# Photographer logo?



## Jay Khaos (Aug 5, 2013)

Would anyone like to share their logo, how you use it, and/or what you think makes a good logo for a photographer (and why)?

Opinions on watermarking photos with logos?

I've discussed this with friends and it's a topic that not many seem to agree on so it would be interesting to get an opinion from all different shooters, skills levels, brands etc...


----------



## EOBeav (Aug 5, 2013)

Since your post is likely to open up a floodgate of logo=good/logo=bad flame throwing, I'm hoping that the naysayers can skip over this one and let others answer your most important question here. "What makes a good logo?" 

I'm not a design guy, but a good logo would be simple and uniquely you. If people have to think about it, it hasn't done it's job. When it's on a photo, it's noticeable but unobtrusive. I've seen several excellent photographers pull this off nicely.

That said, my logo is simply my website name in a certain font.


----------



## Jay Khaos (Aug 5, 2013)

EOBeav said:


> Since your post is likely to open up a floodgate of logo=good/logo=bad flame throwing, I'm hoping that the naysayers can skip over this one and let others answer your most important question here. "What makes a good logo?"
> 
> I'm not a design guy, but a good logo would be simple and uniquely you. If people have to think about it, it hasn't done it's job. When it's on a photo, it's noticeable but unobtrusive. I've seen several excellent photographers pull this off nicely.
> 
> That said, my logo is simply my website name in a certain font.



Yeah... I tried to word the question as open-minded sounding as possible to hopefully avoid negativity. I'm a designer first, photographer second (that's what I like to think anyway...), so that's why I was interested if there are any trends or photography-specific things people think need to be considered. 

I agree with you about simplicity and unobtrusiveness. It's a hard thing to discuss open-mindedly or advise on, especially with friends/aquaintances, and especially when someone has designed their own logo and already received rave compliments from friends and family about it. Personally, I get a little excited when I come across someone who is negative about my design or photography (even if its trolling)... if I can pull knowledge from it, anyway


----------



## Halfrack (Aug 5, 2013)

The key thing to remind folks is that while a creative logo can stand out, unless it is easily entered into google to find you, it's more or less worthless. Lots of script/signature logos can be too hard to translate. My line is Sal Cincotta's - and that he does it in white against a black background means I can't post it here and have it show up...

http://salcincotta.com/


----------



## florianbieler.de (Aug 5, 2013)

My logo can be seen as my avatar, its basically a f and b  in my pix I also add a florianbieler.de Photography font underneath. I like to blend it into the remaining picture so that it does not disturb the viewer, and make it only so big that you can easily read it when you watch the pic at 100% size, like here for example.


----------



## Jay Khaos (Aug 5, 2013)

florianbieler.de said:


> My logo can be seen as my avatar, its basically a f and b  in my pix I also add a florianbieler.de Photography font underneath. I like to blend it into the remaining picture so that it does not disturb the viewer, and make it only so big that you can easily read it when you watch the pic at 100% size, like here for example.



Considering this one includes a symbol, name/URL and "photography" I like how you keep it drawn back... secondary to the photos. The photo of the girl is awesome btw



Halfrack said:


> The key thing to remind folks is that while a creative logo can stand out, unless it is easily entered into google to find you, it's more or less worthless. Lots of script/signature logos can be too hard to translate. My line is Sal Cincotta's - and that he does it in white against a black background means I can't post it here and have it show up...
> 
> http://salcincotta.com/



This is my theory as well... It's true that you may get a potential search online, but is one possible client worth 1000+ (or way more) people seeing a watermarked photo versus a clean one?? I guess it all depends on the content and how and where it is being used. If it's client work for a fast-talking small business owner, I'll take every measure to make sure nothing can be stolen before it's purchased lol....


----------



## florianbieler.de (Aug 5, 2013)

I've seen a shetload of horrible, horrible watermarks like plain white comic sans text right in the middle of the picture so I figured if I watermark, I make it less obvious. The main reason I put my logo in the pix is anyway just to screw with people who try to steal and upload them elsewhere or something. Sure they can be almost always removed with a bit of photoshop skill, but that's the reason then I only upload them with 1,5 to 2 megapixels maximum and not in full resolution.


----------



## sleepnever (Aug 5, 2013)

Mine is simple and to the point. Tells you who I am and is a poor man's copyright at the same time. Sometimes you can see it within the image more than other times. I've considered making it a little more transparent, but whatever. 

