Allen, for some reason the watermark in many of my galleries that I used, after the addition of the sizes, are now half the size they were prior to the change.
Here is an example. I copied this image and rotated right and then rotated back left. When it copied it looked identicial.
I had to create a larger WM as the one I was using is too small for the new
sizes also. And I stopped double rotating. I now change to the new WM
and size under gallery customization then under photos tools > watermark,
select all and save. It regenerates all the photos in the gallery with the new
WM. I was worried that regenerating would remove it from popular but it
doesn't.
Yes Allen I figured out what I had to do yesterday when I discovered this issue, and started this thread.
What I don't understand (and I don't thing Smugmug has figured out either) is why the watermark on medium photos is suddenly so much smaller. You would think that a 200 pixel watermark would still take up 200 pixels.
"A photo is like a hamburger. You can get one from McDonalds for $1, one from Chili's for $5, or one from Ruth's Chris for $15. You usually get what you pay for, but don't expect a Ruth's Chris burger at a McDonalds price, if you want that, go cook it yourself." - me
We think we just fixed most of the watermark problems, at least with custom watermarks. You will have to reapply your watermark wherever you had issues.
Sorry we introduced the bugs yesterday and that it took until now to finally fix them!
Yes Allen I figured out what I had to do yesterday when I discovered this issue, and started this thread.
What I don't understand (and I don't thing Smugmug has figured out either) is why the watermark on medium photos is suddenly so much smaller. You would think that a 200 pixel watermark would still take up 200 pixels.
I'm thinking that the WM is applied to the largest (now really big) and scaled
down with each regenerated size. So the original WM is too small for the new
largest to start with. Just guessing though.:D
Yes Allen I figured out what I had to do yesterday when I discovered this issue, and started this thread.
What I don't understand (and I don't thing Smugmug has figured out either) is why the watermark on medium photos is suddenly so much smaller. You would think that a 200 pixel watermark would still take up 200 pixels.
It's not that easy. Your 200 pixel watermark wasn't taking up 200 pixels on the medium sized image, it was taking 200 pixels on your large image and then that image was resized down to medium.
So we were taking the 200 pixel watermark and putting it on your 3XL image, then resizing that to create the medium image and it was getting reduced even more than before.
I'm thinking that the WM is applied to the largest (now really big) and scaled
down with each regenerated size. So the original WM is too small for the new
largest to start with. Just guessing though.:D
That could be. Never really thought about how it worked with the different sizes, but I guess your probably correct.
This was a minor headache, and was well work it to get those larger display size. I hope you don't take my frustration as directed at smugmug, it is just frustration that I had additional work. But that is life. Really the photos gettting stuck in processing when reapplying watermarks was more of a pain for me than this because I couldn't go fix it.
Thanks Sheaf and the smugmug team for all you do!!
"A photo is like a hamburger. You can get one from McDonalds for $1, one from Chili's for $5, or one from Ruth's Chris for $15. You usually get what you pay for, but don't expect a Ruth's Chris burger at a McDonalds price, if you want that, go cook it yourself." - me
It's not that easy. Your 200 pixel watermark wasn't taking up 200 pixels on the medium sized image, it was taking 200 pixels on your large image and then that image was resized down to medium.
So we were taking the 200 pixel watermark and putting it on your 3XL image, then resizing that to create the medium image and it was getting reduced even more than before.
Does that make sense?
Now I can sure understand that. Thanks for the info. That sure makes it much easier info to process for thinking about potential watermarks. That bit of info I think would be a good nugget to include in the help section about watermarks. It could help people understand how the watermark size is relative to the photo display size.
"A photo is like a hamburger. You can get one from McDonalds for $1, one from Chili's for $5, or one from Ruth's Chris for $15. You usually get what you pay for, but don't expect a Ruth's Chris burger at a McDonalds price, if you want that, go cook it yourself." - me
Now I can sure understand that. Thanks for the info. That sure makes it much easier info to process for thinking about potential watermarks. That bit of info I think would be a good nugget to include in the help section about watermarks. It could help people understand how the watermark size is relative to the photo display size.
