removing watermarks from homepage images[Implemented]

jpc

I would like to set my homepage up as a collage of un-watermarked images from select galleries and have the click take the user to the gallery where the pic lives. Sounds simple, but it hasn't been, so far.

If I select PHOTOS / CHOOSE to display multiple images on my home page, and the click action is set to VIEW GALLERY, the user is the directed to the gallery where the pic lives. That's great. However... My gallery pics are all watermarked. I don't want 24 watermarked images on my homepage. So...

I could create a separate gallery with copies of un-watermarked images to use on my homepage, but then there's no way to click the pic and arrive at the pic's native gallery. It's either going to open the gallery of copied, un-watermarked pics, or it's going to open in lightbox.

Another option would be to create copies of un-watermarked images within their native gallery and select those to be used on my homepage. Problem there is, now I have extra copies of images in my galleries, which is no good.

The same issue applies to the images used as "featured" images for folder icons. I don't want them to be watermarked.

How do I make this happen?

ADMIT Photography

Good question. I don't want the image I choose from a gallery to be displayed full screen on my homepage to be watermarked.

dwterry

Me too. Following.

avman

I can hardly wait for this answer.....

Georgespyros

This is a clear overlooked issue.

My gallery thubms are full of ugly watermarked pictures. I have created a new hidden gallery, that from whick it takes the un-watermarked pictures, but this makes my life hard, especially if you have a history of 30-40 galleries already.

woody

Add me to the list. My watermarks are at the bottom of my files and now behind the folder name. They look terrible.

jwashburn

woody wrote: »

Add me to the list. My watermarks are at the bottom of my files and now behind the folder name. They look terrible.

I have the same problem. This isnt a fix, but its a workaround for now.

I moved the folder bar to the top

.sm-tiles-info-over .sm-tile-info {
  bottom: auto;
  top: 0;
}

woody

I'll try that, thanks

jpc

Good workaround, but it's not going to look great and it doesn't solve the rest of the watermarking issues. Support heroes seem to be out to lunch on just about everything right now.

aschendel

jpc wrote: »

Support heroes seem to be out to lunch on just about everything right now.

, I suppose there are a few things going on there today... hopefully they get right on finishing up the Cart upgrades and adding Javascript back in

a.s.

RichmondImage

Gonna follow this too

avman

jwashburn wrote: »

I have the same problem. This isnt a fix, but its a workaround for now.

I moved the folder bar to the top

.sm-tiles-info-over .sm-tile-info {
  bottom: auto;
  top: 0;
}

I am gonna wait for the "official" fix before I go live. Can't have my Jaguar running with a Model T engine....Tom

Puck

Bad News
I just received a response from support about the watermarks and here it is:

"There isn't a way to remove the watermark on just the sizes used for the displays like the collage, no. You would need to remove the watermark from the original image, which we wouldn't recommend since watermarks are important for image protection.

You could upload a smaller resolution size image that could function as the feature photo and not be watermarked, with the understanding that it may be vulnerable. Or you could put a less noticeable watermark on a particular image, a watermark at the bottom instead of in the center, so that the image isn't totally unprotected but the watermark is not so obvious right in the middle. "

That may be OK for someone with only a few galleries, or very few images, but I have many thousands of images and I WILL not leave them unprotected.

I was excited about the reworked Smugmug, but now I have to start looking somewhere else. After all these years, this is a deal breaker. It shows no regard for the working pros who have been with Smugmug the longest. I am so disappointed...

jpc

Well I hope there's a "HERO" monitoring this thread, 'cause here goes..

You would need to remove the watermark from the original image, which we wouldn't recommend since watermarks are important for image protection.

So you don't recommend removing the watermarks, and yet every single example you have shown in your demo and "design" pages is watermark-free. That was convenient, because it looks like crap.

You could upload a smaller resolution size image that could function as the feature photo and not be watermarked, with the understanding that it may be vulnerable.

