DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> General Discussion >> Watermark Discussion for New Dimension Limitations
Pages:   ...
Showing posts 301 - 325 of 400, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 11/12/2009 03:51:37 PM · #301
Originally posted by Photologist:
Originally posted by karmat:
I was wondering about others on the topic of watermarking.

Give us an option to watermark our non-challenge photos.


No one said you couldn't watermark non-challenge entries.
11/12/2009 03:52:42 PM · #302
ericwho ?

:)

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


i'm indifferent on the whole water marking thing - for the most part. if/how it's implemented - that's where i'll draw my opinion from. i do get a kick out of all the emotions over an overlay though.


11/12/2009 03:56:41 PM · #303
Originally posted by pixelpig:
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.


Thank you for putting it into words for me. That's exactly why I don't like watermarks--the "trappings of ego and paranoia and money" come with it. And, it's visual interference. What I would like to see here, though, is the option to add my own logo to the corner of the image after the challenge is over. My logo could be in file in my portfolio. That way, if my image ever was linked to, it would have my logo on it. That would be enuf for me. I am old, too, and also savoring every last lick. "D


Wouldn't that effectively be a watermark?
 11/12/2009 04:02:20 PM · #304
Here̢۪s an opinion for the other side.

When Challenge images were at 640, I had no problem with lack of watermarking. Even when Member Challenges went up to 720 pixels, while I didn̢۪t like it, I went along with it. Now, at 800 pixels and 300 kilobytes those images are ripe for ripoff.

Of course watermarks should not be used during competition. But after? Sure. A modest site watermark is simply a reminder that the image is property, not to be used without permission. Such a watermark does not need to be gigantic; just inconvenient to remove.

As far as images in personal portfolios are concerned, that should be a matter of personal preference. When I upload images to my Portfolio I rarely exceed 600-620 pixels. People who look at those portfolio images seem to get the message I̢۪m trying to convey. On my website, I never go over 500 pixels.

11/12/2009 04:12:11 PM · #305
This idea that the watermarks are going to fuel the mass inflation of our artistic heads is complete nonsense. The ability to watermark your own images in your portfolio already exists and many of the site participants already use them. In my recollection, there has never been a thread chastising any of the existing members who use watermarks on their portfolio images.

The issue is with the challenge entries and the ease at which they are accessed by others. It appears that whatever "right clicking" deterrent is employed, someone is eager to share how it can be circumvented. I challenge anyone to properly bypass the effectiveness of a watermark without having at least an intermediate levelled ability in post processing.

Like I said, slap DPC across the bow of the challenge entries that have completed voting and are archived. It can be done with subtlety and without pretentiousness. It serves as a tangible deterrent period.

There is no need to get weepy over seatbelts, guardrails, door locks, speed limit signs, or cages on zoo exhibits.
11/12/2009 04:15:34 PM · #306
Originally posted by AJSullivan:
Originally posted by pixelpig:
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.


Thank you for putting it into words for me. That's exactly why I don't like watermarks--the "trappings of ego and paranoia and money" come with it. And, it's visual interference. What I would like to see here, though, is the option to add my own logo to the corner of the image after the challenge is over. My logo could be in file in my portfolio. That way, if my image ever was linked to, it would have my logo on it. That would be enuf for me. I am old, too, and also savoring every last lick. "D


Wouldn't that effectively be a watermark?


A watermark may be created out of your logo, but its positioning on the image is intended to thwart use of the image without your permission. A logo in the corner is not.
 11/12/2009 04:23:44 PM · #307
Hmn. I was merely stating my visual enjoyment preferences, as well as my entirely subjective reaction to watermarks. (We all need money and egos; I just hate to be reminded of it). sfalice, who knows more than I do about the realities of money and photography and the net, points out something I wish I had been more aware of when voting for the size increase, and that is the point at which size makes piracy impractical.

I really must be more careful what I wish for.
 11/12/2009 04:38:07 PM · #308
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.

Originally posted by jdannels:
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.

Some very cogent thoughts from a couple of photogs, and humanoids, that I truly admire here at DPC.
 11/12/2009 04:47:05 PM · #309
Originally posted by tnun:
Hmn. I was merely stating my visual enjoyment preferences, as well as my entirely subjective reaction to watermarks. (We all need money and egos; I just hate to be reminded of it). sfalice, who knows more than I do about the realities of money and photography and the net, points out something I wish I had been more aware of when voting for the size increase, and that is the point at which size makes piracy impractical.

I really must be more careful what I wish for.


LOL - Tnun - at our age, we can only wish that piracy did not exist and the world was as it should be, not as it is.

Message edited by author 2009-11-12 16:47:58.
 11/12/2009 04:54:38 PM · #310
i think piracy pre-dates the age, and century of anyone here at DPC.

i've got my canon to fend them off.....


11/12/2009 05:02:45 PM · #311
I would like the next survey to be about the implementation of User Blocking here. I'll vote YES and I will be willing to PAY EXTRA for it.

blocking the Rant Thread is just not cutting it....

[yes, K10DGuy, I'm lookin at you, chopper... ]

:-P

Message edited by author 2009-11-12 17:03:37.
 11/12/2009 05:12:53 PM · #312
Originally posted by pixelpig:
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.


Thank you for putting it into words for me. That's exactly why I don't like watermarks--the "trappings of ego and paranoia and money" come with it. And, it's visual interference. What I would like to see here, though, is the option to add my own logo to the corner of the image after the challenge is over. My logo could be in file in my portfolio. That way, if my image ever was linked to, it would have my logo on it. That would be enuf for me. I am old, too, and also savoring every last lick. "D


That's one of the perk's of watermarks I have mentioned before, if your watermark has a reference to you or your web site at least you may see some benefit when it is displayed either here or where ever the thief wants to show it....
 11/12/2009 05:20:19 PM · #313
Of the people that are for watermarking how many of you would actually use it?

For me personally I do not think I would mark any of mine at least at this point in time but I also feel I should not be making that decision for others and that is why I am for allowing them.

Message edited by author 2009-11-12 17:20:56.
 11/12/2009 05:27:13 PM · #314
Originally posted by PapaBob:
Of the people that are for watermarking how many of you would actually use it?

For me personally I do not think I would mark any of mine at least at this point in time but I also feel I should not be making that decision for others and that is why I am for allowing them.


Good question: it seems like some of those folks wanting this the most loudly don't bother to watermark their portfolio (non-challenge) shots here. It kinda smells like they want watermarks if the site will do it for them. I know some folks are serious about watermarking their images, but a quick scan of profiles shows very little watermarking where it is already possible, but entirely up to the user to do it themselves.

I support watermarking as an option, in particular if paid members won't automatically see them, or if we can choose to not see any watermarked image at all.
 11/12/2009 05:28:24 PM · #315
Originally posted by PapaBob:
Of the people that are for watermarking how many of you would actually use it?

For me personally I do not think I would mark any of mine at least at this point in time but I also feel I should not be making that decision for others and that is why I am for allowing them.

My feelings too. Won't watermark mine, but if the end result doesn't affect me, no hoopla required.
 11/13/2009 05:17:55 AM · #316
Originally posted by chromeydome:
I support watermarking as an option, in particular if paid members won't automatically see them, or if we can choose to not see any watermarked image at all.


This falls back to Shannon's initial ideas in the first thread that was dug up from the dead. I haver no problem with this general idea, but some stil do. As Joe stated, some will just post the unadulterated images on other sites and drive friends and family there to view the them. As long as paying members have the option to turn the annoyance off, I would not stand in strong opposition of the idea. If the final idea comes down to watermarks on all the time for everyone, or even adding them during challenges, then the idea blows.

BTW, I try to limit my agreements with chromeydome to once per year or so...this should do it for awhile. ;)
 11/13/2009 06:28:20 AM · #317
why not keep it simple...

if you are a paid member:
* you can upload a watermark
* a watermarked version of your entry is made
-> if you haven't uploaded a watermark, then a default 'dpc' watermarked version is made
* after challenges, you have the ability to view watermarked versions or original entries
* you can optionally have a watermarked applied to any images in your portfolio

if you are a registered member:
* a default 'dpc' watermarked version is made
* after challenges, when you browse the entries, you can only see the watermarked version

if you are a guest visiting:
* you can only see the watermarked version of challenge entries

i don't like defacing images, either, but it is the first simple deterrent.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

i've learned a lot from this site; it was here that i found the inspirations and foundations for building a business, for turning a hobby into a full-time enterprise. here are some of the things i've learned:

* when you can make $200 here and $400 there from licensing an image, it adds up and you can buy more/better equipment

* some really good photogs don't enter challenges because of the lack of protection

* you're missing the boat if you're only concerned about images showing up on other photo-sharing sites

* dpc challenges provide a perfect source for one-stop shopping for people needing images of just about any type

* every now and then dpc will have a high-profile pilferage (such as the current DrAchoo incident), but that is not even the tip of the iceberg as to how many other unprotected, less visible, lessor known images are being used similarly on calendars, greeting cards, commercial websites, and other places that are off the radar...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

consider this scenario:

someone sees an image they like. they copy it to their pc and print out a couple hundred, maybe even a thousand, season's greetings cards for their business.

