Posted under General
Is it acceptable to crop a picture in order to eliminate the watermark? I have quite a bit of good stuff but some of it has the artist's name or whatever up one side. Granted, i wouldnt even try if it noticibly impacted the image itself but I'd rather ask first now than be flamed for doing it.
Updated by wanchan
TehMuffinMan said:
Is it acceptable to crop a picture in order to eliminate the watermark? I have quite a bit of good stuff but some of it has the artist's name or whatever up one side. Granted, i wouldnt even try if it noticibly impacted the image itself but I'd rather ask first now than be flamed for doing it.
Artist's signature doesn't constitute a watermark, unless it's really big and obnoxious and was added in a way that was obviously meant to cripple the picture. In that case you can upload and ask in the comments.
Stuff like whoever photoshopped a given wallpaper or "(C) respective artists" retardation is much less welcome however, as they only add noise introduced by someone who often did nothing but damage the picture, or maybe scammed you for some bucks to allow you downloading badly recompressed pics. This is exactly what the "no obnoxious watermarks" rule is designed to keep away.
TehMuffinMan said:
can you see posts that i've put up that have been rejected, ??i've had two already shot down for watermark but i usually dont keep images that are as you described above. I cant tell what images they were because of my acct status.
Not really, in case of deleted posts you see exactly as much as I do. There's no tags or image data associated with deleted posts, so it's pretty hard to see what exactly got deleted.
Probably filing a bug about keeping the last set of tags with deleted images would be a good idea.
http://danbooru.donmai.us/forum/show/1578?page=2
already did.
would you mind doing me a favor, ??, and give me your opinions on some images? I can whip up a quick composite of images with watermarks and i'll throw it up on imageshack.
Sorry if i'm being anal, just trying to help the site by doin my part.
TehMuffinMan said:
http://danbooru.donmai.us/forum/show/1578?page=2already did.
It works better to report bugs using the Trac interface (find it under More») if they get stalled like that. The forum is not exactly designed to keep track of bugs.
would you mind doing me a favor, ??, and give me your opinions on some images? I can whip up a quick composite of images with watermarks and i'll throw it up on imageshack.
Sorry if i'm being anal, just trying to help the site by doin my part.
No, I wouldn't mind. You might also want to check your encoding, my name got mangled into ?? (two questionmarks), which is not supposed to happen if your browser understands UTF-8 (and all reasonable browsers do today).
葉月 said:
...also want to check your encoding, my name got mangled into ?? (two questionmarks), which is not supposed to happen if your browser understands UTF-8 (and all reasonable browsers do today).
I'm using the latest firefox. lol its showign up as ??'s to me.
Ok, so here goes... 3 different ones:
http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/7226/820hpak4.jpg
http://img95.imageshack.us/img95/541/top050vf0.jpg
http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/1037/jhbunni6am3.jpg
Updated
Just as a note, don't crop to eliminate watermarks. This creates a picture with a brand new hash, one which will not match any existing pictures. If people cropped watermarks, there could easily be four of five versions of the same picture with a difference of one or two rows of pixels, and the duplicate checker would never catch it.
If the picture is good enough that you think it deserves to be seen even with the watermark, then upload it, provide as much info as you can, and then maybe someone can find a clean version.
TehMuffinMan said:
Ok, so here goes... 3 different ones:
http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/7226/820hpak4.jpg
http://img95.imageshack.us/img95/541/top050vf0.jpg
http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/1037/jhbunni6am3.jpg
As far as I can tell, those are all signatures from the original artist. They don't count as watermarks. Watermarks are signs from an unrelated person or site.
If it's on the original picture, don't worry about it.
kumarei said:
As far as I can tell, those are all signatures from the original artist. They don't count as watermarks. Watermarks are signs from an unrelated person or site.If it's on the original picture, don't worry about it.
Thanks for the feedback Kumarei, it is appreciated.
Here's the kicker: the 1st and 2nd were denied for watermarks. At least that's what the doohicky Albert set up shows me on my profile page.
The 1st one should already be in the system at any rate. At least I got blocked on trying to upload it a few days ago. If you weren't already, try linking to the originals on the artist's websites so whoever is checking them can compare and will know this is indeed something the original artist puts on them.
TehMuffinMan said:
Thanks for the feedback Kumarei, it is appreciated.
Here's the kicker: the 1st and 2nd were denied for watermarks. At least that's what the doohicky Albert set up shows me on my profile page.
In that case the mod decided that they were too distracting, or didn't like the art or something. In such a case, the mod is right. Upload some different stuff.
Edit: I don't know about the second one, but a quick search reveals that the first is already on danbooru.
I'm actually curious how you managed to upload it, since even the md5s match.
Updated
kumarei said:
In that case the mod decided that they were too distracting, or didn't like the art or something. In such a case, the mod is right. Upload some different stuff.
I'm not complaining, just trying to understand the logic behind what passes and what's denied. I really want to contribute.
TehMuffinMan said:
I'm not complaining, just trying to understand the logic behind what passes and what's denied. I really want to contribute.
The first two are clearly artists' signatures, especially Ryu's form site is known to always include it, so deleting them for watermarks is really strange and unexpected. As for the third one, it's cutepet, which is notorious for poor art with obnoxious logos, IMHO we're better off not having pics from it, even if they technically constitute original art.
I say it's A-OK reupload the second one (you can include something like "no watermark, this is artist's signature, see forum #xxxx" with 1703 instead of xxxx in the comment), and the first one is apparently already in the system. The cutepet one is not worth it, and definitely wouldn't get approval from me (I don't approve hentai on a principle).
Fencedude said:
Oh....ok....that still seems more than a bit strange, all things considered.
Not very, if you consider that I was originally the one who bugged albert into adding the rating system, way back in the old danbooru days. I don't appreciate hentai, and as such see no reason to approve it.
I originally created the watermark tag when we had a bunch of stuff uploaded branded with "www.hentaiharddrive.com" watermarks and was intended for things of that nature, not artist signatures and the like. I would never condone cropping off the artists signature and if an image has been branded by a third party it is better just to find a clean copy than to crop it.
If I found a really nice image that was slightly marred by a watermark but could not identify the source or artist, I may upload it and ask if anyone could identify it (and I believe I have done so in the past).