Not so visible...



Untitled by sleepnever, on Flickr

Highly visible



Untitled by sleepnever, on Flickr


----------



## silvestography (Aug 6, 2013)

This is my most recent logo. All of the work is done in photoshop using mainly paths and rasterized text. I've always had the view that your logo should reflect your work, and given my editing style as of late has been a more faded, film-like look, I've gone with the retro, faded logo. Since it's round, it stays out of the way nicely when I use it for watermarks, which is another thing I think is very important. I'm interested to see what else people are using!


----------



## Hillsilly (Aug 6, 2013)

I've spent hundreds of hours designing, and re-designing, and re-designing and re-designing and re-designing my logo. I play with new shapes, colours, gradients, shadows, embossing, 3D etc etc . Its my hobby. But no matter how many new designs I create, I've only changed it twice in eight years.

My logo is a stylised "H". Its fairly simple, but uncluttered, clean and professional looking (at least in my opinion). Because I dream of being a movie producer, I've chosen Trajan font for my business name, which appears beside the logo.

I think people put too much importance on a logo. As long as it looks good and is easily reproduceable across different media, that's all you need. For small businesses, the most awesomest logo won't do much if your underlying business isn't performing well.


----------



## LewisShermer (Aug 6, 2013)

Treat it how you would any other piece of graphic design... functional, considered, unobtrusive. Are you putting watermarks on so people know who's taken the shot or to stop people "stealing" your image? You'll see plenty of rubbish photography with watermarks straight through the middle which is bloody pointless because who the heck is going to steal that in the first place? Also, it can appear arrogant. However, if you're doing a commercial job and sending lo-res images to a client for sign off then you should use a watermark to render them useless for sales as this encourages them to not be dickheads and try to get away with unscrupulous techniques. Don't hand over full resolution files 'til after sign-off and payment.

For personal and commissioned work that is being displayed on the internet I think that florianbieler.de has got it right. I'd say florianbieler.de could even have it a little stronger, if not totally white if they wished.

There are plenty of bad examples all over the internet of what not to do.

using aperture blades for O's may have been slightly over done by now though


----------



## Grumbaki (Aug 6, 2013)

This thread makes me want to have one, even tho I don't even want to get in business...


----------



## jon_charron (Aug 6, 2013)




----------



## OscarBjarna (Aug 6, 2013)

I've done many photographers-logos (work as a graphic designer) 
Always fun to do. 
My take is always KISS - Keep it simple stupid. 
Logos should work in any color - small - large. 

My logo hints to my name (O for Oscar), lens and a pencil.


----------



## pwp (Aug 6, 2013)

There's mine on the left...pwp

-PW


----------



## Tabor Warren Photography (Aug 6, 2013)

The watermark I use was created in about 7 minutes while I was in a hurry to upload something on facebook, however, creating the thing in a hurry may not have been a bad idea for the sole reason that the watermark lacks complexity. As others have mentioned, if you are going to use one and let it be known, people have to be able to figure it out so they can look you up on Google. If you're doing it for copyright reasons alone then it can be more subtle, yet I took the more obvious approach. Pardon the large files and CR's compressing of the images, as the entire image should be seen.

I hope this helps,
-Tabor


----------



## Zv (Aug 6, 2013)

This is a great thread btw! I've been looking to improve my logo / watermark but as I'm not a graphic designer I haven't got a clue where to begin. I just use a simple font with white text in the corner. I tried googling my watermark and it came up with a few hits from an old website I hardly use. Looks like there are loads of folk using the same name as me! Should I change it? I like the idea of a logo though rather than text. Seems more recognizable.


----------



## Jay Khaos (Aug 6, 2013)

The copyright thing is kind of a big misconception. Anything created by anyone is technically copyrighted, but that doesn't mean much. Having raw files or design files is the only way you can prove it's yours, and even then, good luck doing something about the stolen image unless it was stolen by a company in your country and used for gain, or posted on a legitimate website that will take it down once you can prove it's yours... and in both of those situations, having the copyright doesn't legally do anything or help you. The only time adding a legal mark will help you is if you've paid to register something with a trademark.

