Watermarking acting strange.

[bham]

Why are the watermarks now appearing so much smaller. This started with some watermarking today and is only occuring with images I have to rotate. It is very strange.

What is going on with this. There has been a change, all of a sudden the watermark is much smaller on the rotated images.

Nevermind I found the info in another thread. I guess I need to redo all my watermarks, that will be a big pain.

[Andy]

Nevermind I found the info in another thread. I guess I need to redo all my watermarks, that will be a big pain.
Your older images aren't affected, and your new images can have big hugggge sizes and all you need to do is make a new watermark,which can be about 5minutes in photoshop. I hope that's not painful :)

It's worth it, IMO :D Oh and I have samples already in our sample watermark gallery, go for it:
http://dgrin.smugmug.com/gallery/1690793

Examples:

http://www.smugmug.com/photos/108166380-X2.jpg

http://www.smugmug.com/photos/108166469-X2.jpg http://www.smugmug.com/photos/108167919-X2.jpg

[bham]

What is going on today, trying to rewatermark photos due to the change that has caused the watermarks to become smaller. Now mutliple images aren't rewatermarking correctly and are getting hung up in processing and I have already spent an hour trying to fix this.

I am frustrated with you right now smugmug, causing me extra work.

[Andy]

What is going on today, trying to rewatermark photos due to the change that has caused the watermarks to become smaller. Now mutliple images aren't rewatermarking correctly and are getting hung up in processing and I have already spent an hour trying to fix this.

I am frustrated with you right now smugmug, causing me extra work.
Could we get a link to the gallery, so we can help you? Thanks.

[bham]

Well a couple of the galleries I first tried to replace the images that didn't watermark. Most did but a few didn't. Some this happened to while rotating. I ended up replacing them, that didn't work, so I deleted and then reuploaded. Here is one gallery that has tons

http://snapsterfoto.smugmug.com/gallery/3634854

[bham]

Also the site in general is slow. I clicked on a gallery and it took 15-20 seconds to even start to load the page. I did a speed test at speedtest.net and it gives me over 6000kb/s down and 980kb/s up. details here http://www.speedtest.net/result/193094936.png (http://www.speedtest.net)

[Andy]

Also the site in general is slow. I clicked on a gallery and it took 15-20 seconds to even start to load the page. I did a speed test at speedtest.net and it gives me over 6000kb/s down and 980kb/s up. details here http://www.speedtest.net/result/193094936.png (http://www.speedtest.net)
That does not surprise me, you've forced allthumbs style with loads of photos in the gallery :)

http://snapsterfoto.smugmug.com/gallery/3634854

How about SmugMug style? Much, much faster.

[bham]

No my customers don't like have to go through tons of pages. All one page is what they have told me they want, so that is what they get. All of my galleries on my site are this way, over 200 at least. But it is much slower than usual and the fact that I have already loaded that page a few times today and it really shouldn't have to reload each image.

[bham]

Any answer to the first question about watermarking???

Here's another gallery that has multiple images acting up

http://snapsterfoto.smugmug.com/gallery/3634880

[bham]

bump for some kind of a response. Its been hours and I emailed help as well.

Anybody, anybody, Bueller.

[Andy]

bump for some kind of a response. Its been hours and I emailed help as well.

Anybody, anybody, Bueller.
You will get help from the help desk now, that you've mailed us there. Thanks :thumb

[bham]

Also for any Smugmuggers reading this I wouldn't advise replacing any photos that you are proofing that have sold. I just did and they went from being watermarked to unwatermarked. Screwy things going on with watermarks in general.

[Andy]

Also for any Smugmuggers reading this I wouldn't advise replacing any photos that you are proofing that have sold. I just did and they went from being watermarked to unwatermarked. Screwy things going on with watermarks in general.
looking into that now...

[bham]

looking into that now...

I sent an email about it to the help desk. I manually fixed them, but they got unwatermarked somehow, sounds like another glitch.

[RustyB]

Why are the watermarks now appearing so much smaller. This started with some watermarking today and is only occuring with images I have to rotate. It is very strange.

What is going on with this. There has been a change, all of a sudden the watermark is much smaller on the rotated images.

Nevermind I found the info in another thread. I guess I need to redo all my watermarks, that will be a big pain.


My watermarks are now blown up larger than my newly uploaded images! :rofl
I re-made the watermark, but it still does the same thing.

[iklimon]

My watermarks are now blown up larger than my newly uploaded images! :rofl
I re-made the watermark, but it still does the same thing.

Indeed, my watermarks are all screwed up now as well. :-/

http://photos.klimon.com/gallery/3650336#208876776

[Andy]

Indeed, my watermarks are all screwed up now as well. :-/

http://photos.klimon.com/gallery/3650336#208876776
What is the size of your watermark, please?