That creates duplicate gallery images - duh! Not cool.

Or you could put a less noticeable watermark on a particular image, a watermark at the bottom instead of in the center, so that the image isn't totally unprotected but the watermark is not so obvious right in the middle. "

Have you or any of your 200 "beta-testers" even taken the time to put together a collage of watermarked images? Seriously? You think that looks acceptable?

None of these ridiculous suggestions come close to addressing the issues in my OP.The original files live on your server. THOSE are the files that should be re-sized for use as featured images and in a collages. You guys could fix this. You really need to re-think your position..

vickspix

I agree that Smugmug needs to find an easier fix for this. It really is a problem that they should be able to fix. You should be able to click on a preview without a watermark on the homepage and have it take you to the original photo with a watermark. Doesn't sound that hard!

jpc wrote: »

Well I hope there's a "HERO" monitoring this thread, 'cause here goes..



So you don't recommend removing the watermarks, and yet every single example you have shown in your demo and "design" pages is watermark-free. That was convenient, because it looks like crap.


That creates duplicate gallery images - duh! Not cool.


Have you or any of your 200 "beta-testers" even taken the time to put together a collage of watermarked images? Seriously? You think that looks acceptable?

None of these ridiculous suggestions come close to addressing the issues in my OP.The original files live on your server. THOSE are the files that should be re-sized for use as featured images and in a collages. You guys could fix this. You really need to re-think your position..

FullFeather

Following!

Puck

No Fix Coming

vickspix wrote: »

I agree that Smugmug needs to find an easier fix for this. It really is a problem that they should be able to fix. You should be able to click on a preview without a watermark on the homepage and have it take you to the original photo with a watermark. Doesn't sound that hard!

Well, it seems that they aren't planning a fix at all. I replied to the "Hero" stating that the "fix" she suggested was not possible and this was her reply:

"Our apologies, but the watermark you have applied to the images applies to all display sizes of that image. Some Pros have their watermark applied to thumbnails as well. We haven't made the decision to remove your watermark from images if it's displayed in a collage or as a feature photo, many Pros would consider that a huge security problem. "

The fact that they don't see this as an issue says a lot about their understanding of this business. I'm not quite sure how something at that low a resolution could be a problem, but if they made that decision, that is their choice -- just like it's my choice that after 5 years and nearly 12,000 images sold, I take my business somewhere else.

dwterry

The old thumbnails were smaller and didn't have watermarks. Clearly the original designers understood that the thumbnails shouldn't have watermarks. Now that they've made the thumbnails larger, the same logic still holds true. It looks retarded with chopped off watermarks displayed in the thumbnails.

Puck wrote: »

Well, it seems that they aren't planning a fix at all. I replied to the "Hero" stating that the "fix" she suggested was not possible and this was her reply:

"Our apologies, but the watermark you have applied to the images applies to all display sizes of that image. Some Pros have their watermark applied to thumbnails as well. We haven't made the decision to remove your watermark from images if it's displayed in a collage or as a feature photo, many Pros would consider that a huge security problem. "

The fact that they don't see this as an issue says a lot about their understanding of this business. I'm not quite sure how something at that low a resolution could be a problem, but if they made that decision, that is their choice -- just like it's my choice that after 5 years and nearly 12,000 images sold, I take my business somewhere else.

AperturePlus

This is a big one for me. My images all have watermarks on the bottom right hand corner. Having them all over the homepage, makes the HP look terrible. Several on the righthand side are even cutoff!



I can't publish the site looking like this.

