Luminous Landscape Forum

The Art of Photography => But is it Art? => Topic started by: rabanito on November 26, 2018, 07:43:38 am

Title: Watermarks
Post by: rabanito on November 26, 2018, 07:43:38 am
I am looking with interest to some very beautiful pictures presented in this forum.
But some of them  are really RUINED with monster-watermarks.
I understand the need of copywrighting the work but, for the observers, here in the Internet or in an Art Gallery, those foreign objects have nothing to do with "art"
Are there maybe other means to protect the work, perhaps more discreet "© 's"?
We would  enjoy the pictures all the more.
Title: Re: Watermarks
Post by: petermfiore on November 26, 2018, 07:58:24 am
I am looking with interest to some very beautiful pictures presented in this forum.
But some of them  are really RUINED with monster-watermarks.
I understand the need of copywrighting the work but, for the observers, here in the Internet or in an Art Gallery, those foreign objects have nothing to do with "art"
Are there maybe other means to protect the work, perhaps more discreet "© 's"?
We would  enjoy the pictures all the more.
+1000

Peter
Title: Re: Watermarks
Post by: KLaban on November 26, 2018, 08:39:11 am
Worse still, watermark signatures.

;-)
Title: Re: Watermarks
Post by: RSL on November 26, 2018, 09:01:50 am
+2000
Title: Re: Watermarks
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on November 26, 2018, 09:48:47 am
i don't like watermarks either, but I understand that some photographers have their work ripped off without giving the photographer credit or payment.
So I accept the use of some watermarks and try to ignore them.
Title: Re: Watermarks
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 26, 2018, 09:58:14 am
Every piece of art is signed. Why not photographs? I love mine. And it is not about copyright at all.
Title: Re: Watermarks
Post by: rabanito on November 26, 2018, 10:05:38 am
i don't like watermarks either, but I understand that some photographers have their work ripped off without giving the photographer credit or payment.
So I accept the use of some watermarks and try to ignore them.
Well I understand that but the topic in this thread is "But is it Art?"
Listening to say Chopin with somebody beating battery drums beside the piano  is not so good as without the drums :-)
In the showcases I think one could expect the same standards as in a say, gallery

I say this with due respect, some pictures are really good and it's a pity that we have to look at them after copying them to Photoshop only after filling them with some "Content-Awareness"
I'm joking of course but anyway...
We discussed not long ago about the cigarette butt one could oversee when tripping the shutter :-)
Title: Re: Watermarks
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 26, 2018, 10:08:57 am
... In the showcases I think one could expect the same standards as in a say, gallery...

Every art piece in a gallery is signed. What is your point?
Title: Re: Watermarks
Post by: RSL on November 26, 2018, 10:32:59 am
Every piece of art is signed. Why not photographs? I love mine. And it is not about copyright at all.

Right, Slobodan. Unless you're making photographs for pay, copyright adheres to the creator. But the problem Eric's pointing to is that even though you own the copyright, and put a copyright notice in the IPTC core; even though you've registered the copyright, if somebody rips off your photograph you need to go to court to prove you own it, and even if you win in court you may not recover even what you paid in attorney fees.

Yes. I sign my prints too. But that's not the same thing.

But for an amateur who's not making photographs for money, a watermark is an over-the-top, chest-thumping absurdity.
Title: Re: Watermarks
Post by: faberryman on November 26, 2018, 10:39:36 am
But for an amateur who's not making photographs for money, a watermark is an over-the-top, chest-thumping absurdity.
I'll agree with with that. Especially when it is one of those fake signature things plastered on the image.
Title: Re: Watermarks
Post by: rabanito on November 26, 2018, 10:44:57 am
Every art piece in a gallery is signed. What is your point?
Works of art in galleries and museums are signed, I agree.
Usually inconspicuosly, some on the photograph where it doesn't disturb and mostly on the mat
You have a beautiful signature but I was referrrin to things like the attache one.
I wrote "MONSTER" Watermarks
That's my point :-)
Title: Re: Watermarks
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 26, 2018, 10:49:22 am
... chest-thumping...

The whole art is about chest-thumping. With the exception of Vivian Maier, perhaps.
Title: Re: Watermarks
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 26, 2018, 10:51:14 am
...I was referrrin to things like the attache one...

