You know what, maybe I take it back.

4114effects

4114effects

Suspended / Banned
Messages
51
Name
Dan
Edit My Images
No
Following on from my recent discussion about the photography business in general, I have a discovered another worrying trend.

Again, this seems to be limited to Facebook. I've joined a few groups such as "Nikon users UK" and "landscape photographers" which seem to be nice sites for amateurs sharing pictures and tips. Then suddenly I noticed that a surprising number of pictures are watermarked with the name and the word "photographer" afterwards. It's as if people have found the watermark button in Lightroom and gone mad.

I can sometimes imagine them thinking to themselves "Just taken a picture of a helicopter with my 70-300, better change the watermark to aviation photography. Oops, now I've photographed a duck, better change it to nature photography ..."

I just don't understand the rationale of feeling the need to do that, especially as a great number of the photos are badly edited/composed/dangerously over-processed.

A prime example was an uninspiring landscape posted by "John Smith Professional Photography". The white balance was way out and the horizon was so sloped the ducks looked to be swimming uphill. When this was mentioned to him by a member of the group he replied "I don't really know how to use lightroom, I'm just starting out". Yet he'd branded himself "professional photographer"!

I have a nice food mixer and can bake a resonable victoria sponge. I don't then immediately call myself a "master baker". It really puzzles me why people think buying a nice SLR and taking a few snapshots makes them a "pro photographer".

Anyway, don't mean to put off the aspiring amateurs out there, I'm all for sharing tips and helping each other improve, I just think it's best to leave the watermarks until you're earning money from your pics.
 
Maybe stop worrying about what others are up to? I'm not being funny but why does it matter in the scheme of things what joe bloggs is up to. You could pick at any industry in the same way but it's a waste of time IMO as posting here is not going to solve the issue.
 
I wasn't looking to solve the issue, it's just something I noticed so I thought I'd come to this photography forum and discuss.

In the scheme of things, why bother discussing what anybody else is up to ever? After all, nothing anyone else does affects us right? Oh wait. That kinda makes this whole forum redundant.
 
To be honest this forum has given me no end of advice and help since I started photographing, that personally is why I use it to swap and share information. I'm not saying that you should ignore what people are doing altogether, as it's helpful to compare work and perhaps receive inspiration from others.
 
It does seem to be a great forum and sorry if my original post caused you any offense. It was meant to be more tongue on cheek than anything. Sometimes things don't come across how you intended them when written down on then net.

People are free to write "lord high photographer of the universe" on their photos if they like. I was just wondering what drives them to do so. :)
 
Last edited:
I've noticed a similar thing - recently I've been added to a couple of photography facebook groups which are plastered with shots from decidedly poor "bin" shots, to some real excellent images.
I think I'm going to leave the groups because the post volume is incredible and I just don't even see 'regular' updates - it's all these images (usually the same, usually of the vulcan :D )
But back to the original point, yes, watermarking has become the 'norm'... you're a photographer, so you must watermark (even if your images are not worth stealing :D )

That said... I watermark my stuff :D I don't adjust it depending on subject, and wouldn't watermark any which is just a record shot. (I call myself "an enthusiastic amateur")
Similarly on my blog, I don't watermark any of them, but I run a script to show the settings against each image.

And for what its worth... I don't find the facebook groups half as good as this forum... sure there is the odd spat of disagreement, but I'm not sure I read any true crit on the facebook sites.
 
Yeah. There a few shots on there which have been getting the "gr8 shot hun" type comments and I think, what are you all looking at? I wish I could post a couple of examples here, but I'd feel pretty bad if the photographers were on here too!
 
This does put a slightly different slant on your other post.

But it's all about perspective: When I see a s***e shot with an 'xyz photography' watermark, I don't think 'wow professional photography is really going downhill', I think 'Ha ha - this clown thinks that's good enough for a watermark! And he thinks he's a Professional... 'Bless', and I move on.

There might be a lot of people who think it's great, but I'm not interested in the views of those people, it's like the number of people who think Kanye West is talented, or that removing your eyebrows and painting on something that makes you look startled makes you more 'attractive', or that Microwave dinners are VFM and timesaving. Those people are just a bit dim, and I'm happy to let them carry on with their lives.

