many years ago as i started to "get serious" about photography i created a logo for branding purposes and while i have continued to use that logo sporadically i have really struggled with whether to use it long-term.
while the original logo was creative to a degree it has become stale over time and i started to wonder if it really conveyed a personal touch. in the end, i felt as though a change was needed, but to what?
as i spent time considering what a logo should represent, and how it should be used from a branding perspective i narrowed my focus to establishing an identity and a mark (or logo) to represent that identity.
the difference, at least for me, is that identity represents me as an individual and my logo represents the link between my and my photographs. it's the link to connect the photograph with the "who."
over the years i have pulled back on my "seriousness" with photography and want to spend my creative time making photographs that i find engaging, emotional, visually appealing, and most of all enjoyable. i am not a professional photographer. far from it. but, that doesn't mean i don't take the craft of photography seriously.
as such, i want my photographs to represent me to the highest artistic level, and one of the most personal representations each of us posses is our signature. adding our signature implies that we have put our mark on something, that it fully and completely represents us as an individual. so, i have selected a signature-based logo for my photography: