|
What logo to use?
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Rukes |
| Just wanted to start a poll, let me know what you think! |
|
|
| djjoshuaallen |
| voted for the one in the edc pics:D |
|
|
| Nerologic |
| quote: | Originally posted by djjoshuaallen
voted for the one in the edc pics:D |
+1
IMHO the center one looks tacky, a small one on the bottom corner (either side) is the clean way to go.
Only thing about the corner one is, someone can jack your pic w/o giving you credit. But you wouldn't be the only one getting got, i see that happen everywhere...
The watermark one you use for the most part is hard to edit out, so you would always get credit for the shot. |
|
|
| 2tall |
corner logo is preferred, but your watermark is subtle enough to not take away the enjoyability of browsing your photos. and i've thought about this same dilemma for my photos as well (kng.dm) where i've gone for the corner option.
of course the consumer will always want stuff "free": they'll want the least obtrusive logo. but at worst, a "non-commercial" user might post it on their myspace or use it as a desktop wallpaper (main instance where it could be annoying). and most users don't have a reason to, nor will go through the effort of cropping out the corner logo.
on the other hand, i've seen dj's/promoters jack images and re-use the photos after cropping out the logo on their myspace or actual print jobs (funny when they use a crappy 72dpi 800pixel image off the web for print). but most people are courteous enough to email me when using images in any sort of "commercial/promotional" way. i gladly say yes, and in fact, i'll usually send them a hi-res un-watermarked version without them asking (and sometimes i'll get guestlist and drink tickets in exchange). i really don't lose out on anything, and since this is very much a hobby, i don't see it as lost profit opportunity.
the huge centered watermark on your images never really got in the way of me browsing your pics. i've seen much worse; watermarks that made viewing photos annoying (and in some cases, people being protective of their obviously very crappy photos). the only in your case, there are occasional images that would make for great wallpapers for some people, but can't be used for that purpose with the watermark.
also, your corner logo gives you a more consistent and branded look... where users learn to recognize the logo, whereas the centered watermark does not really "brand" your photos.
but in general, i've just grown to be less possessive/protective of my work. one way or another easier "accessibility" and re-distribution means more exposure. and the most profitable/significant/meaningful uses will end up being done in a legitimate way or will lead to some new gigs or extra exposure (dj's/promoters that "matter" should be or have managers that are wise enough to know better). and at the end of the day, take a look at the people willing to post awesome photos in their full original resolutions online, all the other photographers and thousands of photos out there, and the fact that so many of these djs will be forgotten in a few years, and also sets of photos become almost irrelevant as soon as the dj comes back for another show. |
|
|
| darthseph |
EDC... if someone jacks it and says its their own... well... you have press passes and the original files so it should be fairly easy to prove otherwise.
That being said... I always found the big faded rukes.com logo to be fairly obnoxious and detrimental to the image itself. Like you said in the EDC posted pic, now it is easier to use as a background on your comp. lol |
|
|
| 72hrpartyanimal |
yeah... the one from EDC is way better...
allows me to edit them and brand them as my own ;) |
|
|
| Nerologic |
| quote: | Originally posted by 72hrpartyanimal
yeah... the one from EDC is way better...
allows me to edit them and brand them as my own ;) |
So thats who i see doing that...
:tongue3 |
|
|
| Rukes |
How's something like this? My actual logo, so it's harder to photoshop out than the text watermark.
It's transparent, and slightly below center:
Should I make it dead center? Move it higher or lower? Make it more or less transparent? |
|
|
| 2tall |
| quote: | Originally posted by Rukes
How's something like this? My actual logo, so it's harder to photoshop out than the text watermark.
It's transparent, and slightly below center:
Should I make it dead center? Move it higher or lower? Make it more or less transparent? |
i would almost prefer the the huge watermark to this for the purpose of just browsing your galleries, image after image. this sample works really well for this image but not sure if it would for others. if this watermark would be automatically processed/placed across all images, in the same spot, it might make the images look out of balance and also interfere with the subject matter.
anyone desperate enough to be photoshop out a watermark is an anyways. was this prompted by some incident? you could always just name names. |
|
|
| Rukes |
| quote: | Originally posted by 2tall
i personally would prefer the huge watermark to this. this works for this image if you offered it a wallpaper download or something. if this watermark would be automatically processed/placed across all images, in the same spot, it might make the images look out of balance and also interfere with the subject matter.
anyone desperate enough to be photoshop out a watermark is an anyways. was this prompted by some incident? you could always just name names. |
Oh no, nothing happened, just was wondering if I should change it up for the hell of it :) Also I noticed sometimes the watermark I normally have sometimes vanishes completely depending on the pic, so sometimes it's kind of useless/hard to read. |
|
|
| Nerologic |
bottom corner...
the one you posted kills the picture.
EDIT: I just looked at it again, it still looks way out of place. Like a gangster cholo wearing a fanny pack. |
|
|
|
|
