Logo's

[GothPuppy]

I was wondering how many of you put your photography name or logo on your prints?

I was told today it was very unprofessional....

What do you think about this?

[private]

I do not do it - mainly b/c its just an extra step. Some do it b/c they do not want people borrowing their work by mistake, but I figure if you are gonna take the time to steal you will take the time to clone out a logo. BUT, the more I think about it, its prob NOT a bad idea b/c the more someone one sees your name, the more they will remember who you are.

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by GothPuppy

I was told today it was very unprofessional....

By who?

In some cases, watermarks are necessary. I don't make it a habit of watermarking most of my images (theyre too small on my site for any real use anyway), but my commercial work is always marked. For one, because people are paying for it and, as such, have the option to pay to NOT have the watermarks. But also because if i leave them unmarked, they could be stolen. Not that any of it is worth stealing

[candleman]

depends what you mean by prints.

1. final prints after proofs that are delivered to client
i would never pay a photographer who insisted on leaving the watermark on my final wall mounted image.
they are not paying for an advertisement of your business.. they are paying for their image.
in this case YES its crazy to put marks on the final prints

2. proofs
proofs you MUST watermark/stamp!
otherwise its just giving stuff away for free...That is professional.. protecting and valuing your work.


thats me anyway