PDA

View Full Version : Removing watermarks on jpg files


Venom
24-05-2005, 15:14:15
So, the photographer from my sister's wedding is trying to screw us. After we pay him his lofty fee, he gives us the proof CD of the pics...with fucking watermarks on them. As if they're not our property. So. I must smote this man and his watermarking. Anyone familar with a way to do this?

Qaj the Fuzzy Love Worm
24-05-2005, 15:20:20
Scissors. Or is it a truly annoying watermark =that goes across the entire picture? Maybe photoshop or something similar would be able to help you out, I don't know of any automated tools that would.

Venom
24-05-2005, 15:24:59
Entire picture. I know Photoshop has a method for putting watermarks on, but I don't think they have one for taking them off. Though I do know that it is possible to remove them.

Debaser
24-05-2005, 15:50:43
If it's a .jpg then it'll be flattened, and the only way to get rid of it would be clever photoshopping with the clone tool.

Venom
24-05-2005, 16:02:04
I was afraid of that.

Funko
24-05-2005, 16:08:12
Call him and inform him he's made a mistake and accidently watermarked your photos and could you have the real CD please.

Venom
24-05-2005, 16:34:29
And then blow up his car.

Funko
24-05-2005, 16:36:05
That should do it.

Lurker the Second
24-05-2005, 16:41:08
I believe what the photographer did is typical. I don't think deal is that you own the negatives -- the photographer does. Before CD's, the print proofs were generally watermarked.

My point is, it sucks, but I don't think he's doing anything unusual.

Beta1
24-05-2005, 16:45:20
it depends how the watermark has been put on. If its an additive/subtractive process then it might be possible to reverse it. If its just pasted on the top and flattened theres no way to remove it without painting it out.

Venom
24-05-2005, 18:24:41
If it were additive, would you know any of those processes?

Sir Penguin
24-05-2005, 21:48:41
If there's some transparency, you might be able just to darken it to match the surrounding photo.

SP

Beta1
25-05-2005, 09:55:27
If its additive you have to figure out the what the water mark looked like originally, then subtract that from the image to get back to the original. If he's donw something dum like watermark over a area of plain color you might be able to do it. Chances are if this is some wedding photographer prat he's just pasted "TAKEN BY BLOGS PHOTOS" across the top and flattened it. Really it depends how big the marks are as to whether you'll be able to get rid of them.

Practically breaking into the guys studio and nicking his computer may be simpler!

Qaj the Fuzzy Love Worm
25-05-2005, 14:42:37
Sounds like more fun, too :)

The photographers for both my sisters weddings also watermarked the proofs, so I think Lurker is right when he says it's standard practice.

Cruddy
25-05-2005, 14:56:19
I think this is one case where a stroppy attitude isn't going to help your cause.

Ask him how much he charges for non-waterproofed Jpegs. He might not charge anything.

BUT... if he does, shop around your local print shop/scanners, ask them how much they charge for high quality scans.

If you can find one that charges less per total than the photographer, you just get someone else to scan them. Voila, high res Jpegs with no watermarks.

Venom
25-05-2005, 15:02:19
But then I don't get to stick it to the dumbass photographer.

Cruddy
25-05-2005, 15:03:49
Because he isn't doing anything WRONG.

RIGHTEOUS indignation is proper.

UNRIGHTEOUS indignation, you're just an easily offended fuckwit.

Funko
25-05-2005, 15:10:17
Of course he is doing something wrong!

Venom
25-05-2005, 15:21:13
That's right. He's crossing me and my family. In this day and age of the diminishing family unit, I ought to be congratulated for my efforts.

Lurker the Second
25-05-2005, 15:35:09
First ask yourself: would they do the same for you? Remember, it's you we're talking about.

Venom
25-05-2005, 15:46:24
Oh they would. Except for mom. She's not the confrontational type. Also, she doesn't like me. Now my brother? He'd punch his wife if I asked him too. He just likes to be mean. LIKE ME! And my sister? She's got tons of attitude and always takes my side. It's my favorite thing about her.

