just venting. photography branding anyone?

I never sell a print with my name on it, proofs and web images yes, but purchased images never.

I hand sign any print 16x20 or larger in gold foil. It doesn't contain a logo or any other watermarking, just my signature and the year and it is small and unobtrusive. Like most others I do put info on the back of the print or frame if it is framed. I have never had anyone complain about the signature and I would never consider putting a computer generated item on the front of the print.

To each their own and there are many doing it in different fashions but I do agree with the lady in the OP that says she shouldn't be advertising the photographers service.

Its an old thread, but an interesting one.

ssim wrote in post #12297630
I hand sign any print 16x20 or larger in gold foil. It doesn't contain a logo or any other watermarking, just my signature and the year and it is small and unobtrusive. Like most others I do put info on the back of the print or frame if it is framed. I have never had anyone complain about the signature and I would never consider putting a computer generated item on the front of the print.

To each their own and there are many doing it in different fashions but I do agree with the lady in the OP that says she shouldn't be advertising the photographers service.

Ssim, how do you do the gold foil signature?

I have my business name on wallets, but I tell my customers its there and will remove it if they ask. I figure wallets are a great way to advertise. And on my deluxe double sided wallets *rep cards* I have my contact info on the back.

I have thought about putting my name on the bigger prints but still not sure about it. At a point it becomes a bragging right, like buying a bmw, part of the reason you buy it is the brand/logo. Its a great gimmick for apple.

I agree with most other posts....if the photo was purchased, remove the branding. If your prices were too low (as you mentioned), that's your fault and shouldn't concern the buyer......find a better pricing scheme.

All my prints are sold with a small, unobtrusive, computer generated signature in 70% opaque gold (OK yellow) in the bottom corner. I have only ever had one complaint...(also from a friend incidentally) and I agreed to delete it, but she did ask nicely and before I printed it otherwise it would have stayed.

I provide 2 types of photos, for Display and for Digital use. If the photos is a Print or will turned into a print then there is no watermark. If the image is for someones facebook page or other website then there is a watermark.

Generally the client get both. If they want to put it on their website or facebook page they generally use the one I provided that is formatted and sized for facebook with the watermark.

Putting your watermark on a print seems rather tacky, except if the image is being displayed in a commercial location for the sole purpose of advertising.

illrooster132 wrote in post #12295934
hummm. interesting so far the ones i've seen have the photographers name on'em.
so i should star selling my prints without my name ?
how does everyone lese do it?

Might this be the difference of being online vs in print? Online and proofs, yes logos are good, as it deters people from stealing the images off of flickr, facebook, forums, etc. On proofs it's good to keep them from being used in place of purchasing the images, you can also add the word Proof to the watermark so people know it's not the final image (particularly important if it's a low res digital proof) and your work actually comes with more polished retouching and higher resolution.

On final display, putting the photographer's name on the image is unprofessional. I'd like to think that I'm good enough that if someone were to buy my print they could hang it up in their house and it would stand out, and be good enough people are asking who took it; and that working with me makes them eager to offer me up and give me a good reference at the same time. The customer also doesn't pay for your advertising. It's the same as the used car dealership slapping a sticker on your car to make you a billboard for them after make a purchase from them (I don't even look at dealers that do that, and I've removed the advertising license plate brackets in the dealer parking lot). But if you're new to it, I can see who from looking online it may very quickly appear to be something considered normal, and etiquette that needs to be learned; same as in the sports area many threads of first time shooting an event with media credentials folks are reminded not to cheer for a team to exude the professionalism. The more you do this the more you'll pick up on those little details.

It sounds like the photos were done for a friend, explain yourself, do what it takes to make it right, and they should be able to at least understand.

Here in my area, it used to be standard practice for studios to have their name gold embossed on large prints. These were long time, well established studios...sometime in the late 90's early 2000's this practice died out

Motor On wrote in post #15124770
On final display, putting the photographer's name on the image is unprofessional. I'd like to think that I'm good enough that if someone were to buy my print they could hang it up in their house and it would stand out, and be good enough people are asking who took it; and that working with me makes them eager to offer me up and give me a good reference at the same time. The customer also doesn't pay for your advertising. It's the same as the used car dealership slapping a sticker on your car to make you a billboard for them after make a purchase from them (I don't even look at dealers that do that, and I've removed the advertising license plate brackets in the dealer parking lot). But if you're new to it, I can see who from looking online it may very quickly appear to be something considered normal, and etiquette that needs to be learned; same as in the sports area many threads of first time shooting an event with media credentials folks are reminded not to cheer for a team to exude the professionalism. The more you do this the more you'll pick up on those little details.

Isnt it our goal as photographers to create art that will be treasured? Its standard practice for a painter to sign their art, why shouldn't we photographers? a tacky logo no but a signature, why not?

So you dont like to advertise other businesses? do you scratch off the logo on your cell phone? tape over the logo on your laptop? put a sticker over canon or nikon on your camera? cut off the tab on your jeans? use white out on the newbalance logo on your shoes?

its standard practice to leave your branding on your product these days.

I dont sign my wall prints yet, but I like the idea of doing the golf leaf thing. of course I will give my customers the option to have it on or off.

No portrait painter feels that way. What makes portrait photography different?

For that matter, not many (if any) of the top portrait photographers for home consumption feel that way either--most do sign their work.

If people like your work, your customers will definitely tell them about you.

dave

Comerfjc wrote in post #12295974
Never seen a single person sell them with their logo on it before.

Would NEVER pay for that. Ever.

Never been or seen a print from Olan Mills?

More significant than Olan Mills, check out:

Tim Kelly
William McIntosh
William Branson III
Richard Sturdevant
Phillip Stewart Charis
They all sign their work, even that done of royalty, politicians, military leaders, and celebrities.
Even Annie Liebovitz signs her work.

Practically everyone with a name that would be meaningful anyway signs his work. Among portrait painters, this isn't even a question that's ever asked.

RDKirk wrote in post #15126123
More significant than Olan Mills, check out:

Tim Kelly
William McIntosh
William Branson III
Richard Sturdevant
Phillip Stewart Charis
They all sign their work, even that done of royalty, politicians, military leaders, and celebrities.
Even Annie Liebovitz signs her work.

Practically everyone with a name that would be meaningful anyway signs his work. Among portrait painters, this isn't even a question that's ever asked.

Thanks for the names! Im looking each of them up now. I think at a point people start paying to have the name on there. Bragging rights.

Only thing I have watermarked is nightclub. And that was with their logo, not mine.
So, that doesn't count?