Meanwhile, I'm getting enough customers who can tell the difference between a genuine candid moment and a snapshot of someone in a nice tie, who appreciate that it takes some effort and creativity to produce a decent posed portrait - and it's not just about pointing a camera at someone and pressing the shutter.

There are still plenty of people who appreciate the difference without me having to be concerned with those that don't.
 
I think most folks add watermarks because they see others using watermarks and they assume it's the one thing.

It's not something worth getting upset about imo - and in a lot of cases the watermark has been done in a very amateur way that it really detracts from the image.
 
I think it'll always exist now. Don't worry about it. But have you noticed, generally, the worse the photo the bigger the watermark (and possibly ego)?
 
Phil V said:
This does put a slightly different slant on your other post.

But it's all about perspective: When I see a s***e shot with an 'xyz photography' watermark, I don't think 'wow professional photography is really going downhill', I think 'Ha ha - this clown thinks that's good enough for a watermark! And he thinks he's a Professional... 'Bless', and I move on.
Click to expand...

I find it to be a perfect way of identifying who not to hire

Mike
 
Peoples watermarks have never really crossed my mind, if they took the shot why not put a name to it, after all otherwise it's just another image on the net right? A mate of mine has a DSLR and said to me, "just stick it on sequence and take enough photos and you'll get a good one" that seems to be how he views "photographers" I.e they just get lucky... Is it fair of me to class a friend of mine as a photographer given that he knows d#ck about his camera but takes amazing photographs, should he not put a watermark or signature on his amazing photos, I am happy that some people I know watermark their photos or people could mistake them for mine ;) not that I class my self as a photographer rather just another bloke with a camera, unless of course I get a good shot, then I feel I have made the grade lol :)
 
I used to go mad with the watermark and now I don't really see the point. I suppose when you're starting out it might seem like the thing to do but like you, these days I see examples where they really shouldn't be used.

I joined the Banksy Dismaland group on Facebook and they post a lot of picture's there from visiting photographers but I don't understand how you can take a picture of someone else's art and then stick your watermark in the corner.

I use watermarks now when sending out client proofs so they don't print screen them and stick them on Facebook without paying but for anything else I don't see much point.
 
"Professional photographer" is a legitimate career path, its also one of the few professions that the general public has an interest in as a hobby, I mean nobody does architecture, engineering, law, accountancy etc etc as a hobby, I think that's why some pro photographers may have a bit of a chip on their shoulder (understandably) when say an amateur puts a watermark on their less than professional quality photo, I can see why it would make them roll their eyes.......however I very much doubt the vast majority of them give a hoot.
 
I put watermarks on mine as I shoot models and cosplayers amongst others.
They love to share the photos but are usually a little shy with giving the photographer credit, that's even if they know who took it.

It works for me as I've had a couple of paid gigs from it, they aren't necessarily the best photos in the world but are usually different enough from the norm to get them noticed.
 
Signing your name onto artwork is something that's pretty much drilled into us as the norm from an early age.
All the way through primary school, every drawing, painting or craft project produced in the class got signed "By Joe Blogs Age 5" etc.
OK, It may have served a practical purpose for the teacher to identify who had produced what, but it was also a little mark of 'pride' in what you'd made.
So is it really surprising that as adults, people still feel an urge to apply the digital equivalent to their digital images?

The naming convention of "xyz Photography" is a little odd, but then I don't think anyone ever told us to sign school art projects with the convention of "By xyz Age X" either.
It's just what people have seen from others and adopted as the norm.*

And I really don't think there's anything more to it than that.
In fact, I reckon that a reasonable percentage of people doing it have no more aspiration to be a professional photographer than I have to be a professional gardener.

Anyway, If I'm asked for an opinion on a photo I'll give honest feedback . . . but if that's not what someone is looking for?
Frankly, if they're having fun with their camera and are proud enough of what they've produced to want to put their name to it, then who am I to burst their bubble?


* OK, watermarking images as "xyz professional photography" when you're clearly not a professional is more than a little strange . . . but do people actually do that? Can't see that I've come across it before.
 
Just witnessed a prime example of my point. Guy in a forum on Facebook asking why half of his images are dark when he uses his flash and sets his shutter to 1/600th. I give him some basic advice about sync speed.

