Another day, another Dawn.

It's nice to be wanted. It's even nicer to be wanted for a good reason.

Well the other day, I got the opportunity to be both wanted, and pleased to be wanted, when I got a message via Facebook. It was a message from Aurora Dawn, a model that I have shot with before. She had an idea for a shoot, and she wanted me to shoot it with her. Now, this wasn't exactly a multi-million pound commission, but still, she does a variety of styles of modelling, and for this shoot, she wanted me as the photographer. So yeah, I was fairly pleased with that.

In the message, she laid-out the theme for the shoot, which centred around a black PVC fetishy nurses outfit, in a derelict location in South Wales. As soon as I read the details I understood why she had contacted me for this shoot - this kind of stuff is right up my street!

The only potential problem was getting caught at the location by police / security which obviously would put a premature end to our shoot. It's somewhere we have both (individually) shot before, and we know it can be a little risky. Fortunately, nothing like that happened, and it all went off without any problems. Shooting with Aurora was, just like last time, really great fun. To be honest, it's times like that when I remember / realise why I enjoy shooting people so much. For me, there's an energy and insight that really makes everything so much more interesting. I love photography, but I really love meeting and interacting with people. Shoots with models like Aurora are just the best of both worlds.

The shoot itself all went pretty well, we got some great images, and we both had great fun! Aurora and I are comfortable enough with each other that we're able to do a little experimenting, most of which I'm pleased to say worked-out fairly well. It's a brilliant location, with so many areas that have so many different looks. We actually only shot in 2 places - one hall and a dried-out swimming pool, But even using just these 2 locations and 2 outfit changes, when you add to that a little creativity and imagination, we came away with a nice variety of images.

Here's a few frames from the shoot. In terms of nudity etc they're a bit on the tame side, but the upside of that is that I can safely put them up on Facebook without causing any problems, which means that more people will see them. Swings and roundabouts eh?

 

 

Thanks,
Matt

Watermarking?

Do you watermark your images? Why? Or, why not?

I'm often surprised at how much of a big deal this question is. I mean, when I first started putting my images online, it seemed 'obvious' that one should watermark images. But I kept reading articles / comments / forum threads about some people being really against watermarking, and, equally, some people are really keen on it. To be honest, I was surprised that anyone would be against it. Actually, as an aside, I once read an article where a photographer was slamming a new feature on Facebook and warning other photographers about it. He was saying how this terrible new feature allows users to download high-res versions of images you upload, and that this was really dangerous because if you didn't watermark your images, they could be re-distributed without any credit etc etc. And I just though, who the hell is uploading high-res images, without a watermark, and enabling high-res downloads?!?! Surely that's just asking for trouble!? Anyway, although I still advocate watermarking images, I do find it an interesting argument, and I think the 'non-watermarking' side have some good points, so I think it's worth mentioning some of them here.

First of all, allow me to make a small distinction. When I 'Watermark' my images, it isn't really a watermark as such. When I do it, its more like the way a painter signs a painting - its just a small, semi-transparent logo with my web address on it, placed down in the corner of the image. Some people probably wouldn't consider this a watermark, but even this small addition to an image is enough to put some people off (I'll explain that in more detail later).

So, the 'for' argument is pretty straight-forward, and for me there's really only one reason for watermarking. The kind of watermarking I do is more of a business-card, designed to work for me as a little free-advertising. At the end of the day, we live in an era where images are - rightly or wrongly - frequently, rapidly, and easily 'shared' across the Internet. I don't think there's much that photographers can do to stop this, and frankly, I think it would be futile to try, so if my images are going to get spread around the Internet (especially without a credit) I at least want people to know who shot it. Instead of trying to fight against photo-sharing, I say embrace it, knowing that anyone who sees the image can easily find my website. In this way, watermarking can help protect an image and a photographer, and is a simple and effective way of doing so.

Once an image is posted online, it takes-on a life of it's own, in what some people call a 'Second life', meaning that it could be re-blogged, emailed to friends, saved, used as a desktop wallpaper, put on Facebook, print-screened, or even printed-out. Now, obviously, if someone wants to get rid of a watermark like mine, thats going to be fairly easy to do just by cropping the image a little, or even cloning-it-out. Sure, that's certainly true, but for the casual re-blogger or Tumblr, I'd rather have a logo on there than not, you know?

Now then, the 'Against' camp tends to centre around one main reason as to why people disagree, often quite strongly, with watermarking. Essentially, the problem is one of aesthetic integrity. The fact is, when a photograph is taken, the watermark / logo is not part of the original conception - it's an afterthought, and arguably a distractingly ugly one. When posting an image online (or in print for that matter) one should want the image to look its best, and some would argue that that's simply not possible once an image has been watermarked. Watermarked images are often considered to be fundamentally less impressive. I think my own images have suffered a little from this, as on my Tumblr (http://www.latexandink.tumblr.com) I have the images watermarked, plus a little description in the caption, and to be honest, they very rarely get re-blogged. So maybe my watermarking is holding me back. Either that, or just no-one likes my shit photography. Well, latex, tattoo and fetish photography isn't for everyone!

This is a view-point held by many photography bloggers, and just in the same way that a magazine wouldn't print an image with a watermark, many professional photography blogs simply won't post an image, or a set of images, if they've been watermarked. The justification is that any reputable, legitimate blog will credit appropriately, and so there's no need for a watermark. However, I would argue that this doesn't take into account the 'Second-life' that the image make take-on once it's been blogged - regardless of how respectable the blog. Personally, it's what happens to it afterwards that concerns me.

In this way, if you choose to watermark your images, it could actually have a detrimental effect on your exposure as a photographer. Yeah, your images will work for you in terms of free-advertising, but no bugger will see them because no reputable blogger is going to blog them. So it would seem like the options are that your images may end-up safe but un-heard of, or may enjoy a degree of popularity, but potentially without anyone knowing they're yours. Bit of a tricky one really...

Personally, I believe that it's best to err on the side of caution. I just can't bear the idea of having my images flying around the Internet without any logo, and no-one knowing who shot them. I don't want to sound egotistical, but if people appreciate my work, I'd like them to be able to find me, and commission me for something. Having said that, if a blog wanted to feature me, I would quite happily submit watermark-free images. Contradictory I know, but I'd take any and all exposure I can get. Yeah, so it's a little on the whore-ish side, but love don't pay the bills, and a brutha gotta eat!

So how do you feel about watermarking? Are you particularly for or against? Let me know, and also feel free to let me know your opinions, or if you think I've left-out any points for or against.

Thanks,
Matt