And can you point to an example on LuLa of that kind?
Title: Re: Watermarks
Post by: rabanito on November 26, 2018, 11:10:44 am
And can you point to an example on LuLa of that kind?

I could of course, that's why I started this topic.
And those beautiful copyrighted leaves no one could steal :-)

But I won't. Would look like pointing "ad hominem" in my opinion.

You could find them if you look. Or you just believe me.
I meant this to be taken in a general way anyway :-)
Title: Re: Watermarks
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 26, 2018, 11:16:06 am
... But I won't. Would look like pointing "ad hominem" in my opinion.

You could find them if you look...

I don’t think you understand well what ad hominem is. Pointing to a particular picture isn’t.

I’ve been looking at LuLa images for years, much longer than you, and can’t remember any such a drastic copyright logo or signature. Maybe a few slightly excessive size logos, but surely not enough to warrant a thread about it as a “problem.”
Title: Re: Watermarks
Post by: faberryman on November 26, 2018, 11:25:39 am
I’ve been looking at LuLa images for years, much longer than you, and can’t remember any such a drastic copyright logo or signature. Maybe a few slightly excessive size logos, but surely not enough to warrant a thread about it as a “problem.”
You have obviously grown insensitive to it. I find your signature in Reply #5 excessive and distracting from what is otherwise a nice image.
Title: Re: Watermarks
Post by: rabanito on November 26, 2018, 11:42:02 am
I don’t think you understand well what ad hominem is. Pointing to a particular picture isn’t.

I’ve been looking at LuLa images for years, much longer than you, and can’t remember any such a drastic copyright logo or signature. Maybe a few slightly excessive size logos, but surely not enough to warrant a thread about it as a “problem.”

Look Slobodan. I'm not talking about a "problem". It bothers me a little and I just threw the question to the forum to hear different opinions
Yes, slightly excessive  size logos bother me.

If I get a "Moonrise Hernandez, New Mexico" with the signature of Ansel Adams in the middle of the sky, it bothers me.
IMHO it is NOT tahe same and I could not ignore it.

As for the "ad hominem" part, the pictures are copyrighted with the name of the author, not anonymous :-)
I consider naming them in a critique, even indirectly, could be felt as a personal. No need for that.
Sorry if my Latin is not so good :-)
Title: Re: Watermarks
Post by: RSL on November 26, 2018, 11:47:18 am
See. . . We don't need to argue about politics. We can argue about anything!
Title: Re: Watermarks
Post by: Kevin Gallagher on November 26, 2018, 12:36:28 pm
See. . . We don't need to argue about politics. We can argue about anything!


HA!! Well said Russ!
Title: Re: Watermarks
Post by: KLaban on November 26, 2018, 12:50:31 pm
See. . . We don't need to argue about politics. We can argue about anything!

No we can't.

;-)
Title: Re: Watermarks
Post by: Martin Kristiansen on November 26, 2018, 01:28:47 pm
Right, Slobodan. Unless you're making photographs for pay, copyright adheres to the creator. But the problem Eric's pointing to is that even though you own the copyright, and put a copyright notice in the IPTC core; even though you've registered the copyright, if somebody rips off your photograph you need to go to court to prove you own it, and even if you win in court you may not recover even what you paid in attorney fees.

Yes. I sign my prints too. But that's not the same thing.

But for an amateur who's not making photographs for money, a watermark is an over-the-top, chest-thumping absurdity.

Wow! We agree on something. That’s either good or an indication I should up my medication😛
Title: Re: Watermarks
Post by: RSL on November 26, 2018, 01:41:05 pm
The whole art is about chest-thumping. With the exception of Vivian Maier, perhaps.

Not really, Slobodan. Real photographic art, and especially street, is the same thing as poetry. The point is to attempt to transfer to somebody else, possibly lot of somebody elses, a basic and important human experience.

Yes, I know, a lot of photographers, especially on LuLa, are  chest-thumpers. I could name names, but I'll avoid the kind of opprobrium that would result from that. We REALLY could have some arguments with chest-thumpers.
Title: Re: Watermarks
Post by: RSL on November 26, 2018, 01:43:08 pm
Wow! We agree on something. That’s either good or an indication I should up my medication😛

I knew we could do that, Martin. Go easy on the "medication."
Title: Re: Watermarks
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 26, 2018, 01:54:05 pm
Substitute “narcissism” with “chest-thumping” and...
Title: Re: Watermarks
Post by: Rob C on November 26, 2018, 03:03:52 pm
It's obvious who uses those overprinted names and initials etc. and it really does ruin some pictures.

