Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: rabanito on April 03, 2019, 10:48:33 am
-
I see lots of beautiful pictures ruined by less-than-discreet signatures ON THE PICTURE.
What is the reason for doing that, after so much work and creativity involved in them?
-
I see lots of beautiful pictures ruined by less-than-discreet signatures ON THE PICTURE.
What is the reason for doing that, after so much work and creativity involved in them?
Some do it for images posted on the web so that the image will not be stolen. Of course the signature can be removed in PS. Others do it out of ego.
-
You already asked the same question half a year ago and got three pages of replies. Early onset of dementia or you just can't let it go? ;)
https://forum2.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=127716.msg1079907#msg1079907
-
You already asked the same question half a year ago and got three pages of replies. Early onset of dementia or you just can't let it go? ;)
https://forum2.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=127716.msg1079907#msg1079907
The conditions have changed. You never know if the opinions have changed also.
The spirit of the times, room for new ideas, more or different people involved etc etc.
As an example:
Some time ago person A said that slavery was unjust.
Nobody agreed. A had to shut up
Some time later person A asked again.
There were new ideas. New people.
Some agreed but nothing happened
Still later he asked again. Newer ideas, other people.
Most people agreed
And so on...
Some time ago Einstein proposed his Theory of Relativity.
The Professoren and Doktoren of the Deutsche Physik denigrated this as "Jewish Physics"
Well they were wrong ;D
I believe in asking and checking periodically with an open mind. That's how I learn
People still ruin beautiful photos with their signatures IMHO. I still don't understand why
Nobody has to answer, this is just the Coffee Corner ;)
-
...You never know if the opinions have changed...
Nope. Not mine.
-
Nope. Not mine.
Breaks my heart :)
Like a High Tension Mast in front of the Matterhorn
Just joking.
I am interested also in serious opinions
-
... I am interested also in serious opinions
Fine... how about this from the November thread (reply #44):
https://forum2.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=127716.msg1082690#msg1082690
As for me, I am using it as a branding tool, and for the same reason Les explained above.
-
Fine... how about this from the November thread (reply #44):
https://forum2.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=127716.msg1082690#msg1082690
As for me, I am using it as a branding tool, and for the same reason Les explained above.
"but if the digital version doesn't show artist's name, there is no way that the interested party could find and contact the image maker."
You mean this?
Well, I guess that if you post an image under Slobodan... that's it. It's yours.
No need to ruin the picture with the branding iron, it's all there in the upper left, even with a picture of the artist himself!
For those here who are for the Luminous Land- or Streetscape thing and not as buyers or thieves of images it is a pity.
I personally don't see this as a marketplace but a place to exchange experiences, learn from the more knowledgeable and enjoy great and less than great pictures.
You might as well put a price tag on the image, just in case ;)
-
I personally don't see this as a marketplace but a place to exchange experiences, learn from the more knowledgeable and enjoy great and less than great pictures.
Right, Rab. With digital images it doesn't make much difference. In five seconds I can do this to Slobodan's corrupted picture. If I wanted to spend the time, I could remove the signature a bit at a time and have the equivalent of the original.
But with prints, it's different. It's always worth signing your prints -- with your hand. The signature can, and should, be unobtrusive and preferably in the lower right corner. If you're ever famous (and who on LuLa isn't going eventually to be famous?) then the signed prints will be much more valuable than the unsigned ones.
-
A very nice photo Russ ;)
-
... You mean this?...
You are unbelivable. Of the several reasons Les and I mentioned, you pick one to turn into a straw man.
If you don’t know what branding is, look it up.
-
You are unbelivable. Of the several reasons Les and I mentioned, you pick one to turn into a straw man.
If you don’t know what branding is, look it up.
Of course I know, I've seen lots of Westerns :)
"Livestock branding is a technique for marking livestock so as to identify the owner."
That's what you do to your pictures, with other tools ;)
Of course if you give me a link instead of quoting precisely what you want to say, it can be that I pick the wrong meaning. Sorry about that.
-
But with prints, it's different. It's always worth signing your prints -- with your hand. The signature can, and should, be unobtrusive and preferably in the lower right corner. If you're ever famous (and who on LuLa isn't going eventually to be famous?) then the signed prints will be much more valuable than the unsigned ones.
