What is this vogue ...?

[droj]

I've noticed a remarkable number of obviously non-professional photographers calling themselves (and what's worse, watermarking their photos) with their name followed by the word 'photography'. It seems to be a new variant of vanity publishing. Why is it so prevalent? It would be wholly understandable from someone whose income comes from their work, promoting and reinforcing their business identity, but for an amateur ...?

I'm curious about the psychology involved.

And aesthetically, however tastefully done, a watermark is an irritating intrusion into the image space.

 

[The23rdman]

I've noticed a remarkable number of obviously non-professional photographers calling themselves (and what's worse, watermarking their photos) with their name followed by the word 'photography'. It seems to be a new variant of vanity publishing. Why is it so prevalent? It would be wholly understandable from someone whose income comes from their work, promoting and reinforcing their business identity, but for an amateur ...?

I'm curious about the psychology involved.

And aesthetically, however tastefully done, a watermark is an irritating intrusion into the image space.

It's far from new and many of us go through it because we see it done here. Hopefully many grow out of it to.

 

[Blasted]

I don't see an issue with it; people can call themselves whatever they want, unless that position requires some degree of academic and professional achievement, Doctor, Engineer, and Lawyer. I for one have used the term photography after my name. The reason being is I wanted to make myself a website and I wanted it to be clear about its content, as well as vaguely memorable. I'm not professional as I don't get paid for it and I don't introduce myself to people by the term either.
No I don't watermark.

 

[Nod]

Maybe some are hoping to make a few bob from their shots so are protecting their work?

 

[Dan_uk_mids]

It's an interesting topic. I'm actually thinking seriously about starting to use a subtle watermark on my images. Just my name though. Not photography.

 

[Steve Smith]

I don't see an issue with it; people can call themselves whatever they want, unless that position requires some degree of academic and professional achievement, Doctor, Engineer, and Lawyer.

I agree (although I am an engineer but don't have a qualification to prove it!).

The word 'photographer' isn't the exclusive property of professionals. It refers to photographers of all types.


Steve.

 

[viewfromthenorth]

I deliberately didn't use the word photography after my name when I did my websites. I wanted to take the focus away from me and onto the work, and I've no interest in being labelled as a 'photographer', even though I realise that by definition, the act of taking photographs makes you a photographer.

Heck, I didn't even put my name anywhere on my main website until recently, and it's been online 7 years...........

 

[PMN]

I agree (although I am an engineer but don't have a qualification to prove it!).

The word 'photographer' isn't the exclusive property of professionals. It refers to photographers of all types.

Exactly. I'm a sound engineer, I don't have a qualification but I have 20 years experience. Anyone who says I can't use the term 'engineer' will get told to go do one.

I'm not a professional photographer but after 10 years anyone who says I can't use the term 'photography' if I want to will get told to go do one as well. I don't use that word but if I wanted to anyone who didn't like it could get stuffed as far as I'm concerned.

Seriously, why do people get so hung up on stuff like this? Stop looking at other people just to find something to whinge about and get on with whatever it is you do yourself.

 

[f/1.2]

I have noticed this as well. Personally I never watermarked any of my images even though I was advised to do so a few times by others. To be fair I can understand why they others do it. A couple of years ago I had one of my images submitted to a local newspapers photography competition by another photographer. I was able to get it pulled as I could prove I had the raw file and the meta data on the jpeg he had submitted had my details embedded.

That however was until I started offering paid services, now I watermark everything.

 

[Byker28i]

i sold images through my website for many years, most recently of sunday morning youth rugby. Priced cheaply, they provided an additional income towards the running of the youth team my son belonged to. However, despite being for a good cause, priced cheaply, low res images on the website, it didn't stop them being copied and used on Facebook etc, despite copyright notices on every gallery. The watermark stopped about 40-50% of these and funding increased. The watermark is my domain name.

 

[Byker28i]

Seriously, why do people get so hung up on stuff like this? Stop looking at other people just to find something to whinge about and get on with whatever it is you do yourself.

Because people forget it's the image that's important, not how or what it's made with.

You only need to look at the Canon v Nikon, full frame v cropped, Linux v windows type discussions/arguments

 

[Steve Smith]

Exactly. I'm a sound engineer, I don't have a qualification but I have 20 years experience. Anyone who says I can't use the term 'engineer' will get told to go do one.

Same here. I was offered a university place but I didn't take it. I have however been working as an electronic and mechanical design engineer since 1983.

