Why do you sign your photographs

[Everythingisnt]

Umm I care remember? Who is disallowing who from signing their photos btw?



Okay I've decided, now what?

Should I point out how it does distract from an image make a comment and hope they upload a new one without it or should I ask a question as to why they do it and through that question cause them to think about the value it brings?

Well you know how they say if you don't have anything nice to say, you shouldn't say anything at all?

I guess what I mean is, live and let die - if they are putting really annoying watermarks on their photos with no real reason, odds are they won't have much success. If they do, then either you were wrong about the watermark or they are just really awesome photogs, in which case they deserve to put a watermark on their stuff.

 

[SolracSelbor]

Hmm... I'm not really sure what the point is in arguing why a person signs a photo, shouldn't sign a photo, or should sign a photo, etc. But, I sign my online photos simply because I like others to know that it is my photo. For what it's worth, the photo may be a crappy photo to someone and the signature may lead that viewer to believe that the photographer of that crappy photo is signing that photo to lead others to think the photo is better than it really is. However, in my opinion I do it simply because I like to sign my photos and I take pride in saying a photo is mine, even if it is a crappy image -- it's still my crappy image. Signing the photo also gives me a small sense of security (like a watermark). I am sure anyone with little knowledge of photoshop can erase the sig, but i am also sure that there are those who cant or simply wont. Also, sometimes I like signing a photo just because I think it looks nice; sure many think the photo should speak for itself but, to me, the sig is like a symbol for a complete piece of work.

Also, many times i put frames on my photo's that I display online. I do this simply because I like how it looks and I like adding those finishing touches at the end. It's like seeing a photo that's framed in real life....but online... And I like how photos look with frames in real life, so why not online? I never hang just a photo in my living room, I hang a framed photo in my living room--it looks nicer.

Why do I sign a photo or put a frame on a photo? There's no objective reason, really. Simply put, I just like it.

 

[AlaskaMoose]

Those reasons for watermarking and copyright protection are all valid, but at the same time most watermarks are discrete so as to not distract from the image, you only have to look http://www.viiphoto.com to see that, I'm talking about when somebody does this:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1022&thread=28942114

Basically taking a $3000 lens to snap food in a restaurant, then signing it with their name and the equipment used. I did ask him why he did that but I didn't get a reply. The signature is ghastly and distracting and most likely pretentious.

To me its pointless in this scenario and people do it here as well. They sign their photos as though its art when its not, its just a happy/clever snap. Sure art is in the eye of the beholder but what about established art, art which we recognise as being art from more successful photographers? They don't it do, so why do people here do it or people like the person I just linked to, do it!

Even if the photograph is art, as a student photographer studying it as an art, we're not told to do it so surely there is a disconnection here?

Artists and professionals don't do it but people who think there were is art, DO do it!

Well, to you it may be pointless, and that's fine. But what is pointless to you may not be the same to another. As I said before, it's an excellent way to advertise one's work, or one's name, or one's studio.

Are you certain that professional photographers don't do it? You better look around at other than this little forum.

 

[CrackedButter]

Well you know how they say if you don't have anything nice to say, you shouldn't say anything at all?

Well I couldn't figure out what you were really trying to say in the last post you made so I took you literally. But what are you talking about here because you're focusing more on a watermark aren't you rather than a signature?

I guess what I mean is, live and let die - if they are putting really annoying watermarks on their photos with no real reason, odds are they won't have much success. If they do, then either you were wrong about the watermark or they are just really awesome photogs, in which case they deserve to put a watermark on their stuff.

I haven't been talking about success, I've been talking about motive.

Hmm... I'm not really sure what the point is in arguing why a person signs a photo, shouldn't sign a photo, or should sign a photo, etc. But, I sign my online photos simply because I like others to know that it is my photo.

No arguing here, no sir, just good oled plain fashion discussion!

The point is, I'm trying to understand something and I'm asking for this discussion. But when you sign your photos do you sign them with your name and then post anonymously? No you don't and people will know there from you anyway without signing it and that is one of my points so why do it? But you've said you like doing it and thats fine but illogical to me, I understand why you do it know but they will know the image is from you anyway without signing it. BUT if you're watermarking then thats a different thing altogether...

Signing the photo also gives me a small sense of security (like a watermark). I am sure anyone with little knowledge of photoshop can erase the sig, but i am also sure that there are those who cant or simply wont. Also, sometimes I like signing a photo just because I think it looks nice; sure many think the photo should speak for itself but, to me, the sig is like a symbol for a complete piece of work.