Of course I'm referring to what we see here at LuLa, say 1000x1000 72 ppi. I'm not sure who would want to steal that and what for.
Well as for today anything is possible :o
And I would buy a print rather than a small digital image. Prints I've seen in (photography) exhibitions were signed on the mat or as you say, almost invisible
I've seen even signatures on the backing board of heat press mounted B&W prints.
-
Right, Rab. With digital images it doesn't make much difference. In five seconds I can do this to Slobodan's corrupted picture. If I wanted to spend the time, I could remove the signature a bit at a time and have the equivalent of the original.
But with prints, it's different. It's always worth signing your prints -- with your hand. The signature can, and should, be unobtrusive and preferably in the lower right corner. If you're ever famous (and who on LuLa isn't going eventually to be famous?) then the signed prints will be much more valuable than the unsigned ones.
Russ,
if you want to post your pictures unsigned, that's your decision and you are free to do it.
If you want to copy someone's signed picture and offer tonal improvement tips keeping the signature intact, that can be helpful and appreciated.
However, copying Slobodan's picture, removing his signature and reposting it for anybody to copy it and distributing it that way, is irresponsible, damaging and hurtful.
-
If you want to copy someone's signed picture and offer tonal improvement tips keeping the signature intact, that can be helpful and appreciated.
However, copying Slobodan's picture, removing his signature and reposting it for anybody to copy it and distributing it that way, is irresponsible, damaging and hurtful.
You can see it differently
The "signature" in this case can be seen as an ornament, taking it out (about 1/4 of the image is missing) could be seen as equivalent to a tonal improvement, which you approve for didactic purposes.
It changes the original work of the artist.
It is a different image.
Nobody would recognize it as the work of that artist, the composition is damaged, for instance
You cannot identify it like you would identify strokes by Rubens or van Gogh in a piece of a painting
The picture is not signed but has a stamp on it. A valid signature is usually by hand, on any valid document.
Just a point of view, don't take me wrong.
-
You can see it differently. The "signature" in this case can be seen as an ornament, taking it out (about 1/4 of the image is missing) could be seen as equivalent to a tonal improvement, which you approve for didactic purposes. It changes the original work of the artist. It is a different image. Nobody would recognize it as the work of that artist, the composition is damaged, for instance You cannot identify it like you would identify strokes by Rubens or van Gogh in a piece of a painting The picture is not signed but has a stamp on it. A valid signature is usually by hand, on any valid document.
Just a point of view, don't take me wrong.
Different and valid point of view, but totally irrelevant when it comes to protection of intellectual property, in this case an unprofessional and unethical manipulation of spectacular and wonderful image.
I don't think any rational person would consider Slobodan's signature as an ornament meant to improve the artistic quality of the image.
-
A very nice photo Russ ;)
Exactly.
There are a million visitors to LuLa each month (or at least at some point in the past). Statistically speaking, it is highly probable that some will copy and share what they find and like here. I, for one, am not concerned with those with malicious intent. I know I can not prevent them from doing harm. But I would like to be associated with my pictures when they are shared online by those who just like it and mean no harm.
I take my photography seriously. I've made money with it. I had magazine covers, numerous awards in international competitions, published in magazines and books. There were years when it was my only source of income. My highest paid amount for a single image was $11,500 (by Canon, incidentally). I am trying to build a brand. I have a difficult name. I want people to recognize it and remember it, even if they can not pronounce it. They can see my images here, on Facebook, Instagram, Flickr, National Geographic, etc. And when the stumble upon my images on different platforms, I would like them to remember it is the same photographer. I had people contact me after seeing one of my images in a magazine, and we became friends afterwards. This is what branding does, apart from labeling cattle.
-
... It changes the original work of the artist...
If it does, I did it, thus my problem.
It should have been obvious that the size of that logo (reply #4) was used in jest. I might use it like that, however, if it would be for a book cover. I usually use a much smaller logo, placed in the picture where I think it compliments the composition, without distracting from it too much.
