[Bay Bridge Sue]

Thank you!! When I shot B&W I put a sigline (literally, my sig) on the prints - it was required by my instructor. He said he did that for 2 reasons...

(1) He had to look at SO MUCH work he needed to know whose painting was who's.

(2) We were told that it was so we'd take pride in our work. If it was anonymous, then it's easy to turn out schlock, but if people see YOUR name when they see YOUR work, you tend to make that print (or shot or whatever) count. Taken that way, I think it made some of us a little better artists.

And by the way - re Architects and buildings - No, they don't spray paint it, but they sure aren't afraid to put a bronze plaque with their names on *their* art. Anyway, they *are* my shots, my intellectual property, and the only reason I can think of right off the top of my (admittedly weary) head that someone might find it offensive is if they wanted to hijack them for, um, use without permission. It may be an honor, but not that much of one, to have your work used thusly.

Otherwise why do professionals do it, and image wells watermark their sample stuff?

SR