MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: 500px any luck selling there something?  (Read 30974 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Uncle Pete

« Reply #75 on: December 11, 2014, 10:00 »
+3
If you don't use Photoshop, Irfanview - FREE - will do it in the Batch Edit function.

Open file (any file)
B (batch)
Alt+C (advanced)
Alt+W (Add Watermark)



Set location, watermark image and transparency.

This can be done as a batch to a group of images. You just need to add images to the batch, before you hit "Start Batch" It will run through all files selected and you're done.

Also part of the batch function is saving these files to a different folder you can also resize at the same time. (and rename if you wish) So if the objective is create Watermarked Thumbnails, it's all one batch process for all 400 files.


« Reply #76 on: December 11, 2014, 14:24 »
0
Thank you!

By the way, what size of the watermarked images do you upload to 500px ? I mean do you downsize them ? Eventually the full resolution is needed only for 500px Prime.

Cheers

« Reply #77 on: December 12, 2014, 07:30 »
0
I'm also hesitating to put my photos there without any watermark, or that small funny one  - but on the other hand, I've taken a look at some famous photographers web sites - and realized - you can catch their photos even with right button click and 'copy image'... So, no need even to capture screen.

If the resolution on 500px on portfolio is really 500px (or 800px as I heard somewhere), then no big harm - that small photos are free anyway, or am I wrong?


« Reply #78 on: December 12, 2014, 18:47 »
+1
1. Small photos are not free
2. The market for 500 pixel images for blogs and online magazines is large enough not to be ignored

« Reply #79 on: December 13, 2014, 09:45 »
+1
Has anyone had upload problems with their system not reading metadata? I have unlimited uploads and can only upload about 10-20 at a time for their system to pull in the metadata.  I've had to go in two times and delete each image manually then scale back my uploads to get their system to read the metadata.  They have a glitch and need to acknowledge it.  When I upload, say, 50 images all 50 have pulled in one keyword and no title.  The title ends up pulling in the image file name, not the title in the metadata. They suggested I use the Mac uploader so I did. Same issue, so I have concluded that their system has some technical hiccups. Now I have to manually go in and delete hundreds of images manually and reup them 10 at a time. That won't take long, maybe a few months with all the spare time I have (my attempt at humor).

« Reply #80 on: December 13, 2014, 23:24 »
0
I'm also hesitating to put my photos there without any watermark, or that small funny one  - but on the other hand, I've taken a look at some famous photographers web sites - and realized - you can catch their photos even with right button click and 'copy image'... So, no need even to capture screen.

If the resolution on 500px on portfolio is really 500px (or 800px as I heard somewhere), then no big harm - that small photos are free anyway, or am I wrong?

ctrl c or prt scr or screen capture are not the only way to "steal" our images. all one needs to do is save the webpage and all the images will go into your folder for that web page including source code.
i am surprised no one here even mentioned this.

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #81 on: December 14, 2014, 00:04 »
0
ctrl c or prt scr or screen capture are not the only way to "steal" our images. all one needs to do is save the webpage and all the images will go into your folder for that web page including source code.
i am surprised no one here even mentioned this.

this method doesn't work in all cases if they use javascript to protect the browser from saving remote images and they can also avoid hotlinking server-side.

instead in Firefox just right-click on "View Page Info", click on the Media tab, sort the images by size, and voila', the last ones are usually the image you see on screen, no matter if they used javascript or CSS embedding or other cheap tricks.

so, click the image and save and you're done, this works also on iSTock with images up to 1280px if you zoom the image.

you will need to disable javascript in some cases if they block the right-clicking as in 1x.com
i can download any 1x.com image and some of the pics are 4000px !


« Reply #82 on: December 14, 2014, 15:50 »
+1
ctrl c or prt scr or screen capture are not the only way to "steal" our images. all one needs to do is save the webpage and all the images will go into your folder for that web page including source code.
i am surprised no one here even mentioned this.

this method doesn't work in all cases if they use javascript to protect the browser from saving remote images and they can also avoid hotlinking server-side.

instead in Firefox just right-click on "View Page Info", click on the Media tab, sort the images by size, and voila', the last ones are usually the image you see on screen, no matter if they used javascript or CSS embedding or other cheap tricks.

so, click the image and save and you're done, this works also on iSTock with images up to 1280px if you zoom the image.

you will need to disable javascript in some cases if they block the right-clicking as in 1x.com
i can download any 1x.com image and some of the pics are 4000px !

there u go ! as we both pointed out, even if the right-click is disabled, there is always a way to steal images from the web. therefore, any sites that is foolish enough to think the unimportance of a good watermark is really not worth risking uploading to, no matter how much money they promise us.

