Watermarks...

Sep 28, 2011 07:48

So, watermarks ( Read more... )

Leave a comment

Comments 10

tinbender September 28 2011, 22:08:41 UTC
Amen!

The odd part is often the more obtrusive the watermark, the crappier the artist is in the first place and it's less likely to be stolen anyway.

On the other side of the coin, more artists should somehow "sign" their works. Name and website somewhere unobtrusive (and maybe tough to remove) would be ideal, like clip a lower corner of the image.

Reply

marymouse September 29 2011, 00:20:43 UTC
Heh heh, that is a good point. Maybe it has to do with the fact that they don't have the experience to realize what looks good to begin with? But I can think of 3 good artists off the top of my head who have tasteless watermarks. :/

I do like when an artist signs their work! I have a few badges that aren't, and it makes me a little sad.

Reply

awalker1829 September 29 2011, 03:49:50 UTC
Artist signed pieces are definitely nicer than watermarked items. I've only got two badges myself. I don't remember whether they're signed (they're packed away at the moment). Fortunately, both are done up as identification badges and both artists have distinctive drawing styles, so those readily identify the artist to those who know them.

I really don't like digital photography for similar reasons-any hack can alter a digital image or remove a digital "watermark". Removing a REAL watermark without destroying the paper? Now THAT would be impressive!

Reply


c_eagle September 29 2011, 07:24:43 UTC
I hardly see it (among the artists I view), but I agree ^v^

Reply


boatswain September 30 2011, 00:00:14 UTC
I once removed a watermark and made the image into a vector all to prove a point that they are completely worthless. Watermarks are the beacon of the inexperienced.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up