Then I take a quick look at his Facebook page, which lists his occupation as self emplyed professional photographer...
 
Last edited:
Facebook is a breeding ground for wannabes of all kinds - not just photographers.

It's also one of the most popular ways for people to share their pictures and hobbies with others. If people want to pretend they're pros then good luck to them, if their work is as bad as you describe then they're are not going to get too many customers and their mates are probably getting a giggle out of it. I really wouldn't worry. From what I've seen, I'd agree with Hugh that the bigger the watermark the more delusional the photographer. Aside from that, watermarking is perfectly normal.
 
Last edited:
Just curious , did anyone here go to an art uni or some visual related HND/degree course?, can't help feel there is an air of pretentiousness creeping out, if you want to talk about "pro" status then a formal qualification is a must don't you agree?. I did my TV ops HND ,I've also ran my own business doing corporate films,feature ,ballet , theater etc for the last 15 years , however I consider myself to be a hobbyist photographer. I've met Steadicam operators ,crane ops,1st AC's, Grip guys, directors ,famous actors etc etc but not one of them came across as a diva. Forgive me but I see a bit of a "holier than thou" attitude in photography, I can't help but think about that sticker on the back of learner cars that says "you were a learner once too"......give them a break and let them learn in their own time. Lindsay, it also sounds like you're relating the size of the watermark to the ability of the shooter....is that not like saying a guy that drives a Ferrari has a small dingaling.

I say be supportive ,try and pass on your experience and don't judge others that may not have reached your level of knowledge.

Andy.
 
Last edited:
Silvermuir said:
Just curious , did anyone here go to an art uni or some visual related HND/degree course?, can't help feel there is an air of pretentiousness creeping out, if you want to talk about "pro" status then a formal qualification is a must don't you agree?. I did my TV ops HND ,I've also ran my own business doing corporate films,feature ,ballet , theater etc for the last 15 years , however I consider myself to be a hobbyist photographer. I've met Steadicam operators ,crane ops,1st AC's, Grip guys, directors ,famous actors etc etc but not one of them came across as a diva. Forgive me but I see a bit of a "holier than thou" attitude in photography, I can't help but think about that sticker on the back of learner cars that says "you were a learner once too"......give them a break and let them learn in their own time. Lindsay, it also sounds like you're relating the size of the watermark to the ability of the shooter....is that not like saying a guy that drives a Ferrari has a small dingaling.

I say be supportive ,try and pass on your experience and don't judge others that may not have reached your level of knowledge.

Andy.
Click to expand...

Andy, I suspect you will find that some of the responses here (the ones you appear to object to) are made by working professional photographers with some years in the industry. We've seen a lot of changes over that period - some good, some not so. In fact some of those changes have done a great deal to mislead and confuse the public and photography clients in general. Some of us end up picking up the pieces. I know that I have spent a lot of my time providing assessments and feedback for wedding couples who have been dissatisfied with their photography. (I'm not convinced that your theatre analogy is comparable to what is being discussed here).

I feel that you are mistaking competency standards with ego - it's a shame when people do that, because you couldn't be more wrong. I also spend quite a lot of time mentoring and assessing new photographers - the kind who are keen to learn and do things the right way, for their benefit and their customers. So your comment about a general lack of supportiveness and judgement is grossly misplaced. Like others here, I also share a lot of my knowledge widely and in great detail on the forum. That is knowledge gained the hard way - over a lot of years of graft, learning from mistakes, understanding the business, and hoping that what we can pass on will help others avoid those pitfalls. So yes, it can be amusing (and sometimes worrying) when we spot so many snappers on social media listing themselves as professionals when there is nothing whatsoever to back up their claims - other than the aforementioned large watermark of course. ;)

Edit: I forgot to answer one of your questions (though I suspect you were being sarcastic). - The photographers I have met with university degrees have been overwhelmingly unprepared in every way for the working side of the industry, with a generally unrealistic view of what is required both technically and in business terms. So clearly a college qualification is not a requirement and adds little to the photographer's arsenal, if anything. Be aware that is not the same as the distinction system run by the photographic bodies where the vast majority of those gaining their credentials are already working photographers - living in the real world.
 
