What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
114 Comments
- iSeven, on 12/21/2008, -0/+192A true mark of a cheap graphic designer
- m1zl3d, on 12/21/2008, -2/+143Question: When you watermark a picture of a watermarked image... Who truly has rights to the picture?
- Nyaos, on 12/21/2008, -0/+128Seriously, how does no one notice that in the design process?
- pe5t1lence, on 12/21/2008, -4/+100Yo dawg! I heard yo like watermarks, so we put a watermark on yo watermark so yo can show ownership while yo show ownership.
- chrisaug18, on 12/21/2008, -0/+75Noticing != Caring
- Ockniel, on 12/21/2008, -0/+61bad graphic designer*
if he were simply cheap, he'd edit out the watermark :p - Ericdigital, on 12/21/2008, -1/+53Come on guys be fair. Photoshop is hard
http://i272.photobucket.com/albums/jj166/erichart3 ... - LukeUlrich, on 12/21/2008, -3/+45Photoshopdisasters for the original.
http://photoshopdisasters.blogspot.com/2008/12/dud ... - popzero, on 12/21/2008, -0/+32The design process could've gone like this:
Client: I need a banner by tomorrow!
Designer: OK, here's a proof. Here's what it will cost.
Client: I'm not paying that much!
Designer: OK, find someone else to do it for you.
Result:
Client takes PDF proof to low end print shop.
Yes, it happens. Cheap, fast, or good, pick 2. - stinkypyper, on 12/21/2008, -7/+36I found the stock image:
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup/food-and-d ...
Cheers. - randypanda, on 12/21/2008, -16/+43I fail to understand the failure of this fail picture with all its failness in tact can we fail to post fail pictures on digg? The word fail is ***** annoying.
Fail. - oldcrows40, on 12/21/2008, -1/+27and so the paradox begins.
- somekid413, on 12/21/2008, -2/+24can you watermark the watermark?
- PRlME, on 12/21/2008, -1/+21corny but i will digg it
- RJ0534, on 12/21/2008, -4/+22Something tells me alcohol may have been involved...
- WorldLeader, on 12/21/2008, -2/+18I feel like the lamer part of this picture is that this hotel holds "Oktoberfest" every night.
- getjustin, on 12/21/2008, -2/+18As someone who deals with purchasing iStock a few times a week, let me explain how this happens. When you're proofing a design, you download a comp (a watermarked image) to show the client, letting them know the final won't have the big "X." Once approved, you make the purchase from iStock and relink your images. This is where the mistakes happen. If those links aren't made you get this.
One of the first times I used iStock I had a client run a job (about 1,000 course note covers) with a proof that I had sent them...with a watermark....at about 40 dpi....
While I'm sure there are plenty of times (most times) where you have just plain dumb designers, there is a legitimate reason for this mistake. - wastern, on 12/21/2008, -0/+14forget? you don't look at the image before you send it off?
- inactive, on 12/21/2008, -0/+14They were drunk. Duh.
- 4rp4n3t, on 12/21/2008, -0/+12How can you tell...?
- willster580, on 12/21/2008, -2/+13Fail needs to die a horribly painful death.
- Kajico, on 12/21/2008, -2/+12I've seen this happen before, lots of designers use the cheap watermark download as a placeholder till the customer approves the layout and then they go purchase it. Sometimes it happens where the final goes out before the new purchased graphic is properly relinked. Usually the printer is supposed to catch it, but some printers will just run it and say "Well hey, that's how they gave it to us" and will refuse to take responsibility. Always go with a printer that gives you a digital proof of what you send them.
- smrekar, on 12/21/2008, -0/+10bad editor or poster shop. they should see what they print and call the designer.
- econofast, on 12/21/2008, -0/+10Like this: Designer comes up with a few different designs, using comps from istockphoto. "Let me know which one you like and I'll buy the photo," he says, naively. To which his pointy-haired boss replies, via email, at midnight, "Number 3 is great. I sent it to the vendor. Tx."
- percypersimmon, on 12/21/2008, -0/+9*golf clap*
- 4rp4n3t, on 12/21/2008, -0/+9Yes, because it really IS that easy to take a good photo, scan it, post process it...
- gamebittk, on 12/21/2008, -1/+10Well if you would have taken a look at the comments in the first one, you would have seen that the URL 404'd.
- msaleem, on 12/21/2008, -4/+13Thanks for the clarification. Digg down my comment (I dugg the older story before it 404'd btw).
- Petestreet, on 12/21/2008, -4/+12What's a design process?
- sporkman22, on 12/21/2008, -1/+9i'm more interested how they were able to get a watermarked image that was mostly likely in the 200-300 px range/poor dpi blown up to banner size and still have it look decent, albeit with a giant watermark on it.
- rpieszak, on 12/21/2008, -0/+7No, not really
- bjorna, on 12/21/2008, -1/+8by the pixels ;)
- smrekar, on 12/21/2008, -0/+7apparently no one does. explain.
- MacSuxWindozSux, on 12/21/2008, -0/+7no.
- thebuggalo, on 12/21/2008, -2/+9except the very first one...
- inactive, on 12/21/2008, -4/+11buried for thinking that this is your clan forum
- inactive, on 12/21/2008, -0/+7Once a client did this to me.
He skipped out on the design bill and printed one of the proofs I gave him. - stinkypyper, on 12/21/2008, -0/+7"So you actually got up this morning, did some random stuff.. Look at Digg for interesting stuff, found a picture of a iStockphoto watermark on some banner."
Actually, I did it drunk last night when I got home.
"Go to iStockphoto, brows around for few minutes, found picture you saw on banner."
Actually is took only seconds. Searching for "Beer Glass" brings it up in the first few pages.
"Go to digg coments and posted that picture hopping to get digss ?"
I don't give a flying ***** if I get any diggs. Clearly by implying this you seem to care.
"Cheezz.. social dependence is very, very sick thing !"
Are you retarded? Your the one putting someone down in an internet forum? Read that sentence again and then think about it.
Why does it bother you so much that someone went and fact-checked? Did you make this banner? - DudeCantDraw, on 12/21/2008, -1/+7Took me a second, but the "istockphoto" watermark is actually ON the sign. That's the fail.
- sinembarg0, on 12/21/2008, -1/+7it's just an easier than typing ≠.
- onestrawplz, on 12/21/2008, -0/+6please don't do that ever again
- phogster, on 12/21/2008, -2/+8Yo Dawg, we put a watermark in your watermark so you can fail while you fail.
- BodomX, on 12/21/2008, -2/+7It took me a while too, but pretty much someone printed this so they could use it on their sign.
- DanBoodro, on 12/21/2008, -1/+6Shopped!
- punkcat, on 12/21/2008, -0/+5or a small bar an no one gives a *****
- Panace9, on 12/21/2008, -0/+4There are a lot of plugins for Photoshop that work quite well for doing this. OnOne Genuine Fractals and Alien Skin Blow Up both are good for resizing images. I use both depending on the picture as each will give slightly different results.
- inactive, on 12/21/2008, -6/+10If he's too cheap to buy the pic he could have at least spent five minutes editing out the watermark.
- xamox, on 12/22/2008, -1/+5http://www.stopsayingfail.com/
- Spoomeister, on 12/21/2008, -0/+4Isn't this photo technically beermarked?
- BetterOffEd, on 12/21/2008, -0/+4WHOOSH
-
Show 51 - 100 of 118 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 