Thanks, I'll pass the suggestion on.
So the real challenge for our engineer working on this most of the day was figuring out how to handle different photo dimensions, orientations (portrait vs. landscape), and different sizes of both photos and watermarks.
So the real challenge for our engineer working on this most of the day was figuring out how to handle different photo dimensions, orientations (portrait vs. landscape), and different sizes of both photos and watermarks.
It wasn't easy.
I bet it wasn't. That is why I designed my custom watermark the way it is and tiled it, so the orientation wouldn't really be significant to how the watermark looked or acted.
"A photo is like a hamburger. You can get one from McDonalds for $1, one from Chili's for $5, or one from Ruth's Chris for $15. You usually get what you pay for, but don't expect a Ruth's Chris burger at a McDonalds price, if you want that, go cook it yourself." - me
It's not that easy. Your 200 pixel watermark wasn't taking up 200 pixels on the medium sized image, it was taking 200 pixels on your large image and then that image was resized down to medium.
So we were taking the 200 pixel watermark and putting it on your 3XL image, then resizing that to create the medium image and it was getting reduced even more than before.
Does that make sense?
It seems the best solution would be to apply the watermark to the "large" and scale it down for medium (as before) and scale up for the new XL sizes.
This would avoid the problems with generating new watermarks and would be transparent to most users.
It seems the best solution would be to apply the watermark to the "large" and scale it down for medium (as before) and scale up for the new XL sizes.
This would avoid the problems with generating new watermarks and would be transparent to most users.
-Scott
Scale the image up or just the watermark up?
Either way, there are a number of problems with that. Scaling the image up obviously makes the whole photo look terrible at 3XL. Scaling the watermark up means that the watermark may not look sharp on 3XL. Handling it this way allows anyone picky enough to care the option of creating a giant, sharp watermark and applying it.
There is of, course, the other benefit of doing it this way: We now built a solution that will work when 3XL is just not big enough.
Either way, there are a number of problems with that. Scaling the image up obviously makes the whole photo look terrible at 3XL. Scaling the watermark up means that the watermark may not look sharp on 3XL. Handling it this way allows anyone picky enough to care the option of creating a giant, sharp watermark and applying it.
There is of, course, the other benefit of doing it this way: We now built a solution that will work when 3XL is just not big enough.
I meant upscale the watermark and apply it to the larger image. I agree that it may not look good though, rasterized text prolly won't scale very well.
is anyone having problems with 'losing' their watermark? I have uploaded a new gallery and when I try to apply my watermark 'crg_block' I am getting one that says PROOF???
This has only just happened with this gallery, all previous galleries show my proper watermark. I don't believe anything has changed from my end, I am stll uploading full size images, I haven't deleted my watermark image, etc.
I have tried removing the watermark and reapplying - I still get the PROOF one applied. I have not had the chance to upload a different gallery to check that.
cropping anyone?
How about cropping? I've uploaded a bunch of images, re-did the watermark (a new one) so that it is at least good enough, but now I go to crop images and after cropping, the watermark is too small!
This is ridiculous. This does not show smugmug as being reliable - at all. I need to get these photos up, but I've got to go re-watermark every time I make a crop!
--
_:nod Nate____
Canon 1D Mark II N . Canon 20D . Canon Digital Rebel Xti .
Speedlite 430 EX .
Canon : 18-55 kit, 75-300 IS, 70-200 IS f/2.8 L .
is anyone having problems with 'losing' their watermark? I have uploaded a new gallery and when I try to apply my watermark 'crg_block' I am getting one that says PROOF???
This has only just happened with this gallery, all previous galleries show my proper watermark. I don't believe anything has changed from my end, I am stll uploading full size images, I haven't deleted my watermark image, etc.
I have tried removing the watermark and reapplying - I still get the PROOF one applied. I have not had the chance to upload a different gallery to check that.
Make sure after creating a new gallery BEFORE adding photos go into
customization and set everything esp. the watermark and size allowed. Then
then should generated upon upload the way you want them.
I found a bunch of my galleries now had the Smugmug WM and large size by
default. I'm guessing when they changed the customize page everyones
was reset that way not knowing what size everyone wants.
