# What makes a good Logo?



## tevo (Dec 25, 2012)

Well, it is time for me to make a new watermark, and when I say make a new watermark I mean spend more than 10 minutes making one I would actually like to use (unlike the current atrocity). Having seen many good and many bad watermarks (mine included), I think this question is up for discussion: What makes a good watermark good, and a bad one bad?


----------



## fjrabon (Dec 25, 2012)

a lot depends on what your goals are, what your market it and how worried you are about your images being stolen.  They're some sort of balance between half-behinded security measure and advertising.  Mostly advertising.  To advertise effectively you have to know what your target market is.


----------



## thetrue (Dec 25, 2012)

Invisibility.........


----------



## tevo (Dec 25, 2012)

fjrabon said:


> a lot depends on what your goals are, what your market it and how worried you are about your images being stolen.  They're some sort of balance between half-behinded security measure and advertising.  Mostly advertising.  To advertise effectively you have to know what your target market is.



Well part of the reason I have kept my large blocky one was to deter people from using my images without permission, however it has no target market in mind, nor does it represent any specific shooting style of mine.


----------



## fjrabon (Dec 25, 2012)

tevo said:


> fjrabon said:
> 
> 
> > a lot depends on what your goals are, what your market it and how worried you are about your images being stolen.  They're some sort of balance between half-behinded security measure and advertising.  Mostly advertising.  To advertise effectively you have to know what your target market is.
> ...



eh, if somebody really wants to use your photo without your permission, they'll just crop it out or clone and heal.  Unless you are blaring it right across the middle of the subject.


----------



## Overread (Dec 25, 2012)

As said what looks best depends upon what you want the watermark to do. 

In my view they break into two very broad categories/extremes:

1) An obtrusive use watermark which seeks to cover the majority of the photo or at the very least dominates the majority of the key interest point(s) in the photo. This is your general "don't steal" style watermark - its good for commercial use for displaying proofs or samples. This style can be a name (company/website/personal), but also often use watermark images to obscure sections of the photo

2) An unobtrusive watermark which seeks to more inform and state a rights claim; but isn't seeking to dominate the photo. These are the kind which are always found in a corner, not invisible, but not big enough not located well enough that they would dominate or distract from the photo itself. These are generally there to ensure that the viewer can read the watermarked content and then from that, locate yourself/website.


In the end any watermark can be removed, though the latter kind I would say is the most versatile since it allows viewing and sharing without spoiling the photo itself.


----------



## KmH (Dec 25, 2012)

A watermark is nearly invisible.

Don't confuse a watermark with a logo or a copyright statement.

If your photos are online, people will use your images without your permission even if they have a large, very visible watermark on them.


----------



## tevo (Dec 25, 2012)

So rephrasing then, what makes a good LOGO?


----------



## Light Guru (Dec 25, 2012)

The best watermark is no watermark. They take attention away from the image. 

As for logos much of that depends on the name and type of photography you do. The logo for a wedding photographer would not work with the work of a freelance photo journalist. 

Watermarks and logos placed on any image tend to look tacky and distracting. The only kind I have seen thats works well is a signature digitally placed on a image in the bottom right courier of fine art prints.


----------



## tevo (Dec 25, 2012)

Light Guru said:


> The best watermark is no watermark. They take attention away from the image.
> 
> As for logos much of that depends on the name and type of photography you do. The logo for a wedding photographer would not work with the work of a freelance photo journalist.
> 
> Watermarks and logos placed on any image tend to look tacky and distracting. The only kind I have seen thats works well is a signature digitally placed on a image in the bottom right courier of fine art prints.



When selling work / service to people, I include no watermark or logo with the exception of the proofs. When posting online, I would prefer to include a logo of some kind, mostly as advertising I guess.


----------



## KmH (Dec 25, 2012)

You cannot develop a logo until you have established your 'brand'.

For most retail photographers, a logo is a waste of time because the market is over saturated with retail photographers, all having essentially the same 'brand'.

I would recommend hiring a decent graphic designer to help with a signature.

Bad Logos - When Logos Go Bad - Logos that Suck - Bad Logo Design Samples

FedEx looked at 200+ logo designs before choosing the one they use today - http://www.logoblog.org/


----------



## fjrabon (Dec 25, 2012)

The keys to any good logo is the ability to quickly convey as much information (that's positive) about you as possible in as little visual real estate as possible, while still being easy and quick to read.  

Some of that has nothing to do with the logo, but has more to do with your website.  If your website name is tevotakesawesomephotossoyoushouldhirehim.blogspot.com, then your logo is destined to fail no matter how good it is, because it would be nearly impossible to cleanly guide people to you from that.  Your logo, business card, watermark and website address all need to sync up.  Even if you don't yet have a website, sometimes its good to go ahead and reserve the simple, easy to remember name before you put your logo out there.  

Make your logo clean.  Make it so that it's easy to understand quickly and easily identifiable.  You want a logo that can be glanced at and understood within seconds.  That's a near universal.  Then, as far as the particulars go, that depends on your field.  If you're doing wedding photography, you want to it to be simple, yet elegant.  If you're doing architectural, you want strong and clean, etc.  If you're doing general purpose for a lot of different clients, then something nice and simple and clean should work.  But most of all, they should be able to glance at it, and within a second have a pretty good idea of what your website address is.  Like if it boldly says "TEVO PHOTO" if it is at all possible, have your website be TEVOPHOTO.com.  For a watermark, you can even add in a very small '.com' underneath your logo.  Sure it makes it look a little less visually appealing, but it's more than paid off in communicating "hey, I have a website, and here it is, visit it."  And that's the real point of a watermark, to get people to your website.  Otherwise it's just vanity or naivety.


----------



## tevo (Dec 25, 2012)

fjrabon said:


> The keys to any good logo is the ability to quickly convey as much information (that's positive) about you as possible in as little visual real estate as possible, while still being easy and quick to read.
> 
> Some of that has nothing to do with the logo, but has more to do with your website.  If your website name is tevotakesawesomephotossoyoushouldhirehim.blogspot.com, then your logo is destined to fail no matter how good it is, because it would be nearly impossible to cleanly guide people to you from that.  Your logo, business card, watermark and website address all need to sync up.  Even if you don't yet have a website, sometimes its good to go ahead and reserve the simple, easy to remember name before you put your logo out there.
> 
> Make your logo clean.  Make it so that it's easy to understand quickly and easily identifiable.  You want a logo that can be glanced at and understood within seconds.  That's a near universal.  Then, as far as the particulars go, that depends on your field.  If you're doing wedding photography, you want to it to be simple, yet elegant.  If you're doing architectural, you want strong and clean, etc.  If you're doing general purpose for a lot of different clients, then something nice and simple and clean should work.  But most of all, they should be able to glance at it, and within a second have a pretty good idea of what your website address is.  Like if it boldly says "TEVO PHOTO" if it is at all possible, have your website be TEVOPHOTO.com.  For a watermark, you can even add in a very small '.com' underneath your logo.  Sure it makes it look a little less visually appealing, but it's more than paid off in communicating "hey, I have a website, and here it is, visit it."  And that's the real point of a watermark, to get people to your website.  Otherwise it's just vanity or naivety.



This is good advice, thank you.


----------



## nathfromslg (Dec 26, 2012)

Watermark like IStockPhoto


----------



## hearts0075 (Dec 26, 2012)

I do all my watermarks on photoshop, like the elements or Lightroom. It's easy, because you get many options on there.


----------



## tevo (Dec 27, 2012)

bumping!


----------

