Watermark Discussion for New Dimension Limitations

11/11/2009 05:09:50 PM · #251

Watermarking can be easily done to be unobstructive but still act as a deterrent. You just have to know how your picture works and where to place it where a) sufficient detail exists to make cloning difficult b) not right over the subject, but arranged so a crop would be awkward.

I would consider something like this to be actually pretty protective. It would require some real work to clone it out, although I'm sure it would be possible. The watermark also protects your picture when it is posted on random other blog sites (which I don't generally mind). That way if it IS every used, the company can't just claim, "well, we didn't know who owned it or whether it was free" (a weak argument anyway, but still with the "orphaned works" laws, a possible one.) They would have to have actively cloned out the watermark and if found out I doubt that's gonna look good to the jury as they decide upon damages.

Message edited by author 2009-11-11 17:10:51.

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

11/11/2009 05:35:12 PM · #252

Originally posted by Phil:

Might as well. We argue like we are already.

I want to make it very clear that I do NOT want kids.

Neil

Fujifilm X-T30

11/11/2009 06:38:47 PM · #253

FWIW, GiveawayOfTheDay.com has batch watermarking software as it's free software of the day (today, Wed only)

//www.giveawayoftheday.com/batch-picture-protector/

I haven't tried it though, go check it out and decide for yourself.

11/11/2009 06:59:40 PM · #254

Originally posted by nshapiro:

I've tried other packages like this in the past and two things keep me from using them:

1) It's difficult, at best, to have one watermark that is automatically used across every type of image. A light gray watermark works with a generally darker image, while it is almost invisible on a very bright image.

2) The other packages tend to save the JPG in a very compressed format, affecting the quality of the image. I would like the option to not compress (or at least let me choose 100% or 99% quality).

.

Message edited by author 2009-11-11 19:00:54.

Azrifel

Fujifilm X100VI

11/12/2009 02:44:18 AM · #255

Originally posted by Photologist:

1) It's difficult, at best, to have one watermark that is automatically used across every type of image. A light gray watermark works with a generally darker image, while it is almost invisible on a very bright image.

Don't you think that a DPC watermark will run into the exact same problems?

And the 2nd point about low quality jpegs... Don't you think that a DPC resave with a watermark will lower the quality of your photo?

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

11/12/2009 02:58:58 AM · #256

Originally posted by Azrifel:

Originally posted by Photologist:

Originally posted by nshapiro:
FWIW, GiveawayOfTheDay.com has batch watermarking software as it's free software of the day (today, Wed only)

//www.giveawayoftheday.com/batch-picture-protector/

I haven't tried it though, go check it out and decide for yourself.

I've tried other packages like this in the past and two things keep me from using them:

1) It's difficult, at best, to have one watermark that is automatically used across every type of image. A light gray watermark works with a generally darker image, while it is almost invisible on a very bright image.

2) The other packages tend to save the JPG in a very compressed format, affecting the quality of the image. I would like the option to not compress (or at least let me choose 100% or 99% quality).

Don't you think that a DPC watermark will run into the exact same problems?

And the 2nd point about low quality jpegs... Don't you think that a DPC resave with a watermark will lower the quality of your photo?

Having a watermark that's too light or too dark to show up can be solved. It's been solved before. It's not an insurmountable task. It's just the free software packages I've tried didn't have this feature.

Resaving can be done at 100% (or very close to it). Yes, by nature of a JPG, there will be some compression loss, but it will be negligible and the quality difference will not be seen with the naked eye.

Message edited by author 2009-11-12 03:02:20.

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

11/12/2009 03:13:45 AM · #257

Originally posted by Photologist:

Originally posted by Azrifel:
And the 2nd point about low quality jpegs... Don't you think that a DPC resave with a watermark will lower the quality of your photo?

Resaving can be done at 100% (or very close to it). Yes, by nature of a JPG, there will be some compression loss, but it will be negligible and the quality difference will not be seen with the naked eye.

It depends on the photograph. Some photos are already saved with high compression just to meet the file size limits so resaving could cause noticeable artifacts. Also, the code that prevents you from uploading a challenge entry that is greater than the file size limit would need to be alter because resaving at 100% would most likely exceed those limits. Assuming of course the original was saved near the limit which I'm sure is what most people do.

Message edited by author 2009-11-12 03:15:20.

glad2badad

Apple iPhone 16 Pro

Lensbaby Sweet 35 Optic

11/12/2009 08:44:30 AM · #258

Smugmug allows you to upload custom watermarks and save them in a folder (similar to our Workshop one) - then you can choose which watermark to apply. I've uploaded several with varying degrees of opacity that give me flexibility depending on the photo I want to watermark.

I had an account with Shutterpoint for a few years and they had a similar watermark option, taking it one step farther and allowing you so set the watermark to high, center, or low placement.