... now here I'm interested in where the placement of the signature is, where do you put your signature? Is it to the side or over the image which makes it harder to remove?

Also, many times i put frames on my photo's that I display online. I do this simply because I like how it looks and I like adding those finishing touches at the end. It's like seeing a photo that's framed in real life....but online... And I like how photos look with frames in real life, so why not online? I never hang just a photo in my living room, I hang a framed photo in my living room--it looks nicer.

The picture frames thing was somebody else's issue, not mine, I have no opinion on them yet, they are different to signatures in this conversation.

Well, to you it may be pointless, and that's fine. But what is pointless to you may not be the same to another.

AlaskaMoose, this is why I'm asking, I want to understand peoples motives on this.

Are you certain that professional photographers don't do it? You better look around at other than this little forum.

Two things here. First what are you asking me they don't do; put signatures on their photography or watermarks?

Second, this makes me think you haven't read the story on my blog or the links I've posted throughout this discussion on this board thoroughly, because if you had you'd have seen that I have looked around other than in this little forum. But in the post you quoted, there is a link to VIIPhoto agency with good examples of what I'm talking about.

 

[srf4real]

They sign their photos as though its art when its not, its just a happy/clever snap.

Hm. Is that why you don't sign yours? I thought you were seriously curious as to people's reasons, not just feeling so righteous lately... moving along, nothing to see here.

Edit: tried to be the first to bother a response to the blog... wasn't logged in, so here it is:

People sign their photographs online for various reasons, all valid and justifiable. There is the issue of copyrights, which as a student I am sure you know that snagging another's photo and claiming it somewhere else online occurs frequently as does unauthorized commercial use of another's digital image... There is also the reasonable desire of an artist to have their style become recognized amongst peers and associates as well as among the general public, which makes 'signing' one's work rather necessary in a generally anonymous medium such as the internet. Lastly, there are those who think that signing a piece or not signing it will make it more valid to be displayed as a "real photographer's photograph". This last class of people really don't have any talent, they just take happy or clever snaps... these folk are simply ghastly and distracting and most likely pretentious.

 

[Cromulent]

They sign their photos as though its art when its not, its just a happy/clever snap.

Nowadays people call a blank canvas art, so in comparison a really good photo is a masterpiece .

 

[CrackedButter]

Hm. Is that why you don't sign yours? I thought you were seriously curious as to people's reasons, not just feeling so righteous lately... moving along, nothing to see here.

It is interesting to see how many people take issue to my comment about their photos not being art but a happy snap. Who would have thought a happy snap was such a bad thing? Personally I think they are great and I make loads of them everyday but I don't believe them to be anything else.

And I am serious, if somebody signs a photograph then I'm having a difficult time as reading it as anything but a piece of art, this is what I have been trying to say. Once the image and the signature come together, the photographer is trying to say something which I have to disagree with because of the connotations behind it.

So I'm not trying to deliberately knock down people's efforts (though I welcome such a response with my own work) it is just how I read into what they are creating because of where my life is at the moment. Though I was generalising, the ones who took offense would be the ones who've become insecure surely about their work and again as I said before, it is as much of a reflection of them as it is about me?

Now I might come across as insulting and arrogant or 'pompous' but I assure you that isn't the case, I'm not trying to take things to a personal level, I'm merely poking the universe with a question because of a lack of understanding on my part where as I've stated I see a disconnection with this behaviour of amateur* and professional photographers related to what is a historical practice of signing ones name to something.

*Before people take offense to the word 'amateur' please know what that word use to mean as I use it as such. It is somebody who does something for the love of it and I'm not using it in derogatory sense like everybody does today, it use to be a complementary word. I could use another word but I don't know what would fit so easily in its guise.

People sign their photographs online for various reasons, all valid and justifiable. There is the issue of copyrights, which as a student I am sure you know that snagging another's photo and claiming it somewhere else online occurs frequently as does unauthorized commercial use of another's digital image... There is also the reasonable desire of an artist to have their style become recognized amongst peers and associates as well as among the general public, which makes 'signing' one's work rather necessary in a generally anonymous medium such as the internet. Lastly, there are those who think that signing a piece or not signing it will make it more valid to be displayed as a "real photographer's photograph". This last class of people really don't have any talent, they just take happy or clever snaps... these folk are simply ghastly and distracting and most likely pretentious.

It is a pity this couldn't be on the blog, somebody else wrote a similar comment and it would have been nice to have the two blog posts together for others to read.