If somebody is going to rip you off, they still can; did anyone here forget Photoshop? It may be a brief nuisance to the thief but that's about all.

Just use a credit line as in a magazine, outwith the picture area. Of course it can be trimmed off, but anything can be doctored.

Not so sure it's even about chest-thumping; I think people share images online in a place such as this because they hope there may be some conversation stemming from those snaps. Not critique, but conversation and perhaps shared emotional concerns.

But hey, that's just the worn remnants of a misspent life talking, where it was essential that your snaps have an effect.

:-
Title: Re: Watermarks
Post by: petermfiore on November 26, 2018, 04:17:00 pm
Every art piece in a gallery is signed. What is your point?

Actually in much of the NYC art world it’s considered vulgar.

Peter
Title: Re: Watermarks
Post by: Rob C on November 26, 2018, 05:10:35 pm
Actually in much of the NYC art world it’s considered vulgar.

Peter


Which is where I kinda came in: the hands-on arts are one thing, but photography, especially where it has stopped being possible to help deliver the wet birth, is a something lesser else...

Unfortunately, it was the only way I was good enough to make images, and so I had to accept that.

I'm delighted my Demascene moment on that dismal church step featured David Bailey and not Rubens!

I once knew a little ditty about him - Rubens:

When Rubens painted la femme
It was money for jam:
Oodles of goddesses
Without bodices.

Wait: maybe it was Rubens after all, and not DB in my mental Damascus!

:-)
Title: Re: Watermarks
Post by: rabanito on November 26, 2018, 06:33:29 pm

Which is where I kinda came in: the hands-on arts are one thing, but photography, especially where it has stopped being possible to help deliver the wet birth, is a something lesser else...


I beg to differ a little. They use different media and of course ARE different. In my mind something like a symphony orchestra or a violin solo. And it could well be that the soloist is of first quality and the symphony sounds horrible.
I think there are excellent images around in photography and there are many excellent artists which, as you say, are not good painters nor violinists nor cooks but can express themselves through photography.
We are lucky that they can do it through this medium, so we have the chance of seeing what the artist has to say, which is what really matters :-)
But perhaps this is a different topic.
Title: Re: Watermarks
Post by: Rob C on November 27, 2018, 04:26:47 am
I beg to differ a little. They use different media and of course ARE different. In my mind something like a symphony orchestra or a violin solo. And it could well be that the soloist is of first quality and the symphony sounds horrible.
I think there are excellent images around in photography and there are many excellent artists which, as you say, are not good painters nor violinists nor cooks but can express themselves through photography.
We are lucky that they can do it through this medium, so we have the chance of seeing what the artist has to say, which is what really matters :-)
But perhaps this is a different topic.

I'm also fond of radishes, but then again, I love some photographers a great deal and can look at their work every day without getting bored.

There's no denying that some photographers are also artists, and that their way of expressing their art comes as a photograph; that said, I still think it an inferior medium for self-expression because, simply put, very little of it moves me very strongly. Yes, I can gaze at some photos and think them wonderful, and wish that I'd shot them, but hey, just let me hears some of that rock 'n' roll music, then my feet start to go and something far more powerful than pictures grabs my being. It's just a matter of which medium is the more powerful. I can't think of a single photograph that has moved me to tears, but music can and has.

I have a picture of my wife, all that remain since her death years ago; a simple identification headshot that I made for her International Driving Licence in 1979 or thereabouts. It's the one thing I'd risk my life to retrieve were the apartment to go on fire, which could be silly, because I already have the only other copy of it in my wallet.

Perhaps photography fails to hold the same level of respect because it's just too easy, especially today. Fluke happens a lot with photography, not so much with painting.

Rob
Title: Re: Watermarks
Post by: stamper on November 27, 2018, 10:33:24 am
Sometimes the signature is better than the image on show. Personally I find them distracting.
Title: Re: Watermarks
Post by: rabanito on November 27, 2018, 11:15:50 am
I'm also fond of radishes, but then again, I love some photographers a great deal and can look at their work every day without getting bored.

