Signature on Photo: Can a "signature" be added - in camera - to a photo I am using a Nikon d7100 Thank you

mrtoad90 Loc: western north carolina, usa

Can a "signature" be added - in camera - to a photo

I am using a Nikon d7100

Thank you - MrToad

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Not that I know of.
Usually there is a "add text " option in editors. With mine I can pick a font, font color, position it, size it...

G Brown Loc: Sunny Bognor Regis West Sussex UK

You can add it to the exif data - but it will not show on the image. Most editors will allow you to sign onto an image. Another way is to increase the 'canvas' size (white border) and sign on there so that it does not distract from the image.

Please please practice on images you do not want to keep.....some 'signatures' to me look both clumsy and distracting....NB people can still 'unedit' your signature so it is merely advertising not a copy write.

have fun

Thomas902 Loc: Washington DC

Under the Custom Settings Menu select Copyright information;
Then Artist and use the matrix to enter your name etc,
Then Copyright and again use the matrix to enter the appropriate info.

Important Note: you must select Attach copyright information before closing this dialog

Also it is consider in very poor taste to "Watermark" your imagery...
Typically done by amateurs who don't have a clue about professional protocols...

However if for publication a.k.a. a fashion editorial then adding credits for team member (in small font discreetly) may be germane

Hope this helps or is at least food for thought mrtoad90
All the best on your journey

Resqu2 Loc: SW Va

Thomas902 wrote:

Also it is consider in very poor taste to "Watermark" your imagery...
Typically done by amateurs who don't have a clue about professional protocols...

Do you mean only in the delivered product? The professionals around here put nice fancy watermarks on the images that they share to their clients FB page which gets shared even more. It’s just cheap advertising otherwise when seeing a nice photo I’d have no clue who done it. Of course it wouldn’t be right to deliver the final product with any marks. Just my thoughts.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Thomas902 wrote:

Under the Custom Settings Menu select Copyright in... (show quote)

In the past all "studio" images (Senior portraits for example) were marked in gold with the name of the <professional> studio...
Don't tell me professionals don't do it.
Same reason plus advertising...........

Szalajj Loc: Salem, NH

mrtoad90 wrote:

Can a "signature" be added - in camera - to a photo

I am using a Nikon d7100

Thank you - MrToad

As stated earlier, you SHOULD add your personal information (Copyright) to your exif data through your camera menu.

By doing so, you protect your work from digital theft and profit by others.

If you are looking to sell your shots, I would "sign" your work.

By signing, I mean that you should either add a Watermark signature through a Post Processing program, or an actual signature on the finished photo, or as many famous photographers have done, sign the mat before the print is framed.

Do not send your work out and become anonymous because it can't be attributed to you.

How many times have you seen this happen on shows such as Antiques Roadshow, and the value of the item was limited because there wasn't any kind of identifier on the item to attribute it to the original artist?

If you are proud of your work, show your pride and sign it!

BenC3

I know numerous professional photographers who watermark images they post on social media. Why? Because many social media sites strip IPTC metadata and therefore, the only way to identify images as belonging to the photographer is with a watermark. Many stock photography operations also use watermarks. Always include creator and copyright information in the IPTC metadata. Use a watermark if you wish.

Metis407 Loc: Canada

I really dont like signatures on photos, they distract from the picture and frankly just dont look good. Put info and copyright in the meta data.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Metis407 wrote:

I really dont like signatures on photos, they distract from the picture and frankly just dont look good. Put info and copyright in the meta data.

Even that can be removed. Or changed.

dandev Loc: Enumclaw, WA

For special photos, I sign them with a silver pen - Pen-Touch by Sakura.

Szalajj Loc: Salem, NH

Metis407 wrote:

I really dont like signatures on photos, they distract from the picture and frankly just dont look good. Put info and copyright in the meta data.

Meta data is only good for DIGITAL copies of a shot.

When it comes to a hard copy of a shot, that meta data is long lost.

A photographer should always include a signature on their work.

As a consumer, you can choose to mat the print, and mask that signature.

But as a viewer, you do not have the right to dictate how a photographer chooses to display their work. Personal preferences of the viewer take a back seat to an artist's creativity, marketing, and ownership of digital property.

An "artist" has the right to maintain control over the profits from their work, and that control starts with copyrighting and signing their works.

If you are among those who choose to take other's works, download them, print them, and hang them on your walls as decorations, you have deprived those artists of their profits and a means of making a living.

DWU2 Loc: Phoenix Arizona area

Resqu2 wrote:

Do you mean only in the delivered product? The professionals around here put nice fancy watermarks on the images that they share to their clients FB page which gets shared even more. It’s just cheap advertising otherwise when seeing a nice photo I’d have no clue who done it. Of course it wouldn’t be right to deliver the final product with any marks. Just my thoughts.

That can be done in Lightroom.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Resqu2 wrote:

Do you mean only in the delivered product? The professionals around here put nice fancy watermarks on the images that they share to their clients FB page which gets shared even more. It’s just cheap advertising otherwise when seeing a nice photo I’d have no clue who done it. Of course it wouldn’t be right to deliver the final product with any marks. Just my thoughts.

I never put watermarks on an image that I deliver, I sign the mat. For FB posting, they are never posted full size - not needed for computer viewing.

sbohne

Thomas902 wrote:

Also it is consider in very poor taste to "Watermark" your imagery...
Typically done by amateurs who don't have a clue about professional protocols...

However if for publication a.k.a. a fashion editorial then adding credits for team member (in small font discreetly) may be germane

That's lousy advice. If you don't give a damn about someone stealing your images, leave them plain. While I would not watermark an image I placed here, every portrait that left my studio had the © and my last name. Anything you post on a website that a consumer will visit, watermark it. It's tough enough to get paid for your work as it is without people stealing. If Getty Images will do it, Jane and Joe Six-pack will DEFINITELY do it.

After 35 years as a pro photographer, I never heard ONE PERSON say it was "in very poor taste." Your entitled to your opinion, but take care passing them on to someone else.