New WaterMarks

Art Scott

here is a couple of new watermarks. Thoughts?

1-


2-


different variation

3-


4-


Ok I can tell I already do not like #'s 3 & 4......it cannot be seen worth a darn.......that is my thought

David_S85

1-3 are over-the-top. Not what I'd call watermarks either. If those were in an embedded post, I would find them objectionable to look at. #4 works for me since it allows the photo to appear and the eye isn't blasted by the colored overlays.

Art Scott

David_S85 wrote: »

1-3 are over-the-top. Not what I'd call watermarks either. If those were in an embedded post, I would find them objectionable to look at. #4 works for me since it allows the photo to appear and the eye isn't blasted by the colored overlays.

Thanks David_S85, greatly appreciate the C&C

1 & 2 are exactly the same watermark.......and 3 and 4 are the same.......just looks different on different pix.......the colors of all my watermarks are bright which makes them extremely hard to eradicate and so does their size........

Andy

Why all the garish colors, Art?

Art Scott

Just because...........

Mitchell

Art Scott wrote: »

Just because...........

Because why? Do you feel the colors add an increased level of security?

I prefer Andy's watermark. The colors on yours make your professional quality work look unprofessional. I almost commented on one of your threads, but bit my tongue.

Art Scott

Mitchell wrote: »

Because why? Do you feel the colors add an increased level of security?

I prefer Andy's watermark. The colors on yours make your professional quality work look unprofessional. I almost commented on one of your threads, but bit my tongue.

Mitchell,
Thank You for your comment, very much appreciated.............

It would not have bothered me for you to voice your opinion.......as I have said in the past...I have kudos from publishers about the watermarks.......

watermarking is and always will be a very personal thing....some say if you need to watermark why post at all they are still going to be stolen.........and yes the colors do help make it a bit more difficult to paint them out...so does the wavyness of the wm........

ivar

As the posters above, I don't really care for the colors either; it's mainly because I think the bright and different colors take away too much attention from the photos themselves. I think without the colors, or one color for that matter, the photos would be much more appreciated without 'lowering the security level' so to speak.

I like the last one the best, because it doesn't take away so much attention from the photo compared to the first three, and (for me personally) still gives a good amount of security.

If you really want to keep the colors, what about lowering the opacity of the watermark? You'd still have the colors, but I think the 'distraction' level would be a lot less.

Art Scott

Made Changes to one color
Made Changes to one color - White - using an open styled font........
made it uploaded it...added to WM gallery......then wm a gallery......but forgot to fade it some.....went back and faded it......

My ? is......How long does it take for the fade to take effect or do I have to delete from gallery, change in the gallery settings to another....reupload and make sure to set fade amount for it to take effect??dunno

It has been about 30-45 minutes and no fade change to be seen..............

Allen

Art Scott wrote: »

Made Changes to one color - White - using an open styled font........
made it uploaded it...added to WM gallery......then wm a gallery......but forgot to fade it some.....went back and faded it......

My ? is......How long does it take for the fade to take effect or do I have to delete from gallery, change in the gallery settings to another....reupload and make sure to set fade amount for it to take effect??dunno

It has been about 30-45 minutes and no fade change to be seen..............

You will have to re-apply the watermark.

Art Scott

Allen wrote: »

You will have to re-apply the watermark.

Thanx
it does seem to adjust it self......but it takes for ever..........several long hours.

ropeboy

Art, I work in sports photography and have encountered people who thought "proof" meant that "here's proof I finished the race." They were younger runners who do not remember the print proofs of decades past. So for them "proof" was not objectionable at all. Gotta laugh. Know your customer!

Art Scott

Ropeboy, ..... thanks for the comment........yeah I hated trying to clean the old ink "PROOF" off my images before returning to the clients........
so I just gotto the point of getting to sets of Proof images and swapping them out......

Oh my clients have never had a problem with any watermarks......it has only been people on different forums that have
complained about the WM's......as i have stated before I have been PRAISED for my colorful watermarks from clients
actually purchasing images.....I am only using the proof watermark as an interm WM until I get a new created that
I am happy with.........I am not happy with the SM tile option so now I must actually create one to my liking.....

ian408

No offence Art but I find it difficult to believe someone would offer praise for a colourful watermark. Especially one that's so intrusive.