-
Different and valid point of view, but totally irrelevant when it comes to protection of intellectual property, in this case an unprofessional and unethical manipulation of spectacular and wonderful image.
I don't think any rational person would consider Slobodan's signature as an ornament meant to improve the artistic quality of the image.
Just other way around. I'm implying that the big signatures on the image deteriorate their artistic quality.
That's why I ask the question in the first place
Take the signature away and - in my humble opinion - the image improves
-
I take my photography seriously. I've made money with it. I had magazine covers, numerous awards in international competitions, published in magazines and books. There were years when it was my only source of income. My highest paid amount for a single image was $11,500 (by Canon, incidentally). I am trying to build a brand. I have a difficult name. I want people to recognize it and remember it, even if they can not pronounce it. They can see my images here, on Facebook, Instagram, Flickr, National Geographic, etc. And when the stumble upon my images on different platforms, I would like them to remember it is the same photographer. I had people contact me after seeing one of my images in a magazine, and we became friends afterwards. This is what branding does, apart from labeling cattle.
Well, that is one answer to my question, for example.
Highly personal but a good one.
Thanks
-
If it does, I did it, thus my problem.
Sorry Slobodan, Les approved (tonal) improvements for didactical reasons and I was answering that.
It should have been obvious that the size of that logo (reply #4) was used in jest. I
Of course Slobodan. At this stage I think I know a little about your sense of humor :)
-
Just other way around. I'm implying that the big signatures on the image deteriorate their artistic quality.
That's why I ask the question in the first place
Take the signature away and - in my humble opinion - the image improves
Have you ever sold or attempted to sell a picture? Not that it would be essential for making art, but for some artists getting paid for their artwork is essential.
As I mentioned in my previous post, there can be different considerations when showing a picture. I never stated that a signature will improve the composition or color harmony of an image, so we don't need to discuss that.
Why can't you understand the other point, that a creator of the image has a right to protect his artwork? In case you didn't know, if you elect to purchase a watermarked or signed image for your pleasure (as a print or a digital version), the signature or watermark on the delivered and paid for image will be removed.
-
Have you ever sold or attempted to sell a picture? Not that it would be essential for making art, but for some artists getting paid for their artwork is essential.
Actually yes, but not for a living. The galleries put a price tag and some people bought. Satisfied my ego but not much more :D
Selling was the job of the galleries
As I mentioned in my previous post, there can be different considerations when showing a picture. I never stated that a signature will improve the composition or color harmony of an image, so we don't need to discuss that.
Of course you didn't. And I only stated that IMHO the signature ON the image deteriorates it, which is - again IMHO - true
Why can't you understand the other point, that a creator of the image has a right to protect his artwork?
I understand that.
But as you might sense, my experience in digital photography is very limited.
Protecting a digital image intended to be projected in a low resolution medium like a PC screen is relatively new to me.
There are other issues as well.
That's why I ask. It looks like for protecting (let alone successfully )your work the only way is to put a stamp on it, to be removed later.
So we come to LuLa to watch great photography and in many cases the works of art are impaired wit logos.
I don't buy anything, I want to enjoy the works of art of my fellow photographers.
And I can identify their names or their nicks.
In case you didn't know, if you elect to purchase a watermarked or signed image for your pleasure (as a print or a digital version), the signature or watermark on the delivered and paid for image will be removed.
No I didn't know that.
In my humble experience with silver prints the signature (usually on the mat or on the backside when mounted on a backboard) was wanted (even the numbers in limited edition prints, which is another interesting subject ;D ;D )
The artist would smile at what the customer considers important but that is again another topic :)
Again: I don't come here to fight or criticize but to exchange ideas.
This is the coffee corner. I sit down with you to a cup of coffee and chat.
Maybe (probably) I learn something
No offense meant to anyone ;)
-
Protecting a digital image intended to be projected in a low resolution medium like a PC screen is relatively new to me. There are other issues as well.
That's why I ask. It looks like for protecting (let alone successfully )your work the only way is to put a stamp on it, to be removed later.
...