RichmondImage

Ok, so when you go to choose your feature photo in a gallery, the thumbnails that THEY present you to choose from, have no watermark, seems to me that they are capable of fixing this mistake... just saying

Jeffro

Making a stand alone gallery, without watermarks, for the homepage layout is the easiest way I've come across to keep the watermarks off the photos on your home page. Sure you have a few photos that are "vulnerable" but if the right hacker comes along what isn't vulnerable these days?

jpc

Yes, but, unless you use a separate SINGLE IMAGE content block for each image and paste a separate URL for each individual image, that points back to the to the image's actual parent gallery (not the gallery where it lives as an un-watermarked copy), it's functionally useless. The only options for a MULTIPLE IMAGE content block are lightbox or parent gallery, unless I'm missing something. If someone likes an image on my homepage enough to click it, I want them to be taken to that image's parent gallery, not to the gallery I used to populate my homepage.

dwterry

Exactly. I wish Smugmug would stop making excuses and just deal with it. Make it right.

jpc wrote: »

Yes, but, unless you use a separate SINGLE IMAGE content block for each image and paste a separate URL for each individual image, that points back to the to the image's actual parent gallery (not the gallery where it lives as an un-watermarked copy), it's functionally useless. The only options for a MULTIPLE IMAGE content block are lightbox or parent gallery, unless I'm missing something. If someone likes an image on my homepage enough to click it, I want them to be taken to that image's parent gallery, not to the gallery I used to populate my homepage.

AperturePlus

Jeffro wrote: »

Making a stand alone gallery, without watermarks, for the homepage layout is the easiest way I've come across to keep the watermarks off the photos on your home page. Sure you have a few photos that are "vulnerable" but if the right hacker comes along what isn't vulnerable these days?

That's exactly what I did, but I made a mistake initially! I created an unlisted pw protected gallery and put smaller versions of the images I wanted into that folder and pointed the HP to this folder. I then told it that any click on the homepage goes to the lightbox and not the folder. I also set it so that these images in lightbox show at a really small resolution.

It all looked great until I unveiled the site. When I logged out, nothing showed on the HP (duh - it was a private gallery!) So now that I have made that gallery public, it all shows up fine to visitors, but it is not the ideal way of doing it.

I hope that SM rethink this one.

jpc

And by doing that, all you have really created is another homepage! What's the point? The user is now now seeing the pics individually, in lightbox, instead of all at once. Problem is, that's the only option you have, currently, using the MULTIPLE IMAGE block. The only workaround I have found is to use multiple SINGLE IMAGE blocks with custom URLs, pointing to the native galleries, instead of the gallery you created to populate the SINGLE IMAGE blocks.

Melendezphoto

Following this thread because for some reason I'm getting watermarks on images that weren't watermarked to begin with. Even after shutting off the watermarks to that specific gallery, the images still appear with watermarks.

Puck

More Non Answers
Ok, so my problem is with the watermarks on collage images; if it was just the featured images, I could live with that (although it would still suck). I tried again to get an answer from support and this is what I got:

"Hello Dan,

Thank you for contacting us about your account

I appreciate your candor and your feedback. I will certainly pass along this feature request to our product team as a potential improvement at some later date.

Let me know if you have any other questions.
With best regards,
Sarah W. "

So, I guess they really don't see this as a problem. Just today, I have had several people tell me that they didn't like the way my galleries look now. All I can conclude is, my HUGE increase in costs to use SM were for NOTHING. When they raised their rates, it was with the promise that great things were coming -- and they are great, as long as you don't watermark your images. wonderful.

Brodes

Agree with this. Following to hopefully see a fix soon.

mbonocore

Hi All,

I apologize for the delay in responding to this. Between the help desk and the huge influx of interaction here on dgrin, it has been hard for me to keep up. I take full responsibility and I apologize. You all bring up very good points, and I will be talking with my product and engineering team this week to see what is possible. I will update you soon.

Also, I am moving this to the Feature Request forum, but will keep the redirect in place for a month.

Thank you.

Michael

ghostwinds

Following - this could be a deal breaker for our corporate accounts here with Smugmug as well as all our sub companies - and we are up for renewal soon.

Garry

Following as well, these watermarks have to go from the home page. Hope there is a solution soon as it looks rather ugly and cluttered