Actually, I have been doing sound engineering since then too but only part time. I would hope that your knowledge from 20 years full time is greater than mine from 30 years part time.

Competence trumps qualifications every time. I have worked with a few alleged engineers who were degree qualified who couldn't engineer their way out of a room with four open doors. One who had a degree in electronics once asked me which way to connect an LED.

I'm sure the countries great engineers such as Brunel, George Stephenson, Richard Trevithick, etc. were not qualified!

So yes, I'm an engineer too and anyone who claims I'm not will have to come up with a very good reason why (which I will no doubt disagree with!).


Steve.

 

[Blasted]

Interesting regarding the engineer title, I deliberately put that in my first post. I work in engineering and at first didn’t have the qualifications but had experience, now I also have the qualifications and even more experience.

 

[PMN]

Because people forget it's the image that's important, not how or what it's made with.

You only need to look at the Canon v Nikon, full frame v cropped, Linux v windows type discussions/arguments

Whinging about people using the word "photography" doesn't have anything to do with the image or how it's made though, it's picking up on a stupid detail that doesn't concern anyone else other than the person using it. That being the case why bother whinging about it? Do people have nothing better to do with their time than find reasons to whinge about others?

Canon/Nikon, FF/crop are stupid arguments too. As long as whatever you use works for you who cares?

On the subject of watermarks, I don't understand why some people make it impossible to view their image by obscuring it with a massive watermark but if that's what they want to do then they have every right to do it. If you don't like it then don't look at their photos!

Actually, I have been doing sound engineering since then too but only part time. I would hope that your knowledge from 20 years full time is greater than mine from 30 years part time.

Your technical knowledge will be greater than mine but I'm a sound engineer, not an electronics engineer. If something goes bang you'll probably fix it before me, if we were thrown behind a mixing desk in an arena or stadium (or any other challenging environment) with no soundcheck and a complex band to mix I'd probably get it together quicker!

 

[Steve Smith]

if we were thrown behind a mixing desk in an arena or stadium (or any other challenging environment) with no soundcheck and a complex band to mix I'd probably get it together quicker!

You definitely would if it was a digital desk. Put me behind a GL4000 though and I suspect it would be closer!
What are these soundchecks you speak of?!!


Steve.

 

[PMN]

You definitely would if it was a digital desk. Put me behind a GL4000 though and I suspect it would be closer!
What are these soundchecks you speak of?!!

GL4000's are as easy as mixing desks get, if you want to say you're quicker on analogue then let's see you get it together on an XL4 or PM5000. It's those kind of desks you'd be using in arenas and stadiums, not GL4k's ...

That said I think I had an ML5000 on an arena show in Belarus a couple of years ago, it's expected to get gear like that in those places though!

I'm pretty much as quick on analogue as I am digital anyway, when you do this day in day out you kinda get like that!

 

[Bythesea]

I don't use the word photography - but then I'm an artist...

 

[Steve Smith]

if you want to say you're quicker on analogue then let's see you get it together on an XL4 or PM5000

i didn't say quicker, I said closer!!

Anyway. It's not a race!


Steve.

 

[Ulfric M Douglas]

Subscribing for the mixing-desk throwdown!

(They're those things like a piano but with loads of slidey things ontop and wires coming out the back, right?)

 

[PMN]

i didn't say quicker, I said closer!!

Anyway. It's not a race!

It is when you have 35,000 punters wanting to hear lead vocal rather than snare drum!

Subscribing for the mixing-desk throwdown!

(They're those things like a piano but with loads of slidey things ontop and wires coming out the back, right?)

Lots of slidey things and wires yes. Slidey things, spinny things, buttons, switches, LED's and other stuff!

 

[Steve Smith]

They're those things like a piano but with loads of slidey things ontop and wires coming out the back, right?

That's about the best description I have ever heard!

The fancy pants new stuff Paul works with looks a bit like this (correct me if I'm wrong); http://bplsv.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Avid_VENUE_SC481.jpg

Whereas when you work at the smaller end of the market like I do, we use old analogue stuff like this: http://a1.trd.cm/thaisecondhand/201107/23h/9885468_0.jpg

Look- not just slidey things, spinny things, buttons, switches and LED's but some lighty up bouncing up and down metery things at the back!

What was this thread about again?!!!


Steve.

 

[PMN]

Steve, to be honest I avoid the SC48 wherever possible, it's a small lower end desk that's much more fiddly than it needs to be. I've done stacks of shows on them and they work, just very much not a desk I'd spec. It's bigger brother, the Profile, is a bit less fiddly. My faves are more along the lines of the Soundcraft Vi6 and DiGiCo SD7 if we're talking digital.

