A Question about John Hancocks

[Moxie]

Hi Everybody!

I wasn't really sure where to post this question so I hope here is fine.

Photography for me is still a hobby albeit an obsessive hobby. As of such, I don't "sign" my pictures when I post them online. I was wondering when you (the general You) decided it was time to sign your photographs. Was it when you started making money off of them; when you moved from hobby to professional shutter bug or do you just sign the pictures you are proud of?

[Jim Bryant]

It's up to the individual photographer . Most think her think it's okay to start signing them, because it looks kind of neat. Personally, I think it's tacky, unless you sell them as fine art prints to someone who wants them signed, then by all means do so. But, for me, I haven't signed but a maybe a dozen pics in 30 plus years.

[bradzo66]

Watermarking is the process you refer to . I guess you do it to stop people using your images without consent ,although I really dont know just how effective it is , I have the program but doubt anybody is going to steal anything Ive taken and get rich off it , some people involved in wedding photography use it as advertising , as a bride may see an image be impressed and want that person to do theirs , and there are probably a host of other reasons .

[wulf]

I don't add a watermark / signature to my images. I feel that they do deface(*) photos and, since I'm not presently planning to sell my images, promote my name or feeling the need to protect my work, I don't do it.

BTW, for those not deeply steeped in American history, here's something on John Hancock.

Wulf

(*) The signature / stamp becomes an integral part of the overall image