«

Looking for watermarking software that is capable of batch processing for
digital pictures.

Thanks,

Joe

On Tue, 22 May 2007 22:56:55 GMT, "JoeB" <> wrote:

>Looking for watermarking software that is capable of batch processing for
>digital pictures.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Joe
>

Don't bother. ALL watermarks can be easily removed. The only ones you can't
remove easily (but still doable) are those that are so obtrusive as to destroy
any reason to look at the photo in the first place.

If you are doing it for security reasons then your only and best option is to
present images in low-resolution (largest dimension <640 pixels, <500 is even
better) and high jpg compression (level 60 or more). They can't be enlarged for
any printing purposes. They can't put back in what isn't there in the first
place.

JoeB wrote:
> Looking for watermarking software that is capable of batch processing for
> digital pictures.

Both Photoshop and Lightroom can, and there are some free utilities for
PC's that can.

What platform are you on?

--
John McWilliams

On Tue, 22 May 2007 18:42:22 -0700, John McWilliams <> wrote:

>JoeB wrote:
>> Looking for watermarking software that is capable of batch processing for
>> digital pictures.
>
>Both Photoshop and Lightroom can, and there are some free utilities for
>PC's that can.
>
>What platform are you on?

PhotoLine 32 www.pl32.com can also watermark with any EXIF or IPTC information
in the image, as well as any of your own personal text that you want, putting it
in any font, size, style, 3D effects, color or transparency that you want
anywhere on your image. It is written for PC and MAC. It's a much more capable
editor than either PhotoShop or Lightroom. For much less cost too.

wrote:
> On Tue, 22 May 2007 18:42:22 -0700, John McWilliams <> wrote:
>
>> JoeB wrote:
>>> Looking for watermarking software that is capable of batch processing for
>>> digital pictures.
>> Both Photoshop and Lightroom can, and there are some free utilities for
>> PC's that can.
>>
>> What platform are you on?
>
> PhotoLine 32 www.pl32.com can also watermark with any EXIF or IPTC information
> in the image, as well as any of your own personal text that you want, putting it
> in any font, size, style, 3D effects, color or transparency that you want
> anywhere on your image. It is written for PC and MAC. It's a much more capable
> editor than either PhotoShop or Lightroom. For much less cost too.

What a surprise that the Photoline shill shows up here. No doubt it's
less cost, but a far less effective editor with many shortcomings others
have described.

And, it's Mac, Mac.

--
lsmft

On Tue, 22 May 2007 21:17:59 -0700, John McWilliams <> wrote:

> wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 May 2007 18:42:22 -0700, John McWilliams <> wrote:
>>
>>> JoeB wrote:
>>>> Looking for watermarking software that is capable of batch processing for
>>>> digital pictures.
>>> Both Photoshop and Lightroom can, and there are some free utilities for
>>> PC's that can.
>>>
>>> What platform are you on?
>>
>> PhotoLine 32 www.pl32.com can also watermark with any EXIF or IPTC information
>> in the image, as well as any of your own personal text that you want, putting it
>> in any font, size, style, 3D effects, color or transparency that you want
>> anywhere on your image. It is written for PC and MAC. It's a much more capable
>> editor than either PhotoShop or Lightroom. For much less cost too.
>
>What a surprise that the Photoline shill shows up here. No doubt it's
>less cost, but a far less effective editor with many shortcomings others
>have described.
>

The only shortcomings were the intelligence level of those trying to use it for
the first time. People were too stupid to figure out how to find or use all of
its superior-to-photoshop features. Their minds are still stuck in the last
century. I suggest you re-read any threads about it.

On Wed, 23 May 2007 00:52:41 -0500, wrote:

>> What a surprise that the Photoline shill shows up here. No doubt it's
>> less cost, but a far less effective editor with many shortcomings others
>> have described.
>
> The only shortcomings were the intelligence level of those trying to use it for
> the first time. People were too stupid to figure out how to find or use all of
> its superior-to-photoshop features. Their minds are still stuck in the last
> century. I suggest you re-read any threads about it.

