# More Signature/Watermark/Logo Opinions?



## Eveamlizya (May 28, 2012)

So after hours of designing, I've come to 4 that I like.  Which do you think is more aesthetically pleasing?  I want it to be classic and elegant, but still being a little whimsical...do you think it comes across that way?


----------



## tirediron (May 28, 2012)

Quite frankly, all of them seem a little 'over the top'.  Why do you want a watermark that is going to compete with your image for the viewer's attention?


----------



## Eveamlizya (May 28, 2012)

Well, I certainly don't want to blend into the background.  And I like bold and eccentricity...it's who I am and that shows in my work most of the time.


----------



## tirediron (May 28, 2012)

Understood, however I would suggest reconsidering just how much impact you want your graphic to have.  The image is what you are selling; NOT the graphic.


----------



## Eveamlizya (May 28, 2012)

Do you think it would be better with just the graphic underneath rather than on top and bottom?


----------



## dustin0479 (May 28, 2012)

I tend to agree they seem a bit excessive.  In my opinion the sig is supposed to be visible to the eye looking for it but easy for the eye to ignore when looking at the image.   A heavy sig will take away from your photography.


----------



## cgipson1 (May 28, 2012)

I agree... all very ostentatious! They would severely distract from the image. We see this in beginners all of the time.. they all want a HUGE watermark.


----------



## KmH (May 28, 2012)

The logo or watermark is not designed to appeal to you. It is designed to appeal to the majority of people who will look at it, your potential clients.

I highly recommend hiring a professional graphic designer.

No, the graphic is still to busy even only on the bottom. Use the K.I.S.S. approach.

A further note - there are 2 kinds of graphics -

raster graphics, which are pixel based and have scaling issues like pixelation and aliasing
and vector graphics, which are mathematical descriptions of the graphics, which can be scaled up or down with no issues.
Photoshop CS5/CS6 is a raster graphics application, though it does have some vector graphics capabilities. Adobe Illustrator is a vector graphics application.

Professional logo/watermark designers use vector graphics for it's scalability


----------



## Buckster (May 28, 2012)

Look to the watermarks of great photographers for examples: None or very minimalist.


----------



## morganza (May 29, 2012)

I can't decide between the 2nd and 4th one. 2nd one looks bold and classy, 4th one looks very elegant.. But as a small suggestion, erase the top of it and keep the underneath graphic of the 2nd one, still classy and bold, but not over the top.  Good work.


----------



## Eveamlizya (May 29, 2012)

KmH said:


> A further note - there are 2 kinds of graphics -
> 
> raster graphics, which are pixel based and have scaling issues like pixelation and aliasing
> and vector graphics, which are mathematical descriptions of the graphics, which can be scaled up or down with no issues.
> ...



I use Photoshop CS5 and basically I have the image in a light grey with some minimal blur to add depth.  They are vector so I scale them down to about a 1 inch (quarter sized) width and adjust the opacity to about 50%.  Here's one that I've placed on the corner...


----------



## Eveamlizya (May 29, 2012)

Everyone here keeps saying they are way too bold and over the top, but I've seen many that are more in your face than this...mostly because the photographer uses them in bright white against mostly black photos or has them scaled way too big.  The images I have here aren't meant to be that big; I only posted them that big so that you could see the design.


----------



## ceejtank (May 29, 2012)

They all remind me of trampstamps.  I'd go with the bottom one though.

They all do look nice.


----------



## Buckster (May 29, 2012)

Eveamlizya said:


> Everyone here keeps saying they are way too bold and over the top, but I've seen many that are more in your face than this...


If it makes you feel any better, we probably wouldn't like them either.

It's just a matter of personal taste though, like having music on the web site, so you're going to have to go with your own instincts on this probably.

I prefer none or _*very*_ minimalist, _*very*_ small, _*very*_ nearly not able to be noticed at all without looking for it.  Anything else is just not my cup of tea.  To me, they are little more than pretentious ego-placards, distracting and detracting from the images they're placed upon.  I prefer to show my work with no signature or watermark at all because I feel they detract and distract and mar up the image I'm trying to present in the very best way I can present them, but that's just me.


----------



## tirediron (May 29, 2012)

Buckster said:


> I prefer none or _*very*_ minimalist, _*very*_ small, _*very*_ nearly not able to be noticed at all without looking for it. Anything else is just not my cup of tea. To me, they are little more than pretentious ego-placards, distracting and detracting from the images they're placed upon. I prefer to show my work with no signature or watermark at all because I feel they detract and distract and mar up the image I'm trying to present in the very best way I can present them, but that's just me.


^^ This.  Exactly!


