copyright

[white_van_man]

How do you add watermarks to your pics? im using PS 7

[docevi1]

www.irfanview.com can do it batches easily

[Phil S]

I just keep some text in the copy and paste to add in. I find batch tools don't account for each images different quality requirements.

[CVP]

I have it saved as a GIF file, so the non text bits are transparent. I have a couple with different colours to use as appropriate in an image. Simply paste this is as a layer and then flatten and save as jpeg for customer review.

Chris

[rj_vaughan]

I just stick a new layer in, type (C) Rob Vaughan into it and then reduce opacity to about 60% and give the layer a beveled style or something to make it stand out.

I probably could store is as some kind of a action, but for the sake of about 20seconds and the amount of times I do it it's not worth it.




>> Edited by rj_vaughan on Friday 29th April 11:41

[simpo two]

Yes, but if I wanted to steal that image, I could crop your name off in a second and clone it out in not much longer. But the publicity is free.

[Ian_H]

You can creat your watermark and then save it as a brush in Photoshop, it then makes it very easy to change colour, size, opacity ect.



Cheers
Ian

[ehasler]

Hmm - there does seem to be a fine line between making the watermark intrusive enough to make it difficult for people to steal your images, and for the image to still be viewable.

Does having a big @ symbol covering the image put people off?

Then again - if the images are only 600-700px wide and compressed to "websize", then I doubt there is much point in someone spending more than a few minutes to remove the logo, so maybe simple a simple "@Joe Bloggs" at the bottom is sufficient.

[CVP]

ehasler said:

Then again - if the images are only 600-700px wide and compressed to "websize", then I doubt there is much point in someone spending more than a few minutes to remove the logo, so maybe simple a simple "@Joe Bloggs" at the bottom is sufficient.

True - once resized and also taken from 300dpi to 72dpi resolution, print quality decreases dramatically and is virtually impossible to recreate. The resolution is good enough for peoiple to view on screen and order from and you can kepe the hires originals to make prints from.

Chris

[rj_vaughan]

ehasler said:

Hmm - there does seem to be a fine line between making the watermark intrusive enough to make it difficult for people to steal your images, and for the image to still be viewable. Does having a big @ symbol covering the image put people off? Then again - if the images are only 600-700px wide and compressed to "websize", then I doubt there is much point in someone spending more than a few minutes to remove the logo, so maybe simple a simple "@Joe Bloggs" at the bottom is sufficient.

My view precisely, there are plenty of images on the net you can steal if you so wish, but getting hold of a printable version is usually impossible. If were to hold a stock of large images that I were to sell then I'd put an obtrusive watermark right in the middle, but most of my stuff is purely for pleasure.

The (c) and my name are there to a) try to get the viewer to honour the copyright and b) to make sure people who see the shot know where they can go to if they want a larger version or more of the same..

[ErnestM]

I am redvamping my website and have installed Gallery V 1.5 (2.0 is imminent). It has a neat batch upload feature that does an automatic watermark upon upload. Very slick. ImageMagic handles all of the chores...


ErnestM

[V6GTO]

I take photos because I like it. If anyone wants a full size copy of any of my photos they can have them, as long as it's for there personal use.

Martin.

[Phil S]

I watermark mine simply so people know where they originally came from (as they get about a bit!)

[V6GTO]

A while back, when I new even less than I know now, I posted a piccy of a car at Le Mans to show my watermark, which was the topic of the thread. Two minutes later someone reposted my photo without the watermark to prove a point. I've never bothered since.

Martin.

[chrisjl]

CVP said:

True - once resized and also taken from 300dpi to 72dpi resolution, print quality decreases dramatically ...

Changing the "resolution" means nothing in terms of the detail/quality of an image. A 700x600 pixel image only has 700x600 pixels worth of information in it. 300dpi or 72dpi is only a hint to the preferred printing size.

[chrisjl]

ErnestM said:

ImageMagick handles all of the chores...

As baffling as it is powerful!
(I use it infrequently enough that I forget nearly everything inbetween uses and have to re-learn each time.)

[ErnestM]

You do? How about me, mate? Can't even remember how to spell it...

ErnestM

>> Edited by ErnestM on Friday 29th April 17:55

[CVP]

chrisjl said:

CVP said: True - once resized and also taken from 300dpi to 72dpi resolution, print quality decreases dramatically ... Changing the "resolution" means nothing in terms of the detail/quality of an image. A 700x600 pixel image only has 700x600 pixels worth of information in it. 300dpi or 72dpi is only a hint to the preferred printing size.

Ah OK I see, becomes clearer. Ta

Chris

[chrisjl]

ErnestM said:

I am redvamping my website and have installed Gallery V 1.5 (2.0 is imminent).

Is it 'live' yet? I've not found a page with watermarked photos on. (This 'Gallery' thing of which you speak sounds promising)

[ErnestM]

Not quite ready for prime time, yet. I'm still in the configuration stages so have it in a beta mode that is not in DNS. It's going to be a full blown CMS so that I don't have to waste my time hand coding everything (no more a href bla bla bla stuff).

Will let everyone know when it is ready. I'm getting some news feeds (Lotus) and pricing guide feeds from PH and integrating them as content on the site. Sweet.

Also will have a private area for PHers only. (Content will include stuff like "what to do in Central Florida on your vacation" - with seperate sections for singles and marrieds )


ErnestM