Metis407 Loc: Canada

I am new to this group, but have been following for a while. Some very interesting and useful subjects.
Anyway a pet pieve of mine is signatures on photos which I seem to be seeing more and more.
Personally I really don’t like them as they are very stylized and tend to draw the eye away from the main focus. They wont protect from copywright abuse. So what is the concensus?? Thanks for your comments...

tomad Loc: North Carolina

I started doing it after someone ripped off one of my photos and posted it as their own (on another site). I know if they have any PP skills they can easily remove it but it may discourage the casual image thief. I also think if they have the skills to remove it then they are somewhat of a serious photographer and I doubt if that is the type that usually takes credit for someone else's photo. I make mine 50% (or more) transparent so that it does not wreck the photo.

Example:

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

I put mine on the border of the photo.
--Bob

RRS Loc: Not sure

I now put my name on everything after I got a Christmas card from a client that had them printed, not me. After confronting the printer with a copy of the copy right laws it has not happened again as far as I know. I go to the lab that does my printing (local) and sign every canvas and art paper print that goes out, yes my lab of over 30 years even ships for me.

duane klipping Loc: Bristow iowa

I assume you are meaning a watermark and not a signature. A watermark identifies the image as yours on the Internet and is good for getting your name out there. It doesn't prevent all theft but why make it easy for theft. If they have to work at it they may move on. I do it mainly to get my name some exposure and who to search for in case they like it and want to see more of my work.

An actual signature would be you physically signing a print or mat for display purposes which can add value to a piece if you become known and liked by collectors.

As stated before a watermark is an advertisement and offers some protection much like most television broadcasting has a watermark in the bottom corner for the same reason. If the image is good the watermark will be ignored and understood.

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

If you are a professional photographer or aspire to become a professional it is a good way to let people know who you are.
I don't do it myself, but it doesn't bother me.

wj cody Loc: springfield illinois

the industry standard is an impressed signature on the bottom right hand corner of the mat, to which the photograph is attached. anything else pretty much denotes amateur.

jpwa Loc: Inland NorthWest

That's bunk

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

Being a graphic designer by trade, and as one that has designed several logos/signatures for people on this site...a good design goes a long way.

Photographer Jim Loc: Rio Vista, CA

Well, I give you an example. When I was first getting started, I asked a gallery owner if I should digitally sign my prints. His reply was, “We sell art here, not posters”. Point is, if you are selling your work, a hand signed signature in the margin, or on the mat, are acceptable. All else is not. (Exceptions being prints on canvas or metal where the signature may be placed in the corner of the image).

A watermark signature on a digitally presented image is ok, but not on a physical print.

RRS Loc: Not sure

Says who? There is no mat with a canvas and the print is signed, not a mat. Some of the artist that I buy from sign on the art work twice and if a numbered print the numbers are also on the print. Just like composition, a lot depends on what is on the print as to where it is signed

Photographer Jim Loc: Rio Vista, CA

Signing the mat (lower right) and/or indicating the number of a limited edition (lower left) is very much the standard for selling photos at art festivals or galleries. Most will ALSO sign and number the print in the margin where it will be covered by the mat, or on the back of the image, should the owner wish to have the piece reframed sometime in the future. Signing on the image itself is a sure way to be viewed as a newbie or amateur in those venues.

Yes, canvas and metal prints are the exceptions.

RRS Loc: Not sure

I hear what you are saying but I have been dealing directly with the artist and what I have been buying is not cheap. He signs on the print and at first it was the first thing that I saw but over time that has changed. He does not go through an agent but represents himself and has for years. What I have been buying is American Indian Art and yes he is an Indian artist. If you sell through a gallery then you do whatever they require and I know that there standards.

frankie c Loc: Lake Havasu CIty, AZ

I spent thousands of dollars on equipment, courses, software, hardware and hours of study. I put a lot of effort and take a lot of pride in my work. Anyone who wants to steel my work and knows a little about photo shop, certainly can just get rid of my water mark and if they choose put theirs on it. I do wonder what kind of sorry, sad, indolent and capricious individual would do such a thing, but there out there and you prolly can't stop them. Anyways, I sign my work. Good or bad it's mine. My momma taught me to be proud of my accomplishments if I did my best. So I sign my work with pride. It's funny that when I was paying for that equipment and those courses and that software, Nobody had a pet pieve about me signing the check (go figure). I do understand what you are saying. When I was a young man and studying images of center folds, my eyes always were drawn to the photographers signature at the bottom, totally distracting me from the subject. So I think maybe not looking at the photo and being just totally pieve'd about that stupid signature is like throwing out the baby with the bath water. Hey JUST SAYIN. Have a good a day.

RRS Loc: Not sure

Very well said and finally some good news to start my day. Thank You, are you sure that we are not brothers, your momma and mine sound so much alike, naw it couldn't be. Cheers