|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Topics - ShadySue
101
« on: December 13, 2012, 18:50 »
102
« on: December 07, 2012, 17:33 »
103
« on: December 02, 2012, 19:22 »
Just got an email offering 20% off credit packs if bought within the next 24 hours.
"One day only
Save 20% on any iStock credit pack for the next 24 hours using promo code xxx. Then do a little happy dance because each time you download an iStock file youre bringing us one step closer to our giving goal."
So I guess contributors are having to pay as usual for the reduction, ergo we are paying for their charity giving thingy despite the promise that we wouldn't.
"In case youre wondering, this will have no impact on your royalties. You might even see a nice boost in downloads."
See, always ambiguities, as we'll have the same royalty percentage on a lower total. Maybe we'll see the 'nice boost in downloads'. </Pollyanna>
104
« on: November 20, 2012, 06:40 »
105
« on: November 19, 2012, 16:19 »
From which phones are mobilestock pics being accepted?
iPhone4/5 and ... ?
Edited because for no good reason I put 'cameras' in the SL and my question.
106
« on: November 15, 2012, 06:28 »
In however long I've been using computers, I've never had this problem. Printer drivers have installed first time and lasted until either the printer or the computer expired. I have an Epson stylus photo 1400 printer. I used it with my last computer, and on this computer without any driver problems until a couple of months back. Suddenly, when I wanted to print anything, no matter how simple, it took about 20 minutes between pressing print and the printer even starting. Even with a very basic, short Word file. It seemed that the Epson printer driver had just disappeared from my computer, without me doing anything. Presumably some system or software upgrade (?). So I downloaded what purported to be the Epson driver from their website. It didn't look or work like the Epson driver I got or the CD, but at least it printed just after I hit 'print', but only for plain print. I have no options in PS to print on glossy paper or do any tweaks, etc. So yesterday, as I need to print out a proper photo, I went back to Epson and tried to download a driver. It kept telling me that the printer was not connected to the computer. This is patently untrue, as both before and after getting the 'not connected' message, I could still print out simple documents on plain paper, out of Word or Photoshop. (Have no idea what driver it's using, as the proper driver isn't showing anywhere, and although the printer ink drop is flashing, I'm not getting the on screen message. I've stopped and started the printer, plugged the USB cable into a diferent USB socket when prompted etc. Surprisingly, I found the original printer CD, and this morning when I switched on the computer, I started again from the CD. After several rounds of trying, I fired up PS, only to save screenshots of what messages I'm getting. (the instructions say not to have any other apps running, and I just wanted to make clear I didn't have PS running for a few times I was trying. So here's what I'm getting when trying to install from CD:  and this is the next screen:  Hitting the problem solver leads to just a blank pale blue page. If I go back to the beginning and choose custom install, I very quickly get this:  Clicking manual gives me a lot of ports to choose from, none of which seem relevant (but WDIK?) and hitting cancel takes me out of the whole installation process. Trying to install from a downloaded exe from Epson's site just gets me to the second and third image above. Online,the problem solver just tells me to connect the computer to the USB, no more suggestions. Yes, I am taking the USB out before I start and putting it in when I get the prompt, and I've tried two different USB ports. Note as above that the printer does work, it's not like something is dead. Any suggestions before I go onto live help? (I've not had much luck with anyone else's live help - they always seem to stick rigidly to a 'script' that doesn't match my problem.) TIA Any suggestions before I throw myself at the mercy
107
« on: November 14, 2012, 19:36 »
So, 20 of my E+s have made it to Getty, not one since last Sunday (4th).
One of them has no keywords, which I see is some sort of bug.
But one has keywords, but some vital ones from my iStock keywords are missing. This looks deliberate, not a bug, but I'm really unhappy about it.
