Problem with watermark when replacing an image

MichaelKirk

I think this has to do with using Square Thumbs since it has never happended before I switch to using square thumbs.

When I am replacing and image that was ordered, once the image has been replaced the watermark on the image is now about 50x its original size. It can be fixed by reapplying the watermark, but doing that is a royal pain in the $^#. I would assume this is some sort of bug......is it being looked into of can someone check into this.

If you need me to post an example, let me know and I'll replace and image and link it here.

Michael

Andy

MichaelKirk wrote:

I think this has to do with using Square Thumbs since it has never happended before I switch to using square thumbs.

When I am replacing and image that was ordered, once the image has been replaced the watermark on the image is now about 50x its original size. It can be fixed by reapplying the watermark, but doing that is a royal pain in the $^#. I would assume this is some sort of bug......is it being looked into of can someone check into this.

If you need me to post an example, let me know and I'll replace and image and link it here.

Michael

Yes, example please, and the order# that it happened to. Send it attn: Rich, to our help desk, thanks so much.

MichaelKirk

Here is an example
Happens in any gallery where I have an imape already uploaded with a wtaremark. I "replace" the image and once the image has been replaced, the watermark has Grown 100% larger!??

Here is a gallery example:
http://www.smugmug.com/gallery/4226650_jxRaw/1/274415061_FM4JB#274415061

Michael

Andy wrote:

Yes, example please, and the order# that it happened to. Send it attn: Rich, to our help desk, thanks so much.

Andy

MichaelKirk wrote:

Happens in any gallery where I have an imape already uploaded with a wtaremark. I "replace" the image and once the image has been replaced, the watermark has Grown 100% larger!??

Here is a gallery example:
http://www.smugmug.com/gallery/4226650_jxRaw/1/274415061_FM4JB#274415061

Michael

OK and link me to that watermark pls?
Thanks

MichaelKirk

Here you go

Andy wrote:

OK and link me to that watermark pls?
Thanks

Here is the Watermark:
http://www.mlkimages.com/gallery/2343029_5cgX6#262831346

I also use this Watermark as well:
http://www.mlkimages.com/gallery/2343029_5cgX6#262849569

and I uploaded another example using this 2nd watermark showing it has the exact same problem:
http://www.smugmug.com/gallery/4226650_jxRaw/1/274450318_S6ecS#274450318

Thanks
Michael

Allen

MichaelKirk wrote:

Here is the Watermark:
http://www.mlkimages.com/gallery/2343029_5cgX6#262831346

I also use this Watermark as well:
http://www.mlkimages.com/gallery/2343029_5cgX6#262849569

and I uploaded another example using this 2nd watermark showing it has the exact same problem:
http://www.smugmug.com/gallery/4226650_jxRaw/1/274450318_S6ecS#274450318

Thanks
Michael

Why not crop that WM to just the text and set the placement to bottom
right on the WM page? Might scale better.

MichaelKirk

Not following you?
Allen,
Not following you?
I do have both WM set for placement for the bottom right of the image.
The WM is fine when I upload images into a gallery, they only get "BLOWN" up 100x when I "Replace" an image.

Michael

Allen wrote:

Why not crop that WM to just the text and set the placement to bottom
right on the WM page? Might scale better.

Andy

MichaelKirk wrote:

Here is the Watermark:
http://www.mlkimages.com/gallery/2343029_5cgX6#262831346

I also use this Watermark as well:
http://www.mlkimages.com/gallery/2343029_5cgX6#262849569

and I uploaded another example using this 2nd watermark showing it has the exact same problem:
http://www.smugmug.com/gallery/4226650_jxRaw/1/274450318_S6ecS#274450318

Thanks
Michael

Michael, we've got a fix to watermarks internally, hopefully going out soon, that should address this. Sorry for the hassle.

MichaelKirk

no problem......
Andy,
No problem, just something minor that was "a-miss".

Thanks for getting it taken care of!

Michael

Andy wrote:

Michael, we've got a fix to watermarks internally, hopefully going out soon, that should address this. Sorry for the hassle.