pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Google Images - We Are SO Screwed  (Read 11567 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

suwanneeredhead

  • O.I.D. Sufferer (Obsessive Illustration Disorder)
« on: January 31, 2013, 18:32 »
0
http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.ca/2013/01/faster-image-search.html

PLEASE correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that ALL of my images are now appearing on the Google Images search AT FULL RESOLUTION without watermarks, for ANYONE to right-click and steal!  The blog post above says "you can view exif data" -- well most of mine have had their exif data stripped out -- doesn't that render the images "orphans" for anyone to use with abandon?

What are we to do about this?  I realize everyone's minds are on iStock and its Google escapades, but this is WAY worse if they do it to ALL of us regardless of agency!  And why are the images showing up without watermarks or exif data?

Search your name, you'll find them.

I am extremely distressed, please someone, put my mind at ease and tell me this is not so.

Stacey


ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #1 on: January 31, 2013, 18:59 »
0

suwanneeredhead

  • O.I.D. Sufferer (Obsessive Illustration Disorder)
« Reply #2 on: January 31, 2013, 19:00 »
0
Thanks for the redirect, I had not seen that!

« Reply #3 on: January 31, 2013, 19:25 »
0
Most of my images are watermarked from Shutterstock or Stockfresh, but I did find a couple of my best sellers at large sizes, unwatermarked. People buy them (I'm hoping) and post large sizes on their blogs, etc., paying no attention to the licenses. I think that's why they show up that way. It has to stop.

« Reply #4 on: January 31, 2013, 21:13 »
0
Most of my images are watermarked from Shutterstock or Stockfresh, but I did find a couple of my best sellers at large sizes, unwatermarked. People buy them (I'm hoping) and post large sizes on their blogs, etc., paying no attention to the licenses. I think that's why they show up that way. It has to stop.

I have a very large client and a few years ago I visited its head marketing director regarding a project we had in the works.

I overheard him tell a new hire in the marketing department that they wanted the entire department to use google images to find large public domain images to use in company marketing documents vs the Istock account they had in place when ever possible.  The new hire asked how he would know if the images were public domain and to my astonishment he told him that all images shown in google images were fair game.

The VP had been around for years... working at a Fortune 500 and S&P 500 company with approximately 44,000 sales employees (excluding affiliates).  He has to be aware that the majority of those images are not public domain.  I think they count on not being found out because most of their marketing material goes to select targeted clients.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2013, 21:19 by gbalex »

« Reply #5 on: January 31, 2013, 21:42 »
0
I object to the title of this thread. On the contrary, it is Getty who will be screwed eventually. It's just going to take a little more time.


ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #6 on: January 31, 2013, 21:45 »
+2
Huh? What does Getty have to do with this thread?

« Reply #7 on: January 31, 2013, 22:30 »
0
Lots of my images show up from Dreamstime, at around 400 px.   They have the DT watermark, although it's inadequate - it's on the extreme lower right corner and not nearly large enough.  Some of the photos are isolations so the watermark doesn't even touch the subject. 

« Reply #8 on: February 01, 2013, 01:21 »
0
I did a little experiment the othe night and went through he top sellers on Vetta,  Dreamstime, and a few others and was able to find many top sellers online in large sizes/ So the problem was around much long before the Getty/Google problem. The Google image search just made it easier for thieves to find these images

« Reply #9 on: February 01, 2013, 10:44 »
0
I had a look for some of my stuff out of curiousity.  I noticed lots of watermaked images from top 4 with 400px resolution on long side.  BUT, there are tons from 123 @ 1200px which is another reason to dump them.

« Reply #10 on: February 01, 2013, 11:00 »
0
These agencies might as well quit offering XS sales since they're letting Google just give them away.

« Reply #11 on: February 01, 2013, 11:41 »
0
The curious thing is that the search option linked to those image displays rarely seems to list the stock agencies as a source (except for 123). Have they opted out of a link to Google? I don't know if that would be a good thing or a bad thing.

« Reply #12 on: February 01, 2013, 12:09 »
+1
I have the feeling that something big is going on and Istock/ getty and google is involved and they know what they do.
I just cannot figure out what it is, but it feels like they are trying to change the rules on the playground.

They give away images.
They make changes in searches.

It is obvious that it hurts us contributors, but they dont care about that, which means that the contributors and the agencies interests are not the same.
That should tell us something.

Normally the purpose of dumping goods is to gain market shares and force the competitors out of the market.
So they dump us, the creators of content, its apparent that  they couldnt care less ( see the closed phoneline and the forums on istock, not to mention all the secretiveness in most of the agencies). It must be because the yhave enough content and new doesnt really matter.
This attitude goes for Istock and 123.
Shutter has a different approach and seems to care more for their contributors, - or need them more.

Maybe we are ventureing into the age of microstock 2.2 where digital data is only meaningfull in a context or an application that has a certain number of end users.

Meaning, our pictures are worth nothing, if they are not found in a context, where they are used.
Shutterstocks collections and marketing methods as well as th istock/ google deal suggests this.

I think there is a whole new monster beginning to play on the playground, but I dont know what type of monster it is.
Im just sharing my thoughts. And I know they are not very clearly expressed, so I hope some clever guys and girls can elaborate from here.

« Reply #13 on: February 27, 2013, 18:45 »
0
I had an interesting conversation today with our SEO guy (I'll call him Fred) at work. I work on e-commerce sites, web designing, loading products, etc. Fred was asking us web doods if we had made any changes to categories, because he has been noticing a significant drop in our organic search results from about Feb. 5th through the 15th. He could not pinpoint a cause, so of course the first people to blame is us.  ::) Anyway, I related to him that that was just about the time when Google made the change in their image search. I wasn't sure if it was relevant, but as we talked, we discovered that it might be. If you notice now, also in searches, they might place image results a few slots down, mixed amid the regular search listings, whereas before they were always at the top. Let's say our company listing for a product came up second or third in the search, but now a competitor made some changes in images. That means image search results might show in the third slot, which might bump us down to fourth or fifth.

Anyway, just thought I would share our discussion. I know we talked here about how these searches are affecting the agency's traffic. I see a HUGE difference in my sales at SS this month...I will be lucky to make payout. Since tomorrow is the last day, I may not. That's about half of what I have been making the last few months.

Maybe it's related to Google, maybe not. Could be the usual ebb and flow, but...

edit: I just did a random search on "candy". After the 7th listing, there was a row of relevant images. A couple more down, there was a news article thrown in. Another search showed a big block of images on the right of the listings (not sure how that affects traffic, though). Anyway, food for thought.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2013, 18:48 by cclapper »


« Reply #15 on: February 27, 2013, 19:28 »
+6
I had an interesting conversation today with our SEO guy (I'll call him Fred) at work. I work on e-commerce sites, web designing, loading products, etc. Fred was asking us web doods if we had made any changes to categories, because he has been noticing a significant drop in our organic search results from about Feb. 5th through the 15th. He could not pinpoint a cause, so of course the first people to blame is us.  ::) Anyway, I related to him that that was just about the time when Google made the change in their image search.

It also took me a while to figure that out, despite the fact that I knew about the change... First I was worried about the effects a bit, but we actually benefited from it. Our sales weren't affected negatively and there's considerably less pressure on the servers without all that "fake" traffic.

The key takeaway from this is that people WILL buy the images if they can and if they know they have to, but you have to let them know by watermarking all the images you intend to sell on your own website. There shouldn't be any unwatermarked images on Google search from agencies except for the teasers on their front pages. If there are, they are doing something wrong.

It would be great however if we could provide Google with some HTML based data about the legal status and price of the images because I think that vague disclaimer stating that the image might be protected is not quite useful enough.

« Reply #16 on: February 27, 2013, 19:45 »
+1
I had an interesting conversation today with our SEO guy (I'll call him Fred) at work. I work on e-commerce sites, web designing, loading products, etc. Fred was asking us web doods if we had made any changes to categories, because he has been noticing a significant drop in our organic search results from about Feb. 5th through the 15th. He could not pinpoint a cause, so of course the first people to blame is us.  ::) Anyway, I related to him that that was just about the time when Google made the change in their image search.

It also took me a while to figure that out, despite the fact that I knew about the change... First I was worried about the effects a bit, but we actually benefited from it. Our sales weren't affected negatively and there's considerably less pressure on the servers without all that "fake" traffic.

The key takeaway from this is that people WILL buy the images if they can and if they know they have to, but you have to let them know by watermarking all the images you intend to sell on your own website. There shouldn't be any unwatermarked images on Google search from agencies except for the teasers on their front pages. If there are, they are doing something wrong.

It would be great however if we could provide Google with some HTML based data about the legal status and price of the images because I think that vague disclaimer stating that the image might be protected is not quite useful enough.

