Signature or a Watermark?

[MidnightSWolf]

For the purposes of this discussion, a signature is something I hand-sign (might be digital), whereas a watermark is a digitally typed/produced text/logo.

I've been deliberating over this for quite some time, and have been reading up, but I haven't quite gotten the answers I was looking for. I didn't use to watermark my images, but now I've gotten to the point where I think it's worth putting some measure of security in place. Plus, I've always liked the personal touch it gives when an artist signs his work.

The thing is, I can't decide between a watermark or a signature.

A signature seems more discrete, more stylised, and more personalised. I really like the idea of signing my photos. However, a few issues bug me.

1. How safe is it really, to have your signature floating around? I personally don't sign for cheques or cards. Everything's all digital these days. So how much of a threat is forgery?

2. For those of you who sell your prints, do having your signatures on it add more value to it? I know having an author sign a book adds more value to it.

3. A signature looks pretty, but it doesn't really give much information as to who you are. I read somewhere that you put your website on your photos to let people know where it's from. I don't really like that, because I feel that takes away from the photo, and URLs take up more space than just a signature. I'd still like for there to be a legible name though, so people who want to can still track me down.

Those three considerations are making me lean more towards a watermark. To me, a signature compliments a photo, while a watermark takes away from it. What do you think?

EDIT: Either one I use, I'm going to try to keep it small and low opacity.

[SwissJon]

I think you should use a stylised version of your signature.. No matter what you do, you signature is still a mark of identification, so probably best to find something that's not your normal signature.. Personally I've got really poor handwriting so I tend to just use a font that looks like handwriting.

[DanielLane]

I just had this debate with myself the other day. I finally got my logo finished and thought about putting it on some shots. Nope. signature all the way. so much better. I may have my logo printed onto the back of prints or something, but a signature is whats always going to be on the front. It just looks cleaner and more fitting

[MidnightSWolf]

DanielLane, do you use your real signature? Or do you make one up? The idea of having different signatures is actually strange to me :P I'm not sure what other's signatures look like, but my name isn't legible from mine.

[ChrisAdval]

Originally Posted by MidnightSWolf

1. How safe is it really, to have your signature floating around? I personally don't sign for cheques or cards. Everything's all digital these days. So how much of a threat is forgery?

As long as you use an alias -as many or most public figures do (or plan to be public figures)- you'll be fine. The more popular you are the more forgery, look at painted art work, very famous forgeries.

Originally Posted by MidnightSWolf

2. For those of you who sell your prints, do having your signatures on it add more value to it? I know having an author sign a book adds more value to it.

it does when you actually sign it, and not use a fake signature by using a stamp or printed onto the photo, and normally best way to do this is behind the photo to not interfere with the photo unless its a fan signing and fans bring prints for you to sign you'll normally sign those on the front as they'll frame them to show that off, or sell them on ebay.

Originally Posted by MidnightSWolf

3. A signature looks pretty, but it doesn't really give much information as to who you are. I read somewhere that you put your website on your photos to let people know where it's from. I don't really like that, because I feel that takes away from the photo, and URLs take up more space than just a signature. I'd still like for there to be a legible name though, so people who want to can still track me down.

Yea, most or all artists don't like to see or add distractions onto a piece of art, but this is how I do it. When its work for clients they pay for no watermark/signature, they get that. When its my own personal work and I put it online I put my logo on it, and my logo is designed with my .com (chrisadval.com) which isn't long at all. Would I prefer without it yes, but I'm a heavy-duty marketer so having my logo (that has my .com) would increase my exposure and bring in more visitors to my website and then bring in more potential clientele.

Right now I do plan on changing my logo to be smaller and less distracting as my current logo I have in my work on my flickr.

What I also do, when working TF (trade for) projects with other people in the model photography industry (freelance) I give them print resolution digital copies with copyright watermark, no logo for it wont be as distracting. So, when they get printed you wont get super distracted or/and turned off. In commercial posters in walmart they have the samething, photographer, model, company published by, etc. But its very tiny and the only way you can see it if you are looking for it.

[John Hendry]

Originally Posted by SwissJon

I think you should use a stylised version of your signature.. No matter what you do, you signature is still a mark of identification, so probably best to find something that's not your normal signature.. Personally I've got really poor handwriting so I tend to just use a font that looks like handwriting.

Yes got to agree signing has a bit more class

All the best