I believe in WM's and if anything, something that's simple and doesn't really detract from the image is best. Of those you've offered, #4 is a nice example of that--I know it's there but it doesn't detract from the image and I like the current version vs. the more colorful one.

Art Scott

ian408 wrote: »

No offence Art but I find it difficult to believe someone would offer praise for a colourful watermark. Especially one that's so intrusive.

I believe in WM's and if anything, something that's simple and doesn't really detract from the image is best. Of those you've offered, #4 is a nice example of that--I know it's there but it doesn't detract from the image and I like the current version vs. the more colorful one.

no offense ian408 as I do not care what anyone believes..........................

As to watermark #4....well it is actually the exact same as #1...........it is only the photo that is different...........

ian408

Art Scott wrote: »

As to watermark #4....well it is actually the exact same as #1...........it is only the photo that is different...........

No it's not. #4 is considerably less transparent and in a different font.

W.W. Webster

Art Scott wrote: »

here is (sic) a couple of new watermarks. Thoughts?

What were your design objectives and criteria?

Art Scott

ian408 wrote: »

No it's not. #4 is considerably less transparent and in a different font.

now once agin I have spent time changing back to the WM that I had when i said they were all the same...I have no clue how they changed from the time I posted until you looked......

W.W. Webster wrote: »

What were your design objectives and criteria?

just a change.......something different but still hard to remove and the current WM does not qualify as it has different appearance on different pix.......but I will live with it for now........

Dogdots

Not to change the subject...but I will for a second .. what is the green thing in photo #2?

If I had to pick one of your watermarks shown here .. I'd pick #4.

Art Scott

Dogdots wrote: »

Not to change the subject...but I will for a second .. what is the green thing in photo #2?

If I had to pick one of your watermarks shown here .. I'd pick #4.

Photo # two is an ugly evil troll that lives under a sidewalk here in Wichita....
some think he is related to me.....:Drofl

All 4 of the water marks should be the same....as i went into my gallery tools and changed all the watermarks to be the same one.....there is something that makes the same watermark look different on the pix

It would be nice if there were options to the tiling...like a tile of 4 or 6 or 3....but it is randomly generated...........

newb

I like the style of numbers 2 and 3 better, because there are fewer rows of script. My only problems with 1 and 4 are that, there is soo much script its distracting from the photo. My favorite, in terms of the water mark itself is number 4. The water mark seems lighter.

Just my .02

Dogdots

Art Scott wrote: »

Photo # two is an ugly evil troll that lives under a sidewalk here in Wichita....
some think he is related to me.....:Drofl

All 4 of the water marks should be the same....as i went into my gallery tools and changed all the watermarks to be the same one.....there is something that makes the same watermark look different on the pix

It would be nice if there were options to the tiling...like a tile of 4 or 6 or 3....but it is randomly generated...........

Remind me to walk carefully when in Wichita

Thanks for letting me know

Andy

Dogdots wrote: »

Not to change the subject...but I will for a second .. what is the green thing in photo #2?

Can't tell, because the watermark completely obscures the photo.

Art Scott

Andy wrote: »

Can't tell, because the watermark completely obscures the photo.

That is the SMUGMUG tile.....nothing I can do...... I want it tiled...if it had been written given the choice of 3, 4 or other choice of tiling it probably would not obscure that image and that is at 75% of the original WM....as you can see it is almost non existent on other photos.....again that is a SM thing nothing I can do unless I want images that do not show the WM like images 3 & especially 4.........that is one reason for the colored watermarks I was using , besides the added security they give............

Art Scott

Dogdots wrote: »

Remind me to walk carefully when in Wichita

Thanks for letting me know

When you come let me and I'll introduce you to him.......Bwaaaaa hahahahaha

W.W. Webster

Andy wrote: »

Can't tell, because the watermark completely obscures the photo.

Even if we could tell, the watermark is a total distraction and would mask any merit the image may have.

Art Scott

W.W. Webster wrote: »

Even if we could tell, the watermark is a total distraction and would mask any merit the image may have.

the watermark is built by SM specs.....I placed it out at first at 100%....now it is at 75% off ....so what your seeing is a 25% of the original and the size is totally SM....if you look at all 4 images it is the exact same wm....I changed nothing from 1 to another..............

Dogdots

Art Scott wrote: »

When you come let me and I'll introduce you to him.......Bwaaaaa hahahahaha

When I come down there ... I'll look forward to meeting him