First of all, this is a forum. So, folks can express their opinions and of course, there are going to be differences of opinion. Other folks, reading on, can come to their own conclusions. No one has to agree with me I do not create laws or rules for others to impose my ideas on others.

If you read my previous post you notice I am not arguing for or against watermarks. I only mentioned hand-applied signatures and noted where and how I use them.

I am a full-time professional photographer and I am simply stating what I do- other professional photographers, advanced amateurs, and rookies may do things differently. That's OK!

Would buy an image with a watermark? I don't know- I was neveroffered one! If I lie the picture is enough- I might.

Watermars are for amateurs? Perhaps? I have no idea- I am not an amateur.

As I mentioned, if you are a pro and have skin in the game, then maybe. But a pro photog is an amateur when it come to legal matters. But I am not an amateur when it comes to litigation matters....I've been deposed more times than I can remember. And dealt with a many legal matters when I worked (not an attorney, but ran a very large operation that was legal-centric. I have my name in a rather well known Calif appellate case where my decision prevailed.) I did expert wit work as well.

The entire matter really is comical when people want to "sue." Unless it is a personal damage case where an attorney will take it with the hopes of winning a settlement and taking part of the settlement (usually 40%), then suing people comes out of your pocket. As in paying an attorney $500 an hour and up. Which is why depositions often take days...its not because of some hidden discovery needs...its billable hours. Go to mediation? Mediators often get $7500 a day paid equally by the plaintiff and defendant. If you need an expert witness, to the tune of $400 an hour, you pay for that as well. People think in terms of right/wrong or winning/losing. So taking some over saturated photo and having some small company use the thing without permission? Go to court? The only winners are the lawyers and the mediator. Unless you have very deep pockets and simply want to make a point.

Skip the notion of watermarks as protection, my opinion only.

I don't even know why a signature, trademark, logo, or copyright notice digitally superimposed somewhere on a print or in a digital image is called a "watermark". An actual watermark appears on fine stationery (writing paper) and can only be seen when transilluminated. It may be a trademark of the paper manufacturer (Strathmore etc.) a corporate logo or name, or a family crest, etc. It's kind of a prestige thing.

By the way. the law society in my area has this to say- it is also published online and the linked article herein:

"Watermarks for pictures are not the objects of legal protection, because it is possible to find hundreds of thousands of “clean” images on the web and mark them with your own signs".

As far as signatures are concerned, I don't think there are any rules or strict or uniform standards imposed by galleries, etc. It is a matter of common sense and appropriateness and is up to the individual photographer and there na markets.

Fine photographic portrats or paintings are often signed by the artist or maker. I have signed a mortgage for years. If I forget to sign one, the client will usually ask that it be signed. I am no celebrity or famous photographer but this is what I do and why I have found to work. It seems appropriate on large canvas prints in formal frames, etc, and a 1-inch signature on a 30x40 image is not gonn be a distraction. No ego is involved. A craftsman/woman should haveis a trademark on his or her work- this is my philosophy! The same goes for fine art prints of any subject. There are many ways to distract from or spoil the impact of a mage. Poorly crafted mounting, framing, sigh, and proesntatn are some of the causes. A frame or matte that is not in keepg with the image, too gaudy, too modern, the wrong color, bad glazing or surface finishing, and lots more. Finishing and presentation are just as important an art as photographic craftsmanship.

On commercial work, there's seldom and credit line, signature, or "watermark" visible in the image. Legalites are agreed upon by contract and sometimes there are copyright notices on the back of prints it prints are submitted. Sometimes annual reports or certain types of corporate publications, I am given a credit line.

Photojournalistic images carry a credit line.


Prints or files submitted to competition never carry a signature or credits on the face of the image. Judging panels are usually not privy to makers' banes until the competition judging is completed.

Galleries and museums have their policies as to signatures.

If a piece is signed in pencil it is perminant. If the matte is signed, the print will become unidentified of the frame, or the matte is discarded.

Here is a very comprehensive and interesting article on "watermarking"
.
https://headendinfo.com/what-is-watermark/#:~:text=Watermarks%20are%20very%20helpful%20for%20Video

I don't even know why a signature, trademark, logo, or copyright notice digitally superimposed somewhere on a print or in a digital image is called a "watermark". An actual watermark appears on fine stationery (writing paper) and can only be seen when transilluminated. It may be a trademark of the paper manufacturer (Strathmore etc.) a corporate logo or name, or a family crest, etc. It's kind of a prestige thing.