I got the impression with both of the above scenarios that the watermark was actually an overlay and not forcing an image resave. Could be totally wrong on that...I think I'm going to ask or check the Smugmug forums.

Just food for thought.

11/12/2009 10:41:43 AM · #259

Originally posted by yanko:

the code that prevents you from uploading a challenge entry that is greater than the file size limit would need to be alter because resaving at 100% would most likely exceed those limits.

That's assuming DPC watermarks the image at upload time. DPC shouldn't increase the size requirement because for those folks that do not choose to watermark could upload larger files. I would make more sense that the application of the watermark would be after it has been uploaded.

glad2badad

Apple iPhone 16 Pro

Lensbaby Sweet 35 Optic

11/12/2009 12:07:31 PM · #260

Originally posted by Photologist:

Originally posted by yanko:
the code that prevents you from uploading a challenge entry that is greater than the file size limit would need to be alter because resaving at 100% would most likely exceed those limits.

That's assuming DPC watermarks the image at upload time. DPC shouldn't increase the size requirement because for those folks that do not choose to watermark could upload larger files. I would make more sense that the application of the watermark would be after it has been uploaded.

I would think after upload also, especially considering the watermark wouldn't show until after voting on challenge entries.

11/12/2009 01:16:15 PM · #261

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Originally posted by Photologist:

Originally posted by yanko:
the code that prevents you from uploading a challenge entry that is greater than the file size limit would need to be alter because resaving at 100% would most likely exceed those limits.

That's assuming DPC watermarks the image at upload time. DPC shouldn't increase the size requirement because for those folks that do not choose to watermark could upload larger files. I would make more sense that the application of the watermark would be after it has been uploaded.

I would think after upload also, especially considering the watermark wouldn't show until after voting on challenge entries.

Or we could just get over it an forget the watermark idea. Just post over at Smugmug. They apparently realize the greatness of every photographer there since they allow the images to be defaced and marred.

11/12/2009 01:25:39 PM · #262

The poll results are holding steady with about 60% of the folks wanting some sort of watermarking feature here at DPC.

11/12/2009 01:30:32 PM · #263

Originally posted by Photologist:

The poll results are holding steady with about 60% of the folks wanting some sort of watermarking feature here at DPC.

Even still, 60% is no overwhelming margin. That still leaves over 40% of is that don't want to see your crappy watermarks.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

11/12/2009 01:39:19 PM · #264

A choice to have photos with watermarks does not eliminate your choice not to look at them.

Azrifel

Fujifilm X100VI

11/12/2009 01:46:49 PM · #265

Originally posted by scalvert:

A choice to have photos with watermarks does not eliminate your choice not to look at them.

Ehmmm, if it ever appears in challenges, will my votes get scrubbed if I give all watermarked images a 1? :)

I would have some real fun if we actually would have a watermark challenge to see what people come up with.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G OSS

11/12/2009 01:49:20 PM · #266

Originally posted by Azrifel:

Ehmmm, if it ever appears in challenges, will my votes get scrubbed if I give all watermarked images a 1? :)

Sure, but I HIGHLY doubt challenge entries would ever be watermarked during voting.

PapaBob

Sony Alpha a7 IV

11/12/2009 01:50:38 PM · #267

Originally posted by ericwoo:

Originally posted by Photologist:
The poll results are holding steady with about 60% of the folks wanting some sort of watermarking feature here at DPC.

Even still, 60% is no overwhelming margin. That still leaves over 40% of is that don't want to see your crappy watermarks.

40% do not want to look at them is that your only argument, if so we have heard it already! If you have something with a little more substance feel free to share.

11/12/2009 01:53:02 PM · #268

Originally posted by scalvert:

A choice to have photos with watermarks does not eliminate your choice not to look at them.

True, and I will no longer look at them. I didn't join a site full of Prima Donnas that need to watermark images just to see their names in print. It will kill the enjoyment of the images here for me, thus I will not look through them. I will not offer critiques and suggestions with the Critique Club, nor will I waste my time trudging though challenge entries if I am forced to look at a watermark while voting and commenting. So, you're right. With watermarks, the site loses it fun to me. But hey, apparently we've all reached that peak where we no longer need critiques and comments with every posted image being such a potential gold mine. Right? I'll just shift this annual fee over to a site that isn't so damn pretentious.

11/12/2009 01:53:36 PM · #269

Originally posted by PapaBob:

Originally posted by ericwoo:

Originally posted by Photologist:
The poll results are holding steady with about 60% of the folks wanting some sort of watermarking feature here at DPC.

Even still, 60% is no overwhelming margin. That still leaves over 40% of is that don't want to see your crappy watermarks.

40% do not want to look at them is that your only argument, if so we have heard it already! If you have something with a little more substance feel free to share.

60% do want to look at them is that your only argument, if so we have heard it already! If you have something with a little more substance feel free to share.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5