pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Anyone else have their image descriptions altered at Bigstock or other agencies?  (Read 4865 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: July 13, 2010, 13:22 »
0
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."


WarrenPrice

« Reply #1 on: July 13, 2010, 13:25 »
0
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 :P

« Reply #2 on: July 13, 2010, 13:47 »
0
Thanks Warren, I guess I never notice it before...

« Reply #3 on: July 13, 2010, 14:21 »
0
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.

« Reply #4 on: July 13, 2010, 15:39 »
0
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. ??

LSD72

  • My Bologna has a first name...
« Reply #5 on: July 13, 2010, 16:23 »
0
I have had a couple changed to better wording before...which I didn't mind.

« Reply #6 on: July 13, 2010, 16:57 »
0
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  ???) 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...

« Reply #7 on: July 13, 2010, 17:07 »
0
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.

WarrenPrice

« Reply #8 on: July 13, 2010, 18:12 »
0
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?   ??? :P

« Reply #9 on: July 14, 2010, 09:26 »
0
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!

WarrenPrice

« Reply #10 on: July 14, 2010, 15:12 »
0
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?   ??? :P

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


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
93 Replies
38733 Views
Last post July 29, 2008, 19:46
by Tim Markley
4 Replies
8574 Views
Last post November 22, 2011, 15:35
by melastmohican
24 Replies
6913 Views
Last post February 08, 2015, 20:52
by ShadySue
5 Replies
2138 Views
Last post January 10, 2017, 11:06
by chrisdorney
7 Replies
2993 Views
Last post February 28, 2019, 13:54
by Uncle Pete

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle