You have to login first in order to be able to post messages.
Click here to login or register if you are a new user.

Improving watermark or not ??

Showing posts 1 - 20 of 32
 2 >
 of 2
There had been a good discussion in another thread about watermark on images, where it is not almost visible. As mixed within another important subject I've decided to start a new thread for this. You comments are most welcome :)

So watermark ....
There are many images, where watermark fails to appear or is almost invisible. Do we encourage for the image so lightly protected to be stolen? If so, what could be done about it?

I can contribute frames like this bellow,
where some better watermark would be desirable.

   Image not available or id is incorrect.   
NIKON + Nikkor/auto & Leica/manual lenses
Edited: 05/24/2012, 09:23:54 AM
The image above should be used as a test for well calibrated displays. I can barely see the watermark.
Fuji X10-T, 10-24, 90/2
Edited: 05/24/2012, 10:54:32 AM
I can see the watermark quite clearly with my display. I can also see jpeg artifacts which should make stealing the image unpleasurable.
Posted: 05/24/2012, 11:46:07 AM
I think the trade-off is acceptable. I would rather my images not be ruined by an obtrusive watermark and risk the occasional pirate who wants to steal a small thumbnail image with a watermark in it. Seriously, if someone wants an image, its also easy to rip one of your images off by copying an un-watermarked image from a site that has legally purchased one. The example above isn't representative of a lot of the images that are sold. It is simply a frame border with mostly white space. A more noticeable watermark in this case wouldn't detract from the image at all. But put that same watermark in the middle of a photograph with detail throughout the frame, and you can't tell what you're looking at.
IS, Canon 17-40mm L, Canon 100mm F/2.8 Macro, and, occassionally, a C...
Posted: 05/24/2012, 12:28:46 PM
The thing is that there should be diferent watermarks that DT system could choose automatically depending on the content of the image
f/4L Canon EF 70-300mm IS/USM f/4-5.6 Canon 100mm f/2.8 USM/Macro ...
Posted: 05/24/2012, 14:08:37 PM
You may as well give it up now. People have been begging DT to reconsider the watermarking on the site and they have adamantly refused every request.
mm, Sigma 105 mm macro...
Posted: 05/24/2012, 14:36:42 PM
I think because of the discussion of Pinterest they might be more prone to hear us.
Also, we should scrutinize the web and fill DT with DMCAs with watermarked images, let them know what is happening out there, that will justify the investment on a better watermark.
f/4L Canon EF 70-300mm IS/USM f/4-5.6 Canon 100mm f/2.8 USM/Macro ...
Posted: 05/24/2012, 22:48:31 PM
I like the DT spiral, but I do support a stronger watermark, particularly for images such Teambum's where it is so easy to remove the watermark it offers little real protection.
Posted: 05/25/2012, 02:04:56 AM
Our primary goal is to sell pictures. In order to do that, we have to display them to our buyers and potential clients, in the most attractive way we can.

We need to attract buyers.

Nobody would be attracted to a closed window of a store. Think about it, in the real life, if the window has bars, you consider it closed and move on to the next shop, right?

The watermark provides some protection. Also the size of the thumbnails. Also our terms and conditions. We don't want to consider everybody a thief. Not everybody is a suspect.

Those who are stealing (and edit) thumbnails, wouldn't buy the pictures anyway.

You can report misusage using our DMCA feature.

An obtrusive watermark will not attract buyers and that means less sales, wich is worst than some occasional thumbnail stealing.

Let's focus on creating appealing images and promoting them, rather than closing them in a box far away from the world.

Edited: 05/25/2012, 02:55:24 AM by Admin
I think a watermark is always removable, unless you make it too powerful. Then it will effect the taste of the thumbnail and sales. Maybe some %100 previews and a low quality thumbnail with a weak watermark might be useful.

...another idea is a dynamic watermark on the %100 preview.

Teabum's example is an extreme one and a skilled retoucher can always remove the watermark, wherever you place it. The only way is to put a watermark on every plane, which is impossible and ineffective.

I'm sure if I try hard, I can create some advanced actions to "auto-remove" the watermark...the watermark power is important, but you can never stop a thief. If he wants to steal, he will find a way around.
f2.8 - Nikkor 50mm f1.4 - Nikkor 50mm f1.8 - Tamron 90mm f2....
Edited: 05/25/2012, 02:56:59 AM

Originally posted by Afagundes:
Quoted Message: The thing is that there should be diferent watermarks that DT system could choose automatically depending on the content of the image

I agree with you.    Love heart   

Where is the watermark here? The one on the right can be easily removed.
Nikon 3100
Edited: 05/25/2012, 05:02:39 AM
Dudau: I agree with you on 99% :)
I know, my image is extreme example and it's nothing against the whole database. I've started this thread to move the watermark issue away from pinterest thread for one reason and also to see, how many people might have images, which could benefit from a watermark specific for very light backgrounds.

Generally, I like DT watermarking and I think, it's much better than many others in the industry. Though, as showing on my example, I also believe, there is a space for improvement on images like mine, which looks more like a freebie than a watermarked image.

Certainly a second watermark design with darker futures could be easy to create and implement, that could be used for images like mine. Perhaps it could be done in the selection process, where person approving the image could tic a box "Dark Watermark" ..... as they see, what the image is about.

It's not about boxing image in some distracting grid of lines and logos, but giving a chance to say ... "I belong to DT" like the others ... to the images, which fall under label "extreme case" like mine :)

Afagundes: Two watermarks could be enough. One dark, one light. Perhaps could be changing dynamically according the percentage of bgr color or so ...

Parkinsonsniper: Skilled retoucher will always remove watermark to a usable degree. And overpowering watermark is not good for sales and I don's see much sense in it either. Though, I'm sure there is more images like in the example, that would benefit from a darker watermark.
NIKON + Nikkor/auto & Leica/manual lenses
Posted: 05/25/2012, 05:10:10 AM

Originally posted by Dudau:
Quoted Message: Our primary goal is to sell pictures. In order to do that, we have to display them to our buyers and potential clients, in the most attractive way we can.

Dudau I completely agree with you, our watermark is good, we just need to improve for some images like the two examples here where its not apropriate, please, read Teabum sugestion above, I think that should be enough, also I think it should be automatically chosen and that its quite easy to do such an algorithm.
f/4L Canon EF 70-300mm IS/USM f/4-5.6 Canon 100mm f/2.8 USM/Macro ...
Posted: 05/25/2012, 05:52:07 AM
Let me post two not so extreme examples:

In this you can see the watermark, but its a completely usable image,I t hink the protection woud be much better if the watermark was darker, or at least the name Dreamstime.
   Pink and Orange Flowers in a Garden   

This is the best situation, its possible to appreciate the image, but the cooyright is plainly visible, good protection and we should aim to have this situation for all images.
   Image not available or id is incorrect.   

I dont think that is too much to ask for DT, I bet you can come up with a creative solution for this.

Thanks for listening.
f/4L Canon EF 70-300mm IS/USM f/4-5.6 Canon 100mm f/2.8 USM/Macro ...
Posted: 05/25/2012, 06:01:25 AM
Good news from the Tech Department: we already have a new, more visible watermark and it solves the problem with gray and white predominant images.

It's not too dark, because we still have to keep the images appealing, but it's more visible than the old one.

It's been live since a couple of weeks ago but it will take time to regenerate the new watermark on almost 14 million (!) photos, but it's gonna happen.

You can see the new watermark live on the newly approved photos.

PS: Teabum, in that airplane frame, there is a "dreamstime.com" logo visible in the lower right corner, over the frame. We also regenerated your first post's image, you can see the new one is more visible.
Edited: 05/25/2012, 08:13:35 AM by Admin
I like the new watermark. Props to DT!
Posted: 05/25/2012, 07:22:49 AM
Nice move DT!
f2.8-4.0 & various other lenses. Fuji x100 as my walkaround camera. ...
Posted: 05/25/2012, 07:54:54 AM
Excellent news - Thank you DT :)

Dudau: New watermark looks good. It's pretty much, what I had in mind.
Is it going to regenerate for all images or just to be applied to lighter ones?

Adpower99: You never should give up trying. My philosophy is, that people often listen, if you give them well reasoned idea, which does improve things ... and in the right time ;) Not saying it's because of my thread as it was woven in many other discussion and many great minds already commented on the subject ... it's just you should never give up, if you believe something to be right :)
NIKON + Nikkor/auto & Leica/manual lenses
Posted: 05/25/2012, 08:28:39 AM
The new logo will be regenerated for all images in our database in a few days :)
Posted: 05/25/2012, 08:32:27 AM
That is better for most of them. I'm glad to see improvements like this!
Pentax 35mm Nikon D80
Posted: 05/25/2012, 09:31:48 AM
Showing posts 1 - 20 of 32 Page:
 2 >
 of 2