Good to hear sales weren't negatively impacted. I've actually experienced the same thing. Traffic is about half from Google, but sales are strong. Hopefully, it continues not to be a problem for sales. It does kind of screw up all the stats tracking I've done for the last year or two. I might as well just start over with the new numbers (if this is going to be the new norm).


Poncke

« Reply #17 on: February 27, 2013, 19:55 »
-1
BME at SS

steheap

  • Author of best selling "Get Started in Stock"

« Reply #18 on: February 27, 2013, 20:01 »
0
What I've noticed this month about Shutterstock is that the ODs and SODs have really dropped off. I know this is a short month, but in January I had $200 in ODs and $120 in SODs, this month it is $173 and $17. As I understand it, the SODs are the ones that people can just come in from a search and buy the image - suggests that people with accounts at SS still buy, but the ones who are buying as they see the image they need have dropped through the floor - $120 to $17 is quite a change.

Anyone else notice a lack of SODs on Shutterstock?

Steve

« Reply #19 on: February 27, 2013, 20:04 »
+1
What I've noticed this month about Shutterstock is that the ODs and SODs have really dropped off. I know this is a short month, but in January I had $200 in ODs and $120 in SODs, this month it is $173 and $17. As I understand it, the SODs are the ones that people can just come in from a search and buy the image - suggests that people with accounts at SS still buy, but the ones who are buying as they see the image they need have dropped through the floor - $120 to $17 is quite a change.

Anyone else notice a lack of SODs on Shutterstock?

Steve

Yes, we have noticed the same. This month is quite poor on SS, although subs are about the same. IS is up though  :) Maybe being friends of Google has helped them ;)

« Reply #20 on: February 27, 2013, 20:16 »
0
I've noticed the same thing - subs are very strong but ODs and SODs are about half of last month.  I thought it was just variation from a small port but if others are noticing the same thing then maybe it indicates a change.

« Reply #21 on: February 27, 2013, 20:17 »
0
January AND February have been slow for me on SS  :(. But I don't see any drop in ODs and SODs percentage of total between the two month (or compared to 2012)  8).

« Reply #22 on: February 27, 2013, 20:43 »
0

It also took me a while to figure that out, despite the fact that I knew about the change... First I was worried about the effects a bit, but we actually benefited from it. Our sales weren't affected negatively and there's considerably less pressure on the servers without all that "fake" traffic.

The key takeaway from this is that people WILL buy the images if they can and if they know they have to, but you have to let them know by watermarking all the images you intend to sell on your own website. There shouldn't be any unwatermarked images on Google search from agencies except for the teasers on their front pages. If there are, they are doing something wrong.

It would be great however if we could provide Google with some HTML based data about the legal status and price of the images because I think that vague disclaimer stating that the image might be protected is not quite useful enough.


I dont think our sales have been negatively affected at all either, which is a good thing, but since seo is freds responsibility, he is puzzled by the drop and looking for an explanation.


I agree about the disclaimer not being enough...but i have noticed in my image searches that agency images all seem to be showing up with watermarks and when you click Original Image its a small size with a watermark. I hope they do something to start protecting large size images coming from people who dont know any better.

« Reply #23 on: February 27, 2013, 20:48 »
0
yes lower OD and SOD

« Reply #24 on: February 28, 2013, 01:02 »
0
a friend of mine is redesigning his company web site and sent me an email, all the images were stolen using google image and the keyword "shutterstock business office" and most of them are available high-res !

besides, he will embed them in the web site using CSS instead of HTML tags and protect them from scraping blocking search-engine spiders accessing the whole "/images" directory with .htaccess

nobody will ever catch him.

Poncke

« Reply #25 on: February 28, 2013, 13:25 »
0
ODDs and SODs are up for me. Believe me or not. BME at SS by at least 27%

« Reply #26 on: February 28, 2013, 13:35 »
0
What I've noticed this month about Shutterstock is that the ODs and SODs have really dropped off. I know this is a short month, but in January I had $200 in ODs and $120 in SODs, this month it is $173 and $17. As I understand it, the SODs are the ones that people can just come in from a search and buy the image - suggests that people with accounts at SS still buy, but the ones who are buying as they see the image they need have dropped through the floor - $120 to $17 is quite a change.

Anyone else notice a lack of SODs on Shutterstock?

Not here. OD's are almost identical to January for me and SOD's have been the 2nd best month ever.


