Watermarking software

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by JoeB, May 22, 2007.

  1. JoeB

    JoeB Guest

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

    Thanks,

    Joe
    JoeB, May 22, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. JoeB

    BaumBadier Guest

    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.
    BaumBadier, May 23, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. 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
    John McWilliams, May 23, 2007
    #3
  4. JoeB

    Guest

    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.
    , May 23, 2007
    #4
  5. 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
    John McWilliams, May 23, 2007
    #5
  6. JoeB

    Guest

    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.
    , May 23, 2007
    #6
  7. JoeB

    ASAAR Guest

    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? :)
    ASAAR, May 23, 2007
    #7
  8. JoeB

    Mike Russell Guest

    <> 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
    Mike Russell, May 23, 2007
    #8
  9. JoeB

    Guest

    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 fucking fool and learn how to use it. i.e. Grow the
    **** up or go away, either is fine by me.
    , May 23, 2007
    #9
  10. JoeB

    Guest

    On Tue, 22 May 2007 23:42:19 -0700, "Mike Russell"
    <-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_pser/graphic_editor_cross_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.
    , May 23, 2007
    #10
  11. JoeB

    ASAAR Guest

    On Wed, 23 May 2007 03:10:24 -0500, , who
    everybody says is a real zero, wrote:

    > 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 fucking fool and learn how to use it. i.e. Grow the
    > **** up or go away, either is fine by me.


    No, you've got it all wrong. I'm your biggest fan and admirer.
    That's why I think you should know that there's this Mopar guy
    saying nasty things about your mama and the way you were hatched.
    And get this. He's actually trying to learn to use Photoline.
    Don't respond when he asks about layers or the CLUT tool. He gets
    very annoyed if you don't answer him the way he wants you to.
    ASAAR, May 23, 2007
    #11
  12. JoeB

    JoeB Guest

    Thanks for the response. What can I use to downgrade the resolutions in
    batch mode or do I have to do each pic individually?

    "BaumBadier" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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, May 23, 2007
    #12
  13. JoeB

    Pete Guest

    On Wed, 23 May 2007 11:14:58 GMT, JoeB wrote:

    > Thanks for the response. What can I use to downgrade the resolutions in
    > batch mode or do I have to do each pic individually?
    >
    > "BaumBadier" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> 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.
    >>


    JpegSizer will resize batches and add watermarks at the same time. It's
    inexpensive and you can download a free trial here:

    http://www.tangotools.com/jpegsizer

    HTH

    Pete
    Pete, May 23, 2007
    #13
  14. wrote:
    > On Tue, 22 May 2007 23:42:19 -0700, "Mike Russell"
    > <-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_pser/graphic_editor_cross_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.



    Could you please answer Mike's first two questions?

    --
    lsmft

    Coach: "Are you just ignorant, or merely apathetic?"
    Player: "Coach, I don't know, and I don't care."
    John McWilliams, May 23, 2007
    #14
  15. JoeB

    Paul Furman Guest

    wrote:

    > On Tue, 22 May 2007 23:42:19 -0700, "Mike Russell"
    > <-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_pser/graphic_editor_cross_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.


    Well this does look like a handy feature for adding watermarks to
    already resized images if I'm understanding it correctly and if it is to
    be believed:

    "This lossless JPEG editing is not the usual lossless 90-degree rotation
    commands that all decent edtors implement. (But PL32 even handles
    lossless-rotations better, it doesn't truncate images on 8-pixel
    boundaries as most other editors do.) PL32's Lossless JPEG feature
    allows you to edit JPEG files with all your usual tools and still save
    them without data loss. The only data that gets changed when re-saving
    an image is that which you explicitly edit. All unchanged image data is
    re-saved just the way it was originally loaded. (Hard to believe so I
    tested this. It works as claimed.)"

    --
    Paul Furman Photography
    http://www.edgehill.net/1
    Bay Natives Nursery
    http://www.baynatives.com
    Paul Furman, May 23, 2007
    #15
  16. JoeB

    SayWhat Guest

    On Wed, 23 May 2007 07:45:57 -0700, John McWilliams <> wrote:

    > wrote:
    >> On Tue, 22 May 2007 23:42:19 -0700, "Mike Russell"
    >> <-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_pser/graphic_editor_cross_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.

    >
    >
    >Could you please answer Mike's first two questions?


    Sure!

    >>> Can you tell us who you are?


    None of your fucking business!

    >>> Do you have some photographs done with it?


    Thousands, many of which have won international photo competitions. They are not
    for public consumption on the net.

    Any other dumbfuck questions you'd like to ask?
    SayWhat, May 23, 2007
    #16
  17. JoeB

    ebro Guest

    JoeB wrote on woensdag ,23-5-2007 :
    > Looking for watermarking software that is capable of batch processing for
    > digital pictures.
    >
    > Thanks,
    >
    > Joe


    Hello Joe,

    try BIMPLite : http://cerebralsynergy.com/news.php

    --
    Only those who know the secret can read a stream of bytes ....

    Eric
    ebro, May 23, 2007
    #17
  18. SayWhat wrote:
    > On Wed, 23 May 2007 07:45:57 -0700, John McWilliams <> wrote:
    >
    >> wrote:
    >>> On Tue, 22 May 2007 23:42:19 -0700, "Mike Russell"
    >>> <-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_pser/graphic_editor_cross_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.

    >>
    >> Could you please answer Mike's first two questions?

    >
    > Sure!
    >
    >>>> Can you tell us who you are?

    >
    > None of your fucking business!
    >
    >>>> Do you have some photographs done with it?

    >
    > Thousands, many of which have won international photo competitions. They are not
    > for public consumption on the net.
    >
    > Any other dumbfuck questions you'd like to ask?
    >

    No, you've revealed enough about yourself to confirm what I suspected:
    You're a quisling, a little anonymous chicken who hasn't the cajones to
    fess up, much less cowboy up. You're not man or woman enough to put away
    your puppets and face the music.

    Pathetic.

    --
    john mcwilliams
    John McWilliams, May 23, 2007
    #18
  19. JoeB

    =\(8\) Guest

    <> 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.
    >



    Oh good shit for brains has escaped the port-a-crapper again!

    Peddle your lame ass worthless crap someplace else.

    =(8)
    =\(8\), May 23, 2007
    #19
  20. JoeB

    =\(8\) Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > 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 fucking fool and learn how to use it. i.e.
    > Grow the
    > **** up or go away, either is fine by me.
    >
    >
    >


    Your 100% correct you wouldn't want to attract the stupid or the ignorant in
    to the same circle of software as you use. They would really show just what
    dumb ass you are. This is what Pres. Bush does he surrounds himself with
    idiots so that he looks good.

    =(8)
    =\(8\), May 23, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Lionel
    Replies:
    34
    Views:
    2,800
    Lionel
    Jul 15, 2003
  2. Beowulf

    Re: digital watermarking -- free, ... DUH!

    Beowulf, Aug 21, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    737
    J. A. Mc.
    Aug 22, 2003
  3. Bill Hilton

    Re: digital watermarking -- free, ... DUH!

    Bill Hilton, Aug 21, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    413
    Lionel
    Aug 22, 2003
  4. Spoon2001

    watermarking software, generation loss

    Spoon2001, Jul 16, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    316
    David Dyer-Bennet
    Jul 16, 2004
  5. JC Dill
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    374
    JC Dill
    Dec 29, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page