How about cropping? I've uploaded a bunch of images, re-did the watermark (a new one) so that it is at least good enough, but now I go to crop images and after cropping, the watermark is too small!
This is ridiculous. This does not show smugmug as being reliable - at all. I need to get these photos up, but I've got to go re-watermark every time I make a crop!
Make sure under gallery customiation your new watermark is in the drop
before cropping or rotating. That's the one that will be appied on any
regeneration.
I found a bunch of my galleries now had the Smugmug WM and large size by default. I'm guessing when they changed the customize page everyones was reset that way not knowing what size everyone wants.
I can confirm they did not reset everyone's watermarks by default. Instead what is happening is when you attempt to replace an existing watermark with the new size they now require, any galleries using the old watermark that you have replaced are reset back to the SmugMug watermark.
I'm hoping someone from SmugMug will respond soon and tell us exactly how we are suppose to be replacing our watermarks so that all of our galleries are not reset to the SmugMug watermark. I've put off "fixing" all of my watermarks until I can figure out how to do with correctly.
Make sure under gallery customiation your new watermark is in the drop
before cropping or rotating. That's the one that will be appied on any
regeneration.
Thanks for the response.
...
But what does "drop befor cropping or rotating" mean?
thanks,
nate
--
_:nod Nate____
Canon 1D Mark II N . Canon 20D . Canon Digital Rebel Xti .
Speedlite 430 EX .
Canon : 18-55 kit, 75-300 IS, 70-200 IS f/2.8 L .
Thanks for the response.
...
But what does "drop befor cropping or rotating" mean?
thanks,
nate
There is a little dropdown window for watermark selection. If it's set to
Smugmug you get a big PROOF for a watermark so make sure your watermark
is selected. I made this mistake a couple times.:D
Related Watermarking Issue
I'm having a related watermarking problem: Any images that I have added in the past couple of days are not being watermarked in the three galleries where I have selected watermarking = yes.
I just went back and manually tried to watermark the pnew photos, and that does not seem to be working also. My photos are 800 pixels wide (various height). My custom watermark is 750x200.
Is this a known issue?
Thanks in advance.
Alan
But only in their dreams can men be truly free. 'Twas always thus, and always thus will be. - John Keating
I'm having a related watermarking problem: Any images that I have added in the past couple of days are not being watermarked in the three galleries where I have selected watermarking = yes.
I just went back and manually tried to watermark the pnew photos, and that does not seem to be working also. My photos are 800 pixels wide (various height). My custom watermark is 750x200.
Is this a known issue?
Thanks in advance.
We don't watermark photos unless they are >800 pixels on the longest side
Comments
sizes also. And I stopped double rotating. I now change to the new WM
and size under gallery customization then under photos tools > watermark,
select all and save. It regenerates all the photos in the gallery with the new
WM. I was worried that regenerating would remove it from popular but it
doesn't.
My Website index | My Blog
What I don't understand (and I don't thing Smugmug has figured out either) is why the watermark on medium photos is suddenly so much smaller. You would think that a 200 pixel watermark would still take up 200 pixels.
Sorry we introduced the bugs yesterday and that it took until now to finally fix them!
down with each regenerated size. So the original WM is too small for the new
largest to start with. Just guessing though.:D
My Website index | My Blog
It's not that easy. Your 200 pixel watermark wasn't taking up 200 pixels on the medium sized image, it was taking 200 pixels on your large image and then that image was resized down to medium.
So we were taking the 200 pixel watermark and putting it on your 3XL image, then resizing that to create the medium image and it was getting reduced even more than before.
Does that make sense?
That could be. Never really thought about how it worked with the different sizes, but I guess your probably correct.
This was a minor headache, and was well work it to get those larger display size.
Thanks Sheaf and the smugmug team for all you do!!
Now I can sure understand that. Thanks for the info. That sure makes it much easier info to process for thinking about potential watermarks. That bit of info I think would be a good nugget to include in the help section about watermarks. It could help people understand how the watermark size is relative to the photo display size.
Thanks, I'll pass the suggestion on.
