| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/23/2008 12:29:15 PM · #1 |
| Will someone (preferably a SC peep) tell me if cloning out a watermark is legal in advanced editing? |
|
|
|
10/23/2008 12:32:24 PM · #2 |
| Ummm.... why would you have to clone it out? Just don't put it there in the first place! Or are you talking about a watermark applied by a trial version of software? |
|
|
|
10/23/2008 12:34:01 PM · #3 |
I'm not SC, but if by watermark you mean a drop of water on the lens that is showing up in the image, yes you can clone it out in Advanced editing, as long as the cloning action does not create a new element that wasn't originally in the photo.
If you are talking about a copyright or a filter trail version mark, I wouldn't venture into that territory, IMHO.
SC can confirm.
Message edited by author 2008-10-23 12:35:35. |
|
|
|
10/23/2008 12:35:00 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
Ummm.... why would you have to clone it out? Just don't put it there in the first place! Or are you talking about a watermark applied by a trial version of software? |
yeh. i got the trial of Photomatrix and it conveniently put 3 watermarks on my photo. yes i am going to buy it, but i still owe $1400 for the lens i got a month ago |
|
|
|
10/23/2008 12:38:37 PM · #5 |
Have you tried Topaz Adjust? Not sure what look you are going for but I think that software gives the same kind of look and I think right now is only $40
Topaz Labs |
|
|
|
10/23/2008 12:39:36 PM · #6 |
| It's being discussed, not ignored :) |
|
|
|
10/23/2008 12:39:49 PM · #7 |
| i just need to know if i can enter my photo or not. is anyone buddies with a SC and can go ask? they dont like me or something:( im not worthy... |
|
|
|
10/23/2008 12:40:27 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by alanfreed:
It's being discussed, not ignored :) |
oh HI! ok well...sorry i asked in this thread, but im kinda getting nervous cause i want to enter in the free study... |
|
|
|
10/23/2008 12:43:44 PM · #9 |
I don't think the SC is likely to take a position that would condone circumventing software licensing restrictions. How would you feel if you watermarked a photo and another site encouraged people to remove it? Rather than trying to get around their security, why not apply Photomatix after you scale the image down? I don't think you get a watermark at 640px (though I don't have the software to confirm).
;-P |
|
|
|
10/23/2008 12:45:27 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
I don't think the SC is likely to take a position that would condone circumventing software licensing restrictions. How would you feel if you watermarked a photo and another site encouraged people to remove it? Rather than trying to get around their security, why not apply Photomatix after you scale the image down? I don't think you get a watermark at 640px (though I don't have the software to confirm).
;-P |
i didnt know that was an option(the scale down thing), i'll try it later though. thanks |
|
|
|
10/23/2008 12:45:41 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by JDubsgirl:
Originally posted by alanfreed:
It's being discussed, not ignored :) |
oh HI! ok well...sorry i asked in this thread, but im kinda getting nervous cause i want to enter in the free study... |
My advice: when something takes us a while to discuss, it's generally because the opinions aren't unanimous. So we can't reply and give you a firm opinion that would mean it's "safe" to proceed.
And in such cases, it means it's generally safer not to do what you are asking.
Even if it was ok per advanced rules, there may be "legal" (or moral) issues in cloning out a watermark. You wouldn't want someone to bypass a watermark you put on an image, and then use it on a basis you did not specify.
Edit: Scalvert beats me while typing. ;)
Message edited by author 2008-10-23 12:46:42. |
|
|
|
10/23/2008 12:47:38 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
I don't think the SC is likely to take a position that would condone circumventing software licensing restrictions. |
you'd think that'd be the case. But there isn't a software license involved, at least not one that I could find. No click through, nothing in the documentation etc.
It still seems to be vaguely immoral to want to do it, but they haven't tried to make it illegal. |
|
|
|
10/23/2008 12:53:22 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
there isn't a software license involved, at least not one that I could find. No click through, nothing in the documentation etc.
It still seems to be vaguely immoral to want to do it, but they haven't tried to make it illegal. |
There isn't a license listed on most watermarked photos either, but the watermark itself is probably a pretty good indicator that they don't want you using the work without some compensation. That said, from their own site:
Is there a way to get the watermark off a photograph processed before buying the license?
