Watermarks

[Andyhoppy]

Hi Alphapeople,
Just interested to know people's views on whether or not to add a digital signature to your work or not?
I totally get it with paintings, sketches, etc.. but has digital art reached this status now that you should put your name onto it, or should this be reserved for studios only?
Personally some times I have put a signature onto items, I think it takes away from the image, maybe I have the wrong watermark??
Looking forward to the comments.

 

[Ivanturas]

I'm all for it, but only as long as it's part of the composition. Just flat out stamping your name on top of the picture just ruins it, as you well mention. Some people though, they've really worked their signatures/watermarks, to the point of them even adding to the composition. There's a lot of work to reach that point... font in case of using text, plus colors, shapes, scaling, positioning (which should depend on each photo's composition), etc.

 

[Uncle Kevriano]

I always add a sig, but out of the way of the main picture. It does protect your images to some extent, but they are all digitally watermarked in camera too. I also keep my sig small.

 

[Ziggy]

Too many of them ruin the shot.

And anyone with basic editing skills can steal the shot and get rid of most of them - though one guy pastes his right over the subject.

 

[Reciprocum]

For free handouts, client previews and online sharing I always add a sig, for paid final JPEG deliveries and TIFF prints I never add one.

Every year I do a RAW archive culling of the older than 3y catalogs. After a potential final last re-edit before deleting those large RAWs forever I re-export the very best at JPEG or TIFF full-res with no watermark and another copy at JPEG 98% 3240px short edge with sig. The 4 stars and lower all get their final export (3240px short edge resolution or lower) with sig.

 

[garuda]

Just interested to know people's views on whether or not to add a digital signature to your work or not?
.... Looking forward to the comments.

Hi Andy,
Before launching into a detailed opinion, might I ask why you're wanting to know the opinions of others regarding sigs & watermarks. I want to tailor my reply to specifically what you're looking for, what you want to learn. Are you anticipating a business startup? Thanks.

 

[Ralph]

I see not one thing wrong with them. I use the on mine but they are usually in a corner and I know if someone wants that shot its easy to take off.
But I really don't care about that. I'm proud of my work I do maybe not all the time but I will watermark them if I am posting on a page.
You mentioned about painting and not a word. But I really don't understand why its okay there and not for our work.
Are we scare to put up our hand to say yes it was me who took that..
But if you are one of these numbnuts who plaster your watermark over the important part of the shot then they need a brain.
That to me is straight out stupidity, but I am sure some will argue that this stop theft of your image.
Yes my way is for the honest thief as it can easily be removed but I don't worry about that.

So for me its yes to watermark as if painters can do it why can't we.
I will continue to do it and if people don't like it that can tell me.
I just will tell them too bad too sad that are there for good.

 

[garuda]

.... put a signature onto items, I think it takes away from the image.....

..... Just flat out stamping your name on top of the picture just ruins it,.....

.
In general terms, I totally agree w you. But for example, I email hi-def photos (60-meg sensor) to a prospective client to proof before payment is issued. And, I BOLDLY plaster a HUGE watermark diagonally across the portrait — intentionally ruining the aesthetic appeal. But the content and facial expression can be seen and the hi-def IQ edges can be discerned easily.

Without a difficult-to-remove watermark practically obliterating the portrait, how can you guarantee the client won’t keep the prints and fail to sent payment? Point being — there are some situations that make sense to a watermark in varying degrees of obscuration. Sometimes there is a rational motive that the viewer isn't aware of. So I'm personally leary of making general blanket statements.

But under normal circumstances when using my signature, if my sig watermark distracts from the impact or aesthetic appeal of the subject matter, then I have failed to create an image quality that captures and holds the viewer's attention..... my mistake in subject composition. Which may have happened often in the past, shame on me! But sometimes a larger sig is intentional (maybe for similar reasons as above).

Put in a way, better tailored for male understanding….. What if you obtained a rare 4K life-size poster of the most gorgeous model (and absent of her bikini) from Sports Illustrated, and bearing a tattoo engraved on her left ankle, far removed from the main territory. Would you be appalled by this ankle distraction and therefore burn the poster?

 

[Ivanturas]

Without a difficult-to-remove watermark practically obliterating the portrait, how can you guarantee the client won’t keep the prints and fail to sent payment?

I don't send hi def imagery to the client without payment.

 

[garuda]

I don't send hi def imagery to the client without payment.

Logical and safe policy you have, but clients are not going to pay until they see the image pose/image quality in order to determine which ones they want and how many. I can't imagine someone paying money for pics sight-unseen.

As far as sending low-def proofs, many clients are first-timers and don't yet know the IQ of my shots. So I send hi-def and watermark. If I didn't know you or your work, no way would I part with my money after seeing a low-def proof. Foolish. I don't buy soft photos.

 

[Ivanturas]

Logical and safe policy you have, but clients are not going to pay until they see the image pose/image quality in order to determine which ones they want and how many. I can't imagine someone paying money for pics sight-unseen.

As far as sending low-def proofs, many clients are first-timers and don't yet know the IQ of my shots. So I send hi-def and watermark. If I didn't know you or your work, no way would I part with my money after seeing a low-def proof. Foolish. I don't buy soft photos.

Don't know, man... my clients not only pay before having any full res... but they don't even get to see much post processing at all. You may be shocked, but I just send them a batch of auto processed, mid-low res pictures. They get to pick the ones they like the best, knowing they're just a quick preview.

Even further, as my rates are measured mostly by the time spent, I'll charge for the shoot, send them their previews, and each picture they pick has its own nominal postprocessing fee, which allow me to invest the proper time to each and every image they chose. Should they require deeper image manipulation, it's a little bit higher.

All of this, of course, is explained to them beforehand, and I've rarely had any complaints about any aspects of my work at all (and out of those few complaints, the one time it was my mistake, I managed to respond in such way that after everything was fixed, they recommended me to other people! But that's for another conversation).