And I dunno, something to do with watermarks and whinging?

 

[Quicksnapper]

But getting back to the watermarks on images debate .....

The question was about why people do this ... Professionals or amateurs ...

I guess one reason why some folks do it is to deter others "borrowing" their stuff for FB posts or other reasons, but we've all seen images on such places with the watermark of the photographer plastered over them. It doesn't seem to stop some people. Maybe they do it as a way of bigging themselves up in eyes of the beholder somehow and waving a flag for their own abilities and skills.

Whatever the reason, it's surely up to each of us to do, or not do, as we wish. Personally I never mark my stuff. I'm not that great anyway and have no pretentious about my limited abilities, so if someone wants to use something of mine then I'd probably be more flattered than offended. (Unless a large some of money were involved of course, then things might look a bit different .....!!)

 

[The23rdman]

But getting back to the watermarks on images debate .....

The question was about why people do this ... Professionals or amateurs ...

I guess one reason why some folks do it is to deter others "borrowing" their stuff for FB posts or other reasons, but we've all seen images on such places with the watermark of the photographer plastered over them. It doesn't seem to stop some people. Maybe they do it as a way of bigging themselves up in eyes of the beholder somehow and waving a flag for their own abilities and skills.

Whatever the reason, it's surely up to each of us to do, or not do, as we wish. Personally I never mark my stuff. I'm not that great anyway and have no pretentious about my limited abilities, so if someone wants to use something of mine then I'd probably be more flattered than offended. (Unless a large some of money were involved of course, then things might look a bit different .....!!)

As a pro I marked my stuff for one reason only - advertising.

 

[Steve Smith]

But getting back to the watermarks on images debate .....

It's o.k. In fear of being banned, we have continued our discussion by PM.

Although there is a new 'Show Off Your Guitar' thread. we could try to derail that one by talking about photography!


Steve.

 

[The23rdman]

It's o.k. In fear of being banned, we have continued our discussion by PM.

Although there is a new 'Show Off Your Guitar' thread. we could try to derail that one by talking about photography!


Steve.

Talk about whatever you like in my threads - I like random musings.

 

[chromatin64]

OK, you sound engineers.

Do you have your own "signature" in your mixings? So something like, "I always put a bit of extra reverb on the third backing singer". Kinda like a watermark. But not as obvious. Obviously.

 

[Steve Smith]

OK, you sound engineers.

Do you have your own "signature" in your mixings? So something like, "I always put a bit of extra reverb on the third backing singer". Kinda like a watermark. But not as obvious. Obviously.

Hopefully not. The audience is there to hear the band, not to be impressed by your sound system. I was at an Ocean Colour Scene gig a few years ago and it was obvious that the sound guy was more interested in showing off how powerful his subs were by making each beat of the kick drum felt rather than heard. You could feel your trouser legs flapping in time with the music! It was actually distracting from the music.

The old saying is that if it all sounds good, the band gets the credit whereas if it sounds bad, it's the sound guys fault!

The other old saying I like which comes from friendly rivalry between sound guys and lighting guys is "nobody goes home whistling the lights".

Steve.

 

[sunnyside_up]

I don't use 'photography'... I use Picturemaker. I don't class myself as a photographer, but an 'artist'. My watermark is tasteful and discreet, easily removed if someone wanted to remove it. I use it as @The23rdman does... advertising. I just want people to know *I* made this image... For me, it's about trying to get my name out there.

By the way, I am a Graphic Designer for a popular industry related company... with no official schooling for it. My self taught knowledge, artistic flare and experience got me here.

 

[PMN]

Hopefully not. The audience is there to hear the band, not to be impressed by your sound system. I was at an Ocean Colour Scene gig a few years ago and it was obvious that the sound guy was more interested in showing off how powerful his subs were by making each beat of the kick drum felt rather than heard. You could feel your trouser legs flapping in time with the music! It was actually distracting from the music.

I've worked with OCS a few times and never thought their FoH sound was over the top. To be honest most people like the sensation of feeling sound, I certainly do as long as the mix is balanced. Obviously I wasn't there at the show you mention but it sounds a little odd...

OK, you sound engineers.

Do you have your own "signature" in your mixings? So something like, "I always put a bit of extra reverb on the third backing singer". Kinda like a watermark. But not as obvious. Obviously.

