Is there any (valid) reason for putting a signature ON a picture?

[rabanito]

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?

[faberryman]

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.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

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

[rabanito]

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 

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

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...You never know if the opinions have changed...

Nope. Not mine.

[rabanito]

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

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... 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.

[rabanito]

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   

[RSL]

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.

[kers]

A very nice photo Russ

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... 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.

[rabanito]

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.

[rabanito]

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

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.

[LesPalenik]

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.

[rabanito]

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.

[LesPalenik]

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.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

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.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... 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.

[rabanito]

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

[rabanito]

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