Watermark Discussion for New Dimension Limitations

Pentax DA 18-135mm F3.5-5.6ED AL [IF] WR DC

11/12/2009 02:32:09 PM · #276

I wonder if he was one of the people that was going to move to canada after the last 3 presidential elections, yet is still here after each one.

tnun

Ricoh GR III

11/12/2009 02:41:49 PM · #277

I have no interest in looking at watermarked pictures. For me it is like clothing with writing on it, elevator music, waiting room music, call waiting music. It is static, interference, and defeats the whole purpose of photography (and maybe that of ascension, medicine and telcommunications as well). Before digital, when I got my first slr the essence of the photographing was that aha moment in the viewfinder when what I saw brought peace and balance. A watermark is not only visual interference; it brings all the trappings of ego and paranoia and money.

I am old. Life is short but incredibly rich and I want to savour every last lick without those trappings.

soup

Canon EOS-30D

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

11/12/2009 02:51:26 PM · #278

man, touchy subject.

how about a watermark where you have to tilt and angle your monitor a certain way to see it. like the paper ones :)

then you could fly to india or russia or wherever the person that stole your image is located, and be like.

'Yo tilt that monitor, i'll prove that image is mine !!! Pay UP ! '

that'll teach those right clicking bastards !

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

11/12/2009 02:53:17 PM · #279

I was going to start putting images on top of my watermarks, but the people on the watermarking message board I go to, they got all spazzed out and started whining. Sandy pink panties all in a bunch.

KaDi

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

11/12/2009 02:58:51 PM · #280

Perhaps it's just an acute case of Aquagraffitophobia?
...and we're being insensitive.

(Insensitive, egotistical, money-grabbing, paranoid, pretentious prima donas, that is.)

11/12/2009 03:13:17 PM · #281

Originally posted by chromeydome:

He keeps ~~promising~~ threatening to leave, year after year, if he doesn't get his way. He doesn't get his way, but he stays.

What a tease.

but it's greatness like you that keeps me here. And, to help alleviate your error, I didn't re-up for the site fee until the size allowance was increased. Does that help clear your haziness a bit o great one?

Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM for Nikon

11/12/2009 03:17:25 PM · #282

Originally posted by AJSullivan:

I wonder if he was one of the people that was going to move to canada after the last 3 presidential elections, yet is still here after each one.

again, very funny coming from a NON-PAYING, one image registered user. Of course we should follow your ideas and opinions. Hell, we should probably be paying you to grace us with such a presence.

jdannels

Nikon D300s

11/12/2009 03:19:09 PM · #283

Originally posted by tnun:

I agree, I voted no to watermarks because it would make this site considerably less enjoyable to view and that is what I am really here for. Since they kept the "Images Viewed" statistics I have looked at nearly 100,000 images. I am also here to get people to look at my images. Challenges allow me to post anything I want and have at least two hundred views of my work during the challenge, and depending on placement and popularity can add hundreds to thousands more. With this I have had several images stolen and pop all around the interwebs, and I will take that as the nature of the beast. If all of you who are so worried that your works are going to be stolen, why have you not been watermarking them already? A few extra pixels is not going to make your image any more susceptible to theft. Just my opinion.

If this goes forward I would hope to see some of these implementations, atleast.
1. If you are logged in you will not see watermarks, or become a paying member to not see the watermarks.
2. Watermarks never show up during a challenge.
3. I think the watermarks should be tied to the user's profile, for example, jdannels.dpchallenge.com. This way if someone finds it out there somewhere and wants to find you they can.
4. Watermarks are optional.

If you need to be registered to not see watermarks, and I want to show them an entry, I would upload it to my flickr account direct my friends and family there. This seems like a reasonable thing other users might do also and the site would be losing traffic, which is a shame.

Pentax D-FA* 70-200mm f/2.8 ED DC AW

11/12/2009 03:19:54 PM · #284

Originally posted by tnun:

Beautifully worded...and from an actual member. Thanks for sharing.

K3Master

Pentax K-3

11/12/2009 03:24:54 PM · #285

Originally posted by ericwoo:

Originally posted by tnun:
I have no interest in looking at watermarked pictures. For me it is like clothing with writing on it, elevator music, waiting room music, call waiting music. It is static, interference, and defeats the whole purpose of photography (and maybe that of ascension, medicine and telcommunications as well). Before digital, when I got my first slr the essence of the photographing was that aha moment in the viewfinder when what I saw brought peace and balance. A watermark is not only visual interference; it brings all the trappings of ego and paranoia and money.

I am old. Life is short but incredibly rich and I want to savour every last lick without those trappings.

Beautifully worded...and from an actual member. Thanks for sharing.

Honestly. Your conceit is amazing. You were non-paying for how long? There can be all kinds of reasons for not paying for a full membership, and not having a blue-shirt doesn't mean that that person's voice and opinion is any less valid. You certainly believed your voice was valid the whole time you were grey-shirt and were screaming for larger sizes, didn't you? How do you expect ANYONE to take you seriously?

Message edited by author 2009-11-12 15:27:00.