Here is mine, the simple type "caslux". 
It's not 100% finalized. I have yet to watermark any photo Ive taken. I may do something different with the C, but my thinking is:

I do branding/identity design every day, so part of my motivation was to NOT do what I'd normally do that clients normally expect... no monogram, no conceptual icon... just a simple font thats only unique enough to separate itself from the most common slab fonts but no extra, unecessary elements. Basically the extreme of what I preach to clients. Clients think minimal means they are getting less for their money, usually. The work becomes presenting the logo.. so this kind of just helps my argument for simplicity and lets me demonstrate the flexibility of having a minimal logo.

In use, the logo will be used alongside photos and graphic design. Keeping the type this simple (and greyscale), lets the logo remain non-distractive to the subject, and works regardless of the theme/tone/color palette of the subject. It can also be incorporated easily with other elements


----------



## Jay Khaos (Aug 6, 2013)

Zv said:


> This is a great thread btw! I've been looking to improve my logo / watermark but as I'm not a graphic designer I haven't got a clue where to begin. I just use a simple font with white text in the corner. I tried googling my watermark and it came up with a few hits from an old website I hardly use. Looks like there are loads of folk using the same name as me! Should I change it? I like the idea of a logo though rather than text. Seems more recognizable.



I don't think there's anything wrong with not having a symbol. Although on the other hand it could be appropriate for you (depending on your name, URL, etc). I would only suggest making the decision to add one with a good reason. It's always good to be recognizable, but you can accomplish that through making the actual font unique. But at the end of the day, people will remember the name more than a fancy/clever illustration.

The only symbol I've seen in a logo that seems appropriate enough, simple, and consistently non-obtrusive against different subjects is the cliche aperture blade one. Like Lewis said, that's way over done... so attempting it would probably fall flat as a logo unless you can come up with an equally as simple, but new/creative/clean rendition of it


----------



## cayenne (Aug 6, 2013)

Halfrack said:


> The key thing to remind folks is that while a creative logo can stand out, unless it is easily entered into google to find you, it's more or less worthless. Lots of script/signature logos can be too hard to translate. My line is Sal Cincotta's - and that he does it in white against a black background means I can't post it here and have it show up...
> 
> http://salcincotta.com/



Seriously? This is Sal Cincotta?

Oh man...loved your Creative Live classes!!

cayenne


----------



## florianbieler.de (Aug 6, 2013)

cayenne said:


> Seriously? This is Sal Cincotta?



No, he is not. Just stated that he got "inspired" by his logo or whatever.


----------



## Tabor Warren Photography (Aug 6, 2013)

Jay Khaos said:


> The copyright thing is kind of a big misconception. Anything created by anyone is technically copyrighted, but that doesn't mean much. Having raw files or design files is the only way you can prove it's yours, and even then, good luck doing something about the stolen image unless it was stolen by a company in your country and used for gain, or posted on a legitimate website that will take it down once you can prove it's yours... and in both of those situations, having the copyright doesn't legally do anything or help you. The only time adding a legal mark will help you is if you've paid to register something with a trademark.



(For the OP regarding copyright) I fully agree with the quote above as well as florianbieler's regarding the legality/need for a watermark.

Cheers,
-Tabor


----------



## nick2341 (Aug 6, 2013)

Like a few others here, I'm a graphic designer first and photographer second. My current logo is fairly recent. I don't normally tag my images, but when I do I have a few ways of doing it. I try to keep it unobtrusive and place it where it makes sense. A lot of my images end up being used in design projects so sometimes placing my logo over them makes them look like a full on advertisement.







The tag looks small here, but it's all shrunk proportionally to not take up your whole screen.


----------



## sleepnever (Aug 6, 2013)

Jay Khaos said:


> The copyright thing is kind of a big misconception. Anything created by anyone is technically copyrighted, but that doesn't mean much. Having raw files or design files is the only way you can prove it's yours, and even then, good luck doing something about the stolen image unless it was stolen by a company in your country and used for gain, or posted on a legitimate website that will take it down once you can prove it's yours... and in both of those situations, having the copyright doesn't legally do anything or help you. The only time adding a legal mark will help you is if you've paid to register something with a trademark.


I agree with your general statement. I have a good friend who is an IP/Patent attorney and he said its a friggen nightmare and that my best bet, is to put MY name with the year on my images. Then of course have a copy of the RAW files and that's about the best you can do without going whole hog like corporations and full businesses do. Hence the "poor-man's copyright" comment. Its kinda like the old idea of coming up with a concept, writing it all down and snail-mailing it to yourself in a sealed envelope that you'd only ever open in front of a judge with the US Post Mark date on the front. /shrug


----------



## Joynt Inspirations (Aug 6, 2013)

I've learned to hate so many watermarks when I find they are too obvious, they draw my eye instead of the photograph itself. I use a shortened version of my company name, just the initials. To my eye they're out of the way, and blend into each photo yet are still visible enough that someone can't just rip off the image.