-> the photog receives no credit
-> the photog receives no money
-> the violator will probably remain uncaught and unpunished

happens all the time, and you don't know it. even those of you who whine that "no one ever steals my stuff" are at risk...

and the thing is, if handled properly, that image might have fetched $100, $200, $400, maybe more from that business.

just my .02 ;-)
 11/13/2009 06:50:06 AM · #318
Originally posted by Skip:
why not keep it simple...

if you are a paid member:
* you can upload a watermark
* a watermarked version of your entry is made
-> if you haven't uploaded a watermark, then a default 'dpc' watermarked version is made
* after challenges, you have the ability to view watermarked versions or original entries
* you can optionally have a watermarked applied to any images in your portfolio

if you are a registered member:
* a default 'dpc' watermarked version is made
* after challenges, when you browse the entries, you can only see the watermarked version

if you are a guest visiting:
* you can only see the watermarked version of challenge entries

i don't like defacing images, either, but it is the first simple deterrent.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

i've learned a lot from this site; it was here that i found the inspirations and foundations for building a business, for turning a hobby into a full-time enterprise. here are some of the things i've learned:

* when you can make $200 here and $400 there from licensing an image, it adds up and you can buy more/better equipment

* some really good photogs don't enter challenges because of the lack of protection

* you're missing the boat if you're only concerned about images showing up on other photo-sharing sites

* dpc challenges provide a perfect source for one-stop shopping for people needing images of just about any type

* every now and then dpc will have a high-profile pilferage (such as the current DrAchoo incident), but that is not even the tip of the iceberg as to how many other unprotected, less visible, lessor known images are being used similarly on calendars, greeting cards, commercial websites, and other places that are off the radar...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

consider this scenario:

someone sees an image they like. they copy it to their pc and print out a couple hundred, maybe even a thousand, season's greetings cards for their business.

-> the photog receives no credit
-> the photog receives no money
-> the violator will probably remain uncaught and unpunished

happens all the time, and you don't know it. even those of you who whine that "no one ever steals my stuff" are at risk...

and the thing is, if handled properly, that image might have fetched $100, $200, $400, maybe more from that business.

just my .02 ;-)

All good stuff.....

My only thing with it is that as easy as it is to steal images all over the place, I think prolly that the $200-$400 licensing loss is pretty much idle speculation. If you watermark your images, thieves may be more inclined to go elsewhere where they can steal images rather than try to hunt you down to buy your image. (Which is the point of the discussion, yeah, yeah......)

If someone's serious about trying to extract that small money, they should be devoting a lot of effort to their own site, marketing, and/or micro-stock.

You generally cannot sell anything without actually offering it up for sale.

You have to go pounnd the pavement, and get yourself out there, whether ot be local galleries, or virtual pavement to the doorways of the stock sites.

And guess what......then you're a professional, because you're putting in the work and time necessary to market your photography.

Any moaning about lost revenue from people who do nothing to market their work is just maundering.......8>)
 11/13/2009 07:06:55 AM · #319
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
My only thing with it is that as easy as it is to steal images all over the place, I think prolly that the $200-$400 licensing loss is pretty much idle speculation.

no, it's not idle speculation. i bill that all the time.

Originally posted by NikonJeb:
If you watermark your images, thieves may be more inclined to go elsewhere where they can steal images rather than try to hunt you down to buy your image. (Which is the point of the discussion, yeah, yeah......)

well, um, duh...

Originally posted by NikonJeb:
If someone's serious about trying to extract that small money, they should be devoting a lot of effort to their own site, marketing, and/or micro-stock.

it's not about trying to extract that small money (and that small money is more than enough for a nice dinner out or for a lensbaby or what-have-ya). it has nothing to do with being a professional or running a business; it's all about protecting what's yours.

if a thief is running down the street, looking for unlocked doors, you are an idiot for not locking your door. even if you believe you have nothing of value...
11/13/2009 07:42:28 AM · #320
Originally posted by Skip:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
My only thing with it is that as easy as it is to steal images all over the place, I think prolly that the $200-$400 licensing loss is pretty much idle speculation.

no, it's not idle speculation. i bill that all the time.

Originally posted by NikonJeb:
If you watermark your images, thieves may be more inclined to go elsewhere where they can steal images rather than try to hunt you down to buy your image. (Which is the point of the discussion, yeah, yeah......)

well, um, duh...