My iStock keywords:
Bird, Animals Feeding, Siskin, Eurasian Siskin, Lesser Redpoll, Redpoll, Finch, Two Animals, Passerine, Bird Feeder, Perching, Animals In The Wild, Wildlife, Nature, Selective Focus, Scotland, UK, Europe, Male Animal, Color Image, Photography, Horizontal, Nobody, Food, Seed, Sunflower Seed, Sunflower Hearts, Gripping
Getty keywords:
Food, Nature, Wildlife, Horizontal, Focus, Differential Focus, Europe, Feeding, UK, Scotland, Animals In The Wild, Bird, Finch, Seed, Perching, Colour Image, Gripping, Bird Feeder, Two Animals, No People, Male Animal, Photography, Redpoll, Sunflower Seed, Songbird.
Why on earth would they take out one of the two species completely, and only leave a generic Redpoll and take out the actual species name, Lesser Redpoll? 'Passerine' is far more correct than 'songbird' as a generic.
I think they're trying to tell me/us something.
E+ are mostly lost in the best match on iStock, and they take useful keywords out of the keywords at Getty.
I'm still banned from iStock forums and SM. Is there any way I can contact Getty directly about the expunged keywords?
Many other files also have the species name taken out of the keywords. Luckily, the titles seem to be searchable on Getty (?), but it still seems a bit odd.
108
« on: November 08, 2012, 11:07 »
Probably very temporary, but suddenly get nothing but white pages on iStock.
Went to Chrome and there was a Whoops error cartoon.
But working OK on IE.
Hopefully a few second's hiccup.
ETA: Yes working fine again on FF. It was the three different results that I was noting.
109
« on: October 25, 2012, 17:14 »
.
110
« on: October 19, 2012, 04:46 »
I don't do Twitter, but I read this on iStock's forum and don't see any reason to imagine it's not true:
"This posted a few hours ago on Twitter
iStock @iStock
Tomorrow's a big day in our office! We are having a Rock, Paper, Scissors Tournament. Any tips you'd like to pass on to our participants?"
Words fail me. Everyone should be manning the lifeboats, including the masseuse and the office cleaner.
Fiddling while Rome burns is just too facile a comparison.
111
« on: October 18, 2012, 06:38 »
Anyone taken out a Scout ticket recently and know how long they are taking?
I've had a ticket out since 8th Sept and it's a simple non-issue.
112
« on: October 18, 2012, 06:02 »
I've just uploaded to iStock a photo relating to outdoor city Christmas Lights. However, 'Christmas Lights' DAs only to 'Fairy Lights'. As I often seem to get keywording Godzilla (who removes e.g. 'horizontal' from horizontal photos and 'growth' from a plantation photo), they are sure to remove 'fairy lights', even though I've put a note in the description, and as I'm banned I can't post to the keywords forum or SM Ducksandwich.
Anyone know a different term for city centre outdoors municipal Christmas Lights?
TIA
113
« on: October 09, 2012, 18:27 »
About three weeks ago, I had a sale, obviously by the same buyer, of both of these editorial images I have at iStock.  A few days later, I found the image being used in a composite to illustrate a story.  Apart from the appalling compositing skills, is this type of alteration acceptable according to iStock's rules (apart from fact that it is credited to Getty rather than iStock/Liz Leyden as per iStock's t&c for crediting editorial images). Now, according to this page, http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=1192, there is no actual forbidding of this sort of use of an editorial image: " What are editorial images?Editorial images are unaltered shots of specific brands, people, places, events and products. You'll find relevant imagery from Brad Pitt to the latest Apple product to world events and more.How can I use editorial images?iStock's editorial images provide specific context for your newspaper or magazine article, blog posts, websites and non-commercial presentations. The only thing that makes them different from the rest of our collection is that they can only be used this way. So as long as you're not using them for advertising, marketing, promotional or commercial purposes, they're safe to use. "In this article also,there isno forbidding about that sort of use:  So, does that mean that any elements in an editorial photo can be taken out, digitally altered and composited into a totally different context, so long as it isn't a commercial use? Of course, I tried to get some sort of ruling from CR about this. On 24th September (> 2 weeks ago) I wrote: ~~~~~~~~~~~~ My editorial photo: [as above] Heavily altered photo composite: [as above] Are iStock's editorial photos allowed to be used that way? I can not imagine that they can be. Slainte ~~~~~~~~~~~~ I added further info, first to the source of the composite (I found it first on a copying site), than another that the photo was around the 26th or 27th to be found on over 20 websites. I have had no reply to this support ticket and it has fallen off my open tickets list (but an outstanding Scout ticket from 8th Sept is still showing there). So, is this a legitimate use of an editorial file? What if the person had been cut out of the photo, altered and composited into a totally different context? This is a really important principle, IMO. Liz
114
« on: October 09, 2012, 17:03 »
OK, so at the top of msg, I see a message from iStock which says: "It's back! You can add to your lightbox again on individual pages. Just click "add to lightbox" under any item http://t.co/03TiqWMc" I've tried a random file, and I've clicked the link to the favoured/featured file, but I'm too blind to see the link.  Didn't it used to be just below the main pic? I even ran a 'find' for the text 'add to lightbox' on that page and it didn't throw up an instance of the text. Is it me, or is it them? I don't see any mention of it on iStock, only on the tweet at the top of msg's home page.
115
« on: October 01, 2012, 07:00 »
I realise it's considered invidious to single out individual images, but I can't see how I can ask this question otherwise. Plus, this photo is in iStock's HotShots newsletter which popped into my inbox a couple of minutes ago: http://tinyurl.com/9c4rr9dIt's from Getty's Flickr collection. There are two people in the photo. I can't zoom in to see how recogniseable they are, but surely at least they are 'recogniseable by context'. But the Release information says: "No release, but this image does not require a release. This image is available for commercial use." Is it just 'different rules' for Getty RF than iStock RF (non-editorial)?
116
« on: September 20, 2012, 05:19 »
Slightly confused about whether this should be in photography, cameras/lenses or here.
I seem to have acquired a hot/dead pixel. It's bright neon orange. Having googled, I have to point out that it's not when using long exposures; I'm working on trying to capture small birds in flight (that way lies madness) and am using speeds upwards of 1/1250th.
It's dead obvious in these photos, because I have a defocussed green background, but in other pics I can't find it at all, presumably because it more nearly matches the background.
I'm guessing all I can do is make a layer with a target around the pixel, and save it out as a transparent png so that every time I import an image from RAW, I put the png over it so that I can see and eliminate the pixel.
Is there anything I can do to easily find it in RAW - sometimes I haven't found it after five minutes at 200%? Or is there another way I haven't found yet?
(Yeah, I know the obvious thing is to buy a new camera, but that's out of the question ATM, especially with sales almost non-existent.)
117
« on: September 17, 2012, 04:50 »
If you go to iStock's Home page and click on Photos, or indeed click on the Photos link at the top of any page, you can opt to go directly to Editorial photos.
After a few seconds of thinking that a lot of mine are missing, I noticed that the default is a filter for only those uploaded in the past six months.
However, if I click to get rid of the 'past six months' filter in the left hand search column, the search goes blank and I get the blank page with 'tell us more'.
This is just ludicrous. Although some editorial is timely, a lot is not. And some very timely but dwindling in interest photos, like those with an Olympic theme, or 'hot news' will be up for a while yet.
Other editorial images, like tourist areas, commecial buildings, statues, postage stamps, and the castles they now think must be editorial (including the non-castles and never-were-castles-but-are-castellated) which won't change in their relevance are removed from searching in that way.
IMO for many editorial images, especially without people or things like shop windows or technology, which go out of fashion, the six month filter is ridiculous. My best selling editorial image was taken almost 2 years ago, but I bet it looks exactly the same today, however I'm not about to fly over to the US to check.
Agreed, a proportion of buyers won't search that way, but if they have it as an option to get into editorial from the photos page, it should surely be fully functional.
Anyone else get the same results? I get it in FF/Win logged in and IE/Win and Chrome/Win logged out, most recent versions of each.
