Watermark

[Master Mason]

so I upgraded to the pro account at Smugmug, which allows me to add watermarks.

Question is when I saved the simple one I made, that has a transparent background in Photoshop, it saves as white on the JPG which looks not so good when laid over the picture,

Any one know what I am doing wrong?

 

[Master Mason]

solved it myself.

have to save as a gif instead of a jpg

 

[MarkBarbieri]

That's because GIF supports transparency and JPG does not.

BTW, I understand why people use them, but I detest watermarks. I guess it's like any other form of DRM - an evil that some people think is necessary.

 

[Dan Murphy]

I just mentioned this on the smugmug thread here. There is one smugmug poster in particular that posts pictures on the Theme park board, pictures themselves look pretty nice but the huge smugmug watermark destroys them and makes them irritating to look at.

 

[ukcatfan]

I am pretty sure that you can also use PNG for transparency.

I understand that some people want to protect their images, but I just do not understand when I see an overly watermarked image and it is only 800x600. It is not near the quality to be able to sell, so why worry about it. I also never understand watermarking WDW pics as anything obviously of their property is not sellable without their permission.

Kevin

 

[Master Mason]

This is what I did, I don't think it takes away from the photo very much

 

[MarkBarbieri]

That's not bad at all...more like a signature. It's the ones that blast the watermark completely across the picture that I hate. Oddly, those are often the ones who's pictures I would be embarrased to post in the first place.

 

[Master Mason]

That's not bad at all...more like a signature. It's the ones that blast the watermark completely across the picture that I hate. Oddly, those are often the ones who's pictures I would be embarrased to post in the first place.

I know the ones your talking about.... Where you can't even see the picture for the watermark...

That was never my intent, as you said more of a signature than anything else. Also if you order any prints, the watermark isn't there...

 

[ukcatfan]

That's not bad at all...more like a signature.

I agree. It is not bad and most importantly does not take away from the image.

It's the ones that blast the watermark completely across the picture that I hate. Oddly, those are often the ones who's pictures I would be embarrased to post in the first place.

Kevin

 

[Dan Murphy]

This is what I did, I don't think it takes away from the photo very much

That looks nice, subdued, understated.

That's not bad at all...more like a signature. It's the ones that blast the watermark completely across the picture that I hate...

That's the way the ones are I spoke of earlier.

 

[Groucho]

Color me as a full-pic watermark hater too. What's the point in having the picture there? Usually that just means that they're trying to sell you something.

I tried to make sure the one I chose is pretty unobtrusive...

It's applied by the Gallery software I use, so I can turn it off at any time. It was a bit of a pain getting it just right, and the recommendations were to use PNG to create it. The downside to GIF is that it's only 256 colors, which is probably OK for a watermark. It's also uncompressed, unlike PNG, despite both being lossless. The GIF standard is ooooooooooooooooold............... much older than JPG, I have no idea why transparency was never supported with JPGs.

 

[MICKEY88]

Oddly, those are often the ones who's pictures I would be embarrased to post in the first place.

wow that's a rather harsh statement, that's why a lot of amateur/beginners are afraid to post their pics, fear of being ridiculed by others..

 

[MICKEY88]

. I also never understand watermarking WDW pics as anything obviously of their property is not sellable without their permission.

Kevin

although WDW pics can't be legally sold, that doesn't stop people from taking them online and using them for their own personal use, scrapbooking etc...
I've seen people blatantly admit to that on this site and defend their right to do so..

 

[Master Mason]

wow that's a rather harsh statement, that's why a lot of amateur/beginners are afraid to post their pics, fear of being ridiculed by others..

I think that anyone that is taking the time to watermark their pictures should have moved on from the beginner catagory, So I don't think that it was aimed at them in anyway. I have never seen anyone here be mean or bash anyones picture specifically, even critisism only comes when it is asked for, and is never mean.