In case you didn't know, if you elect to purchase a watermarked or signed image for your pleasure (as a print or a digital version), the signature or watermark on the delivered and paid for image will be removed. >
No I didn't know that. In my humble experience with silver prints the signature (usually on the mat or on the backside when mounted on a backboard) was wanted (even the numbers in limited edition prints, which is another interesting subject
As a matter of fact, nowadays many stock images are sold in a relatively small size (even smaller than 800-1000 pixels wide) for use on websites, on-line ads and various on-line publications. Even social media companies like Facebook are purchasing stock images in small sizes specifically for on-line use. They can obtain such images at a special rate, and the stock agencies and their contributors benefit also by distributing their images via additional channels. Below are examples from two on-line publications using relatively small images.
climate-roundup (https://www.tvo.org/article/climate-roundup-muskoka-residents-sue-ontario-for-flood-damage)
the-most-romantic-winter-wedding-destinations-in-canada (https://theculturetrip.com/north-america/canada/articles/the-most-romantic-winter-wedding-destinations-in-canada/) - my image of Prince Of Wales Hotel is the 6th from the top
Many travel guide books use rather small images, on average 3" x 3" (7.5cm x 7.5cm). If they print the image at 300 dpi, they need a 900 pixels wide image. If they print at 200 dpi, they need only 1000 pixels wide image for a 5" printed picture.
As to the watermarks which you see on stock agency images, they are not part of the image, they are superimposed on the image just prior to the display. Of course, LuLa is not providing such a feature, so we have to add the signature or watermark as another layer to the image (saving a layered file in jpg format will merge all layers automatically). Personally, I'm used to see the watermarks on the images and my brain must be filtering them out, so they don't disturb me at all. On my own images posted on this site, I usually tone down my copyright notice to 15-30% opacity to make it just a subtle watermark rather than a loud signage.
-
Prints I've seen in (photography) exhibitions were signed on the mat. . .
The main problem with signing on the mat is that the mat can be removed and put on a different picture. Best to sign on the print itself.
-
The main problem with signing on the mat is that the mat can be removed and put on a different picture. Best to sign on the print itself.
Sorry my English. Mat is the passe-partout, I guess.
In the following example:
The pic is heat-press mounted on a board
The signature is on the board lower right in pencil.
Of course you can erase the signature and put your own
But the rest of the data is on the reverse in ink
You cannot detach the print from the mounting board
;D
-
As to the watermarks which you see on stock agency images, they are not part of the image, they are superimposed on the image just prior to the display. Of course, LuLa is not providing such a feature, so we have to add the signature or watermark as another layer to the image (saving a layered file in jpg format will merge all layers automatically). Personally, I'm used to see the watermarks on the images and my brain must be filtering them out, so they don't disturb me at all. On my own images posted on this site, I usually tone down my copyright notice to 15-30% opacity to make it just a subtle watermark rather than a loud signage.
Thank you. Nice images.
But I can still steal your images from the pages you publish in. I tried it
Wouldn't this be equivalent to stealing them from LuLa?
Sorry for my ignorance :(
-
...You cannot detach the print from the mounting board...
That’s the very reason mounting boards are considered neither archival nor worth collecting.
-
That’s the very reason mounting boards are considered neither archival nor worth collecting.
Well I was told that boards in "museum quality" are archival
Anyway I don't collect mounting boards, they all look blank
:)
-
Well I was told that boards in "museum quality" are archival
Anyway I don't collect mounting boards, they all look blank
:)
Oh, you are a funny guy! I meant, of course, prints mounted on mounting board. As for archival, it has something to do the glue, if my memory serves me well.
-
Thank you. Nice images.
But I can still steal your images from the pages you publish in. I tried it
Wouldn't this be equivalent to stealing them from LuLa?
Sorry for my ignorance :(
Well, you are correct, it appears that it's easier to steal the images from the aforementioned publications than from LuLa. I learned something new today.
I assumed that they downsized the images to 500-600 pixels wide as they appear on my screen (and many on-line pages do that), but the referenced images are actually 1000, resp. 1200 pixels wide and only the browser displayed them in a smaller size. So it looks like we can't prevent the stealing entirely, we can only try to minimize the damage.
-
Oh, you are a funny guy! I meant, of course, prints mounted on mounting board. As for archival, it has something to do the glue, if my memory serves me well.