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #83 on: December 14, 2014, 22:08 »
0
there u go ! as we both pointed out, even if the right-click is disabled, there is always a way to steal images from the web. therefore, any sites that is foolish enough to think the unimportance of a good watermark is really not worth risking uploading to, no matter how much money they promise us.

exactly, and if all else fails you can still search the image in the browser's cache or using many other addons that let you manage firefox's cache, it can be automated too.

browsers and addons are merely the tip of the iceberg, if you're serious you could write custom code to grab images on the server with a few lines of PHP or a custom firefox addon.

but you don't even need it, the new Firefox Developer Edition has all you need to inspect any element you see on screen, it embeds Firebug and all the other popular dev tools.

moral of the story, once an image is displayed on screen you can no longer do anything to protect your image.

« Reply #84 on: December 15, 2014, 01:04 »
+1
Has anyone had upload problems with their system not reading metadata? I have unlimited uploads and can only upload about 10-20 at a time for their system to pull in the metadata.  I've had to go in two times and delete each image manually then scale back my uploads to get their system to read the metadata.  They have a glitch and need to acknowledge it.  When I upload, say, 50 images all 50 have pulled in one keyword and no title.  The title ends up pulling in the image file name, not the title in the metadata. They suggested I use the Mac uploader so I did. Same issue, so I have concluded that their system has some technical hiccups. Now I have to manually go in and delete hundreds of images manually and reup them 10 at a time. That won't take long, maybe a few months with all the spare time I have (my attempt at humor).

Had similar problems uploading with metadata fallout. I went along the same path with 10-20 images a batch. I noticed the success/failure of uploads timed with the busy periods, so would guess its to do with overloads. I ended up removing my folio as i found all my non-micro images that scattered all over the web. Would be cautious with these guys as they never paid out my account ($170 odd) for a sale in late September. Edit: Payment has been gratefully received.
« Last Edit: December 17, 2014, 20:24 by jorgophotography »

« Reply #85 on: December 15, 2014, 02:13 »
+1
Has anyone had upload problems with their system not reading metadata? I have unlimited uploads and can only upload about 10-20 at a time for their system to pull in the metadata.  I've had to go in two times and delete each image manually then scale back my uploads to get their system to read the metadata.  They have a glitch and need to acknowledge it.  When I upload, say, 50 images all 50 have pulled in one keyword and no title.  The title ends up pulling in the image file name, not the title in the metadata. They suggested I use the Mac uploader so I did. Same issue, so I have concluded that their system has some technical hiccups. Now I have to manually go in and delete hundreds of images manually and reup them 10 at a time. That won't take long, maybe a few months with all the spare time I have (my attempt at humor).

Had similar problems uploading with metadata fallout. I went along the same path with 10-20 images a batch. I noticed the success/failure of uploads timed with the busy periods, so would guess its to do with overloads. I ended up removing my folio as i found all my non-micro images that scattered all over the web. Would be cautious with these guys as they never paid out my account ($170 odd) for a sale in late September.

I always receive the payments exactly on the date 45 days after the sale. They are very correct by my experience!

« Reply #86 on: December 15, 2014, 09:15 »
+1
Has anyone had upload problems with their system not reading metadata? I have unlimited uploads and can only upload about 10-20 at a time for their system to pull in the metadata.  I've had to go in two times and delete each image manually then scale back my uploads to get their system to read the metadata.  They have a glitch and need to acknowledge it.  When I upload, say, 50 images all 50 have pulled in one keyword and no title.  The title ends up pulling in the image file name, not the title in the metadata. They suggested I use the Mac uploader so I did. Same issue, so I have concluded that their system has some technical hiccups. Now I have to manually go in and delete hundreds of images manually and reup them 10 at a time. That won't take long, maybe a few months with all the spare time I have (my attempt at humor).

Had similar problems uploading with metadata fallout. I went along the same path with 10-20 images a batch. I noticed the success/failure of uploads timed with the busy periods, so would guess its to do with overloads. I ended up removing my folio as i found all my non-micro images that scattered all over the web. Would be cautious with these guys as they never paid out my account ($170 odd) for a sale in late September.

You have some beautiful work. I'd be concerned, too, about finding my work all over the place.

« Reply #87 on: December 15, 2014, 10:19 »
0

You have some beautiful work. I'd be concerned, too, about finding my work all over the place.

Cheers Mantis

« Reply #88 on: December 15, 2014, 10:20 »
0
Has anyone had upload problems with their system not reading metadata? I have unlimited uploads and can only upload about 10-20 at a time for their system to pull in the metadata.  I've had to go in two times and delete each image manually then scale back my uploads to get their system to read the metadata.  They have a glitch and need to acknowledge it.  When I upload, say, 50 images all 50 have pulled in one keyword and no title.  The title ends up pulling in the image file name, not the title in the metadata. They suggested I use the Mac uploader so I did. Same issue, so I have concluded that their system has some technical hiccups. Now I have to manually go in and delete hundreds of images manually and reup them 10 at a time. That won't take long, maybe a few months with all the spare time I have (my attempt at humor).

Had similar problems uploading with metadata fallout. I went along the same path with 10-20 images a batch. I noticed the success/failure of uploads timed with the busy periods, so would guess its to do with overloads. I ended up removing my folio as i found all my non-micro images that scattered all over the web. Would be cautious with these guys as they never paid out my account ($170 odd) for a sale in late September.

Hearing about the the uploader bug is a bit of a concern so I'll be looking into it. We have some plans on updating that portion of the site very soon as well as addressing some watermarking concerns.

What worries me a bit more is that you never got paid out? Can you email us at help@500px.com and mention this forum. I'd like to get to the bottom of it right away.

« Reply #89 on: December 15, 2014, 20:53 »
0

What worries me a bit more is that you never got paid out? Can you email us at help@500px.com and mention this forum. I'd like to get to the bottom of it right away.

Sure thing Nuno, email now sent. Appreciate you would look into this.

StefC

  • www.royaltyfreevault.com
« Reply #90 on: July 05, 2015, 06:58 »
+10
So, any news about the watermark issue?

I have uploaded a few hundreds photos some months ago for test and the other day I sold my first for 35 dollars (not on Prime though, but from the "social network" side of 500px). But seeing my photos on Prime ready to be stolen at 900 pixels width, with that ridiculous watermark on top is just unacceptable (they're not even right-click protected, you just save them and on most removing the watermark takes 10 seconds!)

It's like they do all they can to push us away!

In response to the person saying that you can easily steal photos from personal sites anyway (or Flickr etc...), that is true but you don't put ALL of your portfolio there, do you? They are used to showcase your work, so they contain a tiny fraction of your production.
The idea here on 500px, on the other hand, is: "Upload all your portfolio here, we'll give you good money for each sale but we'll do next to nothing to protect it. People wanting to use your photos on the web will flock in and easily steal them! What are you waiting for?"

How hard is it to remove the watermark on the attached file?
« Last Edit: July 05, 2015, 07:31 by StefC »

« Reply #91 on: July 05, 2015, 07:11 »
+3
I would love to try 500pix, but the upload system and tiny watermark put me off. At least give us the option to use a larger, good looking watermark if we want to. Nobody has to be forced to use it, but there are many tasteful options in the market, I am sure they can come up with a design that is very professional looking.

And will the upload process be improved, so we can upload full size in one step instead of two files?


StefC

  • www.royaltyfreevault.com
« Reply #92 on: July 05, 2015, 07:29 »
+3
I've just removed 700 photos out of 730 I had on my public profile, I'll keep just a handful of landscapes, because.... yes I did earn something, but how many people stole my photos in the meantime? Unless we can protect them, it's not worth it!

ShadySue

« Reply #93 on: July 05, 2015, 08:01 »
+1
In response to the person saying that you can easily steal photos from personal sites anyway (or Flickr etc...), that is true but you don't put ALL of your portfolio there, do you?
And you can put as big a watermark as you like on your personal/social sites (probably not Instagram?)

« Reply #94 on: July 05, 2015, 08:13 »
+2
When i had a full screen slide show on my site, i saw huge amount of downloads of some images included in this slideshow. When noticed this, i changed to another layout, it was quick with photodeck. That was useless traffic - those people come to take, not to buy. To social sites all images which i sell go with watermark.

« Reply #95 on: July 05, 2015, 08:35 »
+1
I used to have a simple watermark in the middle on my website, then I started to find my files in many places.

Then I changed to a really ugly full frame layout, and these files are no longer interesting for thieves ;)

But of course I am not selling from my website, so an agency needs a balanced solution to keep the buyers happy.

the current watermark really does nothing to protect files.

« Reply #96 on: July 05, 2015, 08:48 »
+2
I've just removed 700 photos out of 730 I had on my public profile, I'll keep just a handful of landscapes, because.... yes I did earn something, but how many people stole my photos in the meantime? Unless we can protect them, it's not worth it!

Mainly why I canceled my account there. I uploaded around 1,500 images and the traffic to say, "thank you, I've nabbed your image" was more than I could bear (I am paraphrasing here). This and the upload challenges concluded that they could keep my $17 membership fee and I would get to close my account in return.  If they can resolve those two issues (watermark across the board and upload bandwidth) I may reconsider. But for now, they are one of the many sites I've killed in the last few years.
 


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
6 Replies
3150 Views
Last post March 04, 2007, 17:22
by a.k.a.-tom
10 Replies
5339 Views
Last post October 09, 2007, 18:52
by admart01
27 Replies
49085 Views
Last post June 25, 2015, 10:42
by KnowYourOnions
11 Replies
3629 Views
Last post May 30, 2017, 06:48
by PaulieWalnuts
7 Replies
4453 Views
Last post September 01, 2017, 20:43
by Zero Talent

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results