Chelsie Jandrakovic wrote:
ok I have only been doing makeup for about 7 months now and have not put my port together yet so please be gentle when answering this question lol. When i get my edits back from my shoots they always have the photographers watermark on them.. but is this something that should be removed before it goes into my portfolio? and if so... who by? me or the phtotgrapher? thanks in advance for any advice!!

Good question. I looked in some of the MUA ports here and it varies. Some of the images have watermarks/logos and some don't. If it's distracting or takes over the image I wouldn't want it but if it's tastefully placed and sized small enough should be okay. The samples I looked at took nothing away from the image but I imagine a MUA would not want a port full of various watermarks/logos when trying to showcase their own work. I brand web optimized images but not those for portfolio printing.

I have an addendum on my contract that the watermark/logo is not to be removed so if a MUA wanted one removed they would need to contact me.

Chelsie Jandrakovic wrote:
for the most part i have only had 1 photographer out of all the ones that i have worked with that is willing to let me have the watermark taken out. the others all want it left in. i would never take it out with out permission because i understand where they are coming from and we all want credit for our hard work. i just feel that in my portfolio it should be for me i guess not to promote someone else in the process. no disrespect of course. i wouldnt post them online without a water mark unless thats how they sent me they picture. the only ones i want without, are they ones for my printed port.

no watermarks for prints. but it may depend from photographer to photographer, I guess.

Megan Mateo wrote:
Online ports can have a watermark.  It's more protection for the photographer against copyright infringement.  Printed portfolios should not have watermarks.

Although I'm a newbie also, I agree

Rachael Sachse wrote:
I don't work with photographers who automatically put a watermark on images. I feel that in their own portfolio, it looks tacky (after all, it's a small image for web, so unless someone is claming it on another web portfolio, they can't do anything with it, and even then they'd be pretty screwed when other people working with them notice their work is not up to the same standard as the image.)
Putting their name on an image they know the MUA/Stylist/Model will be using, I feel is just trying to gain advertising for their own work on the artist's portfolio. If they need credits, I will credit them under the image, but if they want to watermark my image, I would need my credits directly put on theirs. It's only fair.

Basically, I've found that the better photographers, don't put watermarks. The lower level/newer photographers tend to. So a watermark on an image tells me a lot about the photographer.

But yes, never edit a photographers image they have given you, they will raise hell over it. Just agree at the start what you require.

I couldnt agree more!! I am very shy and dont know how to go about asking. When i have asked I have been shut down and told they will not remove them. With the exception of one. I will be more careful of who I will work with in the future that is for sure!

Rachael Sachse wrote:
I don't work with photographers who automatically put a watermark on images. I feel that in their own portfolio, it looks tacky (after all, it's a small image for web, so unless someone is claming it on another web portfolio, they can't do anything with it, and even then they'd be pretty screwed when other people working with them notice their work is not up to the same standard as the image.)
Putting their name on an image they know the MUA/Stylist/Model will be using, I feel is just trying to gain advertising for their own work on the artist's portfolio. If they need credits, I will credit them under the image, but if they want to watermark my image, I would need my credits directly put on theirs. It's only fair.

Basically, I've found that the better photographers, don't put watermarks. The lower level/newer photographers tend to. So a watermark on an image tells me a lot about the photographer.

But yes, never edit a photographers image they have given you, they will raise hell over it. Just agree at the start what you require.

This is 100% correct....  look at major agency sites and you will not see watermarks, there's a reason for that....it screams amateur and looks the photographer is working too hard to get noticed. This backfires because decision makers generally don't want a pretty picture with graffiti on it and they're going to stay away from a photographer working this hard to "get his name out there" 

Great photographers shoot for pay and the client publishes the photo in a magazine, on a box, on a website, somewhere in public WITHOUT A WATERMARK!  so what is the point of putting a water mark on it for the model or artist?   I never get shots from the photographer, I go right to the published source for all my portfolio pieces.  IF you are working with photographers that are not getting their work published and you are simply testing....get an agreement before hand that they aren't going to watermark images and if they are just move on to someone else.  If their own portfolio is full of watermarked images you can probably assume they are going to watermark your stuff.

Megan Mateo wrote:
Online ports can have a watermark.  It's more protection for the photographer against copyright infringement.  Printed portfolios should not have watermarks.

True whether you're a photographer, model, MUA, retoucher, whatever. Unless a client is paying for the usage of it on their website, most images I post on the internet have my copyright and contact info. Totally the photographer's call how they want to protect and market their work, but once they've made the decision to watermark, it must be respected by anyone using it.

M_M_MU wrote:
Watermarking images seems like an internet photographer thing. It's rare to come across an experienced pro that does so. Given that, watermarks would almost always make me move on to the next photographer.

then I don't know who you've been looking at.... DO you? try Mayhem #96411 or 197198 for starters.

but somehow I don't think the OP is talking about a hard Portfolio.

Mary wrote:
I know newer artists just building their books can't be super picky about who they work for but here are a few issues you may want to look for

1) photographers that shoot mostly T and A (not good for your book)

2) photographers that photoshop their work poorly (very few photographers are good with Photoshop, poor post work will make a shot unusable.)

3) photographers willing to use models that don't look like real models... ask yourself why they can't get better models...the answer is normally because their work isn't good enough to attract good models...thats a sign you aren't going to get anything good from them.

4) and like I mentioned earlier... The watermark issue.... If he or she feels the need to advertise in your hard copy book he or she has issues that involve ego, desperation or come combination of the two and you don't need that.

For some reason there is confusion between what is being stated  here for online vs printed.  For online watermarks are the norm.  I personally have had images stolen and used by others who presented it as their work. Therefor anything that goes on the web has my watermark.  It has nothing to do with "getting noticed" and certainly does not make one look amateur. Is Ken Marcus amateur? Check out him on MM.  It needs to be tasteful and not take over the image.

For print definitely not watermarked.  It is interesting that an MUA would (and I am not sure who made the comment so it may not be the one I quoted) state that she feels the photographer was taking credit for her work by putting their watermark on the image. That is like stating an image is all about the makeup and nothing to do with the model or photograph itself.

Models and MUA's that work with me get a cd of images (# decided beforehand) full edited and with web-sized images that have my watermark and full rez without.  They are aware of this before the shoot so there are no surprises.

Chelsie Jandrakovic wrote:
ok I have only been doing makeup for about 7 months now and have not put my port together yet so please be gentle when answering this question lol. When i get my edits back from my shoots they always have the photographers watermark on them.. but is this something that should be removed before it goes into my portfolio? and if so... who by? me or the phtotgrapher? thanks in advance for any advice!!

In the U.S. you should not remove the watermark from an image, see Watermarks Can Be Music To Your Ears. In Canada and other countries it may infringe upon the photographer's Moral Rights if you remove a watermark. You should not, in my opinion, accept images with watermarks for your non-MM online portfolio or your print portfolio.

Rachael Sachse wrote:
I don't work with photographers who automatically put a watermark on images. I feel that in their own portfolio, it looks tacky (after all, it's a small image for web, so unless someone is claming it on another web portfolio, they can't do anything with it, and even then they'd be pretty screwed when other people working with them notice their work is not up to the same standard as the image.)
Putting their name on an image they know the MUA/Stylist/Model will be using, I feel is just trying to gain advertising for their own work on the artist's portfolio. If they need credits, I will credit them under the image, but if they want to watermark my image, I would need my credits directly put on theirs. It's only fair.

Basically, I've found that the better photographers, don't put watermarks. The lower level/newer photographers tend to. So a watermark on an image tells me a lot about the photographer.

But yes, never edit a photographers image they have given you, they will raise hell over it. Just agree at the start what you require.

Mary wrote:
This is 100% correct....  look at major agency sites and you will not see watermarks, there's a reason for that....it screams amateur and looks the photographer is working too hard to get noticed. This backfires because decision makers generally don't want a pretty picture with graffiti on it and they're going to stay away from a photographer working this hard to "get his name out there" 

Great photographers shoot for pay and the client publishes the photo in a magazine, on a box, on a website, somewhere in public WITHOUT A WATERMARK!  so what is the point of putting a water mark on it for the model or artist?   I never get shots from the photographer, I go right to the published source for all my portfolio pieces.  IF you are working with photographers that are not getting their work published and you are simply testing....get an agreement before hand that they aren't going to watermark images and if they are just move on to someone else.  If their own portfolio is full of watermarked images you can probably assume they are going to watermark your stuff.

The above is the right answer. Take a look at Jed Root, do you see any photographer's watermarks? The problem with visual watermarks used to prevent image theft is that it is quite simple to remove the watermark by cropping or retouching. Instead of watermarking your images can now be searched with both Google Images and TinEye. Embedded info shows up with many photo manipulation applications and many archiving applications.

Photographers should deliver images to you consistent with UPDIG Guidelines. The photographer should provide you with a usage license consistent with what has been agreed upon prior to the shoot. You should receive copies of the model releases for all identifiable people in the image. The license and other identifying info can be included in the data fields embedded in the image using XML and PLUS. This does not show up in the image but will show up in many current image applications such as Photoshop.

If the photographer is going to watermark the image maybe the makeup artist should write their credit line on the model with an eyeliner pencil. It's only fair.

Barry  M  Robinson wrote:
If the photographer is going to watermark the image maybe the makeup artist should write their credit line on the model with an eyeliner pencil. It's only fair.

LOL, Barry, I almost spit out my coffee!

Barry  M  Robinson wrote:
Photographers should deliver images to you consistent with UPDIG Guidelines. The photographer should provide you with a usage license consistent with what has been agreed upon prior to the shoot. You should receive copies of the model releases for all identifiable people in the image. The license and other identifying info can be included in the data fields embedded in the image using XML and PLUS. This does not show up in the image but will show up in many current image applications such as Photoshop.

Barry,

With all due respect, I think the bolded part is not good advice for photographers.  If the MUA is using the images per a usage agreement from the photographer that is all they need, especially for portfolio purposes (print, MM or website). 

If you are worried about whether the models (or other identifiable subjects) have signed the necessary releases ask the photographer to indicate that in the usage agreement.  Model releases contain personally identifiable information about the model usually including their home address, date of birth, phone number and email address.  This is considered private information and not safeguarding it MAY (and I am not an expert) be a violation of various countries, provinces/states privacy laws -I am pretty certain it goes against Canadian Laws.  I am certainly not going to give out this information on a trade shoot, or where I have hired the MUA and agree to also provide some images for their portfolio.  I will only share this information with a paying client if that is a requirement of the contract AND if they have a suitable privacy policy in place for this information.

Just my $0.02

Scott

PS - I think I gave you non-watermarked/logo'd images for print purposes - if not, do let me know.

M_M_MU wrote:
Watermarking images seems like an internet photographer thing. It's rare to come across an experienced pro that does so. Given that, watermarks would almost always make me move on to the next photographer.

Rebel Photo wrote:
then I don't know who you've been looking at.... DO you? try Mayhem #96411 or 197198 for starters.

but somehow I don't think the OP is talking about a hard Portfolio.

You need to reread my post, because I certainly never said that there are ZERO experienced pros who watermark. I specifically said that it is "rare". Citing 2 examples of experienced professionals does not in any way debunk my comments or thoughts.

Phillipe is the one person that came to my mind as the "rare" exception as I was typing my thoughts, which is why I qualified it with "rare". I would happily accept a watermarked image from him, but it would be the exception, not the rule. The ironic part of it is that Phillipe has absolutely no need to watermark his images. They are almost always identifiable because he has a signature style. I think that's why it works for him where for others it doesn't.

Barry  M  Robinson wrote:

Chelsie Jandrakovic wrote:
ok I have only been doing makeup for about 7 months now and have not put my port together yet so please be gentle when answering this question lol. When i get my edits back from my shoots they always have the photographers watermark on them.. but is this something that should be removed before it goes into my portfolio? and if so... who by? me or the phtotgrapher? thanks in advance for any advice!!

In the U.S. you should not remove the watermark from an image, see Watermarks Can Be Music To Your Ears. In Canada and other countries it may infringe upon the photographer's Moral Rights if you remove a watermark. You should not, in my opinion, accept images with watermarks for your non-MM online portfolio or your print portfolio.

Rachael Sachse wrote:
I don't work with photographers who automatically put a watermark on images. I feel that in their own portfolio, it looks tacky (after all, it's a small image for web, so unless someone is claming it on another web portfolio, they can't do anything with it, and even then they'd be pretty screwed when other people working with them notice their work is not up to the same standard as the image.)
Putting their name on an image they know the MUA/Stylist/Model will be using, I feel is just trying to gain advertising for their own work on the artist's portfolio. If they need credits, I will credit them under the image, but if they want to watermark my image, I would need my credits directly put on theirs. It's only fair.

Basically, I've found that the better photographers, don't put watermarks. The lower level/newer photographers tend to. So a watermark on an image tells me a lot about the photographer.

But yes, never edit a photographers image they have given you, they will raise hell over it. Just agree at the start what you require.

The above is the right answer. Take a look at Jed Root, do you see any photographer's watermarks? The problem with visual watermarks used to prevent image theft is that it is quite simple to remove the watermark by cropping or retouching. Instead of watermarking your images can now be searched with both Google Images and TinEye. Embedded info shows up with many photo manipulation applications and many archiving applications.

Photographers should deliver images to you consistent with UPDIG Guidelines. The photographer should provide you with a usage license consistent with what has been agreed upon prior to the shoot. You should receive copies of the model releases for all identifiable people in the image. The license and other identifying info can be included in the data fields embedded in the image using XML and PLUS. This does not show up in the image but will show up in many current image applications such as Photoshop.

If the photographer is going to watermark the image maybe the makeup artist should write their credit line on the model with an eyeliner pencil. It's only fair.

In most cases there will not be a model release provided to the photographer if you are working with agency models in testing situations, which I would think is the most common way for makeup artists to get a solid portfolio assembled. In some cases where it is legally required the agency *might* give one up, but for the most part it's a handshake deal at best. The agency also does not get the usage agreement from the photographer, again it's just understood what the images are for. I don't know, personally, a seasoned photographer regularly working with agency models who documents test shoots at all, other than perhaps the copyright registration.

Unless delivered to Client by Photographer, no model or property release exists, and it is Client's responsibility to obtain the necessary permissions for usages that require any model or property releases not delivered by Photographer. It is Client's sole responsibility to determine whether any model or property releases delivered by Photographer are suitable for Client's purposes.

In this CAPIC Photographic Reproduction and License Agreement it states:

LICENSEE IS SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL MODEL'S FEES AND EXPENSES

The client would then deal with the model agency and have negotiated with them for the relevant permission.

Suppose a photographer tells the makeup artist that a signed release exists when it does not (this is what happened with Photodisc and the Simon family). Suppose that the release has been forged. It is the person or organization publishing the photo, not the photographer (except in the case of forgery or blackmail) which becomes the legal target when something goes wrong. For example Nestle was sued by the Taster's Choice model,the photographer was not sued. The client can sue the photographer if the photographer has misrepresented the existence of a release but this can complicate matters. Suppose that the model release is valid but the makeup artist can't find the photographer and has no way of proving that a release exists.

With regards to the model's information on the release the solution is simple; let the model know ahead of time that the completed release will be passed along to all parties which require a copy. This is standard practice and shouldn't cause a problem. To sell their images to stock houses photographers must pass along a signed release form.

M_M_MU wrote:
In most cases there will not be a model release provided to the photographer if you are working with agency models in testing situations, which I would think is the most common way for makeup artists to get a solid portfolio assembled. In some cases where it is legally required the agency *might* give one up, but for the most part it's a handshake deal at best. The agency also does not get the usage agreement from the photographer, again it's just understood what the images are for. I don't know, personally, a seasoned photographer regularly working with agency models who documents test shoots at all, other than perhaps the copyright registration.

This is certainly true and in this case the agreement would be implied and would be understood as a trade practice. There are other cases as well: the makeup artist works on a celebrity who is then photographed on the red carpet (think the Toronto TIFF festival going on right now) or a tear sheet from a print magazine (the magazine has published the image). In cases where a release has been obtained by the photographer, the makeup artist should receive a copy. The need for a valid model release is also dependent upon the locale.

A-M-P wrote:
Actual printed images should never have watermarks

thank you..... I can't believe people actually watermark printed images.. I think it's ego, regardless of what people say and really,  lets be real.... the photos I see watermarked on this site are so bad that taking credit for them is a big mistake in the first place.

and what happens when someone wants to actually publish one of these shots?  is the photographer going to say "no, not without my watermark?"  no, hes going to be so excited he's going to pee himself...sorry, just keeping it real

Denise wrote:

LOL, Barry, I almost spit out my coffee!

I actually did. This is exactly what I was thinking when I wrote about a MUA putting her credits on a photogs work. I love you guys.

Also to the photographer who said this wasn't good advice for photographers...
Makeup and Styling Forum. MUA asking the advice. You're right, because it's not even advice for photographers.