21–30 of 399 posts
My go to these days is just open gimp -> use my tablet pen -> save again to PDF. I've never been questioned.
I'm no way affiliated to foxit but that functionality there works. And saves trees.
Signing documents with visual signatures instead of cryptographic ones is already extremely archaic, but having to make them look like being signed by hand is absurdly so.
What's the use case of this? Signing documents with visual signatures instead of cryptographic ones is already extremely archaic, but having to make them look like being signed by hand is absurdly so.
Honest question: As long as you say you signed it, and you say it's your signature, does it matter how real it looks?
First comment posts a way to achieve something similar with imagemagick, which I've been using flawlessly since.
There are so may options, e.g.:
convert -density 100 -blur 0x0.1 +noise Gaussian -colorspace gray -rotate 0.5 -attenuate 0.2 mypdf.pdf scan.pdfAnyway, businesses still like to do it this way ("Signing" pdf by applying some pixels). I wonder if it is just an inconvenience to overcome both for businesses and consumers that just write this off and don't bother that it is such a weak binding. It is like some dirty workaround/hack to put those silly signatures on digital documents to get stuff done.
Honest question: As long as you say you signed it, and you say it's your signature, does it matter how real it looks?
Honest question: As long as you say you signed it, and you say it's your signature, does it matter how real it looks?
I think the goal is to minimize the risk of someone rejecting your document because it looks photoshopped.
Preview on Mac OS can do this. You hold your signature up to the camera and then it creates an image you can add to any pdf.
Tools like this will skew and degrade the image in a similar way to a scanner so that it fits this ridiculous requirement