Forums - Read Message


[Sólo los miembros registrados pueden publicar.] [Vista en secuencia] [Traducir]
Signature or No Signature	Pepper13 (1384)	::	2009-10-09 9:55
I'd like to hear everyone's opinion on whether to sign a photograph with a copyright or just leaving the photo alone and why. I've seen them both ways and can see the advantages of either way. I personally like to sign my photos. Thank you. Linda
Re: Signature or No Signature	shelbeesmom (47802)	::	2009-10-09 10:26
Wow! Another Linda! YES, I sign my photos. I guess it comes from the days I spent Oil Painting. It's just what I learned. I claim it, it's mine! Linda II
Re: Signature or No Signature	ErikSven (2299)	::	2009-10-09 10:46
Interesting matter, Linda. I also "sign" my photos and someone, in his critique, asked me whether it couldn't be considered as a kind of ego-boosting, given the fact that these signatures can be easily cloned out. That was what I answered: "As to my signature, I agree it isn't nice, but it has nothing to do with ego-boosting. Call it a statement: I am fully aware that it can be removed quickly, but I just hope it makes potential "thieves" at least think twice before acting. When uploading a photo showing people I know very well, I even tend to be a little more "protective", by rizing the font size of my signature. Maybe useless, but of symbolic value to me. It's a matter of respect. In a perfect world, I wouldn't do this. I hope you can understand my view." An opinion amongst others. Feel free to (dis)agree ;o). Have a nice day, Linda (AND Linda ;o)). Erik
Re: Signature or No Signature	rewshearer (20718)	::	2009-10-10 2:37
It's probably one of those things, everybody has their view on it. I used to put my signature on shots. Now I don't. Sometimes signatures bother me, sometimes they don't. I'm mostly irked by ones that try to imply that the photographer is running a business - "John Smith Photography" - when s/he is obviously a hobbyist - or the ones that seem overly pompous, pretentious, or in-your-face; in my opinion they detract from the photograph itself. I belong to other photography websites, one of which features some very high-calibre professional photographers; very few of them put signatures on their shots. They seem to feel that it ruins the purity of what they've done - and that the integrity of their art is more important than the desire to be known. The protection issue ... well the way I safeguard my most precious photos: I don't put them on the Internet. :) And yes, an opinion only. I'll work on being more tolerant.
Re: Signature or No Signature	Kilted-Arab (9477)	::	2009-10-10 2:40
I'd echo most of what Rew said - and what I find really bizarre is when people put sigs/copyrights on crapsnaps that no-one with an ounce of sanity would try to steal and claim as their own.
Re: Signature or No Signature	werdir (2557)	::	2009-10-10 5:34
I agree with both you and Rew. The bold signatures on bad photos are at the very least good for a chuckle.
Re: Signature or No Signature	atomas59 (2316)	::	2009-10-10 5:37
I can't say that I care for it that much. I don't mind it when I don't notice them right away, I want to look at the picture, not the decorations. They are in fact very easy to clone out and in no ways of any use. Some are discret, and others are really tacky. Same goes for borders...)))) Personnaly I never use them.
Re: Signature or No Signature	ScottHale (136)	::	2009-10-10 6:32
I tend to think that for a website that's supposed to learn and teach photography and maybe even a little photoshop along the way, it's okay if you are trying to practice or show someone how to add a signature. To continually add a signature to protect one's work is totally being in denial or ignorant to the fact that people do have the ability to clone, cut, crop, patch tool, or simply paint over virtually every signature that is put into the corner of a photo. A decent "general" rule of thumb is: If it can be photoshopped on, it an be photoshopped off and even when it's IN the photo, with minimal skill, it can be removed. So all of the people that use signatures need to realize that for security purposes, it's not effective. For online purposes, it's pretty much useless. For a print copy, it's perfectly acceptable because it's difficult for someone to erase or clone over a printed copy. I don't personally sign my photographs, although I think if people want to do it......they should be allowed. That doesn't immunize the people who use signatures from being questioned about it.
Re: Signature or No Signature	jobaluyot (192)	::	2009-10-10 7:46
i used to not put siggys on my photos until about three or five years ago when some cosplay photos became targets of steal-n-brag... well i put signatures on photos that i put on my 'less secure' sites like multiply, where people can just copy it off and pass as their own. at least with a siggy on it, they'd either have to crop it out or photoshop all over it. my last card would be that i own the raw file hahaha. but now, thanks to rew's suggestion, i'm taking off the siggy if i'm putting it on 'serious' sites like here in tl. i mean, the guys here have the 'ounce of sanity' to not steal. plus, who would bother much with an 800x532 image - it's pretty small compared to modern screens. yeah, the best bet to safeguard our photos is to not post them. have a great day to the daylight dwellers, and good night to those on our side of the globe. ^^
Re: Signature or No Signature	Pepper13 (1384)	::	2009-10-11 7:21
Thank you all for your comments. After reading all the pros and cons, I have decided not to sign my photos at least for now. The time it takes me to add the signature and special frames could be better used so I can edit and post more of my photos. I will then decide which way I prefer. I do keep all my original photos before any changes are made. I am aware that a signature cannot really protect your work from being stolen if someone has a mind to. If someone wants to take it as their own then at least they and I know that it's mind. But they will never have the original. A 800x600 resolution is not going to do them much good as Jo said. But if a signature is your preference then go for it. No one has the right to say you cannot sign it. It's only their opinion. :) I appreciate your opinions. Linda
Re: Signature or No Signature	lisapw1 (8318)	::	2009-10-12 18:55
