What's up with every joe schmoe watermarking their photos?

[pandaboo911]

Because some photographers actually put many hours into editing photos manually, not just throw on stupid instagram type presets.
Wouldn't you want to take credit for putting many hours of work into building your car?
Besides, it's the only way photographers can actually build a reputation. The entire stance works forum was started by 1 guy taking pictures of his rusty e28. His entire career basically started because he had his name on a few photos.

[DIIRTY-30]

Word. Much better put than what I was thinking. I have been shooting photos for the last 7 years or so, and I actually have never used watermarks. I have not done a whole lot of work that I was legitimately compensated for, but as stated above, they care about YOUR PHOTOGRAPHY SKILLS! Not your ability to add a watermark in post, and all of the "creative liberties" that people love to do with photo-chop. I shoot a lot of film these days, so my "watermark" is a signature on the back of the print :D

Exactly. I think too many people are trying to get out there and make a name for themselves. That's all fine and dandy but you need to build up to it. I often meet a lot of people who've never shot film and have no idea why I bother to still use it occasionally. Having darkroom experience unless your a journalism/photo journalism student is seemingly dead. The art form itself is over saturated and overly accessible with iPhones' and entry level platforms. In the long run to each his own, I'll leave the gigantic watermarks to those professionals and do my own thing. Nothing like the smell of fixer and watching the photo come to life in front of your eyes...

[pantelones]

As someone whose done photography; I put my name in low pro places. Not IN YOUR FACE LOOK AT ME shit. The image should speak for itself, not the giant watermark. That only puts people off on your work cause it draws the eye from the main focus... THE PHOTO. If your doing it to "get" work; if people really wanted to find out who shot the image... they will. Watermarks help but only to a certain extent, they do more harm than good pending what its on.

My .02

Word. Much better put than what I was thinking. I have been shooting photos for the last 7 years or so, and I actually have never used watermarks. I have not done a whole lot of work that I was legitimately compensated for, but as stated above, they care about YOUR PHOTOGRAPHY SKILLS! Not your ability to add a watermark in post, and all of the "creative liberties" that people love to do with photo-chop. I shoot a lot of film these days, so my "watermark" is a signature on the back of the print :D

[agent]

He probably plans to send Halston a percentage of the proceeds

Uh huh... pull this leg - it plays Jingle Bells!

[DIIRTY-30]

As someone whose done photography; I put my name in low pro places. Not IN YOUR FACE LOOK AT ME shit. The image should speak for itself, not the giant watermark. That only puts people off on your work cause it draws the eye from the main focus... THE PHOTO. If your doing it to "get" work; if people really wanted to find out who shot the image... they will. Watermarks help but only to a certain extent, they do more harm than good pending what its on.

My .02

[CrusherCurtis]

^He's just using the picture to show a good example of a "Sports Bumber" Give em a break. He probably plans to send Halston a percentage of the proceeds

[agent]

It's because of shit like this:

http://nashville.craigslist.org/pts/3776195858.html

That is Halston's former car in the first pic, and you can see the first four letters of his watermark in the lower right. If the poster of that ad has permission to use his image, I'd be shocked.

[markseven]

All of the above make sense, and I can understand the thought process / theory behind wanting to brand one's work.

However, the flip side is that for most pics I see that are branded or watermarked, it's more of an indicator of who to stay away from ;)

[george graves]

I always assumed people put water marks on their pictures in hopes to get work.

I don't mind it when it's off in the corner and transparent - sure - what ever.

But when you start to try to do some 3d effect and incorporate it into the image, it's can be distracting. Kinda like a bad edit or special effect in a movie....all of the sudden you're looking at this dude's logo, and not the pic.

[straight6pwr]

if you took the picture and have the original file/files, it would be hard for someone else to win the argument, if it ever came to court, even without a watermark across the damn center of your photos.

i've actually had people use photos i took of my car in ebay auctions. i emailed them to either pay me or remove it, and they pretty much say fuck off or ignore you.

100% possibility i think photographers charge too much.

[IRON-E]

They just want to prove that the shots belongs to them, so later on they have a right to sue, if the pics are used without permission.

Pretty standard nowadays.

[markseven]

75% are pure crap.

75% possibility I am a cranky old man.