There's no denying that some photographers are also artists, and that their way of expressing their art comes as a photograph;
that said, I still think it an inferior medium for self-expression because, simply put, very little of it moves me very strongly.
Yes, I can gaze at some photos and think them wonderful, and wish that I'd shot them, but hey, just let me hears some of that rock 'n' roll music,
then my feet start to go and something far more powerful than pictures grabs my being. It's just a matter of which medium is the more powerful.
I can't think of a single photograph that has moved me to tears, but music can and has.

I have a picture of my wife, all that remain since her death years ago; a simple identification headshot that I made for her International Driving Licence in 1979 or thereabouts. It's the one thing I'd risk my life to retrieve were the apartment to go on fire, which could be silly, because I already have the only other copy of it in my wallet.

Perhaps photography fails to hold the same level of respect because it's just too easy, especially today. Fluke happens a lot with photography, not so much with painting.

Rob

He-he. Radishes are great...

But back to the point, I don't think that there is something like superior or inferior media.
There are  people with something to say and people with less to say. That is for me what counts.
You can be the best painter in the world, technically speaking, but if your vision is poor, so will be your work. If your vision is great AND  you use the appropriate media, so will be your art.
I'm not going into music vs graphic arts, they operate on different aspects of our soul and IMHO are not comparable.
I personally, as an uneducated amateur, prefer two hours company of a gorgeous woman than two hours in front of a Rembrandt
But that's just me :-)
And I prefer two hours with a Rembrandt than two hours of Rock 'n' Roll by the High School Band around the corner.
For me it is not that much the medium but the artist and his performance.
And photography is not that easy. I know people who take a pencil and make wonderful things with it. For them this is easy. Give me a pencil and I have pains to make a useful signature.
It SEEMS  easy because so many people shoot pictures. Mostly rubbish.
For a great photographer it is probably easy. Like magic.
For one like me, it is not easy. I work many hours until I get what i want, if i get it at all :-(
So it is not the medium really but whoever is using it which is superior or inferior.

Sorry if I made it too long :-)
Rabanito
Title: Re: Watermarks
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 27, 2018, 11:29:09 am
... I personally... prefer two hours company of a gorgeous woman than two hours in front of a Rembrandt...

Even if in the friend zone?  ;)
Title: Re: Watermarks
Post by: Rob C on November 27, 2018, 12:07:58 pm
He-he. Radishes are great...

1. But back to the point, I don't think that there is something like superior or inferior media.
2. There are  people with something to say and people with less to say. That is for me what counts.
You can be the best painter in the world, technically speaking, but if your vision is poor, so will be your work. If your vision is great AND  you use the appropriate media, so will be your art.
I'm not going into music vs graphic arts, they operate on different aspects of our soul and IMHO are not comparable.
3. I personally, as an uneducated amateur, prefer two hours company of a gorgeous woman than two hours in front of a Rembrandt
But that's just me :-)
4. And I prefer two hours with a Rembrandt than two hours of Rock 'n' Roll by the High School Band around the corner.
For me it is not that much the medium but the artist and his performance.
5. And photography is not that easy. I know people who take a pencil and make wonderful things with it. For them this is easy. Give me a pencil and I have pains to make a useful signature.
6. It SEEMS  easy because so many people shoot pictures. Mostly rubbish.
For a great photographer it is probably easy. Like magic.
For one like me, it is not easy. I work many hours until I get what i want, if i get it at all :-(
7. So it is not the medium really but whoever is using it which is superior or inferior.

8. Sorry if I made it too long :-)
Rabanito

1. I believe that there probably is if we are speaking abut the art world, and certainly is if about the advertising art world.

2.That applies to all art worlds; some people, such as Dali, for example, are able to combine both qualities. Where would that, clinically speaking, leave Van Gogh?

3. It all depends on what the gorgeous woman is about to say to you. That can make or break those two hours. It also depends on who's paying.