By the way. the law society in my area has this to say- it is also published online and the linked article herein:

"Watermarks for pictures are not the objects of legal protection, because it is possible to find hundreds of thousands of “clean” images on the web and mark them with your own signs".

As far as signatures are concerned, I don't think there are any rules or strict or uniform standards imposed by galleries, etc. It is a matter of common sense and appropriateness and is up to the individual photographer and there na markets.

Fine photographic portrats or paintings are often signed by the artist or maker. I have signed a mortgage for years. If I forget to sign one, the client will usually ask that it be signed. I am no celebrity or famous photographer but this is what I do and why I have found to work. It seems appropriate on large canvas prints in formal frames, etc, and a 1-inch signature on a 30x40 image is not gonn be a distraction. No ego is involved. A craftsman/woman should haveis a trademark on his or her work- this is my philosophy! The same goes for fine art prints of any subject. There are many ways to distract from or spoil the impact of a mage. Poorly crafted mounting, framing, sigh, and proesntatn are some of the causes. A frame or matte that is not in keepg with the image, too gaudy, too modern, the wrong color, bad glazing or surface finishing, and lots more. Finishing and presentation are just as important an art as photographic craftsmanship.

On commercial work, there's seldom and credit line, signature, or "watermark" visible in the image. Legalites are agreed upon by contract and sometimes there are copyright notices on the back of prints it prints are submitted. Sometimes annual reports or certain types of corporate publications, I am given a credit line.

Photojournalistic images carry a credit line.


Prints or files submitted to competition never carry a signature or credits on the face of the image. Judging panels are usually not privy to makers' banes until the competition judging is completed.

Galleries and museums have their policies as to signatures.

If a piece is signed in pencil it is perminant. If the matte is signed, the print will become unidentified of the frame, or the matte is discarded.

Here is a very comprehensive and interesting article on "watermarking"
.
https://headendinfo.com/what-is-watermark/#:~:text=Watermarks%20are%20very%20helpful%20for%20Video

I don't even know why a signature, trademark, logo, or copyright notice digitally superimposed somewhere on a print or in a digital image is called a "watermark". An actual watermark appears on fine stationery (writing paper) and can only be seen when transilluminated. It may be a trademark of the paper manufacturer (Strathmore etc.) a corporate logo or name, or a family crest, etc. It's kind of a prestige thing.

By the way. the law society in my area has this to say- it is also published online and the linked article herein:

"Watermarks for pictures are not the objects of legal protection, because it is possible to find hundreds of thousands of “clean” images on the web and mark them with your own signs".

As far as signatures are concerned, I don't think there are any rules or strict or uniform standards imposed by galleries, etc. It is a matter of common sense and appropriateness and is up to the individual photographer and there na markets.

Fine photographic portrats or paintings are often signed by the artist or maker. I have signed a mortgage for years. If I forget to sign one, the client will usually ask that it be signed. I am no celebrity or famous photographer but this is what I do and why I have found to work. It seems appropriate on large canvas prints in formal frames, etc, and a 1-inch signature on a 30x40 image is not gonn be a distraction. No ego is involved. A craftsman/woman should haveis a trademark on his or her work- this is my philosophy! The same goes for fine art prints of any subject. There are many ways to distract from or spoil the impact of a mage. Poorly crafted mounting, framing, sigh, and proesntatn are some of the causes. A frame or matte that is not in keepg with the image, too gaudy, too modern, the wrong color, bad glazing or surface finishing, and lots more. Finishing and presentation are just as important an art as photographic craftsmanship.

On commercial work, there's seldom and credit line, signature, or "watermark" visible in the image. Legalites are agreed upon by contract and sometimes there are copyright notices on the back of prints it prints are submitted. Sometimes annual reports or certain types of corporate publications, I am given a credit line.

Photojournalistic images carry a credit line.


Prints or files submitted to competition never carry a signature or credits on the face of the image. Judging panels are usually not privy to makers' banes until the competition judging is completed.

Galleries and museums have their policies as to signatures.

If a piece is signed in pencil it is perminant. If the matte is signed, the print will become unidentified of the frame, or the matte is discarded.

Here is a very comprehensive and interesting article on "watermarking"
.
https://headendinfo.com/what-is-watermark/#:~:text=Watermarks%20are%20very%20helpful%20for%20Video

Neither does a watermark.

