Automatic Image Watermarking

[Edge]

My basic photo editing skills are most certainly no match for a versatile genius like you, but here’s some suggestion.

..............................................................

Personally I prefer the thin lines, maybe in combination with a smaller PA watermark placed in a corner.

 

Yeh, thanks for yet another 'compliment' - I think in many respects I am just as basic as you.

I am certainly not skilled at editing and Photoshop lost me years ago when they started talking about layers etc, but nevermind, I try my best despite the advancing years and my fading brain power.

 

 

I was just reading a post by Jordan2210 in "Photographing TGs" where he gave a link to a professional photographer's portfolio HERE - go to Portfolio/Fashion Women

Obviously his reasons are more serious than ours, but interesting that even someone like that doesn't have a problem with planting the WM straight across the middle of his work.

Does that really ruin the photos and why isn't he bothered?

 

 

I have to wonder why some people object to them quite so much.

I'm currently posting the Christmas Party Pics with 2 WMs. OK, they're not artistic or even good quality but they're serving the purpose of telling the story and nobody has (yet) said that the WMs are the ruination of them.

[Edge]

If you really don't want the wm in the way you could just make the picture bigger

 

 

My apologies, I misunderstood what you were saying earlier.

 

Yes I agree. After a settling in period concerned posters, knowing where the WM is going to appear, could edit/crop their pics accordingly in many cases and no doubt will.

 

The other way you illustrated previously would indeed be a way for posters to exercise their free choice and effectively switch it off as far as their content was concerned.

I think there are probably lots of ways BMs would learn to live with it after a while.

 

Apologies again for my bad - brain not wake up properly.

 

 

[SmellyFarang]

Any possibility of making the watermark function controlled by a profile setting?

 

So members that want that func can have it, and those that don't can turn it off?

[Edge]

.....................................................................

We appreciate that some people will welcome this change and some people may not, having trialled it on another forum it has been a 100% success. There is currently no way to turn this off at member level and currently no plan in place to add it.

...............................................................

 

Any possibility of making the watermark function controlled by a profile setting?

 

So members that want that func can have it, and those that don't can turn it off?

 

I think he answered that in the OP.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[whitespider - RIP]

We are looking at reducing the opacity to try and make them visible but less obtrusive guys - hope that helps.

[7-Eleven]

We have made it significantly more transparent...

 

Before

 

After

 

You can avoid the watermark feature by storing photos elsewhere. Dropbox gives you 2 GB of free secure storage and you can hotlink straight to the forum.

 

Dropbox

[Fred11]

I actually perfer the "before option" because it is more easily identifiable to the eye. Just my 0.02Baht worth.

[Edge]

We have made it significantly more transparent...

.....................................................

 

 

At that opacity you could put it right across the middle IMO.

 

 

 

Edit - To put it a different way - what Fred11 said.

 

 

Edit 2 - There may be some on here who think I'm an awkward argumentative cnut, but in the end, after the issue is sorted, I'll do whatever I think anyway, so if it doesn't suit me I'll just keep adding another WM of my own. My only interest here in this thread is what is good for PA in general and I think that "after" version is too insignificant unless you did put it right across the middle - but up2u obviously.

 

Edit 3 - I'd have thought some more of the big guns might have shown up by now?

 

Edit 4 - Can't think of one yet.

[Scumbag]

At that opacity you could put it right across the middle IMO.

 

 

The problem is that people post different sized images. We just have to find something that suits in most cases.

 

[Edge]

The problem is that people post different sized images. We just have to find something that suits in most cases.

........................................................

 

Yes, I understood that and illustrated it 25 posts ago.

 

The Missus is looking sprightly btw.

 

 

Edit - I've been posting at 640 or 800 for most things, but if I did, say, a montage of pics including smaller ones, some would be WM and some not, so I'd do them myself.

One could argue that the problem is that you don't just auto resize all pics to a constant size and then the WM position would be constant, but that would be a circular argument I guess.

[PepeLePew]

There is already a way for BMs to exert some control over the watermark.

 

Standard pic

 

 

 

 

Oversizing moves the WM further from the subject

 

 

 

 

Adding plain background removes it from the subject altogether

 

 

 

 

Adding a plain border has a similar effect and looks slighly less clumsy

 

[The Seeker]

The reduced opacity is much much better, in my opinion.

 

I really appreciate the extra security as I would be mightily pissed off to see my photos being lifted and used elsewhere.

[nuff]

This board has been my therapy for the past two years so i'm fine with the watermark. Can you put the watermark on the thousands of photos i've already uploaded or is it just for future uploads? If possible please do so on all my past photos.

 

Cheers, Nuff.

[Kokat]

The lighter opacity is a big plus in my opinion. I believe the purpose of the watermark and it's placement is to make it more difficult for someone to take a picture from this site and post it elsewhere on the internet. The lighter opacity discourages this, as much as the previous darker watermark version. If the first picture below is posted elsewhere it will still be clear it was lifted from PA and the lighter opacity makes viewing the picture more pleasant and less wm distracting. The location placement of the watermark is to make it difficult to crop away the watermark and post a picture elsewhere. With the lighter opacity I would suggest the watermark could maintain the same diagonal and be raised a bit and moved a bit further to the left to make it even more difficult to crop and post elsewhere.

 

 

 

 

The second picture is the cropped version of the first and if I had posted it elsewhere the PA WM would not appear. It's still a good picture to steal and repost

 

 

 

 

If the watermark was placed in a position so the top of the P fit into the top of the second shoe from the left then this would be the cropped picture and no longer very good.

 

[Thaihot]

Spot on & I agree another great development.

 

Respect to the Addicts Admin team & the boys.

[Edge]

The lighter opacity is a big plus in my opinion. I believe the purpose of the watermark and it's placement is to make it more difficult for someone to take a picture from this site and post it elsewhere on the internet. The lighter opacity discourages this, as much as the previous darker watermark version. ........................

...............................................

 

I'm with you looking at those pics, though obviously the dark skin and/or foreground helps the greater transparency / lesser opacity still work well.

 

I think through playing around and seeing where the new, post crop, WM fell, you have further highlighted the difficulties the Mods have with a fixed WM along with the different sizes posted, but also the opportunities photographers have to edit their pic (crop) to allow for it.

 

Edit - I just posted a pic in the Kissmas Party thread (post # 36) and you really could barely see this more transparent option (I thought it had been switched off at first) so I'd have to carry on doing my own thing for the most part.

.

[McFly]

Here's my opinion on the matter -

I don't agree with the forced watermark. If you want to protect members by splashing the PA domain on images, it should be an option on the forum but not a requirement. It should be up to the forum user to watermark their images the way they see fit, not Pattaya Addicts making every user do it. I hope to see a check box or something similar so people can choose when they do and don't want to use the PA watermarking.

[ExpatDave]

I am fine with the water mark, but do we really need it if we are sending the pictures by message?

[7-Eleven]

I am fine with the water mark, but do we really need it if we are sending the pictures by message?

 

There is currently no option to turn watermarks off in PM's.

[ExpatDave]

There is currently no option to turn watermarks off in PM's.

 

[Fontane]

A great idea to Watermark Pics to stop other sources using them...I'm all for it with no problems...good work to all the ..

.

[oskar1969]

Being someone who had some of my photos "lifted" from my trip report and placed on a different website by a thief who claimed they were his own, I appreciate the need and concerns for picture security. I think many pictures will be greatly diminished by the placement and size of the PA watermark.

 

For example, these two pictures in my eye are now very flawed from the watermark, particularly the last one.

 

 

 

I will stop the heart. I've been 13 years of my life with a woman who likes sex ... And in September I'm going to Pattaya ... I can not stand the minute ...

[Cubanborn87]

thankx

[Brianrich1]

Any possibility of making the watermark function controlled by a profile setting?

 

So members that want that func can have it, and those that don't can turn it off?