Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Watermark too intrusive

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Watermark too intrusive

    So I've been away for a while, but I don't recall ever getting a rejection from a WM being too strong. I crank my opacity way down to where the black and white color options are, but yet it was still considered too strong.

    Considering I'm cutting it down to 15-20%, why have the slider go above that to begin with? I don't want it so light that it can't be seen which makes it useless.

    Thank you,


  • #2
    Originally posted by Top_Gun View Post
    So I've been away for a while, but I don't recall ever getting a rejection from a WM being too strong. I crank my opacity way down to where the black and white color options are, but yet it was still considered too strong.

    Considering I'm cutting it down to 15-20%, why have the slider go above that to begin with? I don't want it so light that it can't be seen which makes it useless.

    Thank you,

    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewreject_b.php?id=8700317
    In this case the placement of the watermark rather than the strength is the issue. Covering most of the aircraft is generally not acceptable.

    Comment


    • #3
      if you look at all my shots, the WM is right over the plane in the middle. Placing a WM over a blue sky is too easy to clone out. I'm just questioning this because I've never had a rejection for this before.

      This one is even stronger and was accepted?
      JetPhotos.com is the biggest database of aviation photographs with over 5 million screened photos online!

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Top_Gun View Post
        if you look at all my shots, the WM is right over the plane in the middle. Placing a WM over a blue sky is too easy to clone out. I'm just questioning this because I've never had a rejection for this before.

        This one is even stronger and was accepted?
        https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9862676
        Subjective decision, but that would have been a rejection for me

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by dlowwa View Post

          Subjective decision, but that would have been a rejection for me
          If this causes a problem you might consider revising the wm application. I have received similar rejection in the past, but if there is a possibility to place it anywhere and with any opacity, that is wrong.
          IMHO

          Comment


          • #6
            Literally no need to place it in front of the aircraft anyway. Looks worse than any purpose it will serve. If you need the watermark, place it close but around the aircraft like between the wing and ground or between the landing gears.
            View me on JetPhotos

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by dlowwa View Post

              Subjective decision, but that would have been a rejection for me
              this one here if I went any lower, there wouldn't have been any watermark showing....

              When it's subjective for every screener it makes it far more difficult to figure out what gets accepted and what doesn't. The WM application should have an opacity limit if there's going to be cause for rejection. This way it can't be placed any heavier than Jetphotos wants it to me. I was a screener back in the day, so I understand what you guys go through, and the majority of the rejection reasons are subjective.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by meeshboi View Post
                Literally no need to place it in front of the aircraft anyway. Looks worse than any purpose it will serve. If you need the watermark, place it close but around the aircraft like between the wing and ground or between the landing gears.
                tell that to any person who's had their photo stolen and used without their permission... That's the entire reason to WM a photo. To place it just at the top or bottom in blue sky it either gets cropped out, or cloned out.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Delivery flight from Ljubljana to Moscow. Additional Airbus A321SL for S7.. VQ-BFQ. Airbus A321-211. JetPhotos.com is the biggest database of aviation photographs with over 5 million screened photos online!


                  a rejection of "watermark too intrusive" didn't seem to be applied here...
                  My pictures: https://www.jetphotos.com/photographer/46959

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X