawn to when looking at a photo, painting, or drawing. Feb 15 17 09:29 pm Link Connor Photography wrote: I understand that, but it's not the case with me. As I say, they don't mind or even want me to credit them, but not the other way around. and for one, we are friends and have done a few TF shoots. So, I guess I'll just ask her. Feb 15 17 10:28 pm Link I sort of have the exact opposite problem. Most of the clients I've been dealing with lately WANT our company watermark on the image. It's sort of like a souvenir / status symbol. Noooo. I'm not talking about MY photography company (nobody really wants my logo on it) I'm talking about when I'm shooting for the body painting company. We used to only display our proofs with the body paint company logo on it. When people ordered the photos we wouldn't put the logo on the print. We had quite a few people ask why the logo wasn't displayed on their prints so now we print the logo on the photo by default. The owner is one of the stars of a popular reality TV show. We get clients that come in just for that reason, they like her TV show and want to experience it first hand. So they get body painted and professionally photographed and keep the picture as a souvenir to show their friends and family. Feb 15 17 10:37 pm Link I apply one because I am a designer and do marketing for a living, so I'm promoting my brand. My watermark/logo is subtle though and flows with my pieces. If a model is paying, I will remove it obviously. If it's a TF shoot, it stays on. Feb 16 17 07:43 am Link Andrew Bruce wrote: yep. makes sense. who's paying is the one in control. But TF? that's where integrity and respect should enter in...........but doesn't always. Live and learn.............rules and protocol seem too easily discarded. Feb 16 17 07:16 pm Link From an aesthetic standpoint, I think a watermark kind of clutters the image...though I have never asked that a photographer remove the watermark from the image. However, I try to be very conscientious of crediting the photographer or anyone else involved in the shoot when posting to Model Mayhem or anywhere else. i just view it as a common courtesy to credit the people who were involved in the creation of the image, no matter who's posting it. Feb 16 17 08:15 pm Link Risen Phoenix Photo wrote: qft. My web images are typically 600 pixels high - probably not going to see one of my photographs on a billboard. I still put some small text in the corner. Don't see any point to the garish monster logos which destroy the photograph, unless it's a high rez stock image. It's unlikely to bring more work your way and just looks horrific. Feb 17 17 08:30 am Link I send Cease & Desist letters whenever I find any unauthorized use of my photos. They take them down but the photos pop up somewhere else. Sometimes, it’s like sweeping sand off the beach. Those photos didn’t have my watermark and most were scanned from magazines or downloaded from client websites. What irks me the most is when they put their name or logo on my work. This is the main reason why I only upload lo-res images and/or watermark. I guess one can consider it the cost of doing business. Feb 17 17 12:11 pm Link hbutz New York wrote: I'm not sure what qft means but... I have literally hundreds of images that you can find on the internet. Just google Risen Phoenix Photo. Feb 18 17 07:10 pm Link Risen Phoenix Photo wrote: qft (quoted for truth) Feb 19 17 06:23 am Link Mina Salome wrote: Same. It's just that some models think some watermarks are ugly. But I've never asked someone to remove one because I look at people's work before I shoot with them Feb 22 17 04:47 pm Link Most people who think their watermark is great are sorely wrong, and it is in fact the worst fucking watermark anyone has ever seen... so yeah we don't really like them that much. They also show very differently in a models portfolio with 30+ images from 30+ different people all with 30+ different watermarks than they do in the photographer's portfolio where everything looks the same and consistent. Even if your watermark ISN'T terrible, it throws off the models portfolio in a way that it doesn't disrupt yours. The not crediting you is a separate issue entirely and the only reason I can think of for it is laziness, has nothing to do with real concerns about aesthetics Feb 23 17 11:09 am Link I don't think I have ever seen a watermarked photo on any model's photo (book/website/instagram) that is with a major agency. And there is a reason for that. Feb 23 17 11:43 am Link Yosh Studio wrote: That is cause they don't care about the image. Their product is the model, and they want that image to circulate as much as possible. Feb 23 17 12:36 pm Link One of the reasons I put a watermark on is because I have a weird pronunciation of my last name & misspell said last name in the credits EVEN WHEN its spelled correctly on the very image right next to the one they're crediting. *facepalm* Feb 25 17 08:35 am Link I stopped watermarking my images because I didn't like the aesthetic. It's purely my choice. If you're doing a trade type of thing, images shouldn't be watermarked. The model is paying for the photos with ther service as a model. That's the exchange as I see it. Also, I've never gotten work due to my watermark being on my images. It just never worked oiut how I planned on it. Lastly, if I put it on the net, I already know it's nearly impossible to police that. If it's on the web, it's stolen at that moment. Things I don't wnat stolen don't make it to the net or I take a picture of them and then post it to the web. My two cents. Feb 25 17 10:37 am Link Yosh Studio wrote: Yes. The reason is the photographer was paid. Feb 25 17 01:13 pm Link Laura UnBound wrote: If a model pays me for a shoot they get images without watermarks, of course. Feb 25 17 01:15 pm Link The best PR you can have is someone recommending you to their friends and business partners. Watermarks distract from your work, so I find them to be a hindrance to successful marketing. Feb 25 17 01:26 pm Link Bill Tracy Photography wrote: It doesn't matter if the photographer was paid or not. Feb 27 17 09:24 am Link I've never minded watermarks as long as they are relatively small and not placed in a way that detracts from the images strongly (like over part of my body, for example). The only time I do mind is when the watermark is either too large or too "extensive." I feel that just a logo or name is generally good. I always credit those I work with, so there is no need for a web address and phone number. I've had a few photographers return images to me that were basically business cards for them (their name, phone number, and web address). I can't really use something like that from a trade shoot. And as for the usual argument about not being about to print the images... I would never print without asking specific permission to do so and in that case I can ask for a print file, but there really aren't cases where I would do so anyway. I don't post those on social media, so they aren't