Logos, Yes or no? Why? I see some Hogers use logos, Why? Does a logo distract from the image? Does a logo add copyright, etc. to an image?

lsupremo Loc: Palm Desert, CA

I see some Hogers use logos, Why? Does a logo distract from the image? Does a logo add copyright, etc. to an image?

rjaywallace Loc: Wisconsin

I don’t believe a logo or watermark necessarily detracts from the image so long as it is kept small, not ‘busy’ and discrete. Logos do not add a copyright to the image, but they can include a copyright symbol. Google “how to copyright your photographs” for detailed information.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

Personal preference
Advertising

Logos are not required for copyright but it adds a notification if you feel it's important.

G Brown Loc: Sunny Bognor Regis West Sussex UK

The most dicrete way of signing your prints is to blow them up as large as possible, find a less than obvious point and type your name in the smallest type setting in a ccomplimentary colour as the background. You know where it is but no-one else will. If shove comes to push you can show ownership' (for what that's worth)
I find logo's a distraction. But then I do not post or sell images.
have fun

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

Personally as one that designs them...I love them, but as rjw says, only if they are kept small and not busy.

rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA

lsupremo wrote:

I see some Hogers use logos, Why? Does a logo distract from the image? Does a logo add copyright, etc. to an image?

No copyright information added to a photograph when you add a Watermark. I do it to personalize my work. Strictly an ego thing, I admit.

foathog Loc: Greensboro, NC

Pretentious and distracting for me.

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

For me, it's an ego thing. But it doesn't protect the pic in any way. Just think about signed masterpiece painting with a Rembrandt signature that is actually fake. While it may be fraud if the painting is sold as genuine, but merely doing it is not illegal. Ever watch Antique Roadshow? Every now and then items are judged to be fake.

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

Branding and marketing...logos/watermarks aren't really for us fellow photographers...it's for the people who will potentially buy services from the photographer. So for those that say that it's pretentious or ego thing you're likely not making a living as a photographer. As I said earlier, the best marks are elegantly designed and simple...in fact, I often say a good design goes unnoticed, because it just works.

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

If you like to pretend you are a world-famous photographer, applying your logo to everything you do can help bolster your fantasy.

TonyBot

Cdouthitt wrote:

Branding and marketing...logos/watermarks aren't really for us fellow photographers...it's for the people who will potentially buy services from the photographer. So for those that say that it's pretentious or ego thing you're likely not making a living as a photographer. As I said earlier, the best marks are elegantly designed and simple...in fact, I often say a good design goes unnoticed, because it just works.

Logos are great advertising and marketing and the ego. When used on the web, may help lessen the chances of theft of the image, as in "good fences make good neighbors".

foathog Loc: Greensboro, NC

Oh I see. inorder to be a pro I MUST have my mark branded across the shot?? I don't remember seeing any Ansel Adams shots like that. Not to mention anyone else worth a crap.

Cdouthitt wrote:

Branding and marketing...logos/watermarks aren't really for us fellow photographers...it's for the people who will potentially buy services from the photographer. So for those that say that it's pretentious or ego thing you're likely not making a living as a photographer. As I said earlier, the best marks are elegantly designed and simple...in fact, I often say a good design goes unnoticed, because it just works.

James R. Kyle Loc: Saint Louis, Missouri (A Suburb of Ferguson)

rjaywallace wrote:

I donât believe a logo or watermark necessarily detracts from the image so long as it is kept small, not âbusyâ and discrete. Logos do not add a copyright to the image, but they can include a copyright symbol. Google âhow to copyright your photographsâ for detailed information.

===========

Yes very true.

I "watermark" ALL of the photos I post on ANY web-site. If they want a print, they can ask me for one. And NO! I do not sell any prints with the watermark on them. I do sign on the lower right corner If The Buyer Wants That.

-0-

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

foathog wrote:

Oh I see. inorder to be a pro I MUST have my mark branded across the shot?? I don't remember seeing any Ansel Adams shots like that. Not to mention anyone else worth a crap.

I never said in order to be a pro you have to do that, so you can quit putting words in my mouth. If you can’t grasp/understand basic marketing and branding ideas then no matter what I say you won’t understand.

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

James R wrote:

===========

Yes very true.

I "watermark" ALL of the photos I post on ANY web-site. If they want a print, they can ask me for one. And NO! I do not sell any prints with the watermark on them. I do sign on the lower right corner If The Buyer Wants That.

-0-

Nicely done.