I did get a discount, but I'll have to check that out.
Thx
Thank you.
too much for me to read. Got it though.
Unmarked pics will usually cost more
Posted By: 808transplant
When I fought MMA a few years back, my sensei once got mad at me for wearing an Under Armor rashguard and matching shorts to a match. As a novice fighter I had no sponsors so I thought nothing of it. However, my sensei insisted that I black out the Under Armor logo for the sole reason that I was giving them free advertisement. If I was going to wear their gear in front of people, then they had to pay me. PERIOD!
Well, looking at the provider ads, I see pretty much the same thing. At the very bottom of a sultry image, I see xxxx-photography. Girls are you aware that you are advertising for them? Are they paying you for this? You may think that this is insignificant but I am sure the photographer did not give you any discount despite the free advertisement. I am sure that other girls look at your hot pics and inquire about bettering their business with good photography.
One more thing. I saw some pics in a DC agency's website that had this very thing, the photography studio's trademark at the bottom. So I went to the studio's website. There was the unblurred provider's face. Not only that but on the studio's facebook page there she was also. In 3 minutes I knew the provider's name, home city, and all sorts of personal info. Don't worry darling, I wont say anything to your parents.
Just food for thought,
808
Maybe I am wrong here but if the photographer knows that the pics will be used for what is a criminal enterprise it can lead to charges. I know this is far fetched but with the happenings in the DC area, I am a little bit worried.
The girls who keep the photographer's watermark do so to prevent theft of their photos in most cases. They know that the photographer's name and copyright carries more weight than some provider who is breaking the law, so that's why they do it that way. Also, it is a status thing to have photos taken by x photographer just like having a website made by x designer. Some people like to broadcast how much money they spend on things in this business...imagine that lol.
Any time you are wanting to hide something from the world, you should make damn sure no one can easily hack an account or gain access to your identity. My Twitter account was hacked within 3 months of joining, and I was not there to cruise or meet clients, but to fk around. If they can hack it that easily, there is no way in hell I would ever think of messaging potential clients about meeting dates and times.
I had to link/create a Linkedin profile in grad school for a Research and Decision Making class, and told my professor flat out, I refused to use my real name ever again online. He said no problem, and let me make a fake one.
I've heard of web designers and photographers passing out girl's face photos to women who did not like them because they were "friends" with the bitch...photos being sent to hotels in a city a certain provider was touring with a "warning" saying to call the cops if she showed up. Don't even get me started on all the hobbyists who want to trade sex for photos or web design, and the women who jump at the chance to save a few bucks.
-- Modified on 9/2/2013 8:05:10 PM
do so with their arm, hair, fan, etc. If they're looking for ultimate discretion, this is the way to go.
I truly don't understand why any escort looks directly at the camera, if they're going to blur their face anyway. The blur is unattractive, and now a photographer has your face on film. It's much more appealing to use the hair, a hat or fan in a sexy way to cover the face. my $.02 fwi
Not so much the end result, but while doing the photos. Not in a bad way...just like you mentioned, they kept saying I could always just blur my face out.
Finally I had to admit my quirky little thing...blurred faces scare me!!! It reminds me of a horror movie I once saw, where everyone whose photo was taken, and they had a blurred face, was the next one to die. I dont wanna die!!! hehehe..but yeah, It scares me. And I dont like the cropped off face look. So I just try to turn my head and have my face hidden by my hair / arm etc.
But I do also feel better knowing my face isnt full on in any photos regardless.
bone structure, and full or thin lips, which is why most go this route. Sorry, but a half face would show too much and hair in the face simply hides everything. I don't find that any more attractive. I've never let anyone photograph me unless it was with MY camera and MY memory card, so not worried at all about someone having an unblurred copy...they don't. I find the blocks and swirls to be a bit scary, but not a light blur which still shows an outline of her eyes, cheek bones, and lips.
-- Modified on 9/3/2013 9:13:49 AM
Yeah its a personal choice thing...like you say, blur still shows the outline of the face and bone structure, something Im not comfortable with cause I have distinct features and anyone I know would be able to see its me right away. I have a local friend who, even though she blurs her face, when I saw her ads I immediately recognized it was her.
Ive gotten used to seeing blurred faces in ads, but on me it would creep me out..cant do it! lol Now I do have a cropped photo that shows my lips...I *love* that pic so I took the chance, but its cause I dont have my trademark goofy grin going on hehehe!
But you know, thats why there are different levels...some show face, some blur parts of their face or all of it, and some like me who dont show face in a photo at all. There are some guys who refuse to see a lady if they cant see what she looks like or get an idea with a blur, but Ive seen guys who said they chose me because I didnt show my face at all.
What I mean by that, is run it through some programs that swirl, change your jaw line, eye color, teeth, etc. Yes, you can do that lol, and THEN blur it so if someone gets a wild hair up their ass to start messing around with software that can unblur, they are going to get a vision of a person who looks like a vampire lol.
You can even raise and lower your eyes, brows, etc. to make the pic totally unrecognizable. I had an idiot pass around what she assumed was my photo, and not one guy who saw it was like, "yea, that's her." Even the teeth were jacked up, and anyone who has seen me personally can attest to my teeth being damn near perfect and bright white.
That some providers have on their pictures.The blur is so light I can see all of the facial features seems to defeat the purpose of blurring because everyone can clearly still see the face.
I know a provider who does this she completely reconstructs her face first and then blurs the picture.
The only pictures that are a little scary is the swirl on the face not blurred but just the swirl.
I agree completely the "blur" sucks!
I do not use photographers that require watermarks even in exchange for a discount.
I also require a contract naming me as the exclusive copyright holder with all rights assigned including derivative works. I do not work with photographers who retain ownership
First, to the OP: The pro might quote a rate on the assumption that his watermark will be used thus providing advertising; instead of a paid endorsement, it's a discounted rate. If you want pics w/o his watermark, he might charge more. For OP's purposes, same difference: a fee or a discount. No one is being hoodwinked.
HOWEVER, as others have pointed out here many times (General, Newbie, NY boards), there is more than just the question of the photog's watermark.
I only know from civvie contracts, as I've never done nekkid photos or advertising 
but the pros will agree to various terms in a written enforceable contract. If you want "No photog watermark!" say so. If you want "My personal watermark on each pic" be prepared to pay little extra but have it professionally and skillfully done. Copyright ownership? Clarify it in the contract! (Remember the Miss America who got burned in the Hustler spread from an old photo shoot with a LEGAL model release? I think it was Vanessa Williams.) "You may not use my pics for any purpose whatsoever without my written permission!"? Put it in there. In the old days of actual prints and proof sheets, you might want to specify "deliver by" some date. In today's digital terms, that might mean, "Photoshopped proofs will be provided within 2 weeks (? reasonable? I don't know. Depends on the number of images and how much has to be done, I guess.) of the shooting date; corrected proofs will be provided within ..." You get the idea.
I think it was London who specified that she doesn't even want her photog to have a digital backup of her pics. She asks for the digital SD media itself, right out of the camera, immediately after the shoot.
Decide what's important to you; get advice, opinions, etc from Londons, Rashas, and others; put it in the contract and snap away
Like some mentioned, non watermarked photos tend to cost more.
I do have one set of photos where I put the photographers watermark on it myself even, because shes a provider launching her photography business...shes a great person and I dont mind at all helping her out with this venture by advertising her work.
The pictures my photographer takes he gives me all of the photos.None of them have watermarks on them initially.
If I need him to retouch a photo maybe the lighting is off or a shadow in the picture he will add his watermark.
I do have my photographer take out my tattoo and blur my face so in that case the picture or pictures I get have the photographer watermark on them.Never really thought about the watermark being on the pictures.
It is usually at the bottom in the corner of the picture not a big deal to me.
I have seen some pictures taken by photographers where the watermark was so big it took away from the photo.I also have seen photographer watermarks that have the contact info of the photographer right on the picture that is too much imo.
On some sites I advertise on you cannot even post a picture that has the photographer's watermark on it.
I think it is date-check where I had to crop the photographer watermark off the picture to be able to use it on that site.
I agree to make sure to check the photographer's website to make sure the photo they post on their site is the blurred version.Not too cool when you have an unblurred photo floating around a photographer's site and a client points it out to you.
Here's another reason to stick with amateur photos.
Sure, because making the provider look worse than she actually does is preferable to making her better. ( 
?)
I enjoy them, it tells me that the provider takes her business seriously. It's part of the marketing and I don't have a problem with it, unless the pictures are misleading.
He does great work, has very reasonable rates, goes above and beyond, and is just all around a super fellow. His work helps my business, I'm happy to help his. I don't often keep his watermark on my images, though its scattered throughout my gallery and I'm always happy to steer other ladies towards his work... So don't care either way.
Of course this is a guy I've shot with for years, and I trust his respect for my discretion and privacy. I simply would shoot with anyone otherwise.
I agree. I would never mind advertising for someone who was great to work with and treated me with respect, so why not this way? Many people like the world to know that Scott Church took their photos, because he has also photographed professional models and playmates. I personally love his work, because unlike another famous Miami crew, he does his best to never use the same backdrop, so you don't have 10 other girls with the same damn location in the background. I find that looks so tacky to have the EXACT back drop as tons of other women.
