Recently saw a model post a photo of a print she'd got from a photographer (~A3/A2 size) that was framed and hanging on her wall. Shockingly, it had the photographer's logo on it (and it was far from subtle, and spoiled an otherwise nice B&W art-like print), yet blown up to the same proportions as if it were a watermark/logo on a web image. I'm assuming he printed it as he commented on it (not sure if it was a freebie or she paid for it, either way... it's very sad if he did stick it on).
I can't say I'd ever contemplate putting logos on prints that I were giving to a model as I'd consider myself a complete w***er if I did (I'd understand it if a print were given freely to a shop for advertising purposes, eg. glamour shot of girl on motorbike given to motorbike dealership).
So is it just me or does he strike others as an egomaniac/twat by doing this? (regardless of it being a freebie)
So there you have it, I'm an egomaniacal twat and a wanker to boot. I often give models prints as a freebie and they always have my small, rather discrete, signature in one corner. In the same manner as guys that paint put their signatures on their pictures. At least I know my place in the world now.
I can understand a descrete signature (plain black,grey or white and/or transparent, and relatively small, say up to 1" on an A3 print) The one in question had a garish multi-coloured logo of at least 3-4" in size iirc, and bearing in mind it was on a dark B&W image, it was, as I said, far from subtle..
Its not on your wall so as far as I can see bugger all to do with you. I understand your personal view on it entirely but presumably the model is happy or she would not have posted it so why the rancour?
Artists sign their work as a matter of course. As indeed do many high end portrait photographers, though usually on the mount. If we went through this and other sites digging up all the photos that have no business anywhere other than the waste bin at least the forum would be heaving again though I guess.
Well at least the photographer will at least get some possible work out of it, as to be more subtle, how subtle do people want it to be? If you have it too much subtle, people might not notice at all.
I'd personally go out of my way to buy work from someone who didn't molest it with a tacky logo (a bit like car dealerships adding their own branding badge on cars, I hate it). And remember, the one in question was at least 3-4" wide and multicoloured on a B&W image.
I'd have thought word of mouth or, as mentioned something more subltle (like a logo/discrete naming on the frame) would have been better.
But yes Redbaron, if she's happy then who am I to judge but it just strikes me as quite amusing that a photographer would be so far up his own backside to do such a thing.