11/12/2009 03:31:32 PM · #286

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

Originally posted by ericwoo:

Originally posted by tnun:
I have no interest in looking at watermarked pictures. For me it is like clothing with writing on it, elevator music, waiting room music, call waiting music. It is static, interference, and defeats the whole purpose of photography (and maybe that of ascension, medicine and telcommunications as well). Before digital, when I got my first slr the essence of the photographing was that aha moment in the viewfinder when what I saw brought peace and balance. A watermark is not only visual interference; it brings all the trappings of ego and paranoia and money.

I am old. Life is short but incredibly rich and I want to savour every last lick without those trappings.

Beautifully worded...and from an actual member. Thanks for sharing.

Honestly. Your conceit is amazing. You were non-paying for how long? There can all kinds of reasons for not paying for a full membership, and not having a blue-shirt doesn't mean that that person's voice and opinion is any less valid. You certainly believed your voice was valid the whole time you were grey-shirt and were screaming for larger sizes, didn't you? How do you expect ANYONE to take you seriously?

I started the request well before my membership expired, then continued the request until it came to fruition. I'm guessing that you're not very much of a business person. You see, it's the paying customers that cover the bill to run the site. Thus, from a strictly business standpoint, their voice rings louder. I said what I believed as a paying member and walked away when it was seemingly ignored. I didn't, as a non-paying user, expect that the site would hold valid my complaints and gripes? Did that help?

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

11/12/2009 03:31:53 PM · #287

Haha, I get a kick out of that as well. I let my membership lapse, and since he can't view my whole portfolio on here, I must only have 1 image.

karmat

Apple iPhone 7

11/12/2009 03:32:44 PM · #288

Does anyone else have anything to say? Any other opinions?

KaDi

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

11/12/2009 03:35:28 PM · #289

Originally posted by karmat:

Does anyone else have anything to say? Any other opinions?

Did I just hear the sound of key in lock?

(Edit to add: If we're all talked out here it sure would be nice to have a few comments on my image in the foliage challenge. Thank you.)

Message edited by author 2009-11-12 15:36:59.

eqsite

Nikon D7100

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED

11/12/2009 03:36:25 PM · #290

Sure - I haven't read every post, so forgive me if it's been said before. If watermarking is implemented, I'd like it if they were turned off for paid members. I think that is a reasonable perk of membership and the membership fee is as much a deterrent to theft as the watermark itself.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

11/12/2009 03:37:17 PM · #291

Originally posted by karmat:

Does anyone else have anything to say? Any other opinions?

Thread lasted much longer then I expected.

karmat

Apple iPhone 7

11/12/2009 03:38:05 PM · #292

Originally posted by KaDi:

Originally posted by karmat:
Does anyone else have anything to say? Any other opinions?

Did I just hear the sound of key in lock?

(Edit to add: If we're all talked out here it sure would be nice to have a few comments on my image in the foliage challenge. Thank you.)

I have no intention of locking it, I just wanted all the personal back and forth to stop. :)

Phil

Canon EOS-7D

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) for Canon

11/12/2009 03:39:12 PM · #293

Originally posted by karmat:

Does anyone else have anything to say? Any other opinions?

I think ericwoo has something to offer.

karmat

Apple iPhone 7

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

11/12/2009 03:40:02 PM · #294

We've heard eric, and know very well what his opinion is. :)

I was wondering about others on the topic of watermarking.

K3Master

Pentax K-3

Pentax D-FA* 70-200mm f/2.8 ED DC AW

11/12/2009 03:43:34 PM · #295

Originally posted by karmat:

We've heard eric, and know very well what his opinion is. :)

I was wondering about others on the topic of watermarking.

Well, I was kind of against watermarking, but the last, oh, hour or so has made me 100% completely, totally and irreversibly FOR watermarking. Especially during the challenges. Huge watermarks too. Completely destructive ones.

Make it happen.

Message edited by author 2009-11-12 15:44:05.

Photologist

Apple iPhone 16 Pro Max

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

11/12/2009 03:47:33 PM · #296

Originally posted by karmat:

I was wondering about others on the topic of watermarking.

Give us an option to watermark our non-challenge photos. For the challenge photos, give us an option to watermark them after the challenge is over--either automatically, or having to go and actively click the "add watermark" link/button.

Don't forget to give us the option of removing an existing watermark on any of our photos.

Finally, allow a bulk-watermark feature so we can add watermarks to existing multiple images at once.

Message edited by author 2009-11-12 15:48:07.

KaDi

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

11/12/2009 03:48:01 PM · #297

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

Originally posted by karmat:
We've heard eric, and know very well what his opinion is. :)

I was wondering about others on the topic of watermarking.

Well, I was kind of against watermarking, but the last, oh, hour or so has made me 100% completely, totally and irreversibly FOR watermarking. Especially during the challenges. Huge watermarks too. Completely destructive ones.

Make it happen.

Meanwhile, please see my unadulterated image in the foliage challenge and leave a comment. Please heed my command as I have 14 months membership on Eric and 4 1/2 years on you. My paying membership voice ringeth loudly. ;P

Besides, who ever said watermarks would be applied to entries in voting?