PDA

View Full Version : Removing watermarks from images




FadeToBlack
Dec 23, 2005, 07:21 AM
I always see a lot of cool desktops on MacDesktops and other places and a lot of them have watermarks on them and I was wondering how I could remove them in an image editing app? I have Graphic Converter. Thanks in advance.



retasi
Dec 23, 2005, 07:34 AM
The whole point of a watermark is to acknowledge the creator and it cant be removed so no.

FadeToBlack
Dec 23, 2005, 07:36 AM
The whole point of a watermark is to acknowledge the creator and it cant be removed so no.

Yeah, I know the purpose of them, but the images look so much better without them. :D

It's not like I'd be reposting them somewhere and claiming them as mine or something. No ill intentions here.

stevep
Dec 23, 2005, 12:32 PM
If I was the creator of the image in question, I'd remove the watermark for you myself. And then you could buy it from me.

FadeToBlack
Dec 23, 2005, 12:42 PM
Wow, I see this is a pretty sensitive topic. I never really figured it was that big of a deal. Mods, feel free to delete this thread.

EDIT: I noticed that most of the desktops on MacDesktops have the watermark where the Menu Bar is, so it isn't even visible. That's really cool and if I would have noticed before, I wouldn't have even considered removing them.

stevep
Dec 24, 2005, 01:04 PM
Don't get too upset about the replies, I don't suppose many people are all that bothered about an image being used to adorn your own desktop. But, having acknowledged that there are some good desktop image designers out there, why not be inspired by them to create your own? Then you won't have a watermark to worry about, and imagine the satisfaction when someone asks where you got 'that cool desktop' from.
BTW, if you'd have asked how to remove, say, a telegraph pole from a landscape scene, I'd have suggested the clone stamp tool in Photoshop as quick as a flash..........

ITASOR
Dec 24, 2005, 06:35 PM
I'll give you a real answer.

I don't think you can do it in Graphic Converter. You would need a more sophisticated graphic editing program such as Photoshop. In Photoshop, you could try and use the clone tool.

However, if it's just a solid color, you could just cut that part of the layer out, use the eye dropper to copy the color, and fill it in the square you removed. I doubt they would put it on a solid color though...

If it's a type of pattern, you could select a small part without the watermark, create a new layer (copy, not cut) and then drag the new layer over the watermarked area and flatten the two layers together.

Perhaps if you give me an example of a watermark, I can give you a better answer.

Knowing how to remove a watermark isn't illegal or bad....doing it is. :cool:

Seasought
Dec 24, 2005, 06:46 PM
I'm thinking that this watermark spans throughout the center of the image, correct? Otherwise just crop it out if it's on the bottom, top or sides and stretch the image to fit your desktop.

If it does span the majority of the image I don't think it would be worth your time to go through and try and remove it. Some will argue against this but you might just want to try emailing the creator and asking for a lower-res version without the watermark. Good luck. :D

Les Kern
Dec 24, 2005, 08:07 PM
Lets see it. Might help.
If it's an image for sale, as long as it's not used for commercial purposes (that is, privately) you can take any image or photo and do what you want with it. For instance, I can take a stock photo of Ann Coulter and make her a human. Tricky, and not worth the effort, but you get the point.

puckhead193
Dec 24, 2005, 08:32 PM
on macdesktops.com their normally on top and the menu bar hides it...
But if you photoshop ( i use elements) you can use the healing brush and it works pretty good.
here's an example... it works better on lighter colors

FadeToBlack
Dec 24, 2005, 09:17 PM
on macdesktops.com their normally on top and the menu bar hides it...
But if you photoshop ( i use elements) you can use the healing brush and it works pretty good.
here's an example... it works better on lighter colors

Yeah, I was talking about on MacDesktops and the Menu Bar hides the watermark, so I'm not really worried about removing it. I can understand why whoever made the image would want the watermark on there. I just didn't think about it when I posted this thread.

maya
Dec 24, 2005, 09:25 PM
You can remove certain types of watermarks to a degree. However that been said its time consuming and you have to have a great eye and patience in order to pull it off. :)

OutThere
Dec 24, 2005, 09:59 PM
I thought you were talking about digital signature watermarks, which, fortunately and unfortunately, are extremely difficult to remove....I find a combination of the clone tool, the healing brush, and a bit of smudging can get rid of ugly wallpaper watermarks pretty effectively.

