http://www.petapixel.com/2012/10/10/what-famous-photos-would-look-like-if-their-photogs-used-ugly-watermarks
--
-bmw
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
-discuss@pdml.net
Emne: Re: watermarks
On Mar 13, 2006, at 12:02 PM, Aaron Reynolds wrote:
So tell me why it is valuable to pay $20 for a dedicated program
to place a watermark on my JPEGs as opposed to creating an action
in Photoshop to do it... ?
Well, Photoshop costs what, $800?
Sure
Yes, your watermarks look good. So do you photograpphs BTW.
I posted something a while back. I got iWatermark for Windows from:
http://www.scriptsoftware.com/store/index.php
It works nice and easy.
Regards
Jens Bladt
http://www.jensbladt.dk
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Don Williams
So tell me why it is valuable to pay $20 for a dedicated program to
place a watermark on my JPEGs as opposed to creating an action in
Photoshop to do it... ?
Godfrey
On Mar 13, 2006, at 9:02 AM, Jens Bladt wrote:
Yes, your watermarks look good. So do you photograpphs BTW.
I posted
On Mar 13, 2006, at 12:02 PM, Aaron Reynolds wrote:
So tell me why it is valuable to pay $20 for a dedicated program
to place a watermark on my JPEGs as opposed to creating an action
in Photoshop to do it... ?
Well, Photoshop costs what, $800?
Sure, *I* have Photoshop. Hell, I have
On Mar 13, 2006, at 1:30 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
So tell me why it is valuable to pay $20 for a dedicated program to
place a watermark on my JPEGs as opposed to creating an action in
Photoshop to do it... ?
Well, Photoshop costs what, $800?
Sure, *I* have Photoshop. Hell, I have three
Someone posted about watermarking images the other day. I added a
copyright watermark to the images in the new (Prints) crystal pictures
gallery. They're unobtrusive and don't mess the pictures up at all.
Don
--
Dr E D F Williams
www.kolumbus.fi/mimosa/
personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams/
Patrick White wrote:
Collin Brendemuehl wrote:
Watermarks may be useful, but it's not foolproof.
They're supposed to provide some proof of ownership, and perhaps security.
A watermark then seems a general waste of time.
Collin is indeed correct -- there is no way to protect a digital image
search
for unzign, for example. There are others. Every one I've tried works
:(
Since the watermarks are so easy to remove, don't even think about *paying*
for watermarking software.
--
Mark Roberts
www.robertstech.com
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go
In a message dated 11/16/01 8:54:38 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Since the watermarks are so easy to remove, don't even think about *paying*
for watermarking software
I didn't know they could (can) be removed so easily.
I have a program: All Thumbs which has
SudaMafud wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Since the watermarks are so easy to remove, don't even think about *paying*
for watermarking software
I didn't know they could (can) be removed so easily.
Most people don't and the watermark software people obviously keep pretty
quiet about it.
I
In a message dated 11/16/01 10:51:58 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Doesn't do any *harm* to add a watermark. Maybe a slight loss of image
quality
but certainly not a big deal for web use (which is where virtually all image
theft takes place).
...First you say you
Well, for what it's worth, I just sent in my application for the free trial
version of the Digimarc software ID.
For starters, I'm going to redo the images that are on PUG and (providing
Bill is willing), resubmit them for display on the PUG with the embedded
watermark...
Cheers.
Jeff
13 matches
Mail list logo