Of course you did.
I hope you appreciate my sense of humor too :)
As for "Archival":
While the print, and the board can be acid-free, most dry mounting is not considered an archival technique, because archival standards require that any mounted print can be easily removed from the mount board behind it.
But at least as far as my humble experience (hearsay) goes, prints mounted that way don't deteriorate if treated with due care.
The Ansel Adams Gallery writes
"Exhibition quality prints by Ansel Adams and the Ansel Adams Special Edition Prints by Alan Ross are made with great care. Every effort has been made to insure that they have practical archival quality and will last indefinitely unless subjected to an extraordinarily destructive environment, excessive humidity, vermin and/or poor handling and storage conditions. All prints are subjected to three fixing baths and hypo-clearing agent, and are toned in selenium. They are mounted with dry mounting tissue on the highest quality mount board."
The Rabanito Fine Art Gallery believes that they might be right ;D
-
^ You had me at "vermin" ;)
-
That’s the very reason mounting boards are considered neither archival nor worth collecting.
Depends on what you're talking about when you say "mounting boards," Slobodan. If you're talking about dry mounting with a dry mounting press, Ansel Adams mounted a lot of his stuff that way and the stuff he mounted certainly is worth collecting. Dry mounting tissue is archival. On the other hand, it's possible, with the right equipment, to un-mount stuff that's been dry mounted. I dry mount my larger prints, and I'd hate to have to try to un-mount them, but I know it's possible.
And yes, Rab, it's possible to jigger signatures in many ways, but if you're proud of your print, why not simply sign it with indelible ink? Are they so bad you'd rather not have people know they're yours unless they look on the back?
-
And yes, Rab, it's possible to jigger signatures in many ways, but if you're proud of your print, why not simply sign it with indelible ink? Are they so bad you'd rather not have people know they're yours unless they look on the back?
I am proud of my prints. I sign them on the rear (verso).
-
... If you're talking about dry mounting..
Rabanito was talking about heat-press. I am not familiar with the process, so I do not know what the heat does to the glueing material. My recollection about archivability is based on something that he also quoted above (emphasis mine):
archival standards require that any mounted print can be easily removed from the mount board behind it.
-
And yes, Rab, it's possible to jigger signatures in many ways, but if you're proud of your print, why not simply sign it with indelible ink? Are they so bad you'd rather not have people know they're yours unless they look on the back?
Well if you observe the example I put before you'll see "Rabanito" on the board lower right in pencil :-)
On the back there is a stamp with the name of the print, date and the ridiculous number of the copy (2/20 for example - shame on me :) )
This with ink
-
Rabanito was talking about heat-press. I am not familiar with the process, so I do not know what the heat does to the glueing material. My recollection about archivability is based on something that he also quoted above (emphasis mine):
Removeable dry mount tissue is readily available.
-
Oh, you are a funny guy! I meant, of course, prints mounted on mounting board. As for archival, it has something to do the glue, if my memory serves me well.
Archival mats are made from better materials, thus holding their original color. Most non-archival mats will fade over the years, and the white mats will change to dull yellow color, mainly due to light exposure.
-
Archival mats are made from better materials, thus holding their original color. Most non-archival mats will fade over the years, and the white mats will change to dull yellow color, mainly due to light exposure.
It goes without saying that you should use archival materials. None of that has anything to do with signatures on the prints.
-
Rabanito was talking about heat-press. I am not familiar with the process, so I do not know what the heat does to the glueing material. My recollection about archivability is based on something that he also quoted above (emphasis mine):
Check dry mounting presses, Slobodan. Dry mounting is done with a heat press. But the mounting material is a tissue with adhesive that melts a bit under the heat from the press. It's not sticky. As I said, Ansel Adams used to dry mount some of his stuff. As far as a print having to be detachable from its mount in order to be considered archival, yes, I understand that the overseers who make such decision have DECIDED, but, as is the case with most such dictates, it's BS.
-
Check dry mounting presses, Slobodan. Dry mounting is done with a heat press. But the mounting material is a tissue with adhesive that melts a bit under the heat from the press. It's not sticky. As I said, Ansel Adams used to dry mount some of his stuff. As far as a print having to be detachable from its mount in order to be considered archival, yes, I understand that the overseers who make such decision have DECIDED, but, as is the case with most such dictates, it's BS.
I think it's BS as well. I think all the Ansel Adams exhibition prints are dry mounted and as noted earlier (this was certainly the case at the major exhibition of Adams prints here in Washington some years ago), the reproductions that one can purchase are as well. I bought an 8x10 Yosemite image some years ago and it came framed and dry mounted. When I was dry mounting B/W prints back in the day I used a low temperature mounting tissue that was easy to handle. As long as one has acid free mat board there should not be any problems with image degradation and one can selenium tone B/W prints for enhanced preservation. I've seen differing reports about whether PK ink jet prints can be dry mounted because the surface coating might not be fully heat stable.
-
Right on, Alan. The BS surrounding dry mounted prints is deep. As far as I'm concerned it's the only reasonable way to produce a large, flat, framed print that will stay flat. There's an awful lot of horse hockey out there about using acid-free hinges at the corners of a print. Yes, that works well enough with a print no larger than about 8 1/2 by 11, but try it with a 17 x 22.
-
Right on, Alan. The BS surrounding dry mounted prints is deep.
It should come as no surprise that some people don't know what they are talking about, particularly when they have no hands-on experience with the topic.
-
Well, Fab, I've dry mounted at least a thousand prints, and hung hundreds with corner hinges, but I'd be happy to become educated about mounting and framing on the basis of your vast experience.
-
Well, Fab, I've dry mounted at least a thousand prints, and hung hundreds with corner hinges, but I'd be happy to become educated about mounting and framing on the basis of your vast experience.
I wasn't talking about you. You obviously have dry mounting experience. It's the other dolts in this thread that have never dry mounted a print I was referring too.
-
It should come as no surprise that some people don't know what they are talking about, particularly when they have no hands-on experience with the topic.
LuLa Member Rabanito pleads not guilty to that charge 8)
-
..l It's the other dolts in this thread that have never dry mounted a print I was referring too.
Thanks. Classy.
I never said I have dry mounting experience. On the contrary, I repeatedly stated I don’t, and was speaking from memory and remembering statements from museum curators and galleriests, which Rabanito also quoted. That some dispute that stance, like you and Russ, is fine, but that doesn’t mean that the official view of those who matter is non-existent or wrong, however you may not like it.
-
In case you didn't know, if you elect to purchase a watermarked or signed image for your pleasure (as a print or a digital version), the signature or watermark on the delivered and paid for image will be removed.
I've seen images for sale with names on logos on them. WTF?
-
I've seen images for sale with names on logos on them. WTF?
Names on logos? What else have you seen?
-
I've seen images for sale with names on logos on them. WTF?
You can buy a piece of garbage with the face of Andy Warhol (selfie) for 7.7 Mio Dollar.
Why wonder then...
-
Names on logos? What else have you seen?
Should have been names and logos. I don't think it is a given that if you buy a print, they take them off. Perhaps, as suggested, it is for branding purposes. I think it is tacky, but opinions differ.
-
Right on, Alan. The BS surrounding dry mounted prints is deep. As far as I'm concerned it's the only reasonable way to produce a large, flat, framed print that will stay flat. There's an awful lot of horse hockey out there about using acid-free hinges at the corners of a print. Yes, that works well enough with a print no larger than about 8 1/2 by 11, but try it with a 17 x 22.
I've used Mylar photo corners along with an overmat one17x22 prints with one inch margins on all sides and that can keep a print flat. However, your print is not as large as it could be if you had smaller margins and went the dry mount route.
-
Should have been names and logos. I don't think it is a given that if you buy a print, they take them off. Perhaps, as suggested, it is for branding purposes. I think it is tacky, but opinions differ.
Some artists put their name or signature on the artwork in a permanent way, especially if it is a print, that's their choice.
Some on-line galleries and all stock agencies superimpose their name and/or name of the author as a watermark on the displayed image (as shown below), but when a customer buys the image he receives it without the watermark.
(https://image.shutterstock.com/z/stock-photo-winding-road-in-valley-of-fire-1245247489.jpg)
-
;D