This is an older shot, but it's got the watermark.



Right up to the end by Joynt Inspirations, on Flickr


----------



## Jay Khaos (Aug 6, 2013)

sleepnever said:


> Jay Khaos said:
> 
> 
> > The copyright thing is kind of a big misconception. Anything created by anyone is technically copyrighted, but that doesn't mean much. Having raw files or design files is the only way you can prove it's yours, and even then, good luck doing something about the stolen image unless it was stolen by a company in your country and used for gain, or posted on a legitimate website that will take it down once you can prove it's yours... and in both of those situations, having the copyright doesn't legally do anything or help you. The only time adding a legal mark will help you is if you've paid to register something with a trademark.
> ...



I don't have experience with challenging a stolen photo online, but I do have experience with other digital content. I make and sell 3D content in an online game. People buy it directly from my account. Hackers can copy (pirate) the content and resell it or give it away under their own name. I can fill out DMCA paperwork along with screenshots of the items in the 3D software, and the game company will remove the pirated items from circulation and delete the accounts that were responsible. BUT, they cant really stop people from exporting the files as XML and posting them to third party forums where others can download and import them back into the game... that would be up to the forum domain owner

Basically it's up to whoever is in charge to enforce it... for example, flickr would take someone's photo down if you posted it first and report them. A friend of mine had her portfolio listings on Behance.net removed without notice because the company they were designed for found them and decided to file a DMCA complaint since the designs she posted weren't the final versions signed off on... even though she did make them... and in that situation it was Behance who honored the complaint and removed it, not any kind of law enforcer...


----------



## Halfrack (Aug 6, 2013)

florianbieler.de said:


> cayenne said:
> 
> 
> > Seriously? This is Sal Cincotta?
> ...


Not inspired, that is the line between readable and not readable. The script works based on the letters in his name, but for some names, script fonts can become illegible.


----------



## michi (Aug 6, 2013)

Watermarks have always bothered me. You spend all that time composing, and then you add something that doesn't belong there. I totally understand that for your business you would want that of course, or if you are looking to be recognized. To each their own, not a naysayer, just my opinion. 

I have always thought about, but never suceeded, in making a sort of invisible watermark. Something like my initials added somewhere in the shot, but only visible if you zoomed in and knew where it was. I that case, someone who stole the picture wouldn't know it's there, and thus wouldn't try to just "fix" it with photo editing software. I that case, you could just zoom in and say, "how come your shot has my initials in the corner here?".

I have done this manually, by just typing my initials into the shot in just barely the same color as where I put it, but I don't know how you could automatically apply it to every picture.


----------



## spinworkxroy (Aug 6, 2013)

For me, a logo isn't so much to "protect" the image for getting copied. I don't think my images are good enough that people want to copy them anyways.
I put a logo more to spread the word about who i am and what I do and IF by some chance someone chances upon it, at least the name is there and maybe they can search either on facebook or google for me. 
And since I do mainly portraits, it's good to get "noticed" 

Here's a sample of my logo and well, it's a Panda..not my usual people photos.


----------



## cayenne (Aug 6, 2013)

Do ya'll have opinion one way or the other....regarding having your NAME as part of your business name and logo?

Do you feel it is better to put your first and last (or one or the other) as part of your company name, or do you feel it is better to have a company name that is not your name?

You think it is better to have Joe Shmoe Photography, or better to maybe have XYZ Photography, and maybe on your images have something like "XYZ Photography by Joe Shmoe"....

Just curious. I'm a bit of a privacy concious person, I don't do facebook, twitter..etc.

However, I would consider possibly having a FB account, but I'd rather ONLY put company info there and leave my name out of it....so, wondering if ya'll see that as a negative affect on a business...or does it make *any *difference whatsoever?

Thanks in advance,

cayenne


----------



## Joynt Inspirations (Aug 7, 2013)

Part of my business name is my last name, as it's fairly unique, but that was also to ensure that it would be noticeable, and I would know for a fact that nobody else would already have used it. I'm not a fan of having a lot of text or words in a watermark, instead a simplified version of my main logo or the font used for the business name. As previously stated I dislike a watermark that is too busy and derails my main purpose of enjoying the photo.

