[UserAccessDenied]

I like the 'DL' of #1 and the text of #2.

You beat me to it!

Exactly this...
Icon from #1 lettering from #2

[mattb123]

You beat me to it!

Exactly this...
Icon from #1 lettering from #2

I thought so too.

[Madaboutpix]

#1 for its modern elegance, clarity, simplicity, and relative unobtrusiveness. Should add that I'm generally not a fan of watermarks in photos. All too often the photo in question doesn't seem to warrant the distinction suggested by the mark, or the watermark itself is so plain obnoxious (apart from being too big) that I hardly care to look at the photograph.

I do see, of course, that photographers have a legitimate interest to protect their work.

[frogoutofwater]

I lean toward #1, because I think the simple icon has potential if you want to use it as a watermark. The font has some promise, but it's a little blah, and you might want to use a variation of the font for your name versus the second line, and also adjust the tracking on the second line to make it a bit tighter.

If you want to experiment with fonts, you can have some fun with Adobe Typekit. You can see a snippet of text in various fonts from the main page (by typing text into the box on the main page) and then once you want to take a closer look at a font and its variations, you can click on that font and then use the type tester.

Then take a screen shot of the font and show it to your friend to see if s/he can find something similar and accessible. (I have access to the Typekit Fonts through my InDesign subscription, but there are restrictions on access to use of some of the fonts if you won't have Typekit. But everyone can view and play with them.)

https://typekit.com/fonts

[JHfwp]

I like the boldness of #3. But I think this is one of those decisions you're going to have to make for yourself. Which one best reflects the type of photography you do? Which one would work best with your existing and future marketing material?

If nothing really speaks to you, don't settle. Or, settle and have another one made someday.

[monochrome]

A friend of mine who's a graphics designer, made me a set of logos to choose from. I want to know which one you guys like the most so I can use it for my portfolio logo and possibly for my photos watermark.



Which one you like best?

I like the strong font in #7, though possibly 15% less compressed. I also like the icon in #1, but it is designed around the weight and style of font #1 - it probably wouldn't transfer easily to the font in #7. Maybe you and your designer can work from there.

[sundr]

I like the 'DL' of #1 and the text of #2.

Ditto

[SpecialK]

Frankly, process of elimination led me to #5.

1, 2. Don't care for the DL thing.
4, 7. Ditto aperture/soccer ball.
3. Apart from the typo, I kept trying to make the E's into something else. Second place though.

So between 5 and 6 I prefered the slant of 5.

[BrianR]

In #1, I'd say the circle is too visually dominant compared to the more important "DL", but I like the look of the text part.

I wonder if the aperture in 4 or 7 would trigger the soccer ball response as much if you increased it to 7 blades? It might then evoke a subconscious da15mm response.

[Irfanintekhab]

1. So clean!

[Kerrowdown]

It's 7 for me... but without the soccer ball.

You can read the name easily and the second line says what it is you do, that's all you need a logo to do for you IMHO.

[TaoMaas]

#1 for its modern elegance, clarity, simplicity, and relative unobtrusiveness.

That's the one I voted for, too, although I think it's just a hair off. It could stand to have a tiny bit more visual weight. My second choice was #7 although I agree about the "soccer ball "comments. lol I didn't care for the script versions. They feel too frivolous to me.

[torm0z]

You can use it if you like.

PM for curves (vector image)