118
« on: September 13, 2012, 14:03 »
Thought to be the oldest colour footage in the world. The inventor/photographer died at 29, before he'd worked out how to project it, so it was never seen until now. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19423951
119
« on: September 10, 2012, 14:30 »
I thought Pipe Band was in the CV as a keyword phrase, but it turns out that it isn't. Trying it without quotes leads to loads of image with pipes in them but no 'band' in their keywords. Weird enough. I then searched "Pipe Band" in quotes, and as I my previous search had been on dls, that was the sort I got. All well and good. Then I changed to Best Match, and I went back to the pipe, band results (FF):  So I tried again, not logged in, in IE. This time the default sort was best match, and I got expected results. Switch to downloads, and it goes back to pipe, band:  
120
« on: September 06, 2012, 14:03 »
I've had three increments on my Royalty, but only the middle one is showing as a download. (not DB, subs or tiny ELs) I.e. my total jumped by $20.29, but only one L is recorded (c$7) I see a couple of posts on that on the 'New ways to pay' thread, but it doesn't seem to be a universal issue. Could it be that any cash sales aren't showing up in 'My Downloads? (I thought about working out what my % at different sizes of cash sales would be, but I see prices in , not $. I guess I can change this in preferences. Just checked: not from the preferences in the sidebar.) Anyone else it's happening to? Anyone know why it's happening? Added: I did a double-check just before I posted, and the stats for the file that was recorded as having been downloaded are all over the place. Note that it is an Exc file, not Exc plus. Note that the total sales is recorded as 6 and that the total royalty is $17.37. But just look at the recorded prices in the list below. 225 matches, apparently many of them in August. This just changed over the past 20-ish minutes, since I started composing this SM:  Can we trust ANY of their figures?
121
« on: September 05, 2012, 19:50 »
122
« on: September 05, 2012, 19:38 »
OK, I nearly don't use flash, but I have a Sigma EF-500 DG Super which I had used on-camera twice on a local night festival years ago on my old 350D. Then I discovered a couple of weeks ago it doesn't work reliably with the 5DMkII, though it does work with the 40D. (I emailled Sigma who confirmed its incompatibility with the 5D2. They said if it was a v2 it could b made compatible, but as it doesn't say it's a v2, I have to assume it isn't)
So I bought a Canon 430 EXII.
I can get either one of them to work wirelessly off the 40D, but can't get them to work together, i.e. to go off at the same time. (Both receivers are working independently, so I don't think that's the problem.)
I also can't seem go get them to master/slave optically.
It's probably me, as I haven't a clue about this stuff, but I do have the Canon Speedliter's Handbook, which is goodish, but sometimes seems to miss out steps for the totally clueless, as does Strobist.
Anyway, can anyone tell me if they should work together (either wirelessly off the 40D, or optically master/slave), in which case I'll stick at it until I get it worked out, or if there's no way, therefore I'll try to sell the Sigma and get another Canon eventually. No point in wasting time and getting frustrated it if just can't work.
TIA
123
« on: August 14, 2012, 06:17 »
I tried to get the editorial property consent form from the revised editorial manual http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=939and I get this message: " Contributor resources
File not available
The file you requested, "Editorial Property Consent Form.zip", is not currently available for public download."There are two links, a general one, and an 'all languages' one, and both return this message. Could someone else please try the links and see if you can get them, or if it's just me? TIA.
124
« on: August 13, 2012, 06:36 »
Last week I was shooting an army ceremonial unit practicing their drills, and I'm amazed how many of them drill with their eyes closed. Not just blinking, the same people have their eyes closed in too many pictures for that. Makes them look as though they're sleeping while marching and has ruined my photos! 
125
« on: July 17, 2012, 17:55 »
In the interest of balance, I'll share a pleasant surprise I had today. I get very, very few iStock sub sales and until now they've always been very low value, as though the buyer had used up all their credits. But today I got a sub sale from yesterday which was a M for which I got $11.30 (30%). It's not even an E+ file.  Anyone else won the sub jackpot?
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