Just my 2¢


----------



## Jay Khaos (Aug 7, 2013)

cayenne said:


> Do ya'll have opinion one way or the other....regarding having your NAME as part of your business name and logo?
> 
> Do you feel it is better to put your first and last (or one or the other) as part of your company name, or do you feel it is better to have a company name that is not your name?
> 
> ...



I think a name is good for a photography brand. Depends on the name I suppose. You might solve your dilemma by using an alias, as opposed to your real name or the usual "[insert fancy adjective] Photography". You have the freedom to choose exactly the name you want... plan a seo-friendly URL, plan something that won't leave you being forced to use horizontal AND vertical versions AND alternative/simplified versions...


----------



## Hillsilly (Aug 7, 2013)

I've got first name, middle initial and surname as my business name. But my choice of business name was solely to assist clients from my previous job find me. (I was under a restraint of trade agreement that prevented me from contacting them directly, but which didn't stop them from approaching me). I've often thought of changing my business name, but in my industry, the choice of a business isn't really crucial to my success, and because of regulatory and licencing reasons, I've decided it is easier to stick with the same name.

However, if I was starting from a zero base, I'd choose a catchy name instead. When operating under your own name, people have the perception that you are a small suburban outfit. That might also imply that you might not have the range of people with the right skills or expertise for all jobs. It also means that everyone that calls up wants to deal you with you - They feel like second-class clients if you don't have the time to look after them personally. Using an alternative name makes your branding, marketing and advertising easier. It possibly also makes it easier to sell your business for more money.

Short answer: only operate under your own name if you want to portray yourself as offering a very personalised exprience or if your market is such that nobody cares what you are called. It is ideal for those who want to keep things small with minimal other staff. But for everyone else, just choose a different name.


----------



## alfredo (Aug 8, 2013)

Florian, I think your logo approach is what I'd like to do as well (except I still don't have a proper camera nor a website! But let's ignore this detail for a moment...!)

I have a more technical question about adding your logo


florianbieler.de said:


> I like to blend it into the remaining picture so that it does not disturb the viewer


Is it the case you have two versions of the logo, one black, one white, and you manually pick one of them according to the pic, or did you find a more automatic way of doing that? I also noticed the logo position varies, so I assume it's something you carefully choose for each pic. Am I right?

(I can image a rule like: if the overall luminance of the part of the image where the logo will be is dark, use white logo, otherwise use black logo. But I don't think lightroom or similar support this)


----------



## nightbreath (Aug 18, 2013)

We've come up with the logo by ourselves as well. The key attributes are:
- self-identification: viewer should be able to identify who the photographer is;
- unobtrusiveness: viewer should see the image first, and the logo - second.

Here's an example:


----------



## bycostello (Aug 18, 2013)

don't get too bogged down on it, as most people won't care....


----------



## cayenne (Aug 19, 2013)

I've been learning my way around photoshop.

I see how you can create a logo and store it as a brush, and easily "stamp" your logo on images.

I'm curious....that process is ok if you're only doing a few images at a time.

But what if you have 100+ images you need to get out with a logo or watermark on them? Do ya'll program a PS action for this or what?

I've not gotten to 'actions' yet....but have heard about them.

Thanks in advance,

cayenne


----------



## Zv (Aug 20, 2013)

cayenne said:


> I've been learning my way around photoshop.
> 
> I see how you can create a logo and store it as a brush, and easily "stamp" your logo on images.
> 
> ...



If you create a logo in photoshop and then save it as a PNG you can then use it in Lightroom. In LR go to edit > edit watermarks > and then click on the "choose" button in the Image options tab in the top right hand corner (you can also click on the "Graphic" option too which does the same thing). Find the PNG file and boom you're done. Now you can select multiple images and export with your watermark.


----------



## Jay Khaos (Aug 20, 2013)

Zv said:


> cayenne said:
> 
> 
> > I've been learning my way around photoshop.
> ...



Or better yet, create it in illustrator and save as .eps (if you have Illustrator).



bycostello said:


> don't get too bogged down on it, as most people won't care....



It matters hugely if you're doing it right... I'm not saying its a deciding factor, but an effective name/logo is one of the single most important variables you can invest properly in


----------

