Signature curiosity (Page 2): Tell them if they want unobtrusive they can buy a print of it and look at it all they want. I don't get those who comment like that. They are usually just...

duane klipping Loc: Bristow iowa

Tell them if they want unobtrusive they can buy a print of it and look at it all they want. I don't get those who comment like that. They are usually just negative personalities that have nothing good to say and bitch about anything. A watermark has nothing to do with the image but they can't seem to look past it. Maybe they have nothing of their own worth watermarking.

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

Longshadow wrote:

Possibly the contrast here. One's eye is attracted... (show quote)

Agree.

Vietnam Vet

When I look at the flower I can't get my eye off of the signature. The eye is drawn to the brightest areas of a photo, and your signature is eye catching. Lower the opacity and change the color to match the vignette.

rlaugh Loc: Michigan & Florida

Fine work, and when you are famous, people will want that signature!!

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Initially it draws my eye away from the image because of its color and brightness. Because of the negative space around it, its location is prominent and can't be ignored. What is its purpose? Is it to promote your business? If that is the case, is UHH a likely source of customers?

The other issue for me is as rmalarz points out about prints in museums and galleries: signing is on the matte. That leads me back around to the purpose for using it online, should the online "venue" be part of the consideration (photo forum or website to sell, Facebook or formal critique).

So far, you have a great variety of thoughtful input - and one curmudgeon who apparently doesn't believe that constructive, opinion-based conversation and feedback are possible.

In the end, the decision is obviously yours to make, Ken. As one of the links in my signature line says, "It's your image, do what you want to it." All the best 🤗

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

One more note
In rereading your opening, I'm interested in this statement, Ken: "It's only been recently that I started to sign them, and only those that I'm particularly proud of..."

I get that, for sure. But think from two other pov's:

1. If the work is superior, it will stand on its own.

2. Only post what you are particularly proud of

(if I did that, my thousands on UHH would drop down to about 10, so while I'm half-joking, I hope you understand what I'm saying)

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

duane klipping wrote:

Tell them if they want unobtrusive they can buy a print of it and look at it all they want. I don't get those who comment like that. They are usually just negative personalities that have nothing good to say and bitch about anything. A watermark has nothing to do with the image but they can't seem to look past it. Maybe they have nothing of their own worth watermarking.

The OP asked for opinions on watermarks, and acknowledged that people who don't like them are meaning to offer constructive criticism. I don't like them or use them myself, and not because I don't think my photos are "worth watermarking". I don't see anything wrong with expressing that opinion. However, for people who do like them, it's their work to do with whatever they want.

bleirer

Linda From Maine wrote:

Initially it draws my eye away from the image beca... (show quote)

When signing on the mat, if someone wants to change the mat, they have to throw away the signature. Signing below the image on the print in the border area gives them a choice of revealing the signature or covering it with the mat. Signing in the viewing area one is insisting that it in the viewing area, so it better be subtle.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

bleirer wrote:

When signing on the mat, if someone wants to change the mat, they have to throw away the signature. Signing below the image on the print in the border area gives them a choice of revealing the signature or covering it with the mat. Signing in the viewing area one is insisting that it in the viewing area, so it better be subtle.

I'm thinking that those paying the big bucks for signed photos maybe would keep the mat as-is, but you make a good point. I tried to find the previous discussion on signatures/watermarks as several folks who sell their work (such as Gene51) had commented. Do you remember the thread?

bleirer

Linda From Maine wrote:

I'm thinking that those paying the big bucks for signed photos maybe would keep the mat as-is, but you make a good point. I tried to find the previous discussion on signatures/watermarks as several folks who sell their work (such as Gene51) had commented. Do you remember the thread?

Google is my friend

https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-533181-1.html

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

bleirer wrote:

Google is my friend

https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-533181-1.html

LOL, I'm usually the one touting Mr. G.

Guess I was too lazy this morning. Thanks!

Bob Mevis Loc: Plymouth, Indiana

It doesn't bother me.

photophile Loc: Lakewood, Ohio, USA

Photobum wrote:

Recently, I submitted this photo, and as always I ... (show quote)

Very nicely done, and the signature does not bother me.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Photobum wrote:

Recently, I submitted this photo, and as always I ... (show quote)

Well, what is the reason for your signature? If it is an effort to make it more valuable, then you'd be better off signing it in archival ink. If it is to protect it from unauthorized use, any high school kid can remove the watermark. If it is to make it look important, then . . .

I find digital signatures distracting, and less authentic than hand-written ones. And I don't expect a photo print made using wet chemistry, the process used by many photographers to print their work, anything special, and certainly not worthy of a signature. If you have your work printed on canvas, fine art rag or linen paper, and matted/framed using archival methods, then sure, a simple signature in an almost blending fashion in the lower right corner of the image, or even better yet, in pencil in the lower margin, along with the number of the print out of total, and a title for the print is totally in order. But, unless collectors are clamoring for your work, such an effort to lend an air of legitimacy to it is hardly worth the effort.

IDguy Loc: Idaho

Photobum wrote:

Recently, I submitted this photo, and as always I ... (show quote)

The contrasting color. Also there is no need for the word photographer.

Look at how artists sign their work. Generally they very unobtrusive.