Blue Velvet
Dec 24, 2005, 10:01 PM
I almost always do my retouching on a separate layer, sometimes on more than one. Non-destructive, that way. :)

bobsbarricades
Jul 31, 2011, 10:47 AM
can I get in on this thread?

I have an image that a photographer took of me playing paintball. I just want to remove the watermark. for myself. is this bad? how can I do it? I don't have photoshop, but can use pixlr.com? any cool programs?

Gav2k
Jul 31, 2011, 10:52 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

No you can't is the simple answer! The photographer holds the rights to that photo not you!

wpotere
Jul 31, 2011, 10:54 AM
can I get in on this thread?

I have an image that a photographer took of me playing paintball. I just want to remove the watermark. for myself. is this bad? how can I do it? I don't have photoshop, but can use pixlr.com? any cool programs?

This is a 7 year old thread....

As for the watermark, call the photographer and ask him if you can have a copy without the watermark.

THX1139
Jul 31, 2011, 03:58 PM
This is a 7 year old thread....

As for the watermark, call the photographer and ask him if you can have a copy without the watermark.

Yeah, he might give you a copy of the photo without watermark if you pay his rent or buy a bag of groceries for his family.

wpotere
Jul 31, 2011, 05:51 PM
Yeah, he might give you a copy of the photo without watermark if you pay his rent or buy a bag of groceries for his family.

Or you tell him he no longer has the right to use your image for any photos....

If he asks, he may likely simply give it to him.

marsmissions
Jul 31, 2011, 05:52 PM
can I get in on this thread?

I have an image that a photographer took of me playing paintball. I just want to remove the watermark. for myself. is this bad? how can I do it? I don't have photoshop, but can use pixlr.com? any cool programs?

That would be a crime.

snberk103
Aug 1, 2011, 10:25 AM
can I get in on this thread?

I have an image that a photographer took of me playing paintball. I just want to remove the watermark. for myself. is this bad? how can I do it? I don't have photoshop, but can use pixlr.com? any cool programs?

A lot depends on the circumstances. If you were playing in a facility, and you signed any kind of paperwork (I'd be surprised if you didn't have to sign a waiver, for instance) as part of getting in then it's possible you may have also signed a model release. This simply means that the photographer/facility is now free to use the image of you in any number of ways (promo, selling cards and posters, etc depending on what was included on the model release). In this case it's likely that the photographer will want to be paid for an unwatermarked copy. Unless they are making a $mint out of selling posters of you doing a massive bellyflop into the mud, in which case they will likely be feeling generous.

If there was no model release signed, then it's probable (depending on where you live - slightly different laws in different countries) that they can't use your image in any "commercial" way - that is to sell a product or service, or as a card or poster. In this scenario there are two probabilities.

1) The photographer knows what they are doing, and makes their money from selling customers like you a copy of themselves doing paintball things. Pay up, and be happy - because you aren't going to get an unwatermarked image from the photographer without paying. And honestly, this is their job and to try and circumvent their copy protection is analogous to stealing from them. If you like the photo, be happy that someone with a decent camera who knew how to use it was in the right place at the right time. This is their job and it would be respectful to pay them. In all likelihood the facility is not paying them to be there, they only earn what they can sell.

2) The photographer doesn't know what they are doing, is worried (or should be worried) about infringing on privacy rights and will give you the photo to just make you go away.

