Nav: Home
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 23, 2012, 10:31

Login with username, password and session length

MicrostockGroup

Microstockgroup Sponsors


« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print

Topic: Anyone else have their image descriptions altered at Bigstock or other agencies?  

(Read 1196 times)
jcpjr


Dreamstime GaugeiStock Gauge
« on: July 13, 2010, 13:22 »

Can, and do other agencies modify your image descriptions? I would think a quick note to the contributor would be in place. I have several that have been "added to" following a **NOTE:  after the description.

RE:  http://www.bigstockphoto.com/image-3597842/

It's not a big deal, it's just that I'm not crazy about them suggesting the buyer purchase a smaller size...."of course that's just my opinion, I could be wrong."


Ignore | Logged


DepositPhotos.com
WarrenPrice

Dreamstime GaugeiStock Gauge
« Reply #1 on: July 13, 2010, 13:25 »

It's not uncommon at BS.  I haven't actually had the description altered but have experienced the NOTE that you mentioned, suggesting there was some digital noise or softness at extreme sizes.

I don't know what effect it may have had on sales.  I don't sell enough there to make a judgment Tongue


Ignore | Logged


jcpjr


Dreamstime GaugeiStock Gauge
« Reply #2 on: July 13, 2010, 13:47 »

Thanks Warren, I guess I never notice it before...


Ignore | Logged


Artemis


« Reply #3 on: July 13, 2010, 14:21 »

I have one with that note as well; it doesn't bother me. I prefer them adding it (and preventing buyer complaints afterwards) instead of just rejecting it for noise.


Ignore | Logged


cclapper
« Reply #4 on: July 13, 2010, 15:39 »

I haven't seen those types of notes before. Most of the sites would reject the photo if there were any graininess at all, so on the bright side, at least it has a shot at selling. But I do know what you mean. Some buyers may not even notice the graininess, depending on how it is used. I see why you wouldn't be crazy about them adding it.

I thought most sites offered refunds to buyers if they purchase an image they aren't happy with. So I don't understand why they would take the chance of losing a sale and pointing out something that may not matter. ??


Ignore | Logged


LSD72



« Reply #5 on: July 13, 2010, 16:23 »

I have had a couple changed to better wording before...which I didn't mind.


Ignore | Logged


dirkr

Dreamstime Gauge
« Reply #6 on: July 13, 2010, 16:57 »

I haven't seen any of those notes on my pictures yet, but BS does some other, very subtle but completely mysterious changes to the titles of my pictures.

Lots of my photos are wildlife, and usually the title is the name of the animal - common name and scientific name in parenthesis. As is common with scientific names, they usually have two words, first one starting with a capital letter, second one not.

What happens to me at BS (seems to be some kind of software problem, because it happens every time) is that the capitalization (<- is that how it is called  Huh) is changed for the scientific names - first word without capital letter in front, second with. Only in the Title, not in the description...

http://www.bigstockphoto.com/image-4876181/stock-photo-african-fish-eagle-haliaeetus-vocifer

Not that it matters, but this certainly the weirdest bug in IPTC processing I have ever come across...


Ignore | Logged


madelaide
« Reply #7 on: July 13, 2010, 17:07 »

I have seen that before too, on a few images.  I don't remember which ones, so I can not post an example here. I also don't remember they were something unique enough to explain having been approved with some flaw.


Ignore | Logged


WarrenPrice

Dreamstime GaugeiStock Gauge
« Reply #8 on: July 13, 2010, 18:12 »

I need to mention too that the specific image to which I refer is the picture of a white tail buck and fawn touching noses.  Big Stock suggested it should be used only in smaller sizes.  Dreamstime, Shutterstock and 123rf have all sold that same image for EL licenses.  Big Stock's loss?   Huh Tongue


Ignore | Logged


jcpjr


Dreamstime GaugeiStock Gauge
« Reply #9 on: July 14, 2010, 09:26 »

I haven't seen those types of notes before. Most of the sites would reject the photo if there were any graininess at all, so on the bright side, at least it has a shot at selling. But I do know what you mean. Some buyers may not even notice the graininess, depending on how it is used. I see why you wouldn't be crazy about them adding it.

I thought most sites offered refunds to buyers if they purchase an image they aren't happy with. So I don't understand why they would take the chance of losing a sale and pointing out something that may not matter. ??

I couldn't have said it better...

What's really funny about this is the buyer purchased it at the largest size anyway...go figure!


Ignore | Logged


WarrenPrice

Dreamstime GaugeiStock Gauge
« Reply #10 on: July 14, 2010, 15:12 »

I need to mention too that the specific image to which I refer is the picture of a white tail buck and fawn touching noses.  Big Stock suggested it should be used only in smaller sizes.  Dreamstime, Shutterstock and 123rf have all sold that same image for EL licenses.  Big Stock's loss?   Huh Tongue

This is just down right eerie:  that picture sold twice today on 123rf.  One is XL and the other is XXL. 

So there, Big Stock.  LOL


Ignore | Logged


Envateo Photo ToolsMicrostock Insider
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


TinyPortal v1.0.5 beta 1© Bloc