Vampirella Mixed Media

[ChrisMcJunkin]

Just scanned this one in. Sorry for the watermark.

I'm selling this on Ebay this week if anyone is interested. Don't know if it's okay to post links here or not.

[Igo]

This is really awesome work man... but then you go and ruin it with a water-mark. Gota be honest, water-marks come off very amateur'ish. You have your signature on there, you have it time stamped with this post, there's NO need to go putting something like that on there.

[ChrisMcJunkin]

Wow, amateurish?

The reason for the watermark is to protect the original piece. I'll admit I'm not a huge fan of watermarks myself but I would never go so far as to call someone who used them amateurish for doing so.

Many artists use them to protect their work. If I do a commission or am selling a piece of original artwork and want the owner of that piece to be the only one to have the un-watermarked version then that's my prerogative as the creator of the piece.

People have lifted images and made prints, t-shirts and various other items out of images posted online. Not to mention the shear ease of right clicking and "Save As" option. The tiny signature in the bottom can easily be clone stamped out of the artwork.

But I don't really think anyone is eyeballing my work to steal or rip off. As I said before, if I am intending to sell a piece and want the owner of the piece to be the only one to have the unmarked version but still want to showcase the original so that future clients or publishers can see samples then I should be able to do so without being slammed for it.

As an aside, this is only the second of over two hundred illustrations I have showcased online that bears a watermark.

In the case of this one, I really did try and make the watermark as transparent as possible to keep it from being too distracting but y'know what, whatever. You're entitled to your opinion.

[Igo]

I didnt say your artwork was amateurish, I said the action of putting a watermark down is, and honestly, it just is. That's not me trying to be a dick or belittling, it's just true.

You dont see too many (if any) serious artists out there with watermarks on their work. If Frazetta didnt do it, who do you honestly think you are for doing it?

I never use them, none of my artists friends ever use them, none of the artists I look up to use them, none of the artists I work with use them. Seriously, no one uses them...

When it comes down to it, it is really just amateur. Your original is protected because you own the original... how does a watermark protect it?

You do solid work man, like I said earlier, it's just a shame to see it covered with an unnecessary watermark. There's literally ZERO reason to use them... just trying to help you out.

[The Batfan]

I have to agree with Chris that he SHOULD watermark his art, as a collector I watermark my art on my Comic art fans account as I have had numerous pieces taken and copied by shifty artists or people using art that I paid an artist for my one of a kind piece show up on Ebay as a sticker or some kind of crap being produced by some company in china.

Also I deal with lots of artists and a large amount of them are beginning to watermark their art more and more to keep it from illegally being reproduced.

It's to each their own but I would not call the act of watermarking artwork amateurish in any way.

[RichBamf]

A lot of people watermark either their work or their collection to prevent douchebags from stealing it and presenting it as their own, or making prints from artist's work.

This happens a lot surprisingly with unknown or new artists. Look on Deviant art and hundreds of artists use watermarks.

The reason someone like Frazetta didn't use watermarks is because his work is instantly recognisable and it's be easy to see if his work was being ripped off.

[RichBamf]

And Chris, that looks great, i think the mixed media really adds a different dimension tot he piece that simple pencils wouldn't be able to do it justice!

Very good work mate.

[ChrisMcJunkin]

Igo, I realize that you didn't say the work was amateurish but rather the act of me protecting my work came off as so. I never responded to anything other than the issue of the watermark in my reply so I don't see how there could be any confusion in that.

The Frazetta analogy doesn't hold up for a number of reasons, namely the fact that the internet wasn't invented when he was an up and coming artist. Furthermore, 90%+ of his artwork that is presented in any public form was work that he had already been compensated for either by a publisher or private client. In the case of this piece, it is something I created for no money (as of yet) that I am attempting to part with for an exchange of monetary compensation.

Also by the time the internet came around Frazetta was such a huge name that (as others have pointed out) it would be silly for anyone to try and steal his work or claim it as their own. But there is definitely truth to the notion of art thieves online.

Not a week goes by on Deviant Art that I don't hear about someone who has padded their gallery with other people's work. One artist even had his work lifted from his dA page and the thief in question turned the artwork into t-shirt iron-ons and began selling t-shirts (without permission of course) on Ebay. The artist was alerted by a fellow community member and contacted Ebay who had the thief in question banned.

Look, if you have an issue with watermarks that's fine, I don't care. You're just the first person I've EVER encountered that told the artist that watermarked their work that they would be perceived as amateurish for doing so. I've literally never encountered that perception amongst anyone in the online community.

I'm sure that whoever ends up owning the original piece will take extra appreciation of the effort and that they won't think me unprofessional for it.

Bests,

Chris McJunkin

[MONSTER]

I wonder if Igo realizes that the Watermark is not on the original art.

Anyways nice work!

[Igo]

The key thing here I guess is that you guys brought up "the online community" such as DA artists and such, and that's where I find the trend also, and most of the artists not being actual free-lance artists, they are amateurs or "commission" artists, and honestly, those are the ONLY guys who use watermarks, and that's why I call it amateurish.

And if you're surrounding yourself with that type of people, that's why you probably havent heard it called "amateur'ish" before, and I might be the first guy who makes a living doing this stuff to give you his honest opinion.

You can do what you wanna do, Im obviously not here to give you a citation, Im just saying that as a working artist, and someone who deals with a lot of working artists, I find an uber UBER tiny amount of artists that send in their portfolios using watermarks, and honestly the ones who do are the ones I wouldnt want to work with anyways.

If you want to be taken seriously, and not come across as some insecure "some ones gonna get rich off of that one drawing I did!" amateur, you step out of the water-mark shadow and start promoting yourself seriously, take your art seriously, and dont focus on what others are doing with your Bad-Word-Bad-Word-Bad-Word-Bad-Word-, focus on making your craft better, and getting your name and your work out there more.

No one's getting rich off of your work, promise. That's no knock on your work but in the end it's just true. If people REALLY wanted to steal your art a water-mark wouldnt stop them...

Again, just my perception as a working professional and perception can go a long way. If all you wanna do is one-off eBay originals and post on DA to get commissions, then water-mark away.

And I realize the water-mark isnt on the original.

Not trying to argue for arguments sake, just putting an opinion out there. Sorry you dont care for it.