I know a photographer who sells "fine art" prints and blasts his high-contrast signature across the bottom of every print, like a Lifetouch studio or something. When I asked him about it he didn't even look at me as he condescendingly said "Professional photographers sign their work." When I was studying photography and (briefly) art, I was told that photographs are signed in pencil in the border, not across the image. I have seen people on Facebook and Instagram "protecting their images" by putting a garish signature in the middle of the picture.To each his own...

Very nice!

Here are a couple from my 2017 efforts--my favorite is the "earthshine" version--along with a clock presentation that, from a sales perspective, has been more popular than the images focused solely on totality, diamond rings, etc. Regarding the clock version, some customers wanted time stamps inserted at the 3, 6, 9, and 12 clock positions. I could and did accommodate those requests, but personally found that step made an already busy image distractingly busier. I did not achieve what I considered a good image of Bailey's Beads.

First of all I refer you to my several replies on a post "Preparing for the Total Eclipse" posted Nov. 26 2023. It can be found under Watched Topics.
I used an 80-200 lens during the totality but I was using a DX camera so it was a 35mm equivalent 300mm lens. That said, cropping was still necessary. If you can't get, rent or borrow a zoom with max of 300-400mm just go with the 70-200. Even with the extra cropping I don't think you will be disappointed. I recommend zoom because when the filter is on during pre and post totality it is very difficult to find the sun unless you can zoom out, locate the sun, center it and then zoom in. Get a filter of 16 to 20 stop value. I will be in Mason Texas, northwest of Austin. Lets hope for clear skies.

This is in response to the gentleman from Illinois regarding the upcoming Solar Eclipse next Spring and not wanting to spend a fortune on a Solar Filter.
Being in the same boat for the recent Annular eclipse this past October, I created my own filter for my Tamron 600mm zoom lens. I purchased a 6"x6" solar filter sheet on Amazon from Thousand Oaks Optical for about $10. In addition to the filter sheet I purchased some plexiglass from Home Depot for a few bucks and cut to the match the diameter of my lens. I then cut some 3/8" foam core into a 3" wide strip and length to match the diameter of the lens (in this case 95mm). I backed this strip up with some duct tape and sliced it width wise at 1/4" spacing. I then pressed the plexiglass edge into the foam core 1/2" from the edge to form a groove and seat the plexiglass. Once done I shaped it around my lens and taped the ends together for a snug fit, just tight enough to slip on and off without it being too loose. In the end it costs less than $20 and works great. The photo of the sun was a hand held test photo. Tripod mounted would have made it more in focus and sharper.
Unfortunately, the day of the eclipse was a washout with heavy clouds and rain so I was unable to get a once-in-a-lifetime photo. That said, I might make it to Texas for the Spring '24 eclipse.
I had some wrinkling of the film when I first built the filter because I had cut the film diameter to match the plexiglass diameter. I had to disassemble everything, cut the diameter of the film slightly smaller than the diameter of the plexiglass and reassemble the filter.

Google Nikon USA, How to Photograph a Solar Eclipse and also google an eclipse map for the location you will be using. It should provide the times and durations of the different phases, The following info is from my photographing the 2017 total eclipse. You do not need f2.8, the whole thing can be shot at 5.6 or f8. I used 2 cameras both in DX format with an 80-200 lens during totality and an18-300 for the partial shots. this means my 35mm equivalents were 300mm and 450mm. Still they both required cropping which didn't seem to effect the images. Your camera is full frame so the 400mm is probably minimum. If your lens is not a zoom I strenuously suggest renting one since with the filter in place the viewfinder is completely black unless the sun is in the frame and at 400mm it is very, very difficult to find the sun even though you think you know where you are pointing the camera. I routinely zoomed out to 50mm to find the sun and then zoom in on it. Contrary to another post the camera will autofocus with the filter on if the sun is in the frame and the focus spot is on the sun's rim. Find Thousand Oaks Optical and other solar filters at Amazon. You will only need to remove the filter once when entering totality and reattach it only once when leaving totality so forget about magnetic filters. Shutter speeds during the partial phases will be 1/50th to 1/1000th at ISO about 640 so you can hand hold or use a monopod and reserve the tripod and release for totality where the speeds will be in the 1/80 to 1/500 range at ISO 200. During totality you will want to take several exposures at different speeds to capture the different aspects of the corona. I have included three shots for illustration purposes. An orange sun, monopod, (different filters different colors, the true color of the sun is white), 18-300 @ 300mm entire frame. A partial eclipse, monopod,18-300 @ 300 cropped and one of totality, 80-200 @ 200, f8, 1/125th at ISO 200 cropped.