Leetut
Jul 18, 2013, 04:52 AM
so has anyone found a way to auto-remove watermarks?
just see lots of comments of bla bla here and no solution
im already using the clone stamp tool but doing 500 wedding photos is a nightmare!
and the (greedy) photographer has already took one and a half THOUSAND POUNDS!!!!!!! off me for an album and a few photos, so dont even go there lol
and the digital watermarked photos are only approx 600x400 its not as if i have the original 18 mega pixel images

if i was a photographer you could have all your masters for free after i'd fleeced 1500quid out of you

it would have been cheaper to pay a burgler to steal his hard drive!!!

R1PPER
Jul 18, 2013, 05:05 AM
In a world a infinite wallpapers...why dont you just google wallpaper + whatever your search critia is and use a wallpaper that doesn't have crap all over it.

Dambuster43
Jul 18, 2013, 05:16 AM
Yeah, I know the purpose of them, but the images look so much better without them. :D

It's not like I'd be reposting them somewhere and claiming them as mine or something. No ill intentions here.

The images will have terms and conditions tagged to them...possibly in the meta tags within the image data....what you suggest is tantamount to theft. Do you take things from shops without paying?
Do you fill your petrol tank, and drive away without paying.....I guess your answer is No...so why ask others for ways to help you steal somebodies work.

thekev
Jul 18, 2013, 06:31 PM
so has anyone found a way to auto-remove watermarks?
just see lots of comments of bla bla here and no solution
im already using the clone stamp tool but doing 500 wedding photos is a nightmare!
and the (greedy) photographer has already took one and a half THOUSAND POUNDS!!!!!!! off me for an album and a few photos, so dont even go there lol
and the digital watermarked photos are only approx 600x400 its not as if i have the original 18 mega pixel images

if i was a photographer you could have all your masters for free after i'd fleeced 1500quid out of you

it would have been cheaper to pay a burgler to steal his hard drive!!!

Unfortunately it's a stupid question. It's just embedded raster data. The program doesn't even have a way of telling precisely what existed behind that watermark. As for the photographer, policies vary. I wish you found one whose policies aligned with your interests.

garnerx
Jul 18, 2013, 07:00 PM
so has anyone found a way to auto-remove watermarks?
just see lots of comments of bla bla here and no solution
im already using the clone stamp tool but doing 500 wedding photos is a nightmare!
and the (greedy) photographer has already took one and a half THOUSAND POUNDS!!!!!!! off me for an album and a few photos, so dont even go there lol
and the digital watermarked photos are only approx 600x400 its not as if i have the original 18 mega pixel images

if i was a photographer you could have all your masters for free after i'd fleeced 1500quid out of you

it would have been cheaper to pay a burgler to steal his hard drive!!!
If a photographer charged me that much money for a photo album, then had the cheek to stamp his name all over the thumbnail-size jpegs he supplied, I'd probably watermark his face. With my fist.

Laird Knox
Jul 19, 2013, 06:10 PM
so has anyone found a way to auto-remove watermarks?
just see lots of comments of bla bla here and no solution
im already using the clone stamp tool but doing 500 wedding photos is a nightmare!
and the (greedy) photographer has already took one and a half THOUSAND POUNDS!!!!!!! off me for an album and a few photos, so dont even go there lol
and the digital watermarked photos are only approx 600x400 its not as if i have the original 18 mega pixel images

if i was a photographer you could have all your masters for free after i'd fleeced 1500quid out of you

it would have been cheaper to pay a burgler to steal his hard drive!!!

In Photoshop it is three keystrokes:

Open your photo,
Command-A
Command-X
Command-S

Watermark gone, simple as that.

snberk103
Jul 20, 2013, 11:03 AM
so has anyone found a way to auto-remove watermarks?
just see lots of comments of bla bla here and no solution
im already using the clone stamp tool but doing 500 wedding photos is a nightmare!...
it would have been cheaper to pay a burgler to steal his hard drive!!!

