Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Special Interests > Visual Media > Design and Graphics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Jul 18, 2013, 08:00 PM   #26
garnerx
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leetut View Post
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.
garnerx is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 19, 2013, 07:10 PM   #27
Laird Knox
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leetut View Post
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.
Laird Knox is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 20, 2013, 12:03 PM   #28
snberk103
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: An Island in the Salish Sea
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leetut View Post
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.
__________________
My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we'll change the world. - Jack Layton
snberk103 is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 20, 2013, 09:31 PM   #29
garnerx
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by snberk103 View Post
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.
garnerx is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 21, 2013, 01:58 AM   #30
snberk103
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: An Island in the Salish Sea
Quote:
Originally Posted by garnerx View Post
....

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.
__________________
My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we'll change the world. - Jack Layton
snberk103 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 21, 2013, 06:12 AM   #31
garnerx
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by snberk103 View Post
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.
garnerx is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 21, 2013, 01:46 PM   #32
snberk103
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: An Island in the Salish Sea
Quote:
Originally Posted by garnerx View Post
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by garnerx View Post
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by garnerx View Post

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.
__________________
My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we'll change the world. - Jack Layton

Last edited by snberk103; Jul 21, 2013 at 01:51 PM.
snberk103 is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 22, 2013, 06:27 AM   #33
garnerx
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
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:
Quote:
Originally Posted by snberk103 View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by snberk103 View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by snberk103 View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by snberk103 View Post
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.
garnerx is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 22, 2013, 11:40 AM   #34
fa8362
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by garnerx View Post

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.
fa8362 is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 22, 2013, 11:52 AM   #35
sonicrobby
macrumors 68000
 
sonicrobby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: New Orleans
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 :[
__________________
iPhone 6+ (128GB); 15" 2012 rMBP; 2012 Mac Mini; iPad 1 (32GB); iPad Air 2 (128GB); iPhone 5 (16GB); iPhone 5s (16GB); Apple TV 3; Time Capsule 3;
sonicrobby is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 22, 2013, 01:51 PM   #36
snberk103
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: An Island in the Salish Sea
Quote:
Originally Posted by garnerx View Post
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by garnerx View Post
....
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by garnerx View Post

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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by garnerx View Post


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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by garnerx View Post
....
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?
__________________
My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we'll change the world. - Jack Layton
snberk103 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 23, 2013, 05:15 AM   #37
garnerx
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by sonicrobby View Post
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.
garnerx is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 23, 2013, 10:34 AM   #38
fig
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Houston, TX
Quote:
Originally Posted by garnerx View Post
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.
__________________
figdigital | @figdigital | dribbble
fig is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 23, 2013, 03:44 PM   #39
Halcyon
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
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.
__________________
20" Alum 2.4 GHz iMac
20" Alum 2.66 GHz iMac
13" 2.4 GHz MacBook
8GB iPod Touch
Halcyon is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > Special Interests > Visual Media > Design and Graphics

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Watermarks app wojnest Mac Applications and Mac App Store 4 Apr 21, 2014 06:23 AM
Images for Whatsapp - Emoticons, images, posters... to share in social networks leomark iPhone and iPod touch Apps 0 Apr 11, 2014 04:48 AM
UIScrollView+images removing problem erdinc27 iPhone/iPad Programming 0 Nov 29, 2013 08:12 AM
Aperture and Scaling Watermarks diane143 Digital Photography 0 Aug 12, 2013 09:17 PM
i phone 4 how to down load images and videos partialy.and delete images from albums Radhakrishnan iPhone Tips, Help and Troubleshooting 0 Jul 9, 2013 04:45 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:35 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC