changing jpg to tiff to avoid watermarking

dboras

Andy
in reading the new Popular photography magazine, there is an article that says even if it the photos are watermarked the theives can save as jpg then change to tiff after doing that the watermark is gone
do you have any input to this and is this true? Thank you for your info yesterday as always you saved the day on making a watermark
dboras

DrDavid

dboras wrote:

Andy
in reading the new Popular photography magazine, there is an article that says even if it the photos are watermarked the theives can save as jpg then change to tiff after doing that the watermark is gone
do you have any input to this and is this true? Thank you for your info yesterday as always you saved the day on making a watermark
dboras

Changing file formats doesn't magically alter the image to remove a watermark. The watermark is embedded in the image itself; it's not layered on as a gif or anything like that.. So, changing formats to "remove the watermark" makes about as much sense as making my Rebel XT into a 1D by using a sharpie to cross out "Rebel" and write 1D.

David

Andy

DrDavid wrote:

Changing file formats doesn't magically alter the image to remove a watermark. The watermark is embedded in the image itself; it's not layered on as a gif or anything like that.. So, changing formats to "remove the watermark" makes about as much sense as making my Rebel XT into a 1D by using a sharpie to cross out "Rebel" and write 1D.

David

perfectly said

mrcoons

I saw that same article and was very disappointed that they would print a claim like that. Hard to understand why they would do that.

RogersDA

mrcoons wrote:

I saw that same article and was very disappointed that they would print a claim like that. Hard to understand why they would do that.

Is there a link to this on PopPhotog's website or is it only in paper?

mrcoons

RogersDA wrote:

Is there a link to this on PopPhotog's website or is it only in paper?

I do not see it on their website so it must be a print only.

GJMPhoto

So you're saying I shouldn't go out and invest in Sharpie?

DrDavid

GJMPhoto wrote:

So you're saying I shouldn't go out and invest in Sharpie?

I need to see if I can make my Rebel into a 1D MkIII... I'll offer 'conversion services' to everyone for ONLY $99.95!

1. Buy sharpie
2. Change model from Rebel to 1D MkIII with Sharpie
3. PROFIT!!

David

pilotdave

mrcoons wrote:

I saw that same article and was very disappointed that they would print a claim like that. Hard to understand why they would do that.

You sure they weren't talking about some kind of digital watermarking? There's got to be more to it...

Dave

OffTopic

pilotdave wrote:

You sure they weren't talking about some kind of digital watermarking? There's got to be more to it...

Dave

Yes, the article was referring to embedded encrypted digital watermarks, which I guess is like Digimarc. I don't use that (too pricey) so I can't test it. That's a shame if such a pricey tool could be rendered useless so easily...I had no idea.

claudermilk

That's what I was thinking. Sounds like some way to break the Digimark digital watermark. But then I've only heard that it's useless anyway, just a basic visual mark overlaid on the image seems to be the best bet--I just changed mine to both include more information and be more of a PITA to get around.

mrcoons

OffTopic wrote:

Yes, the article was referring to embedded encrypted digital watermarks, which I guess is like Digimarc. I don't use that (too pricey) so I can't test it. That's a shame if such a pricey tool could be rendered useless so easily...I had no idea.

Thanks for straightening me out there because I was bewildered by this. Must not have had my glasses on when I read this! I went back to reread the article but now I cannot find the magazine! It's right were I put it - where ever that is!