I know I am not the most technically skilled, but 8000 pictures later after coming back to SLR's I am starting to remember the things I used to know and am learning some new things along the way.... and it is fun. And that's whats important regardless of the skill level.

 

[photo_chick]

Count me as one who has images that would probably embarras some! But I don't shot to impress people. I am not a beginner having had an SLR in my hand since junior high after my first darkroom encounter (trust me, it was a long time ago). But I am fairly new to the world of DSLR's. I shoot what I like. Mostly my kids these days! And what little stock photography I do.

As far as watermarks... I see the need, having seen my DH's graphics work ripped of many times. Oddly that infuriates me but does not seem to phase him! But I don't worry about it for my images. Then again, I don't think a lot of people are out there going "I think I'll steal photo_chick's images today!"

 

[MICKEY88]

I think that anyone that is taking the time to watermark their pictures should have moved on from the beginner catagory, So I don't think that it was aimed at them in anyway. I have never seen anyone here be mean or bash anyones picture specifically, even critisism only comes when it is asked for, and is never mean.

I know I am not the most technically skilled, but 8000 pictures later after coming back to SLR's I am starting to remember the things I used to know and am learning some new things along the way.... and it is fun. And that's whats important regardless of the skill level.

I agree with paragraph 2 I just mentioned that to my stepson earlier today that after 2 years away frommy slrs I'm getting back to remembering the little things..

but amateur or advanced/even semi pro or pro....I still think it's harsh to criticize someone elses work and say you'd be embarrassed to post it.

in 30 years of playing with cameras/photography I've never encountered that in person , all pros I've met have gone above and beyond to help and encourage other photographers of any level, it's only online that I've encountered people who will criticize and make fun of others... and that is a shame..

 

[MICKEY88]

I think some people forget the proofs of film days, quite often when you got wedding or portrait proofs from a pro. they had the big old black proof printed or stamped across the center of the pic..

 

[photo_chick]

I get what you guys are saying. I was working on my BFA in photgraphy when I had baby #1, then went back some more after baby #2 but I had to take a financially required hiatus. So I got my 4mp digital p&S to shot my kids and could finally make decent prints from my photos. Soon it was 2 years later and my Rebel G was collecting dust. I am so ticked off at my self for stepping away form my SLR.


Now back on topic, who else watermarks? I do size what I post down to 600 x400 at 72 dpi.

 

[Dan Murphy]

I think some people forget the proofs of film days, quite often when you got wedding or portrait proofs from a pro. they had the big old black proof printed or stamped across the center of the pic..

But remember, Mick, those pictures are being taken specifically with the intent of selling to a specific person or group of people, not posted on a casual, non-photography directed web site (the DIS here) which has, as part of its guidelines, strict notice of non-commercial linking, etc. Pictures posted here should be for the enjoyment of others, or maybe additionally, on this specific board (Photography board), either learning for oneself or educating others. JMO.

 

[ukcatfan]

I also never understand watermarking WDW pics as anything obviously of their property is not sellable without their permission.

Kevin

although WDW pics can't be legally sold, that doesn't stop people from taking them online and using them for their own personal use, scrapbooking etc...
I've seen people blatantly admit to that on this site and defend their right to do so..

I guess some people feel the need to protect their stuff, but I am not one. I will not be critical of those that do. Mark is pointing to those that think their stuff is soo good that they must ruin it with 75% watermark coverage. A signature like the ones displayed earlier in this thread serve the same purpose.

If someone wants to take my image and save it or print it to put in their scrapbook, I would consider it an honor. Like I said, there is no harm done as they cannot profit from it anyway. I would like them to let me know if they do, but that is just so I can have some bragging rights. Plus, if they let me know, I will send them the full size image. Let's not forget the main reason we are all on this particular site. We all love Disney and want to share that with other people that feel the same way. It makes me feel good if I can provide that one shot someone else forgot or missed so they can have a scrapbook that they are happy with.

Kevin