So the real challenge for our engineer working on this most of the day was figuring out how to handle different photo dimensions, orientations (portrait vs. landscape), and different sizes of both photos and watermarks.
It wasn't easy.
I bet it wasn't. That is why I designed my custom watermark the way it is and tiled it, so the orientation wouldn't really be significant to how the watermark looked or acted.
It seems the best solution would be to apply the watermark to the "large" and scale it down for medium (as before) and scale up for the new XL sizes.
This would avoid the problems with generating new watermarks and would be transparent to most users.
-Scott
scwalter.smugmug.com
Scale the image up or just the watermark up?
Either way, there are a number of problems with that. Scaling the image up obviously makes the whole photo look terrible at 3XL. Scaling the watermark up means that the watermark may not look sharp on 3XL. Handling it this way allows anyone picky enough to care the option of creating a giant, sharp watermark and applying it.
There is of, course, the other benefit of doing it this way: We now built a solution that will work when 3XL is just not big enough.
I meant upscale the watermark and apply it to the larger image. I agree that it may not look good though, rasterized text prolly won't scale very well.
How about SVG?
-Scott
scwalter.smugmug.com
This has only just happened with this gallery, all previous galleries show my proper watermark. I don't believe anything has changed from my end, I am stll uploading full size images, I haven't deleted my watermark image, etc.
I have tried removing the watermark and reapplying - I still get the PROOF one applied. I have not had the chance to upload a different gallery to check that.
The gallery in question is http://crgphotography.smugmug.com/motorsport%20-%20speedway/396152
Help???
[ crgphotography.smugmug.com ]
How about cropping? I've uploaded a bunch of images, re-did the watermark (a new one) so that it is at least good enough, but now I go to crop images and after cropping, the watermark is too small!
This is ridiculous. This does not show smugmug as being reliable - at all. I need to get these photos up, but I've got to go re-watermark every time I make a crop!
_:nod Nate____
Canon 1D Mark II N . Canon 20D . Canon Digital Rebel Xti .
Speedlite 430 EX .
Canon : 18-55 kit, 75-300 IS, 70-200 IS f/2.8 L .
customization and set everything esp. the watermark and size allowed. Then
then should generated upon upload the way you want them.
I found a bunch of my galleries now had the Smugmug WM and large size by
default. I'm guessing when they changed the customize page everyones
was reset that way not knowing what size everyone wants.
My Website index | My Blog
before cropping or rotating. That's the one that will be appied on any
regeneration.
My Website index | My Blog
I still have an unanswered question I posted about this yesterday.
I can confirm they did not reset everyone's watermarks by default. Instead what is happening is when you attempt to replace an existing watermark with the new size they now require, any galleries using the old watermark that you have replaced are reset back to the SmugMug watermark.
I'm hoping someone from SmugMug will respond soon and tell us exactly how we are suppose to be replacing our watermarks so that all of our galleries are not reset to the SmugMug watermark. I've put off "fixing" all of my watermarks until I can figure out how to do with correctly.
...
But what does "drop befor cropping or rotating" mean?
thanks,
nate
_:nod Nate____
Canon 1D Mark II N . Canon 20D . Canon Digital Rebel Xti .
Speedlite 430 EX .
Canon : 18-55 kit, 75-300 IS, 70-200 IS f/2.8 L .
Smugmug you get a big PROOF for a watermark so make sure your watermark
is selected. I made this mistake a couple times.:D
My Website index | My Blog
I'm having a related watermarking problem: Any images that I have added in the past couple of days are not being watermarked in the three galleries where I have selected watermarking = yes.
http://umbris.com/gallery/3653483
http://umbris.com/gallery/3635549
http://umbris.com/gallery/3626569
I just went back and manually tried to watermark the pnew photos, and that does not seem to be working also. My photos are 800 pixels wide (various height). My custom watermark is 750x200.
Is this a known issue?
Thanks in advance.
But only in their dreams can men be truly free. 'Twas always thus, and always thus will be. - John Keating
http://umbris.com
http://www.smugmug.com/help/custom-watermark-protection
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter