Is there a way to create a watermark in either Photoshop or Lightroom that is "smart" in that you can customize it to pull data from the metadata of the photo (date/time image was taken, lens used, camera body used, etc.) or file information (folder, subfolder, etc.) ?
Due to lack of having this flexible/automated watermark functionality I digged into the web and found the plugin "PT Watermark", which works fine for the metadata I use.
8 years guys. We finally got the ability to put LR menu items in an order, so I guess you can slip this one in now into the Print module (or export). EIGHT YEARS. 8. 6 of those paid using the subscription model for updates and fixes. Much is faster the past 2 majors, but some of these workaday requests / things you should be collecting and prioritizing or just telling people it's not going to be done and maybe why. It makes Adobe look totally unresponsive to paying customer input... just my $.02.
Please add my name to the list of people that have assumed that this functionality would be (a) very easy to add into your products, (b) likely already present from 8 years ago, when btw this thread started, (c) _shocked_ that it's not here.
Silly Adobe, what could possibly be the reason to not allow custom creation of watermarks using your already quite sophisticated advanced (and still I might highly intuitive) UI (e.g. behind the Edit Watermark option), such that you can add in meta-data fields to the watermark in the same way you can do so for the filename. Seems to me, you've already got all the code right there and ready to be stitched together, probably even have a 50% complete test suite too!
Reimporting files is probably not the best way forward as it will lose your edits. You would be better served to use the Import from another catalog... menu option as it will retain all your work.
It sounds like you have a corrupt catalog. Do you have a backup you can use?
You can use LR/Mogrify plugin for achieving this with LR Classic 9.4. I just tried it and it works like a charm. If you want to export more than 10 images you have to donate 3.5 euros min else it works for free with less than 10 images.
It would be great if we had more capabilities in building text-based watermarks similar to what we can do with the Filename Template Editor where we can incorportate fields from the exif to build the watermark.
My current watermarks include the year, so I am forced to create a separate watermark for each year.
If we were able to input an expression such as: {Year Taken}, My Name
I could have ONE watermark that would automatically show the Year the photo was taken and my name.
Not exactly. I don't just process photos in the year they were taken. I often re-process images years later as improvements arrive in postprocessing software. When I export them I need to use the watermark for the year the image was taken. I also create multiple watermarks each year positioned in different spots on images (left corner, center, right corner).
Hence with about 20 years of work I can have 60 watermarks in the list.
If the watermark was "intelligent", I would only need three.
After printing my pictures, I spend a lot of time writing the date of shot behind every picture.
It would be very useful to insert some kind of variable watermark that adds some EXIF data during the export phase. So it would be printed on every picture automatically.
*cicciodylan I use the Photo Info in the Print module and print (nearly) borderless prints I reserve a small margin along one edge of the print (small enough to be covered by a matte or frame), My Print information includes the file name so that I can tie each print back to the cataloged image. Capture date could be used as well but there is nothing in the capture date to tie back to the catalogued image. A renamed image file could include the capture date in the name and achieve both a time stamp and a tie back to the catalog file.
Why merge this feature request into a feature request that is 9 years old? Is there any expectation that Adobe is going to act on a 9 year old feature request. Or is the attempt to bury the new request so deep that it will never see the light of day.
I think a 9 year old feature request should be closed with a notice that Adobe is or is not going to take action on the feature request. Or is Adobe unwilling to admit that they will consider such feature request as meritless?
If a request will not be acted upon - it is tagged as Not Planned with a badge at the top of the thread. That has not happened here.
Regardless of the age of the original request all new requests are merged with the authoritative thread so that Product Management can review, in one place, the aggregate counts & comments. We don't bury things.
This is primarily for Watermarks, but I imagine it would be useful elsewhere in the application.
When using a text watermark, I would like to be able to use metadata in parts of the watermark. Here is a common scenario, preparing photos for an online gallery:
Build an export preset for the gallery, using pixel dimensions, file type, compression, and watermark. The watermark is a copyright notice to appear in the corner of the image.
Both the year of creation/modification and copyright holder can be metadata items for a photo. I want to be able to use them to build watermarks. Thus, I can export photos from multiple years with multiple accurate copyright years.
Another example, exporting a photo for technical uses with location and date as a watermark:
The place where I most need custom data (the year, in particular) in Lightroom watermarks is in the Web module. Today I'm creating a fairly large group of individual galleries for the editor at a publishing client with photos created between 1996 and 2021. Best practice is to have the date the photo was created in the visible watermark I put on each photo. Creating these galleries in Lightroom's Web module is the fastest, easiest way to do it but I have to settle for putting the same year in the watermark of all photos.
I use LR/Mogrify and have created export presets which pull from metadata, including year created. But doing that means exporting the photos, with watermarks, and then using another tool to build my web galleries. My Mogrify export preset includes the filename, a copyright notice with the year created, and my web address.
I can also export "naked" files into a folder and use Breeze Browser to build my web galleries. That's a program I've been using since long before Lightroom came on the market and it works well. But again, it's two extra steps, a whole bunch of intermediate files, and more chances to make an error.
It seems like it should be relatively simple to add this functionality to the watermarking function in Lightroom. Certainly easier than the complex masking recently introduced in the Develop module.
I am finding it very complex and time consuming for my customers to be able to identify what photo they are looking at after it has been posted online. When there is a group of photos of a set theme, it becomes hard to explain what is being looked at in one photo compared to another.
We need the ability to not only have a generic watermark across all photos being exported at the same time but be able to have things like the file name used as well.
Having the ability to input up to 4 separate watermarks would solve most issues and help us be able to accomplish things much easier.
I looked online and even spoke to the Adobe staff, there is no way to have a watermark that is different for each image unless you input the information and export 1 photo at a time. This is way too time consuming and in all fairness a complete joke considering what computers are capable of doing today.
This problem has now slowed down my ability to upload my images online for my customers to see and be able to identify clearly what photos they are looking at so much that it will now take me several days to accomplish a task that a computer can do in a few minutes.
Please make it so we can have different types of watermarks on photos at the same time.
I have had a look into LR/Mogrify 2 and it seems like a decent app.
However to use the full version a donation must be made to the developers. This is a disgrace and Adobe will be billed for any charges that are incurred.
If Adobe wants their customers to use third party apps, they should have the decency to at least provide a full version of the app itself to their customers.
I already pay for Lightroom, now I have to pay for an app to do something Lightroom should handle no problems?
This is yet another reason I am totally unsatisfied with Adobe in general. If anyone knows of another program out there similar to Lightroom please let me know. I will use that instead of paying for crippled software provided by a company that has no respect for its paying customers.
I don't know why Adobe keeps holding back on the implementation of this watermark feature. Let me shine the light in their faces for a change:
CLEARLY IF A THIRD PARTY APP HAS BEEN CREATED THEN IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THIS FEATURE IS IN HIGH DEMAND.
82
Replies
AdChoices