Watermark

Hi !

The oldie watermark is better, this new one with color is worst ... please back to oldie or change this one to all grey ... nice new options to make more / less visible and size change.

Regards!

MaQui.-)

This post has been edited by Martin Krupka on 2nd January 2012 - 07:11

Hi,

The watermark was changed to the full white one. You can use the Photo replacement tool (My photos > Re-place a photo) to get rid of the white/gold version.

Martin

This post has been edited by Martin Krupka on 31st December 2011 - 21:20

Hi!

Ok, So fast change. Thanks !!

It will be a good improvement a size and visibility options on it.

Regards

MaQui.-)

Martin,

Can there Not be an option for the photographer not to have a watermark rather than not having a choice

Rgrds

Hi Darryl,

That's not on the list. I don't want to create an opportunity for using a photo without contacting a photographer.

Option on visibility of the watermark sounds like a good idea.

Regards,

Martin

This post has been edited by Martin Krupka on 1st January 2012 - 01:09

I think I'd rather have one by default than have a choice and forget to apply it.

Hi Martin,

Nice work on the new logo, looks fantastic! Just a quick question from the point Darryl raised, you say you don't want to create a situation where people can use an image without contacting the photographer first (and as a website owner myself I'm very keen on protecting images against theft), but don't you think it should perhaps be the photographer's choice whether to watermark their images and not yours? After all, they own the image, not you. Personally I don't believe it's the place of any site to dictate whether a watermark will or won't be used. The uploader is choosing to contribute their work to the site, surely that decision should lie solely and exclusively with them?

Paul

Hi Paul,

I am glad you like the new logo. The feedback has been very positive so far.

The photographers own their photos indeed and the watermark does not affect that in any way. The site has some policies and one of them is that the protection of photos by watermark is by default. The uploader decides solely and exlusively if he/she wants to use the site or not.

If there is general agreement that such default protection is not needed then it can be removed. I can imagine that if the watermark by default is removed then photographers who use it can be disadvantaged. It would be interesting to know what the majority opinion is?

keep the watermark as default; no one has ever complaint about it until now so i believe majority of us accepts the rule.

Hi again Martin,

I'm well aware the presence of a watermark doesn't affect ownership (I know how all that stuff works). Personally I watermark everything I put on the internet so I'm certainly not approaching this from an anti-watermark perspective, I just believe photographers should have the freedom to not watermark if they choose to do so. On the site I'm involved with there's an option to watermark or not and the system remembers your selection from the previous upload, meaning you don't need to select the option with every single upload but you can easily elect to change it for certain images should you so wish. This makes it very easy to cover all preferences.

Again, this isn't an anti-watermark thing; I love watermarks! I'm just also aware not everyone does love them and I believe the choice of whether to have one or not should lie with the photographer. It would indeed be interesting to see what the majority opinion is. :)

This post has been edited by Paul Nichols on 1st January 2012 - 19:42

Love the new logo as well Martin :0)

I am all for keeping the water mark. the new watermark seems a little too over powering though.

E.

This post has been edited by SilverWingPix on 1st January 2012 - 13:44

Just to clarify, I'm not saying get rid of the watermark, merely suggesting a facility to give the photographer an option to either use it or not could be nice. :)

After looking at a few images on the site it does seem a touch bigger compared to the older one ... can it be re-sized to make it a touch smaller ? ...

I still like it ... but with the current size of it .... I will have to be more selective where i place it when i upload ...

stu

Agree to keep watermark but I think it too big. Maybe we could avoid the "creative aviation photography"?

Again guys, we're not talking about getting rid of the watermark. Please be sure you're aware of exactly what the question with the watermark actually is before answering, otherwise the general opinion can't be gauged. No-one's suggesting it's eradication, merely that an OPTION be included to use it IF YOU WISH.

Maybe a choice for opacity aswell on it

Nope, totally distracting for me, far too large, the old one was a 'one liner', the new one 2 lines of text and the stylised aircraft shooting up the way, it draws my eyes away from the subject matter.

P.S. I do like the new logo though Martin, just not that size as a watermark.

OK, the logo was made smaller and the visibility options were added.

Martin

Hail Martin :o)

I must commend you on your way of dealing with peoples different wishes and views. Making it work for almost everyone and creating solutions rather than dictating to do things a certain way.

Well done mate!

E.

I'd just like to second SilverWingPix's words. It's very refreshing to see things happening immediately rather than being told they'll happen in the near future and then being forgotten about, as happens on far too many other sites. Very nice work indeed, Martin! :)

Paul

Nothing but "good job Martin"!

Much better Martin, cheers!

Hi!

Great Martin, Thanks 4 all.

Regards!

MaQui.-)

Thanks for your kind words. I am happy we managed to find a solution.

Cheers,

Martin

This post has been edited by Martin Krupka on 3rd January 2012 - 07:59

I like the new one its nice .... but in my opinion the opacity is a bit hard... maybe a 10% less would do better...

Cheers

Ray

Ray, there is three different opacities to choose from, Did you notice?

E.

Hi Ray,

The faint watermark opacity is 5%.

Martin

Hi Egon ,

thanks for your reply ... I did not notice due to i have not uploaded since few months :)

Well if that's the case i am pretty happy.

Cheers

Ray

Thanks for the info too Martin...

Cheers

Ray

Great work Martin

Wow, looks great! Nice updates.

Hi again!

Could you add an strongest option visibility to the watermark cause some times with strong is not enough ? 4 options of 20% 40% 60% and 80% of transparency maybe sufficient ... also five with 10% 30% 50% 70% 90% could be better.

and maybe a size option ? ... actual version the smallest, and two more; one at 40% of width and other at 90%

Regards!

I would love to see a "preview watermark" button on the upload site - so that it's easier to get the placement and strength right before comitting to the applying of the mark :)

I have a question about watermarks. My first 26 photos that I posted here used to have the banner watermark at the bottom of the photo. Now there isn't any at all. Granted, they are only about 750 px wide, but I have found some of them on Facebook with no accreditation. Is there a way that the site watermark can be added to those, or do I have to re-upload?

Thanks, Eric

Hi Eric,

to have the watermark applied to these images you would have to use the 'Replace Photo' tool. Unfortunately you would have to do this individually for all 26 photos that you mentioned.

Hope this helps.

Thanks Michael. I was afraid of that, but I'll do that.