As for my dad, well, he just likes to yell, so if I give him the chance to yell at someone, he'll take it.

Lurker the Second
25-05-2005, 16:23:57
:lol: The perfectly functional family. Rare these days.

Cruddy
25-05-2005, 17:50:56
Originally posted by Funko
Of course he is doing something wrong!

Protecting copyright on HIS images? I don't think so.

If he didn't watermark them, how many skinflints would just print the Jpegs and tell him to stuff the bill, eh?

Gary
25-05-2005, 20:14:17
Surely there's a difference between proofs and the actual bought photos ?

I don't recall this problem before digital photos as the bought ones were pristine .

Sir Penguin
25-05-2005, 22:33:29
Originally posted by Gary
Surely there's a difference between proofs and the actual bought photos ?
Yes. The watermark.

SP

Qaj the Fuzzy Love Worm
26-05-2005, 05:09:08
Yep. The formal prints you get (suitable for framing) have no watermark, presumably because you can't easily copy them. But digital proofs are still the photographers property (you're just buying copies of his photos) and so carry the watermark to prevent you from using his intellectual property.

Gary
26-05-2005, 09:33:31
Then I'm unconvinced there is a problem. Buy the prints, get the non-proof CD without the watermarks.

I'm not saying it isn't an interesting challenge to get a watermark removed, but if it were easy it'd be no sense of achievement.

Gary
26-05-2005, 09:35:17
Or is the problem a misunderstanding, that the intitial fee up front included everything and not excluded a further payment for individual non-proof photos ?

Funko
26-05-2005, 09:59:00
Originally posted by Cruddy
Protecting copyright on HIS images? I don't think so.

If he didn't watermark them, how many skinflints would just print the Jpegs and tell him to stuff the bill, eh?

Venom said they'd paid him.

Venom
26-05-2005, 13:00:42
Indeed we did.

Drekkus
26-05-2005, 13:25:38
You paid him for his hours making the pics, or did you agree on a number of pics he would deliver? The copyright of the pics is still with him I guess.
It's like software. If someone pays you to build a website, the copyright is still with the builder, not the buyer. Unless the contract says differently.

zmama
26-05-2005, 13:28:35
Yep, but the way photogs work is they own the originals and the copyrights. You pay them for the services and for a set of proofs. Maybe a set of prints in the package. Read the contract carefully, but that is standard.

My brother-in-law is a commercial photographer...started many years ago as a wedding photog.

Venom
26-05-2005, 14:40:55
Well that's a crock of shit. And I don't agree with that. So...TO ARMS! TO ARMS!

Lurker the Second
26-05-2005, 14:56:38
No cookies for you.

Venom
26-05-2005, 15:07:10
He's an in-law. I might get support yet.

zmama
26-05-2005, 15:36:54
I send him cookies too and truffles.

You lose again, Venom

Venom
26-05-2005, 15:56:08
There is honor in consistency.

Cruddy
26-05-2005, 17:52:02
No, but there is honour in dishonour.

protein
27-05-2005, 01:37:50
It does suck doesn't it? That's like the engineer automatically owning copyright on a song because he recorded it or like an artist getting to keep the painting after you commissioned them to do a painting of something.

If you paid for the photographs you should get the fucking photographs in whatever form you want. It doesn't cost the guy anything to give you digital versions and he's not going to get any other use for them. You aren't going to buy any more prints from him so it's only going to be bad for his business to refuse you. Especially when you start standing outside his office telling everyone he's a paedophile and start sending him body parts in the mail.

Qaj the Fuzzy Love Worm
27-05-2005, 03:31:42
Just like a Scientologist.

Venom
27-05-2005, 12:58:37
I like the way protein thinks.

The Mad Monk
27-05-2005, 21:27:02
Originally posted by Cruddy
Because he isn't doing anything WRONG.

RIGHTEOUS indignation is proper.

UNRIGHTEOUS indignation, you're just an easily offended fuckwit.


This is Venom.