I have a signature style/ethos of mixing which is to keep things simple and try be as faithful as possible to what's happening on stage. It's more a signature style of mixing than specific signatures like reverb, etc, although I am a fan of big drum reverbs for conventional rock-type bands!

 

[Byker28i]

It's o.k. In fear of being banned, we have continued our discussion by PM.
Steve.

Ahem - somethings wrong - your PM's are getting posted

 

[PMN]

Ahem - somethings wrong - your PM's are getting posted

I know, we're such an easily distracted bunch!

 

[Steve Smith]

I've worked with OCS a few times and never thought their FoH sound was over the top. To be honest most people like the sensation of feeling sound

I know what you mean about the feel of the sound, but this wasn't like that.

Hopefully it was just a one off. There was no warmth to the kick drum sound. It was just a dull, unpleasant thud and the feeling just added to it's unpleasantness A couple of my friends thought the same about it too.

Do you have your own "signature" in your mixings?

Some people have a signature sound of uncontrollable feedback - but they don't get much work!

And in thirty years I have never said "testing... one... two..." into a microphone and I don't ever intend to.

Ahem - somethings wrong - your PM's are getting posted

It's Russel's fault - he asked. Anyway, Dean said it was o.k. and it's his thread!

EDIT: No it's not - He started us off again under false pretences!



Steve.

 

[PMN]

Some people have a signature sound of uncontrollable feedback - but they don't get much work!

And in thirty years I have never said "testing... one... two..." into a microphone and I don't ever intend to.

That's pretty much the exact opposite of my experience. It's a total myth that bad/sub-standard sound engineers don't work, they do and they work lots. I work with hundreds of different engineers over the course of a year, I'm only impressed by probably 5% of them.

And I dunno what you've been doing for 30 years but I've heard the dreaded 'one... Two...' more times than I can remember!

 

[Steve Smith]

And I dunno what you've been doing for 30 years but I've heard the dreaded 'one... Two...' more times than I can remember!

Heard it a million times - just never said it myself. I usually think of something else to say or sing a few bars of something out of tune!


Steve.

 

[Byker28i]

ok back to watermarking - thought this article was interesting on an image that went viral:

http://fstoppers.com/my-photo-went-viral-and-nothing-could-have-prepared-me-for-what-happened-after

I posted it, for better or worse, without a watermark at a relatively large size of 2000px wide. Now, of course this is going to cause plenty of headaches down the road (and I’ve got a great lawyer on retainer for when that problem does arise, and believe me it already has). The reason I think this is so important is that people just aren’t going to share images with a watermark plastered across them. The internet, and its userbase as a whole, hate advertising. Watermarks get in the way of the image, and for some reason, whether psychological or otherwise, it seems that people are more likely to share content without a watermark. Imagine listening to a song and halfway through the song it faded out and someone said ‘by the way, purchase this track on itunes! It’s by So and So!’ Yeah. That would be annoying. People are more likely to share content that is easy to share and offers an unimpeded visual experience.

 

[Pookeyhead]

I've noticed a remarkable number of obviously non-professional photographers calling themselves (and what's worse, watermarking their photos) with their name followed by the word 'photography'. It seems to be a new variant of vanity publishing. Why is it so prevalent? It would be wholly understandable from someone whose income comes from their work, promoting and reinforcing their business identity, but for an amateur ...?

I'm curious about the psychology involved.

And aesthetically, however tastefully done, a watermark is an irritating intrusion into the image space.

I've no idea. I know it's photography.. I'm looking at a photograph. I've no idea.

I agree. While some people HAVE to watermark their images, the vast majority of amateurs will not gain any real benefit from doing so.

 

[Keith W]

I don't use the word photography - but then I'm an artist...

heh!

 

[On the Huh]

Good on ya Bethy. I like that...Picturemaker!

 

[robinchun]

I don't use 'photography'... I use Picturemaker. I don't class myself as a photographer, but an 'artist'. My watermark is tasteful and discreet, easily removed if someone wanted to remove it. I use it as @The23rdman does... advertising. I just want people to know *I* made this image... For me, it's about trying to get my name out there.

By the way, I am a Graphic Designer for a popular industry related company... with no official schooling for it. My self taught knowledge, artistic flare and experience got me here.

Bethy..isn't a photographer, or to use your terminology a, picture maker, an artist, after all you are creating something..I went to an art school and at end of term family and friends came to see your work..people would comment "its just paint splashed on canvas, I could have done that!" or "its bits of wood nailed together, I could have done that!" to which our tutor would retort "ah, but you didn't think of it, you didn't create it!" I always remember that

Robin