Well, maybe you shouldn't have agreed to that arrangement then. When you hired the photographer there are certain provisions, either built into the foundation law and/or the contract you signed, that you agreed to. So, you are stealing the photographer's income. Don't come to me looking for sympathy.

garnerx
Jul 20, 2013, 08:31 PM
Well, maybe you shouldn't have agreed to that arrangement then. When you hired the photographer there are certain provisions, either built into the foundation law and/or the contract you signed, that you agreed to. So, you are stealing the photographer's income. Don't come to me looking for sympathy.

He's not "stealing" anyone's income. If anything, the photographer is holding his wedding photos to ransom.

Those pictures are worthless to anybody else. The photographer has already fleeced him out of a large amount of money for a few hours very easy work. If he wants some extra shots to put on Facebook or whatever, it shouldn't be a problem.

Wedding photography is a scam.

snberk103
Jul 21, 2013, 12:58 AM
....

Wedding photography is a scam.

I'm a professional photographer. I've never shot weddings because, frankly, they work too hard. For every hour you see a wedding photographer in action, there are countless hours of unseen, and often unpaid, time.

I am speaking of course of good and professional photographers. I am assuming that the photographer the OP is talking about fits into that category. If the OP didn't like the terms, then they shouldn't have agreed to them. The photographer did the work based on certain expectations, and quoted a fee. To not pay the fee (by removing the watermarks, for instance) is very much stealing the photographers income in this case.

garnerx
Jul 21, 2013, 05:12 AM
I'm a professional photographer. I've never shot weddings because, frankly, they work too hard. For every hour you see a wedding photographer in action, there are countless hours of unseen, and often unpaid, time.

I am speaking of course of good and professional photographers. I am assuming that the photographer the OP is talking about fits into that category. If the OP didn't like the terms, then they shouldn't have agreed to them. The photographer did the work based on certain expectations, and quoted a fee. To not pay the fee (by removing the watermarks, for instance) is very much stealing the photographers income in this case.

I still think it's a scam, like every other overpriced service attached to the wedding industry. And it's not "countless" hours of unpaid work. It's a definite fixed amount at an extortionate rate.

And removing watermarks is not stealing. Those pictures are, to all intents and purposes, worthless to the photographer. He cannot sell them because nobody will buy them. Having already leeched 1500 from the only person who would be interested in them, the greedy photographer has bled his market dry.

snberk103
Jul 21, 2013, 12:46 PM
I still think it's a scam...
Then don't sign the contract. No one forces you choose one photographer over another. Or even any photographer. But when you hire a photographer you agree to certain terms. like every other overpriced service attached to the wedding industry. And it's not "countless" hours of unpaid work. It's a definite fixed amount at an extortionate rate.
It only feels like 'countless' hours to the photographer who has been editing 1500 to 3000 images. To have 500 images available to show the client (the post above dated July 18) requires several times that many total shots taken. Lets call it 1500 total shots because the photographer nails 1 out of 3 images on average.

There is probably about 3 to 6 hours prior to the wedding for the photographer to show their portfolio and make the sale, and then to coordinate with the couple what is needed on the day. Often the couple change their plans - sometimes multiple times. The photographer needs to be on site and ready prior to anything happening. If it is an unfamiliar location they may have already scouted it in the days prior to wedding. All of this is not directly charged for, and is part of the package. Before the wedding they have had to create a filing system for that customer to ensure that the customer gets their photos and not somebody else's. That all the correspondence is filed into one place for future reference, etc etc

Then there is the day itself. This is what you see. They have brought expensive camera gear that needs to be replaced/repaired on a regular basis. They should also have a backup camera system for 'just in case'. They may have brought an assistant. They should have liability insurance (a cost to them). They likely are also paying into a group benefits plan (since they are self employed they have no employment benefits) and belong to several professional associations that help them to stay current with current technologies and expectations. They have likely had to pay for a business license, income taxes of course, sales taxes perhaps. They are also paying to have an office/studio somewhere.

They also have just one chance to get it right. There are no reshoots here.