----------



## o hey tyler (May 29, 2012)

I think the cart has a couple of miles ahead of the horse, and the horse is in need of some hydration, nourishment, and good ol' TLC to catch up. The image you posted, while it is _your_ image, suffers in a lot of ways photographically. Most people that should be watermarking their images are also shooting high quality work that may call for a name placement, or theft deterrent. Personally, (and I am not trying to offend) I think you should work on the photographic aspect of your work, and not even try to mosey a watermark into the equation at this point in time. 

The only reason I started watermarking my images was due to a few cases of image theft, but I don't think you have to worry about that right now. 

It IS a deterrent for some people (and others just can clone it out.) I had mine designed by my girlfriend who is a freelance graphic artist, as well as a web designer for a 9-5 job. Here is an example of my watermark, which I find to be small, humble, and not terribly intrusive to the eyes.


----------



## Buckster (May 29, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> I had mine designed by my girlfriend who is a freelance graphic artist, as well as a web designer for a 9-5 job. Here is an example of my watermark, which I find to be small, humble, and not terribly intrusive to the eyes.


Not to offend, but I personally find it to be large, obtrusive and, overall, atrocious. 

 Again, not meant to offend, just giving my individual and mostly worthless opinion about it.  I wouldn't stamp anything like that on my images, even if 95 out of a 100 people said I should.

But that's the thing: We all gotta do what's right for ourselves given our individual tastes and preferences, and to heck with what others think about our individual vision in that regard.


----------



## o hey tyler (May 29, 2012)

Buckster said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> > I had mine designed by my girlfriend who is a freelance graphic artist, as well as a web designer for a 9-5 job. Here is an example of my watermark, which I find to be small, humble, and not terribly intrusive to the eyes.
> ...



I hope in turn that you won't find it offensive if I use that adjective to describe any of your work, as I see fit. Since after all, you used it without qualms to describe my girlfriend's work.



> Again, not meant to offend, just giving my *individual and mostly *[sic]* worthless opinion* about it.



Noted, and filed accordingly, Buckster. 

Thanks!


----------



## Buckster (May 29, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > o hey tyler said:
> ...


I'm sure you'll look for and find plenty of occasions to do so.  No worries.  Feel free to write what you reallly think about my work.  I may or may not agree with your assessments, and may even consider some of them born of spite, but it'll be okay - nobody will lose any blood over it.  :thumbup:



o hey tyler said:


> Since after all, you used it without qualms to describe my girlfriend's work.


It's unfortunate that honest criticism can be a bit painful for some to deal with.



o hey tyler said:


> > Again, not meant to offend, just giving my *individual and mostly **worthless opinion* about it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You're very welcome.


----------



## o hey tyler (May 29, 2012)

Buckster said:


> It's unfortunate that honest criticism can be a bit painful for some to deal with.



Can you direct me to the portion of this thread or my signature for that matter, where either I, or my girlfriend requested commentary or criticism on the watermark that she made for me that I used solely as an example for the OP? 

Can we also find it safe to assume that your talents lie primarily with photography, and not with graphic design? 

Also, could you inform me when or where this thread became about the design of my watermark, rather than the OP's original query? That would be great, thank you.


----------



## Buckster (May 29, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > It's unfortunate that honest criticism can be a bit painful for some to deal with.
> ...


Posting my thoughts and opinions as a conversation evolves in a thread is a free service I provide, often without specific requests, especially when I fully agree or disagree with what someone has said.

You're welcome.



o hey tyler said:


> Can we also find it safe to assume that your talents lie primarily with photography, and not with graphic design?


No, you actually can't make any such assumptions about me, since you don't know the path I've been on for my 53 years.  I will tell you this though regarding your attempt to belittle my knowledge on the subject of graphic design: One need not be a master chef to know when the toast is burnt, nor when something tastes funny to me, even if everyone else at the table loves it.  It's called a "personal opinion", as I tried to be clear about.



o hey tyler said:


> Also, could you inform me when or where this thread became about the design of my watermark, rather than the OP's original query? That would be great, thank you.


When you offered it up as a shining example of a good one.  LOL!

Now then, are you planning to allow your bruised ego to keep beating this dead horse until you get this thread locked too?  Maybe this time you could just let it go instead...?


----------



## KmH (May 29, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > It's unfortunate that honest criticism can be a bit painful for some to deal with.
> ...


Dude, if you post it, it's available for C&C, whether you ask for/want C&C or not. By the same token, the direction a thread takes is not pre-defined, or restricted, until a thread becomes a battle of posts.

The larger audience at TPF are not even forum members. Consequently whatever you post is hardly only for whichever OP. 

OP start another thread on the same subject if you would like, but this one is done.


----------