[iklimon]

What is the size of your watermark, please?

1600 x 255

http://photos.klimon.com/gallery/2662334#140857570

[Andy]

1600 x 255

http://photos.klimon.com/gallery/2662334#140857570
Okay, you have a 1600px wide watermark but you are only allowing 800px wide display copies :) There's the issue. Use a wide watermark if you are going to use the biiiiig display copies, use a small watermark (800px wide) if you are going to limit the display sizes.

[Andy]

1600 x 255

http://photos.klimon.com/gallery/2662334#140857570
I've made a private test gallery on your site, I'm trying a few things, standby

[Andy]

1600 x 255

http://photos.klimon.com/gallery/2662334#140857570

Hi, the reason is your original is only 867px by 577px. I'll see if the engineers can work around this, but for now, you should either use original size files (better for printing anyhow!) or use a smaller watermark.

[bham]

FYI my watermarks were 200x200 pixels, and to keep them looking the same size on the medium size photos I am now using a 400x400 pixel watermark.

[bham]

Also still be aware that when you replace a photo you have to go back and manually rewatermark it. Its not rewatermarking the photos I have replaced still today, even thought the gallery is set to watermark.

[Disneysw]

I think its slow today as well - I suspect the servers are working overtime trying to manage the resizing requests caused by the introduction of the new XL sizes.

I know it has been suggested elsewhere but a 'regenerate' command along with status information on the commands progress would be useful to avoid everyone kicking off multiple 'rotates' or 'watermarks'.



Gareth
www.eyeforphotos.co.uk

[Allen]

I started by rotating to get the new sizes to generate, what a pain and time
consuming. I just finished regenerating about eight galleries by just going to
watermark under gallery tools, selecting all, and clicking save. Takes a few
minutes for them all to process but much quicker then resizing. You have to
also change the size under customize gallery to the largest allowed for them
to show bigger.

Oh, and it didn't effect the popular photos, they show.

[brandofamily]

here's an example
http://www.brandolinoimaging.com/gallery/1642061/1/209164709/Medium

here's another
http://www.brandolinoimaging.com/gallery/1642061/1/209164562/Medium

help

[Andy]

is it "wrong" or not the size you expect?
If the latter, we're working on that right now, hang in there.

[brandofamily]

is it "wrong" or not the size you expect?
If the latter, we're working on that right now, hang in there.
not the size it supposed to be... OK... I'll try in a bit to redo them... it's only 3 pics...

[Allen]

here's an example
http://www.brandolinoimaging.com/gallery/1642061/1/209164709/Medium

here's another
http://www.brandolinoimaging.com/gallery/1642061/1/209164562/Medium

help
Check the one that's set under gallery customization. After rotating that's the
one applied if that's what you're doing.

[iklimon]

Okay, you have a 1600px wide watermark but you are only allowing 800px wide display copies :) There's the issue. Use a wide watermark if you are going to use the biiiiig display copies, use a small watermark (800px wide) if you are going to limit the display sizes.

So if I want to allow Xlarge size for the display, what is the ideal watermark width then? I had 800 wide and it was all screwy (too small), I switched to 1600 wide and now its too big. :)

[bham]

Allen, for some reason the watermark in many of my galleries that I used, after the addition of the sizes, are now half the size they were prior to the change.

Here is an example. I copied this image and rotated right and then rotated back left. When it copied it looked identicial.

http://snapsterfoto.smugmug.com/photos/209292421-M.jpg

http://snapsterfoto.smugmug.com/photos/98915072-M-6.jpg

The top one and bottom watermark are the exact same watermark, both 200x200 pixel tiled.

Now to match the first watermark in size relative to the picture I have made a watermark 400x400 and you can't tell the difference in a gallery where I would have some older images with the 200x200 and new images with the 400x400.

[Allen]

Allen, for some reason the watermark in many of my galleries that I used, after the addition of the sizes, are now half the size they were prior to the change.

Here is an example. I copied this image and rotated right and then rotated back left. When it copied it looked identicial.

http://snapsterfoto.smugmug.com/photos/209292421-M.jpg


I had to create a larger WM as the one I was using is too small for the new
sizes also. And I stopped double rotating. I now change to the new WM
and size under gallery customization then under photos tools > watermark,
select all and save. It regenerates all the photos in the gallery with the new
WM. I was worried that regenerating would remove it from popular but it
doesn't.

[bham]

Yes Allen I figured out what I had to do yesterday when I discovered this issue, and started this thread.

What I don't understand (and I don't thing Smugmug has figured out either) is why the watermark on medium photos is suddenly so much smaller. You would think that a 200 pixel watermark would still take up 200 pixels.:scratch

[Sheaf]

We think we just fixed most of the watermark problems, at least with custom watermarks. You will have to reapply your watermark wherever you had issues.