Yes, it is possible to remove the 'Photomatix' watermark from photographs processed when the software was still in trial mode, but only if the resulting image was not post-processed after having saved it in Photomatix.
· Go to the Automate menu and click on "Single File Conversion"
· Check the "Remove watermark" option (this becomes enabled after registration)
· Browse to the folder where your image(s) having the watermark are located
· Click on the Run button
Please note that the removal of the watermark requires that the image has not been retouched after you saved it in Photomatix. If you changed the brightness level of the image, or cropped it, then Photomatix will not be able to remove the watermark anymore.
|
|
|
|
10/23/2008 12:53:48 PM · #14 |
egads now i feel like a thief out to steal peoples stuff! ahhh
***goes to cry in corner*** |
|
|
|
10/23/2008 12:55:32 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by JDubsgirl:
Originally posted by scalvert:
I don't think the SC is likely to take a position that would condone circumventing software licensing restrictions. How would you feel if you watermarked a photo and another site encouraged people to remove it? Rather than trying to get around their security, why not apply Photomatix after you scale the image down? I don't think you get a watermark at 640px (though I don't have the software to confirm).
;-P |
i didnt know that was an option(the scale down thing), i'll try it later though. thanks |
IIRC you can do it under 1000px without the watermark ... |
|
|
|
10/23/2008 12:56:51 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by bobonacus:
Originally posted by JDubsgirl:
Originally posted by scalvert:
I don't think the SC is likely to take a position that would condone circumventing software licensing restrictions. How would you feel if you watermarked a photo and another site encouraged people to remove it? Rather than trying to get around their security, why not apply Photomatix after you scale the image down? I don't think you get a watermark at 640px (though I don't have the software to confirm).
;-P |
i didnt know that was an option(the scale down thing), i'll try it later though. thanks |
IIRC you can do it under 1000px without the watermark ... |
can i still change the photo in the program(referring to Scalvert's last post) and not get the watermark? |
|
|
|
10/23/2008 01:05:01 PM · #17 |
|
|
|
10/23/2008 01:07:31 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
Try it and see. :-) |
i'll have to later. im on a school computer |
|
|
|
10/23/2008 01:08:45 PM · #19 |
Why dont you use Gimp????
Its free.. and its spectacular!
|
|
|
|
10/23/2008 02:29:37 PM · #20 |
does gimp do tonemapping ?
|
|
|
|
10/23/2008 02:41:10 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by soup:
does gimp do tonemapping ? |
It does most of the basic stuff that PS would do.. I would say you have to try it out to know.
The one drawback I feel is that since it is opensource, and free, it is not optimized for speed or memory usage for large images. But it does what it says:-)
ETA: Another drawback: if you want to merge HDR exposures, GImp needs them converted to 8-bit JPEGS. I am not sure if it handles 16-bit TIFFS yet.. I will try and let you know. But then I only rarely need to go HDR way, so I am happy for now.
Message edited by author 2008-10-23 14:42:42. |
|
|
|
10/23/2008 02:42:48 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by soup:
does gimp do tonemapping ? |
Not the last time I used it, no. But that was a year or so ago.
R. |
|
|
|
10/23/2008 02:43:48 PM · #23 |
|
|
|
10/23/2008 03:04:22 PM · #24 |
|
|
|
10/23/2008 04:09:18 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by bobonacus:
Originally posted by JDubsgirl:
Originally posted by scalvert:
I don't think the SC is likely to take a position that would condone circumventing software licensing restrictions. How would you feel if you watermarked a photo and another site encouraged people to remove it? Rather than trying to get around their security, why not apply Photomatix after you scale the image down? I don't think you get a watermark at 640px (though I don't have the software to confirm).
;-P |
i didnt know that was an option(the scale down thing), i'll try it later though. thanks |
IIRC you can do it under 1000px without the watermark ... |
That's what I was thinking also - 1000px.
One thing I haven't seen in this thread is that leaving the text on the image would get it dq'd, in addition to getting low votes.
HDRLabs has a list that includes some free software, although you don't get the full functionality as the paid versions. I believe FDR Tools has a free basic version that works well.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/17/2025 06:37:32 PM EDT.
