Amarylis 'Picotee'...coypright marking discussion thread

[John M]

Here is one of my two most favourite Amarylis. As you can see, this one is a real knock out beauty. It was widely available years ago. I don't know about nowadays, though. Enjoy!

 

[cnycharles]

:rollhappy: oh, there's the flower; it was hidden behind the barbed-wire fence!

nice flower. my mother used to have amarylisses (sp) every year

 

[Clark]

Great topic.
I really don't like the watermark myself.
After I get someone to show me how to 'right click disable', I'll post better stuff.
But for now, it will remain sloppy seconds or thirds.

 

[maitaman]

I watermark my photos. If your program has a "layers" selection, put the watermark on the photo, then go to layers and lower intensity until it is a pale shadow. Voila!

 

[John M]

But maitaman, do you watermark right across the subject of the photo; or, do you watermark off to the side?

To me, posting a photo for everyone to enjoy viewing; but, with a watermark right across the subject, is no different than if I was visiting you and you gave me a plate of food; but, you pee'd on it first, as a stern reminder that you paid for it and you prepared it......and I'm expected to just eat around the pee and enjoy the food anyway, without minding your "watermark". A watermark on a photo that is off to the side is fine; but, one right across the subject is irritating, arrogant and insulting.

Clark, then I'm afraid you are doomed to never post your best photos. Too bad for the rest of us. There are little programs out there that allow one to bypass the "right click disable" issue. When a photo is right click disabled, the user simply opens the program and takes a copy of the photo anyway. The only way to fully protect your photos is to never ever show them.

 

[NYEric]

 

[fibre]

Damn, hard job this time!

 

[cnycharles]

hey, the red looks redder in the second photo!

looks like someone used the eyedropper to copy the specific color of the text, then told it to replace that color (or there was a layer not merged that had the text in it, which was deleted) or something else? it's still a very nice flower

 

[fibre]

hey, the red looks redder in the second photo!

looks like someone used the eyedropper to copy the specific color of the text, then told it to replace that color (or there was a layer not merged that had the text in it, which was deleted) or something else? it's still a very nice flower

Just an other color profile.
But here is one of MY most favourite Amarylis. I love the very seldom blue ones

 

[John M]

Wow, fibre, you did a good job. 'Seems I'd better not bother with adding text anymore!

LOVE the blue! :clap:

 

[eggshells]

Wow very very nice.. FONT!! lol

 

[Jaljala]

Hey Fibre, you did a better job than of the Paph helenae oke:
maybe because the initial "vandalizing" copyright was made with very little technique...

 

[cnycharles]

if someone wanted to do a better job of a copyright stamp, they could make it with dot-matrix type letters (no solids), with mixed but very similar-looking colors (so a copy-paste of text color might very likely not match and leave a mess)

 

[emydura]

LOL.

I don't like the font you used John.

 

[John M]

Wow very very nice.. FONT!! lol

LOL!

LOL.

I don't like the font you used John.

Oh no! We're gonna have to start another new thread to discuss font choices for watermarks!

 

[Roth]

Wow, fibre, you did a good job. 'Seems I'd better not bother with adding text anymore!

LOVE the blue! :clap:

Watermarking the whole photo is way better using Photoshop and an invisible ( +1/-1) different color, it is invisible to the naked eye, but you can claim ownership later...

Another thing, NEVER post photos straight from your camera, always cut the sides, so if anyone post it, you still have the easy proof it is yours ( like the cypripedium subtropicum in another thread...)

This said I don't do like that ( and I ended up recently with a seller using my roth Mt Millais photos to advertise his crap in Japan...).

 

[fibre]

Hey Fibre, you did a better job than of the Paph helenae oke:
maybe because the initial "vandalizing" copyright was made with very little technique...

No, it isn't because of the different watermark technique. At the end all digital pics are just a lot of single pixels. With these simple watermark techniques you can't mark your pic effectively. It is just a matter of time you need to erase the text.
Look, what a nice helenae pic :

 

[jtrmd]

I get mine used all the time on Ebay,someone on another forum posting it as their own, and a few vendor(US,Japan)sites.I put my name on them and from there just say ''screw it'' and don't worry about it anymore.It's my fault for posting them on the internet.No matter what you do someone else can use it if they want.They make apps that can remove any kind of protection you put on it,and anybody with at least a little know-how and PS can erase any watermark.

 

[Jaljala]

No, it isn't because of the different watermark technique. At the end all digital pics are just a lot of single pixels. With these simple watermark techniques you can't mark your pic effectively. It is just a matter of time you need to erase the text. ]

Well this is exactly my point! It has to do with technique, and with a blended text it takes way longer to remove (and there will almost always be some part of the copyright left) than with simple text applied on top. It took you more time to remove it rom the paph picture, and this is exactly what I am looking for !
Nice job on this last attempt anyhow!

 

[Drorchid]

Speaking of pictures that have been photoshopped, did anyone see the picture of the Black Lion that was floating around on Facebook? it turned out to be a Photoshop Hoax (although I have to say they did an amazing Job):

http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/weblog/comments/photo_of_a_black_lion

Robert