Photographer logo?

[Jay Khaos]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[jon_charron]

 

[OscarBjarna]

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]

There's mine on the left...pwp

-PW

 

[Tabor Warren Photography]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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