Now I agree with everything you said in that quote. The flickr member I linked to in a previous post had her work copied and placed on a stock library website, she got it sorted in the end but now she places a watermark on the image and keeps to a very small size when displaying them on flickr. Her need to protect her imagery and identity has forced her to put her watermark (in the form of a signature) right next to the most interesting part of the photograph, there is that understanding that it can distract from the image but she knows which is more important, her work or her identity and I recognise that.

But when other people sign their photographs (using their own accounts using alias or handles which identify them anyway) and place it in a corner out of the way of the work they've created they are letting their pride in the work get in the way of protecting them and making it easy for people to come along and make a clever crop. Without thinking too much into it, they're saying the image and hard work is more important than their identity/style, the very same identity or style which they are trying to define by signing it in the first place!

So the solution is..?

Nowadays people call a blank canvas art, so in comparison a really good photo is a masterpiece .

Did they sign it though? It's all about context. Place a toilet in a art gallery and it also becomes art as well. Somebody did that once but I can't remember who, famous person.

 

[Doylem]

Place a toilet in a art gallery and it also becomes art as well. Somebody did that once but I can't remember who, famous person.

Marcel Duchamps exhibited a urinal...

 

[Phrasikleia]

Marcel Duchamps exhibited a urinal...

...with a signature on it, although it was a pseudonym...

 

[Doylem]

...with a signature on it, although it was a pseudonym...

R Mutt...

 

[epicwelshman]

Did a whole bunch of message get deleted?

Anyway. Look, Cracked Butter. I think many of us here do get your point, and to be fair to you, you've done a good job of explaining your rationale and you've certainly been persistent with your responses. But I think it comes down to one thing - personal choice.

Some amateur photos sign their web images. Some don't.

Some pro photogs sign their web images. Some don't.

And frankly, it doesn't matter. If people have no signature, great. If they have a small, non-distracting one, fine. If they have an over the top signature with a handwritten font, a massive frame and all kinds of technical specs... then good for them.

If you don't like it, don't do it. If you do like it, do it.

There are more important things to worry about. Go out and take some photos.

 

[CrackedButter]

Did a whole bunch of message get deleted?

Anyway. Look, Cracked Butter. I think many of us here do get your point, and to be fair to you, you've done a good job of explaining your rationale and you've certainly been persistent with your responses. But I think it comes down to one thing - personal choice.

Some amateur photos sign their web images. Some don't.

Some pro photogs sign their web images. Some don't.

And frankly, it doesn't matter. If people have no signature, great. If they have a small, non-distracting one, fine. If they have an over the top signature with a handwritten font, a massive frame and all kinds of technical specs... then good for them.

If you don't like it, don't do it. If you do like it, do it.

There are more important things to worry about. Go out and take some photos.

Yes a whole bunch of them did. Was there a point to be made with my forum name being in bold and split in two?

I'm glad somebody else gets my point, I was looking for someone to at least tell me that. I don't think it comes down entirely to a personal choice. What if people don't know any better and just copy somebody off the net? I agree there are more important things to worry about but remember it was just a question to satisfy my curiosity but also to make others think about what they do with their photographs, I'm not asking or telling anyone to stop doing it, just think about it, like I did.

What part of Wales are you from?

 

[epicwelshman]

Yes a whole bunch of them did. Was there a point to be made with my forum name being in bold and split in two?

I'm glad somebody else gets my point, I was looking for someone to at least tell me that. I don't think it comes down entirely to a personal choice. What if people don't know any better and just copy somebody off the net? I agree there are more important things to worry about but remember it was just a question to satisfy my curiosity but also to make others think about what they do with their photographs, I'm not asking or telling anyone to stop doing it, just think about it, like I did.

What part of Wales are you from?

Whenever I refer to another MR member I always bold their name. Being split in two was my mistake.

I'm sure many people do see other's signatures and copy them directly without thinking.

I guess in the end it comes down to building an audience. There is such a glut of photographs online. Look at Flickr with it's hundreds of thousands, if not millions. So many photos, so much of the same style, so little to differentiate them all (if we're being honest). Some people retain recognition by having a truly distinct style (think Dave of Chromasia.com or Rebekka from the Flickr link earlier). Other people use their name so their audience knows what is theirs and what isn't. It may work some not and not for others... we really don't know.


As for Wales, I was born in Cardiff but moved to The Bahamas when I was younger, which is where I still live after going to Canada for university.