Quote:
Originally Posted by Table 5
Ok, it's been bugging me for years and I've been quiet about it out of respect for others, but I can't take it anymore...I just have to ask.....for the love of god, why does every amateur photographer plaster a giant signature on every photo AND do it in that cheese ugly-ass scripty font?
It ruins otherwise legitimate photos. It's distracting and takes your eye away from the actual content. I say this as someone who used to work in the magazine industry as an art-director, and hired professional photographers as part of my daily routine. Not ONE person who I used has ever done that to their photos.
It's not going to catch the attention of some bigwig and make you into a star, because no professional worth their salt will compromise their photos like that. It's also not going to protect others from stealing your work, because I can easily crop your name out or photoshop it. There are ways to incorporate a copyright into your Exif data that will work better.
At the very least, if you ARE going to put a signature on your work, can you find a nice subtle, tasteful font and do it small. Please do not ruin your photos with terrible typography.
Thank you for allowing me to indulge in a rant. Carry on......
|
I try to keep mine fairly small and out of the way, however on a larger panorama it will be a bit larger. My copyright details are also in the EXIF data, however even those can be wiped out (if one really wanted too).
I've been published in books, magazines and random online content. For these photos, I'll always submit the original non watermarked photograph. As for flickr, well it's just part of my workflow process.
But yes, some watermarks are insanely huge and ugly.
If someone wants it bad enough, they'll get it.