Sorry we introduced the bugs yesterday and that it took until now to finally fix them!

[Allen]

Yes Allen I figured out what I had to do yesterday when I discovered this issue, and started this thread.

What I don't understand (and I don't thing Smugmug has figured out either) is why the watermark on medium photos is suddenly so much smaller. You would think that a 200 pixel watermark would still take up 200 pixels.:scratch
I'm thinking that the WM is applied to the largest (now really big) and scaled
down with each regenerated size. So the original WM is too small for the new
largest to start with. Just guessing though.:D

[Sheaf]

Yes Allen I figured out what I had to do yesterday when I discovered this issue, and started this thread.

What I don't understand (and I don't thing Smugmug has figured out either) is why the watermark on medium photos is suddenly so much smaller. You would think that a 200 pixel watermark would still take up 200 pixels.:scratch

It's not that easy. Your 200 pixel watermark wasn't taking up 200 pixels on the medium sized image, it was taking 200 pixels on your large image and then that image was resized down to medium.

So we were taking the 200 pixel watermark and putting it on your 3XL image, then resizing that to create the medium image and it was getting reduced even more than before.

Does that make sense?

[bham]

I'm thinking that the WM is applied to the largest (now really big) and scaled
down with each regenerated size. So the original WM is too small for the new
largest to start with. Just guessing though.:D

That could be. Never really thought about how it worked with the different sizes, but I guess your probably correct.

This was a minor headache, and was well work it to get those larger display size.:barb I hope you don't take my frustration as directed at smugmug, it is just frustration that I had additional work. But that is life. Really the photos gettting stuck in processing when reapplying watermarks was more of a pain for me than this because I couldn't go fix it.

Thanks Sheaf and the smugmug team for all you do!!:thumb

[bham]

It's not that easy. Your 200 pixel watermark wasn't taking up 200 pixels on the medium sized image, it was taking 200 pixels on your large image and then that image was resized down to medium.

So we were taking the 200 pixel watermark and putting it on your 3XL image, then resizing that to create the medium image and it was getting reduced even more than before.

Does that make sense?

Now I can sure understand that. Thanks for the info. That sure makes it much easier info to process for thinking about potential watermarks. That bit of info I think would be a good nugget to include in the help section about watermarks. It could help people understand how the watermark size is relative to the photo display size.

[Sheaf]

Now I can sure understand that. Thanks for the info. That sure makes it much easier info to process for thinking about potential watermarks. That bit of info I think would be a good nugget to include in the help section about watermarks. It could help people understand how the watermark size is relative to the photo display size.

Thanks, I'll pass the suggestion on.

So the real challenge for our engineer working on this most of the day was figuring out how to handle different photo dimensions, orientations (portrait vs. landscape), and different sizes of both photos and watermarks.

It wasn't easy.

[bham]

Thanks, I'll pass the suggestion on.

So the real challenge for our engineer working on this most of the day was figuring out how to handle different photo dimensions, orientations (portrait vs. landscape), and different sizes of both photos and watermarks.

It wasn't easy.

I bet it wasn't. That is why I designed my custom watermark the way it is and tiled it, so the orientation wouldn't really be significant to how the watermark looked or acted.

[scwalter]

It's not that easy. Your 200 pixel watermark wasn't taking up 200 pixels on the medium sized image, it was taking 200 pixels on your large image and then that image was resized down to medium.

So we were taking the 200 pixel watermark and putting it on your 3XL image, then resizing that to create the medium image and it was getting reduced even more than before.

Does that make sense?

It seems the best solution would be to apply the watermark to the "large" and scale it down for medium (as before) and scale up for the new XL sizes.

This would avoid the problems with generating new watermarks and would be transparent to most users.

-Scott

[Sheaf]

It seems the best solution would be to apply the watermark to the "large" and scale it down for medium (as before) and scale up for the new XL sizes.

This would avoid the problems with generating new watermarks and would be transparent to most users.

-Scott

Scale the image up or just the watermark up?

Either way, there are a number of problems with that. Scaling the image up obviously makes the whole photo look terrible at 3XL. Scaling the watermark up means that the watermark may not look sharp on 3XL. Handling it this way allows anyone picky enough to care the option of creating a giant, sharp watermark and applying it.

There is of, course, the other benefit of doing it this way: We now built a solution that will work when 3XL is just not big enough.

[scwalter]

Scale the image up or just the watermark up?

Either way, there are a number of problems with that. Scaling the image up obviously makes the whole photo look terrible at 3XL. Scaling the watermark up means that the watermark may not look sharp on 3XL. Handling it this way allows anyone picky enough to care the option of creating a giant, sharp watermark and applying it.