Hi Linda, I sometimes sign mine just for fun. My mom was a painter and her work was always signed, my pottery has my initials on the bottom of it, my blogs have my name as well as some other things I've written. When I have given a photo to family or friends, I've NEVER had my name on the photo. I sometimes put a signature on and not make it obvious-another evening home with my dog and for lack of anything else to do (of course I probably couldn't find them if I tried looking for them...hahaha) Sometimes, I feel like "crap" and may have been working on a photo a long time in post processing, the signature is my signal that "I'm DONE" with this one and not touching it again. :)
Re: Signature or No Signature	psyce (1457)	::	2009-10-28 10:03
It is my first time to join this forum=) the discussion seems to be fun! I guess my side on this is that, yes sometimes others do it for a professional look, and some maybe think that it adds to the photos impact... well it is really how you put your signature in your photos... Bold signatures shouts HEY I am A PRO! just make it simple and transparent as much as possible... For me, sometimes my photos has signatures on it because I also post photos in some website that requires signature to show ownership. But It boils down to one thing, with signature or no signature... somebody can still easily steal your photo... It is a good thing that what we upload are resized ones and not the full size...
Re: Signature or No Signature	atomas59 (2316)	::	2009-10-28 13:07
Signature et taste goes hand to hand. Personnaly, I can't bother with it. "Bold signatures shouts....HEY I am A PRO! This is a joke right?....)))) The quality of a picture speaks by ITSELF !!!!!! Some signature are done with good taste, some a plainly crappy and tacky. It should never overpowered the shot it self. This is not a billboard (be ill bored) for advertising. Other totally destroy what ever is interesting about the shot itself. As for of you who are "affraid" of having your shot being stolen.....be wise: "JUST DON'T PUT IT ON INTERNET!" Put your effort in producing a decent photo, instead of decorations. As for it's utility here, we all should expect which member produce the actual shot.....putting your name accross it, is an over statement. SIGNED "ATOMAS59 alias the pro...))))))" That makes this note so much more credible......really?
Re: Signature or No Signature	rewshearer (20718)	::	2009-10-28 16:46
I think that's Arman's point - people who put signatures like "Rew Shearer Photography" on their photos are trying to make it look like they are stamping their business logo on their shots. The reality is that most truly good photographers, pro or not, share your view - that a signature should never overpower the shot or appear as advertising.
Re: Signature or No Signature	graemann (5124)	::	2009-10-28 17:19
Hi Guys! Sharing my views... I was really also asking this myself. But one time somebody used Treklens to mine street shots and put them in a work that showcases his talent in creating AVP. Then uploaded in youtube. Great huh? All without permission. Then a friend saw that uploaded AVP. He said that some of the works are yours truly. How? He saw them in treklens and Because of those sigs. I guess the perpetrator needs to learn cloning or cropping...lol. Anyway, the point is that somebody recognizes the work and confirmed by the sig. It's like a first level of security. Nothing can stop anyone from stealing your photos but you can place security that can somehow deter them from doing so. This is, of course, my own opinion. To sig or not to sig. Really depends on you. Good day all.
Re: Signature or No Signature	captive-light (921)	::	2009-10-28 23:56
I nearly always add a signature. It just identifies the work as being my property and not an "orphan Work", and provides a point of contact should a viewer who is a non member of the site it is posted on want to contact me, for example I have sold several images to picture buyers just trolling through Google Images Search. Also using a © logo may deter the occasional casual image thief ... but I'm under no illusions there, so to me it's more of a marketing exercise rather then a serious deterrent. Miles
Re: Signature or No Signature	atomas59 (2316)	::	2009-10-29 10:21
This following link is only to prove a point. Example
Re: Signature or No Signature	shelbeesmom (47802)	::	2009-10-29 11:03
HAHAHA! Denis! That is funny! I learned that a cpoywrite signature says that you are claiming all rights to the shot, and it's not FREE to take. Of course, they can remove the signature, but if the photo is famous enough, in a court of law, they can determine that the thief altered the pixels. ESPECIALLY if I have the original RAW file. I was a painter, so I learned to sign. I think it's just a matter of preference.
Re: Signature or No Signature	Sharpshooter (6920)	::	2009-10-29 12:13
Very true Linda. Apparently police homicide investigators shoot in RAW as it's the only true way to tell that an image hasn't been manipulated or tampered with when the case goes to court. Pretty cool huh? :). Although if it was me, I'd probably be making HDRs out of all of them! LOL.
Re: Signature or No Signature	atomas59 (2316)	::	2009-10-29 13:18
Hi Linda, Of course I'm all aware of that. My point wasn't about that either...)))) Depend on where you post your shot.....here, the photos are already associated to your profil. Now If I want to post "at large" on the net.....that's an other story..))) I wouldn't post the original anywhere on the web anyway. At most on my web site server....with a password and (very) limited access....))))
Re: Signature or No Signature	rewshearer (20718)	::	2009-10-29 18:21
Both your argument and Emann's make sense, and are the only context in which I would add a signature - because sometimes thieves are too lazy to remove it. In that regard, though, it makes sense to keep the signature subtle, small, and out-of-the-way. Big, bold, flamboyant signatures are surely more likely to be removed.
Re: Signature or No Signature	bscheller (32)	::	2009-11-15 22:58
I personally feel it ruins the integrity of the photograph. A photograph with a signature in my eyes is of lesser value than one that isn't, however that is my view. If someone wants to steal an image they will do so, no matter what safeguards you place upon it!
Re: Signature or No Signature	Silke (23588)	::	2009-11-16 6:03
I like to sign my work just the way I would sign a painting. Effectively I am saying "This is MY work and I am proud to add my signature to prove it." Legally, if I trace one of my images and discover that they have removed the signature in order to display it as their own work they do not have legal recourse to a claim that they didn't know it belonged to somebody else.

Foro: General

Registrarse

Buscar

Foro

Enlaces rápidos

Cámaras

Vistas