Originally posted by NikonJeb:
If someone's serious about trying to extract that small money, they should be devoting a lot of effort to their own site, marketing, and/or micro-stock.

it's not about trying to extract that small money (and that small money is more than enough for a nice dinner out or for a lensbaby or what-have-ya). it has nothing to do with being a professional or running a business; it's all about protecting what's yours.

if a thief is running down the street, looking for unlocked doors, you are an idiot for not locking your door. even if you believe you have nothing of value...

You pretty much excerpted that all out of context.

My point was that the $200-$400 I was referring to was what YOU stated was lost revenue.

If you aren't actually making some reasonable attempt to sell your images, how do you figure it's lost revenue?

It's not.

If you're not trying to sell anything on any site or at the gallery down the street, then the claim of lost revenue is just bullshit.

Message edited by author 2009-11-13 07:43:30.
 11/13/2009 08:46:05 AM · #321
I dont really like the whole "if youre not selling it, youre not losing out on anything if its stolen" arguement.

Its not like a photo has a limited life span. Heres a hypothetical for you:

You are at a political event, you shoot an image of a politician shaking hands with a variety of people. Pretty mundane images for the most part, standard fare for such an event. Fast forward 2 years..that politician is running for for re-election, and it comes out that he has some shady business practices and maybe some underworld connections. You look at your images, and realize that in one of your 2 year old images, there is a picture of the politician shaking hands with some of the shady people. You now have an image that was worth very little when you snapped it, turn into a pretty decent revenue machine.

So in other words, while I may not be selling every image I have now, it doesn't mean that there is no risk for (future) profit loss if its stolen.

Man I'm long winded.
 11/13/2009 09:01:56 AM · #322
Originally posted by AJSullivan:
I dont really like the whole "if youre not selling it, youre not losing out on anything if its stolen" arguement.

Its not like a photo has a limited life span. Heres a hypothetical for you:

You are at a political event, you shoot an image of a politician shaking hands with a variety of people. Pretty mundane images for the most part, standard fare for such an event. Fast forward 2 years..that politician is running for for re-election, and it comes out that he has some shady business practices and maybe some underworld connections. You look at your images, and realize that in one of your 2 year old images, there is a picture of the politician shaking hands with some of the shady people. You now have an image that was worth very little when you snapped it, turn into a pretty decent revenue machine.

So in other words, while I may not be selling every image I have now, it doesn't mean that there is no risk for (future) profit loss if its stolen.

Man I'm long winded.

That's one of the most far-reaching what-ifs that anyone has come up with yet.

Can you not see what a miniscule possibility that is?
 11/13/2009 09:05:31 AM · #323
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
If you're not trying to sell anything on any site or at the gallery down the street, then the claim of lost revenue is just bullshit.

no, it's not, and no, i'm not taking anything out of context.

you don't have to be selling something for it to have value.

the bottom line here is providing protection for people's property, regardless of "value".
 11/13/2009 09:08:28 AM · #324
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
That's one of the most far-reaching what-ifs that anyone has come up with yet.

Can you not see what a miniscule possibility that is?


actually i'm in the process of negotiating a settlement with a political campaign that used an image i took three years ago in a campaign ad. it is NOT a minuscule possibility. i'm just thankful for copyright laws and my PPA membership.
 11/13/2009 09:09:14 AM · #325
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by AJSullivan:
I dont really like the whole "if youre not selling it, youre not losing out on anything if its stolen" arguement.

Its not like a photo has a limited life span. Heres a hypothetical for you:

You are at a political event, you shoot an image of a politician shaking hands with a variety of people. Pretty mundane images for the most part, standard fare for such an event. Fast forward 2 years..that politician is running for for re-election, and it comes out that he has some shady business practices and maybe some underworld connections. You look at your images, and realize that in one of your 2 year old images, there is a picture of the politician shaking hands with some of the shady people. You now have an image that was worth very little when you snapped it, turn into a pretty decent revenue machine.

So in other words, while I may not be selling every image I have now, it doesn't mean that there is no risk for (future) profit loss if its stolen.

Man I'm long winded.

That's one of the most far-reaching what-ifs that anyone has come up with yet.

Can you not see what a miniscule possibility that is?


Seriously? Not that far at all. I've sold images of bands that I photographed 3-4 years ago that are now in the spotlight. One of my profs has done this multiple times including images of Gordon Gecko (sp way off) and the assasination of Angelo Bruno. How do you think the whole Paparazzi deal works as well. Hell, look when the Elliot Spitzer deal happened...some photographer got paid for the glamour shots of his hooker that were showing up on the cover of every paper. Get real man, the more you post, the less you seem to understand about the actual business of photography and how to make money.
Pages:   ...
Current Server Time: 08/17/2025 09:59:05 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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 09:59:05 AM EDT.