|
Forums >
General Industry >
Shoud your hard Portfolio contain Images that...
...have the photographers name on it. Like the one in my avi. Is it okay to have it like that in your physical portfolio that you take to the agencies? Jun 21 06 10:49 am Link Le Roux wrote: I'm not sure....but, I wouldn't do that... Jun 21 06 10:59 am Link I have found that most photographers will provide me a 9x12 photo without their watermark (a select few trust me with a high res digital file sized for a 9x12). For the couple that wouldn't, I asked if they would please make it much smaller and place it in the bottom corner as a credit to them. One of the 2 has always worked. Agencies don't really like the large watermark... Jun 21 06 10:59 am Link If the photo is amazing, the agency will overlook the watermark in the process of selecting you. But the agent isn't likely to accept such watermarks in the final portfolio. If that picture is really great, the agent may tell you to get a copy sans watermark. But as a fact of life for people pursuing agency representation, all this shooting and purchasing of "hot" photos doesn't mean a thing without the direction provided by your agency. Get a few decent shots, go see the agencies and let them help you find the right shooters and the right subject matter for the way they'll market you. Jun 21 06 12:00 pm Link If an image is going into a physical port, I give them a clean print of the image at whatever size they need, no watermarks. For webports, I put a low-opacity mark toward the bottom of the image. Most people don't notice it until they look closely. If it's a nude, 99% of the people seeing it won't ever notice the watermark LOL Jun 21 06 12:03 pm Link Le Roux wrote: If the photographer is one that is listed on the masthead of a famous magazine, yes. Otherwise, no. Jun 21 06 12:13 pm Link Thanks...  Jun 21 06 03:31 pm Link Michael McGowan wrote: That's what I am trying to do now...Thanks Everyone! Jun 21 06 03:33 pm Link Not under any circunstances. No ever. I can't imagine a modeling agency accepting a photo with either the photographer's name or a copyright mark on it. It's a certain mark of amateur night. Jun 21 06 03:38 pm Link There are a few cases where the name might be OK on the picture. If it was made by someone incredibly famous that comes to mind. Otherwise, no. -D Jun 21 06 05:38 pm Link no, no watermarks on prints. no no no no no. if the person is so enthralled by the photo that they must know who took it... you can tell them. For web images, it is fine and understandable... although i still like the watermark to be in good taste and not garrish. But I won't shoot with photographers (for free) if they will not give me hi res images without watermarks. Jun 22 06 02:14 am Link Nope. The last time I printed a batch of stuff for my book, I was most displeased to discover a certain potohographers had slapped his initials on the full-sized images. Jun 22 06 02:26 am Link theda wrote: My policy has always been the opposite - and I will provide unretouched images to members of my team if they request it, as long as I know they will do their own retouching upon it. Jun 22 06 08:26 am Link Le Roux wrote: I never put my logo/watermark on the images that go into my "hard copy" portfolio. Only the ones I save to the internet, or, that I send to potential clients, models, etc. I keep my "hard copy" portfolio clean. Jun 22 06 08:31 am Link No it is both lame and unprofessional..... Jun 24 06 04:23 am Link theda wrote: Agreed. Web images need watermark IMO to try to prevent image theft (doesn't work well however -- but, it is better than nothing). Print Portfolio images should NOT be watermarked. Jun 24 06 05:01 am Link No? Unprofessional? Only if their name was on the masthead of a big mag? Hey my photographic pals out there, just to play the devil's advocate here for a second, wouldn't you be pissed, and lets say absolutely livid, or are you saying that you shouldn't be, if you later discovered that the agency was circulating the very same images from the model's book with THEIR logo on the face of the images? Come on... tell me you wouldn't be. Studio36 Jun 24 06 05:24 am Link studio36uk wrote: No. Of course not. That's what the images from a test are for, and that's what anyone shooting for agency models should expect. Jun 24 06 10:57 am Link TXPhotog wrote: studio36uk wrote: Better my images circulating than someone else's, and halping a model I shot with... Jun 24 06 11:00 am Link |