Then after the wedding they go through the photos. They need to cull the bad ones and mark the good ones for further processing. Lets say the photographer is very efficient, and can go through 1500 photos taking no more than 15 seconds each on average.... just to pick the 500 'keepers'. That is 6.25 hours. Before they have done any real post production work.

Now they have just 500 photos to process. If it takes them just one minute to look at, assess, and edit each photo then they are working for over 8 hours. I can tell you that 1 minute is not long enough. If it takes 5 minutes, then the photographer is putting in a full week non-stop to edit the photos - on top of all the time listed above.

Photographer needs to pay for the computer equipment, including replacement/repair on a regular basis. More insurance, etc etc.

Then, once the editing is done there are several more hours to package up the project, write up the invoice, meet with the client, etc etc.

On top of all this, the photographer spends a great deal of time on activities that have nothing to do any particular client. They take time to train. They take time to learn new software. They spend a great deal of time marketing. For paying client a photographer meets, there are several clients who are just shopping around. Of all the 'paid' work a photographer does must be done around the 'unpaid' time of meeting prospective clients.


And removing watermarks is not stealing. Those pictures are, to all intents and purposes, worthless to the photographer. He cannot sell them because nobody will buy them. Having already leeched 1500 from the only person who would be interested in them, the greedy photographer has bled his market dry.

I'm sorry that you seem to have had a bad experience. If you were fleeced by a unscrupulous photographer, well... that is too bad. Unfortunately there are bad apples everywhere. But in my experience wedding photographers work very hard and earn every penny. At least the good ones do.

garnerx
Jul 22, 2013, 05:27 AM
I appreciate the detailed reply but I don't think you've addressed the main issue, which is that beyond the initial fee the pictures are essentially worthless to the photographer. He can't make any more money out of them, because he has got every possible penny out of the client, but he still defaces those Facebook-res extra pics before supplying them.

Also:
The photographer needs to be on site and ready prior to anything happening.
...
Before the wedding they have had to create a filing system for that customer
They have to show up to work on time, and make a folder on their computer.

They have brought expensive camera gear that needs to be replaced/repaired on a regular basis. They should also have a backup camera system for 'just in case'.
Once every couple of years they might spend a weekend's profit on a new camera body.

If it takes 5 minutes, then the photographer is putting in a full week non-stop to edit the photos - on top of all the time listed above.
He's not going to be doing a full edit on 500 photos when he's only going to print a few of them. They'll be turned into 640x480 jpegs and watermarked, and he'll process the handful the customer is allowed to choose for 1500.

I'm sorry that you seem to have had a bad experience. If you were fleeced by a unscrupulous photographer, well... that is too bad.
My experience was actually great. For about 130 I got a printed album with 50 pictures plus every raw shot from the day, no watermarks, no copyright. It was in Africa - not so many conmen, I guess.

fa8362
Jul 22, 2013, 10:40 AM
And removing watermarks is not stealing.

Removing watermarks IS a copyright violation. If you wanted use of the photos beyond the terms you agreed to, you should have shot them yourself or found a photographer naive enough to give them to you.

sonicrobby
Jul 22, 2013, 10:52 AM
Watermarks are there for a reason, you cant remove them without paying the artist for a non-watermarked copy.

Why the hell is this thread from 2005 keep getting commented on :[

snberk103
Jul 22, 2013, 12:51 PM
I appreciate the detailed reply but I don't think you've addressed the main issue, which is that beyond the initial fee the pictures are essentially worthless to the photographer.
No, they are not worthless. They are worth whatever the client is willing to pay. If the client wants to pay for access, then the photos are worth something. They are only worthless if the photographer is willing to give them away for nothing.

....
Also:

They have to show up to work on time, and make a folder on their computer.
They usually quote for x number of hours on the day, for example 11am to 4pm. Before they even leave 'for work' there are a few hours spent making the sure the equipment is all there and that it works, and packing it up. Remember, no reshoots are possible, so they will have ensured that they have everything they need, plus extras. They also arrive early too.