4. Me too! Having seen Chuck live, the rest doesn't exist.

5. That was one reason I took up the camera instead; much easier to do it well.

6. You are absolutely right; it's always a victory of native talent over teaching.

7. That is certainly true of all the arts.

8. People adding to the flow of debate are to be welcomed!
Title: Re: Watermarks
Post by: rabanito on November 27, 2018, 12:29:53 pm
Even if in the friend zone?  ;)
friendzone? Not in my dictionary :-)
Title: Re: Watermarks
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 27, 2018, 12:36:40 pm
friendzone? Not in my dictionary :-)

As in not familiar with the word (concept) or you are such an irresistible ladies' man that being relegated to a friend zone is impossible to happen to you ;)
Title: Re: Watermarks
Post by: rabanito on November 27, 2018, 12:55:11 pm
As in not familiar with the word (concept) or you are such an irresistible ladies' man that being relegated to a friend zone is impossible to happen to you ;)

I googled it.
Just bragging ;-)
Title: Re: Watermarks
Post by: Rob C on November 27, 2018, 02:10:49 pm
Even if in the friend zone?  ;)

That strikes me as more a theoretical space than a real one. Does anyone have the time or interest to develop such an item on a voluntary, non-business level? I can't think of a single such vacancy being filled, apart from friends of my wife, who were her friends and if I had to be there, just accidental background noises off. 

Left to my own devices, I see no role for them to play.

But then, that depends on being realistic and not expecting any so-called mercy favours. Which late in life represent problems rather than opportunities. One of the last things one needs is to fall into any sort of moral debt. Life can be complicated enough dealing with the results of one's own actions without adding to the list by inviting external ones on top of that.

Frankly, I find my own time too quick in the passing to accommodate all the things that I should be giving my full attention.

YMMV, of course.

:-)

Title: Re: Watermarks
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 27, 2018, 03:16:25 pm
Rob, you strike me as the second one in this thread in need to google what “friend zone” means 😉
Title: Re: Watermarks
Post by: Rob C on November 27, 2018, 03:27:44 pm
Rob, you strike me as the second one in this thread in need to google what “friend zone” means 😉

Why Google? It's self-explanatory: conversation but no sex.
Title: Re: Watermarks
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 27, 2018, 04:43:13 pm
Why Google? It's self-explanatory: conversation but no sex.

Not for the lack of trying hoping ;)
Title: Re: Watermarks
Post by: Rob C on November 27, 2018, 05:09:28 pm
Not for the lack of trying hoping ;)

Not at my age: the only likely consents would come from the last people I'd want! Anyway, I really don't want because my life was full for so long that nothing could replace what was.

What's that line about after diamonds, rhinestones just won't do?

Win - win, and without the sweat and inevitable repentings!

:-)
Title: Re: Watermarks
Post by: petermfiore on November 28, 2018, 06:28:37 am
Sometimes the signature is better than the image on show. Personally I find them distracting.

When I was in art school, I had a classmate that signed everything he did with a huge signature. Really big! It was becoming downright stupid. Finally our instructor on this particular day look at his work, paused and proceeded to critique the signature....Point, game, set, match! Humility was inserted. We all learned a valuable lesson. Let the work become your signature.

Peter
Title: Re: Watermarks
Post by: RSL on November 28, 2018, 10:15:44 am
 ;D ;D ;D

Thanks, Peter. A great story.
Title: Re: Watermarks
Post by: rabanito on November 28, 2018, 10:16:30 am
When I was in art school, I had a classmate that signed everything he did with a huge signature. Really big! It was becoming downright stupid. Finally our instructor on this particular day look at his work, paused and proceeded to critique the signature....Point, game, set, match! Humility was inserted. We all learned a valuable lesson. Let the work become your signature.

Peter

I don't see quite the point of signing a work of art. The signature is probably the easiest part to falsify.
In Europe there is still a discussion at court (matter of legacy) around a watercolor by Kandinsky - signed of course  :D )because nobody knows if it is genuine or fake.
They are calling the experts, they say.

You have really to be an expert to notice.
And, if a normal mortal cannot notice, why care?
Title: Re: Watermarks
Post by: LesPalenik on December 10, 2018, 07:45:40 am
There is a practical consideration for inclusion of your name right in the posted image.
If the image is interesting in any way, there is a good chance that someone will copy that image and repost it without any ill intentions to another board or gallery.
There is also a remote chance that someone else will find that second copy of the image alluring and would like to obtain legally a copy of it.

If it were a physical print, the artist could include his name and contact info on the back of the print, 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. However, if the name is right on the image, it should be easy to locate the image maker (unless that second poster finds the signature or watermark intrusive and removes it prior to his posting).