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!

I did get a discount, but I'll have to check that out.

Unmarked pics will usually cost more

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.  

do so with their arm, hair, fan, etc. If they're looking for ultimate discretion, this is the way to go.

I do not use photographers that require watermarks even in exchange for a discount.  

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.

Like some mentioned, non watermarked photos tend to cost more.

Thank you.

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.

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. ( ?)

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.

I agree completely the "blur" sucks!

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.

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

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.

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.  

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.

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.  

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.