a couple examples aren't that bad while the rest do ruin the photo... but I've said it before and I'll say it again..... signing your work is a sign of pride in the end result. All the great artists signed their work. Just go to an art museum sometime... you'll see signatures on paintings and even on photographs. There is also a difference between a watermark and a signature. A watermark is done with the thinking the work is being protected from copyright infringement. A signature is done because, as I mentioned above, the artist/photographer is proud of the image.
It is funny, Trina! Most professional photographers I know sign the matte of the photo, not the photo itself. I've read that anyone who is proficient at Photoshop can remove a watermark, so you aren't really protecting yourself. I guess the only thieves would be those who are really determined, but how on earth would you catch them? I don't bother, but in the past I knew someone that made his watermark a work of art in his photos. It was like "Where's Waldo?" You actually searched for his oh so clever and oh so hidden name. Do you know who I'm talking about, Trina?
@jsw0109 I have said that exact same thing... artist sign their paintings so isn't it really the same thing? That said, I don't on mine... well, not yet, but have been tossing the idea around.
haha!! great link! i've seen a lot of distracting watermarks/signatures. they rarely if ever enhance a photo. robin warner was very good at hiding hers with in the image.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
http://www.kpraslowicz.com/2012/10/08/what-if-the-masters-of-photography-used-horrendous-watermarks/