Yerkes Photography wrote:
what do you all think of watermarking your work ... ? other than the obvious financial reasons
do you do it on every shot , all the time ...? even if you are paid by a model ...
is there a limit to what size it is , or location on the pic ...?

I didn't use to watermark/logo my work in the begininng but then I saw my work posted somewhere I didn't post and I wanted credit for the work which I didn't receive so I started watermarking it.  I don't watermark every shot.  It depends on what the subject is.  I don't do it all the time either.  I don't watermark pics that the model paid for.  I watermark my TFCD work b/c even though models have agreed to give me photo credit for the work, none have so I have to ensure photo credit myself.  If the photo is a model I will put the watermark in the corner.  If it's a public event then I'll watermark the center of the pic.  I've had complaints about that but I know that some groups won't allow watermarked pics to be posted so that limits to a small degree where my pics may get reposted.  Plus if someone admires my work, I want them to know who did it.  The size of watermark on model pics I limit to like a 14 to 20 font depending upon the size of the image.  If it's just a general public shot then size doesn't matter probably up to 36 font depending on the mood I'm in.

Photos By Deej wrote:
I don't watermark pics that the model paid for.  I watermark my TFCD work b/c even though models have agreed to give me photo credit for the work, none have so I have to ensure photo credit myself.

I think this is possibly the correct thing to do. I have debated doing this, but in the end for me at least since any digital copy of something of mine is a scan of a print, I have not been. I work in film exclusively, so I think this may be something I will do in the future.

Melissa Lynnette wrote:
I worked with a photographer who put a blue green signature in fancy script on all the pictures, no matter what it was.  That was too much.

What about the ghosted type across the middle of the image? I find that even worse sometimes. I have seem some amazingly ugly HUGE type across pictures on websites I won't name (MM) and then I have seen some very unobtrusive stuff. I just tell people how crappy the digital is compared to the actual print. I even managed to post a picture here where after I looked at it for a while noticed that I had not cleaned off the scanner, and managed to get a huge fingerprint on the thing.

Maybe I will fingerprint everything before posting...

There is also the idea of proving your image. Forget for a moment of digital and film, and think of a photographer that is using wet-plate collodion photography and photographing civil war re-enactors. He then finds his plates being sold as the real thing, as 130 year old plates. Put this into the "you think you got problems" category.

http://www.collodion-artist.com/Beware/

Jeff Genung wrote:

What about the ghosted type across the middle of the image? I find that even worse sometimes. I have seem some amazingly ugly HUGE type across pictures on websites I won't name (MM) and then I have seen some very unobtrusive stuff. I just tell people how crappy the digital is compared to the actual print. I even managed to post a picture here where after I looked at it for a while noticed that I had not cleaned off the scanner, and managed to get a huge fingerprint on the thing.

Those can be bad too I agree.  I just have never gotten any that were worse than the one I mentioned.