Save & earn with MPB; trade-in and buy pre-loved

Why the logos, chaps?

dudler

Time for an update: I still use film, though. Not vast quantities, but I have a darkroom, and I'm not afraid to use it.

I enjoy every image I take: I hope you'll enjoy looking at them.
...Read More
Profile

Why the logos, chaps?

26 Apr 2012 10:34AM   Views : 583 Unique : 448

I have a lot of pet hates.

There. Got that out of the way, and you know this is going to be an opinionated piece. A rant, if you like…

Once Upon A Time, it was really difficult to put lettering onto a picture. You had to use Letraset, or have a really deft touch with a fountain pen.

No longer. Anyone can add letters and clipart and odd creations to their pictures. And so many people DO!

Why?

Ansel Adams never sullied his Yosemite landscapes with things like “© Ansel Adams” or “”LandscapesbyAdams” across the bottom.

David Bailey doesn’t stick “Baileygraphics” into any empty space around the composition that looks as if it might otherwise be “negative space” and badly in need of something “interesting” to make the picture stand out.

So why do so many of my fellow members here feel the need to do it?

The logos are simple to remove, if anyone wants to steal your pictures, guys. If you want to prevent that, or at least discourage it a little, I suggest that you put a nice ugly watermark across the main compositional elements of your shots.

It does not, absolutely NOT, look “more professional” – just look at any pro tog’s publicity material. Look at the images in the window of your local portrait studio.

Is it because you can do it? You have the technology – but then, you have the technology to wash your camera in a bucket of disinfectant, and most of us give it a miss. Just because you can does not mean it’s a good idea.

There’s one unworthy though in my mind. Do you feel that every shot should be all about you? In a very real sense, it is anyway – you took it. You selected the subject, you composed and exposed it. You edited the result. But do you feel the need to (in visual terms) shout “Me! Me! Me!” instead of letting your craft and art do the talking?

One picture is worth a thousand words. Two or three words can mess up a great photograph…

Comments


Pete 21 18.8k 97 England
26 Apr 2012 10:41AM
I agree, but look back at old paintings they often had a signature in the bottom corner.
So it's not a new thing, it was just a lot harder to add a signature with film photography , although, as you will remember, a few camera manufacturers tried it with databacks.
dudler Plus
19 1.9k 1947 England
26 Apr 2012 11:17AM
Good points, both of them.

Although... The more subtle databacks put the data into the rebate between frames: and most painters signed in a dark corner, in small writing...

And a few, I grant you, made it prominent - in a way that is worthy of the worst of the self-publicising Britpack artists.

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.