People looking for a photo editor will probably skip Photoline if
they read your replies trying to promote it. There are the smart
evangelists that make their favored products seem overwhelmingly
attractive. Then there are the stupid ones that don't realize that
their words of would-be praise and spin actually make it reek.
Guess where you fit in?

<> wrote in message
news:...
> On Tue, 22 May 2007 21:17:59 -0700, John McWilliams <>
> wrote:
>
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 22 May 2007 18:42:22 -0700, John McWilliams <>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> JoeB wrote:
>>>>> Looking for watermarking software that is capable of batch processing
>>>>> for
>>>>> digital pictures.
>>>> Both Photoshop and Lightroom can, and there are some free utilities for
>>>> PC's that can.
>>>>
>>>> What platform are you on?
>>>
>>> PhotoLine 32 www.pl32.com can also watermark with any EXIF or IPTC
>>> information
>>> in the image, as well as any of your own personal text that you want,
>>> putting it
>>> in any font, size, style, 3D effects, color or transparency that you
>>> want
>>> anywhere on your image. It is written for PC and MAC. It's a much more
>>> capable
>>> editor than either PhotoShop or Lightroom. For much less cost too.
>>
>>What a surprise that the Photoline shill shows up here. No doubt it's
>>less cost, but a far less effective editor with many shortcomings others
>>have described.
>>
>
> The only shortcomings were the intelligence level of those trying to use
> it for
> the first time. People were too stupid to figure out how to find or use
> all of
> its superior-to-photoshop features. Their minds are still stuck in the
> last
> century. I suggest you re-read any threads about it.

You're not going to win anyone over to Photoline by hiding behind a mask and
calling people stupid.

Can you tell us who you are? Do you have some photographs done with it?
Can you list some of the features it has, that Photoshop does not have, or
that are better than Photoshop's?
--
Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com

On Wed, 23 May 2007 02:22:47 -0400, ASAAR <> wrote:

>On Wed, 23 May 2007 00:52:41 -0500, wrote:
>
>>> What a surprise that the Photoline shill shows up here. No doubt it's
>>> less cost, but a far less effective editor with many shortcomings others
>>> have described.
>>
>> The only shortcomings were the intelligence level of those trying to use it for
>> the first time. People were too stupid to figure out how to find or use all of
>> its superior-to-photoshop features. Their minds are still stuck in the last
>> century. I suggest you re-read any threads about it.
>
> People looking for a photo editor will probably skip Photoline if
>they read your replies trying to promote it. There are the smart
>evangelists that make their favored products seem overwhelmingly
>attractive. Then there are the stupid ones that don't realize that
>their words of would-be praise and spin actually make it reek.
>Guess where you fit in?

Do you honestly think that I'd want to attract the stupid and ignorant into the
same circle of software as I use? There's a reason I tell others about it in the
manner I do, to keep the useless and stupid away. People just like you. It would
end up being just another wasteland of brainless PhotoShop users supporting it..
If not I'd be forever wasting my time answering ridiculous questions like
"What's a layer?" DuH! Or "What's the CLUT tool for?"

Find it yourself you stupid ****ing fool and learn how to use it. i.e. Grow the
**** up or go away, either is fine by me.

On Tue, 22 May 2007 23:42:19 -0700, "Mike Russell"
<RE--MOVE> wrote:

>Can you tell us who you are? Do you have some photographs done with it?
>Can you list some of the features it has, that Photoshop does not have, or
>that are better than Photoshop's?

Here's an incomplete list of its features compared to 2 other less capable
editors:

http://www.geocities.com/advanced_ps..._reference.htm

Much has been added to PL32 since someone wrote that, and many areas like the
animation, swf flash editing, pdf editing, and document-mode features weren't
even covered. It looks like it was just assembled as a cross-reference primer to
make it easier for those wanting to graduate from lesser editors on which they
cut their baby teeth.