And, no - it's not just a creating a folder. They will have several sheets from the initial interview with the clients' shooting requests. Which family members to group together, etc etc This then creates a shooting list for the photographer. They will have a contract to file. Within the contract are likely to be amendments. They will also need to keep track of what photos are provided to the client.

They should be using Digital Asset Manager to file their images, which makes life much much easier than the days of film. Nonetheless, there is quite a bit of setup for a new client. Each photo is tracked. What happens to that photo is tracked. Is it culled or is it a keeper? What sizes does it need to be? How many copies? If there are albums involved, which albums does that image need to appear in. Remember that this is happening for each and every one of the 500 images.


Once every couple of years they might spend a weekend's profit on a new camera body.

You obviously haven't priced pro-level cameras lately. And it is not the cameras so much as the lenses. Or the computers. Or the printers, if the photographer prints in-house. Just my printer would run several weekends worth of profit (if I did weddings) and I probably have more camera than wedding photographer needs (but not the lenses) and it more in line with the cost of a car. A new car, though luckily not a luxury one.



He's not going to be doing a full edit on 500 photos when he's only going to print a few of them.
They may edit the photo again if it is being printed, but each photo is going to be edited to bring it to a level that will encourage the client to print it. If the rough images are crap, that is the initial impression the client takes away - and the photographer then risks no print sales at all.

....
My experience was actually great. For about 130 I got a printed album with 50 pictures plus every raw shot from the day, no watermarks, no copyright. It was in Africa - not so many conmen, I guess.

Great. You got you wanted. You also got the quality you paid for. And if you hire a more expensive photographer, you agree to certain terms. If you are not happy with the quality then complain about the quality from that particular photographer. But please don't paint the entire profession with tar. Of course there are less than professional 'professional' photographers.... checking around for references and their portfolio will identify them. You did check their portfolio and references, eh?

garnerx
Jul 23, 2013, 04:15 AM
Watermarks are there for a reason, you cant remove them without paying the artist for a non-watermarked copy.

Why the hell is this thread from 2005 keep getting commented on :[

I guess it's something people are still interested in. I'm sure the technology will get there eventually, so it doesn't have to be done by hand. I used to work on magazines for a major publisher, and we'd remove watermarks from images as a matter of course. Cloning out website logos, that sort of thing.

I should add that these were images of dubious provenance in the first place, so not stock photos or anything. Usually pictures that websites had got from overseas PR agencies that we didn't have access to, then stamped with their logo.

fig
Jul 23, 2013, 09:34 AM
Once every couple of years they might spend a weekend's profit on a new camera body.

Ummm...yeah. As has already been mentioned, it's pretty obvious you don't know a lot of professional level photographers. The ones I know spend thousands on gear every year, not only on cameras but on lenses and accessories and a surprising amount on storage and backup.

The cost of the photos also isn't simply the time spend editing the photo, like any business model the price incorporates the time spent on the actual work as well as overhead and money that helps cover time spent in other areas of the process. A good wedding photographer spends a whole lot more time than the day of and exporting photos in LightRoom.

All that being said, I know a lot of photographers that are going away from the charge per print model these days now that things are all digital. They'll still charge for an album and you can order prints through them, but they'll also provide a cd of images you can reproduce yourself. Their package prices do reflect that and they aren't cheap, but like most any purchase you usually get what you pay for.

Halcyon
Jul 23, 2013, 02:44 PM
After eight years or so I doubt this advice will be of any use to the OP...Photoshop > Content Aware will do it almost automatically and most of the time very well enough that no more intervention is needed.

After eight years this is probably more relevant; I buy a lot of stock images for my clients. Before buying I download comps which all you know are watermark, some of them so heavily watermarked they are useless even as comps to show the client. So I erase all the watermarks on them and don't feel a bit guilty if I'm breaking their rules or not...because I know I'll be buying from them one or the other.