necessary for me 95% of the time. Normally, if I'm asked about a print of a photo of me that I didn't shoot and my husband didn't shoot, I direct the person to the photographer or offer to find out for them depending on the situation. Mar 06 17 10:02 am Link Lets go see if we can find watermarks at modeling agencies, or in a magazine, or an art gallery. Watermarks are not necessary....if your work is good enough, people will find you through word of mouth. If it isn't good enough, then it makes no difference. Mar 06 17 11:13 am Link Not wanting watermarks and not crediting are two very different issues. I'm not a fan of watermarks. Most of the time, they look distracting and unprofessional. I wouldn't send watermarked work to my agency or print it for my book. Not crediting, however, is a different issue. I've found that most people are willing to credit if you ask them. It's annoying that you have to, but in my experience, it's usually an innocent mistake. Mar 06 17 10:04 pm Link Back in the day, photo studios often stamped their business info on the backside of a photo print. This most certainly included paid gigs. The practice is and was essential to chronicling and assigning an artist's work for archival purposes, publications featuring the artist, or any future search to compile a body of work and mount an exhibition. Things like scanners and internet theft didn't exist and the only decent quality duplication that could be made was from the negative. While it's a safe bet that the majority of artists may never merit recognition or are forever undiscovered, it's a small safety net to ensure appropriate credit, just in case, even for the artist's heirs to enjoy and not wonder if the photo is one their family member had done or was part of a collection from others used as inspiration. And if models or others think a paid fashion shoot removes the need for photographer crediting, I would love to get my hands on some Avedon, ya know, just to have.  Mar 09 17 05:12 am Link Many watermarks are ugly and gross and fuglify the image. Mar 12 17 01:11 pm Link ImageCRAFTbyAleks wrote: This ^^^ Mar 12 17 06:07 pm Link svenler wrote: QFT... Mar 12 17 06:42 pm Link I only put a watermark on when a model asked me to do so. I think watermarks don't help with creating a great look. It really doesn't matter if a model credits you if commercial is your game, unless she is some agency over-booked model or unless she is connected to people who might hire you for commercial jobs I don't look to model portfolios for a living. The work I pick up is from people I have met and know. Ideally You credit the model and crew. The most important thing out of a TF shoot is to give the models and crew copies of the images that are great. Its the deal. Mar 12 17 07:28 pm Link East West wrote: everyone has an opinion on the subject and type of situation when they are used, but after finding images floating around with others taking credit years ago, I began choosing to incorporate the "logo" into all my images. It's something I've embraced and made it a brand of sorts. If others have a problem with it, so be it not my concern. Your photography/art/images are also a brand/product, people everywhere are not only paying for style in millions of products but are also paying for a "name" / logo and are in most cases identified/"signed", why shouldn't your work be..........................W. Mar 14 17 01:24 am Link I never quite understood the "commercial" argument on a website full of hobbiests. If you're not an agency model or a commercial photographer does it really matter? There is no right answer. Mar 15 17 02:08 am Link I'm both a photographer and a model and I dislike watermarks and have never used them myself. However I make sure to always credit photographers for their pictures of me, because I don't like when people don't credit me. I feel as though watermarks detract from the overall feeling and composition of the photo, sort of making it less immersive. They're usually the first thing I notice about a photo (even if they're "tasteful") and that bothers me. Jun 08 17 11:13 pm Link Don't use watermarks never will. It's a bit crazy thinking someone is going to steal or print your low res image. Jun 09 17 04:45 am Link You will avoid most problems when you and the model agree in writing about all the terms of the shoot, including watermarks on edited images. I show the models samples of my watermark. I use them because credit is important, it reduces unauthorized image use, and its consistent with most magazine and consumer brands. If a model won't agree to the terms that make a test shoot worth it for me, I move on to other talent. Jun 09 17 06:09 pm Link svenler wrote: It's my opinion that the best PR you can have is a style so unique and refined that people learn and know who you are based on the image, making the watermark unnecessary. There's only a small handful of photographers that I can think of who fall into this category. Jun 09 17 07:40 pm Link I never use watermarks. And neither do top end photographers. If someone wants to use my work and risk copyright, go ahead, thats easy legal money and I love easy money lol. But watermarks take away from the image, especially cheesy bad watermarks. Upload small web sized images if you're that concerned. Only time i'll watermark something is if I send a proof sheet or gallery for selections. Jun 12 17 04:52 pm Link I would say models don't like watermarks for prints mostly, Especially big ones that get in the way of the image as far as not crediting photographers that's really not cool and probably just coming from someone who doesn't know any better. If they do know better than thats just not professional Jun 12 17 07:33 pm Link I never minded watermarks - for the most part. However, I have had people send me images that had watermarks literally over my face or body. One guy put this weird semi-transparent watermark thing around my head in each of the images he sent me, so it basically just ruined the images. After doing some poking around online, I saw that he'd done this with several other models' images as well, but they had used them anyway, even with partially obscured faces. I politely asked why he chose that placement for the watermarks, and he said that he didn't want models editing his images or selling them. Obviously, that is a valid concern, but also I signed an agreement already saying that I would not alter or sell them. And, if his motivation was to market himself well, smashing a watermark over the head of the subject, obscuring the main focus, seemed counterproductive. Also, the photos from his own port did not have the obtrusive markings (they were in the corner), so having the marks there didn't deter theft. They could steal them from his own pages and crop out the watermarks. Ultimately, he did end up moving the watermarks for me, to another location in the photos, because he said I had "a good reputation." I just found that whole experience to be very odd. Jun 15 17 09:47 am Link |