Last edited:
Agreed. Just for clarification, I have nothing against photographers who are learning the ropes. I'm one of them. Like you say, we all started somewhere and we should all help each other out.

I'll gladly give advice and tips to anyone who asks. But if you list "professional photographer" as your business on Facebook you should really know basic things like flash sync speed ...
 
4114effects said:
I'll gladly give advice and tips to anyone who asks. But if you list "professional photographer" as your business on Facebook you should really know basic things like flash sync speed ...
Click to expand...

Yes, it can be very misleading. Whilst most reading this forum will understand the pitfalls of hiring someone from Facebook who has little in the way of credentials, the general public either don't have that insight or else they shop on price, or perhaps simply take the description of 'professional photographer' at face value - presuming the requisite skills are in place. A lot of this does rest with customers, who may not do much by the way of research - but I feel fairly strongly that nobody should represent themselves as something they are not. I feel this is where Andy is getting confused - I don't think any of us have a problem with anyone 'learning in their own time'. In fact that's what we'd love to see - but instead we have a very pronounced 'run before we can walk' mentality in some newcomers and we know what happens when this goes pear shaped. Like the majority of people I know, I don't want to see anybody fail, let alone end up in court. This is a very real possibility if we apply this discussion to wedding photography, which does show pronounced similarities now and again on Facebook. And as I think you mentioned recently, newborn photography - this is an area where safety is paramount (unless your work is strictly candid and hands off) and in my opinion should need appropriate training from somebody skilled and experienced.
 
I was being sarcastic Lindsay sorry, my girlfriend hates it :D, and I have been giving you all a hard time . Like I said i've worked for many years in a similar field, in our world the thing that many new starts fail to understand is copyright law...they'll stick a famous song on their corporate film and send it to the client I s@#t you not, i've seen it happen so we're on the same page business wise (i'm not confused).

I'm also a member of the DVinfo forum which is exactly like this but for film, it just seems pro's grumble more about the public on this site ,i think this is a clear case of two similar business worlds colliding, we both use cameras to put food on the table ;)

Andy.
 
4114effects said:
Following on from my recent discussion about the photography business in general, I have a discovered another worrying trend.
Click to expand...

Let them carry on being idiots... it just means there are more idiots, and therefore fewer people who know how to represent themselves properly to people who actually matter. I love idiots... I want more of them. Proportionately, the more there are, the easier it will be to launch world domination get your work seen by the actual industry.
 
If you focus less on the watermarking and incompetence, and more the choice of group or forum. Avoid the duff ones completely. Just go to the forums where the signal to noise ratio is acceptable.

There will always be such people who will never learn. And may come from a culture where the dimwits can be overconfident to a huge degree. And where such idiocy is the norm.
 
Last edited:
Having watched LR and PS beginner videos and stuff, Scott Kelby for one, says watermark everything and copyright info too.

Probably why so many people do it.

I do it, in one of the corners, hard to spot sometimes.

Wouldn't whack it across the whole image like some do :)
 
Does anyone who is being paid need to use the term 'professional' in front of their chosen career title? You just don't see it. Professional accountant, professional checkout operator, professional lorry driver, professional taxi driver, professional butcher, professional greengrocer. HMRC will confirm who is and who isn't being paid for their career path. The only ones they don't officially keep track of are 'ladies of the night', who are acknowledged 'pros' anyway and criminals. Which category would you like to fit into? ;)

There is certainly a trend probably encouraged by Mr Kelbys little videos and procession of books, but hey, he is making loads of dough out of all this.....professional book writer.

Ignore and move on. They ain't worth it.
 
The other advantage of putting your name & age on there is for competitions.
Rodney Trotter would never have joined the Groovy Gang if he hadn't put his name & age on his painting of Marble Arch [emoji6]
 
shreds said:
Does anyone who is being paid need to use the term 'professional' in front of their chosen career title?
Click to expand...

I asked the same question a while ago. It was pointed out that professional is used for things which can be a profession or an amateur pursuit such as photographer, musician, footballer, etc. You don't get many amateur doctors or accountants.

For some things, it just sounds right. e.g. the logo for the small PA hire business myself and my son run has professional in the title.


Steve.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top