Watermark API – $0.01/image, 10x cheaper than Cloudinary

(up.railway.app)

4 points | by lembergs 2 hours ago

1 comments

  • lembergs 2 hours ago
    I built a dead-simple watermarking API because existing solutions (Cloudinary, imgix) are overkill and expensive for developers who just need to slap a logo on images.

    - $0.01/image or $19/mo unlimited - 50 free images to test - 5-minute integration - API-first, no dashboard bloat

    Built in 7 hours. Looking for feedback from developers who've struggled with this problem.

    Try it: https://api-production-caa8.up.railway.app/docs ```

    ## Additional Context for Discussion

    If the post gains traction, be prepared to discuss:

    ### Technical Details

    - Built with Node.js, Express, Sharp for image processing - Uses Cloudflare R2 for storage (S3-compatible, cheaper than S3) - PostgreSQL for tracking usage and credits - Stripe for payments - Deployed on Railway.app

    ### Why This Exists

    - Cloudinary charges $0.10-0.15 per image for watermarking - imgix starts at $199/month for basic features - Many developers just need simple batch watermarking - Existing solutions require complex dashboards and setup

    ### Performance

    - Watermarks 1,000 images in under 2 minutes - Batch processing up to 100 images at once - Returns ZIP files for batch downloads - All processing happens server-side

    ### Pricing Comparison

    - *Our API:* $0.01/image or $19/month for 2,500 images - *Cloudinary:* $0.10-0.15/image (10-15x more expensive) - *imgix:* $199/month minimum (10x more expensive for similar volume)

    ### Use Cases

    - E-commerce sites watermarking product photos - Photographers adding logos to portfolios - Social media managers branding images - Developers building apps that need image watermarking

    • romanderyo 1 hour ago
      Honest question: does integrating with this API require more code than just using Sharp directly? Especially now that anyone can ask an AI to write the watermarking script for them.
      • lembergs 6 minutes ago
        Fair. If you’re a dev watermarking a few images, Sharp directly is the obvious choice.

        This exists for cases where Sharp is annoying, not hard: - offloading CPU-heavy image work from your servers - batch jobs (hundreds of images → one API call + ZIP) - no-code / Zapier / Make users

        Not targeting solo devs who like writing image pipelines. More for agencies, no-code users, and apps that want “watermarking as a service.”

        Genuinely curious if “Sharp as a Service” is a clearer framing — or if this just isn’t painful enough to justify an API.