There is of, course, the other benefit of doing it this way: We now built a solution that will work when 3XL is just not big enough.

I meant upscale the watermark and apply it to the larger image. I agree that it may not look good though, rasterized text prolly won't scale very well.

How about SVG (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svg)?

-Scott

[crgphotographer]

is anyone having problems with 'losing' their watermark? I have uploaded a new gallery and when I try to apply my watermark 'crg_block' I am getting one that says PROOF???

This has only just happened with this gallery, all previous galleries show my proper watermark. I don't believe anything has changed from my end, I am stll uploading full size images, I haven't deleted my watermark image, etc.

I have tried removing the watermark and reapplying - I still get the PROOF one applied. I have not had the chance to upload a different gallery to check that.

The gallery in question is http://crgphotography.smugmug.com/motorsport%20-%20speedway/396152

Help???

[natephoto]

How about cropping? I've uploaded a bunch of images, re-did the watermark (a new one) so that it is at least good enough, but now I go to crop images and after cropping, the watermark is too small!
This is ridiculous. This does not show smugmug as being reliable - at all. I need to get these photos up, but I've got to go re-watermark every time I make a crop!
:scratch :rolleyes

[Allen]

is anyone having problems with 'losing' their watermark? I have uploaded a new gallery and when I try to apply my watermark 'crg_block' I am getting one that says PROOF???

This has only just happened with this gallery, all previous galleries show my proper watermark. I don't believe anything has changed from my end, I am stll uploading full size images, I haven't deleted my watermark image, etc.

I have tried removing the watermark and reapplying - I still get the PROOF one applied. I have not had the chance to upload a different gallery to check that.

The gallery in question is http://crgphotography.smugmug.com/motorsport%20-%20speedway/396152

Help???
Make sure after creating a new gallery BEFORE adding photos go into
customization and set everything esp. the watermark and size allowed. Then
then should generated upon upload the way you want them.

I found a bunch of my galleries now had the Smugmug WM and large size by
default. I'm guessing when they changed the customize page everyones
was reset that way not knowing what size everyone wants.

[Allen]

How about cropping? I've uploaded a bunch of images, re-did the watermark (a new one) so that it is at least good enough, but now I go to crop images and after cropping, the watermark is too small!
This is ridiculous. This does not show smugmug as being reliable - at all. I need to get these photos up, but I've got to go re-watermark every time I make a crop!
:scratch :rolleyes
Make sure under gallery customiation your new watermark is in the drop
before cropping or rotating. That's the one that will be appied on any
regeneration.

[BeachBill]

I found a bunch of my galleries now had the Smugmug WM and large size by default. I'm guessing when they changed the customize page everyones was reset that way not knowing what size everyone wants.

I still have an unanswered question (http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=73896) I posted about this yesterday.

I can confirm they did not reset everyone's watermarks by default. Instead what is happening is when you attempt to replace an existing watermark with the new size they now require, any galleries using the old watermark that you have replaced are reset back to the SmugMug watermark.

I'm hoping someone from SmugMug will respond soon and tell us exactly how we are suppose to be replacing our watermarks so that all of our galleries are not reset to the SmugMug watermark. I've put off "fixing" all of my watermarks until I can figure out how to do with correctly.

[natephoto]

Make sure under gallery customiation your new watermark is in the drop
before cropping or rotating. That's the one that will be appied on any
regeneration.
Thanks for the response.
...
But what does "drop befor cropping or rotating" mean?

thanks,
nate

[Allen]

Thanks for the response.
...
But what does "drop befor cropping or rotating" mean?

thanks,
nate
There is a little dropdown window for watermark selection. If it's set to
Smugmug you get a big PROOF for a watermark so make sure your watermark
is selected. I made this mistake a couple times.:D

[Umbris]

I'm having a related watermarking problem: Any images that I have added in the past couple of days are not being watermarked in the three galleries where I have selected watermarking = yes.

http://umbris.com/gallery/3653483
http://umbris.com/gallery/3635549
http://umbris.com/gallery/3626569

I just went back and manually tried to watermark the pnew photos, and that does not seem to be working also. My photos are 800 pixels wide (various height). My custom watermark is 750x200.

Is this a known issue?

Thanks in advance.

[Andy]

I'm having a related watermarking problem: Any images that I have added in the past couple of days are not being watermarked in the three galleries where I have selected watermarking = yes.

http://umbris.com/gallery/3653483
http://umbris.com/gallery/3635549
http://umbris.com/gallery/3626569

I just went back and manually tried to watermark the pnew photos, and that does not seem to be working also. My photos are 800 pixels wide (various height). My custom watermark is 750x200.

Is this a known issue?

Thanks in advance.We don't watermark photos unless they are >800 pixels on the longest side :deal

http://www.smugmug.com/help/custom-watermark-protection