Pinocchio

« Reply #27 on: February 28, 2013, 15:25 »
0
..... it is Getty who will be screwed eventually. It's just going to take a little more time.....

I think you may well end up being right, I just hope we're both here to watch; and Google prove be instrumental.  My theory is that Getty aspires to using ImageExchange and PicScout to take a nibble or more out of every license, regardless of where the image is licensed.  Google's capabilities may help keep the nibble small, just have to get the SEO right.....

Regards

steheap

  • Author of best selling "Get Started in Stock"

« Reply #28 on: February 28, 2013, 15:46 »
0
I think the drop I'm seeing in SODs started when I put a lot of images - 700+ on Fine Art America, without any watermarks. I wonder if some people are finding those clean images and downloading from there?

If this continues (and assuming I am out of line with the majority of SS contributors), then I may be leaving FAA!

Steve

« Reply #29 on: February 28, 2013, 16:10 »
+2
I think the drop I'm seeing in SODs started when I put a lot of images - 700+ on Fine Art America, without any watermarks. I wonder if some people are finding those clean images and downloading from there?

If this continues (and assuming I am out of line with the majority of SS contributors), then I may be leaving FAA!

Steve

oh man I think you are thinking waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much, one thing as nothing to do with other and why on sods? why not od or sub?

can you elaborate?

not to mention that you can add watermark, even if you don't want its a XS size
« Last Edit: February 28, 2013, 16:12 by luissantos84 »

steheap

  • Author of best selling "Get Started in Stock"

« Reply #30 on: February 28, 2013, 17:19 »
0
My logic (such as it is), is that SS introduced the SOD as a way for someone without a subscription account with SS to come in and buy an image as and when they wanted it. So that sale must be driven more by "drive by" buyers who have searched for the image on Google. So if they happen to see an image of mine that they like, they will probably see the large unwatermarked image as well from FAA and choose that, rather than going through to SS to buy it!

Got to admit, there is a little bit of logic there to explain why I have such a drop in SODs but others do not seem to have seen the same drop.

Steve

« Reply #31 on: February 28, 2013, 17:34 »
0
I seem to be selling more SOD's since putting about 200 on FFA.  I'm sure it's just a coincidence.

« Reply #32 on: February 28, 2013, 17:45 »
-1
My logic (such as it is), is that SS introduced the SOD as a way for someone without a subscription account with SS to come in and buy an image as and when they wanted it. So that sale must be driven more by "drive by" buyers who have searched for the image on Google. So if they happen to see an image of mine that they like, they will probably see the large unwatermarked image as well from FAA and choose that, rather than going through to SS to buy it!

Got to admit, there is a little bit of logic there to explain why I have such a drop in SODs but others do not seem to have seen the same drop.

Steve

I am lost, how can you be sure the SOD buyers search on google and proceed as you say? and why not other like sub or od? as you know a sod can go up to 120$ royalties (our share 30%) so I don't understand how you can compare that to FAA, first there is the very low size picture (unwatermarked in your case) and then the SOD buyer is willing to pay big bucks so why stealing it from FAA? I wish I understand what you are saying but I think it is a very big theory ;D

MINUS for the brilliant mind out there ;D
« Last Edit: February 28, 2013, 19:50 by luissantos84 »

steheap

  • Author of best selling "Get Started in Stock"

« Reply #33 on: February 28, 2013, 19:44 »
+2
As far as I know, the sub and OD category are for people that have some existing relationship with Shutterstock. SODs were introduced for the floating buyer that sees an image they like and they can buy it at a one off price - no commitments to buy more - hence they pay more for the image. Now, how do they find Shutterstock and the image of their dreams - they search for it on the internet. If my image from FAA appears alongside my image from Shutterstock, they may be happy to download the free one - even though it is only 900 px wide - that may be all they are looking for.

May all be rubbish, of course, but it has been a lousy month for me and I'm searching for answers, even though I know this game goes up and down!

Steve

« Reply #34 on: February 28, 2013, 19:48 »
0
Steve the big sods for 70$ and 120$ the buyers want the license, not to get a free picture without a proper license, why would they get the free XS and be happy? when they used to pay 400$ at SS, what sense does that make?

I believe we need a better explanation about SOD, not about if they are down or up BUT which buyers get them and what are the exact terms

« Reply #35 on: March 01, 2013, 03:37 »
+2
I think the drop I'm seeing in SODs started when I put a lot of images - 700+ on Fine Art America, without any watermarks. I wonder if some people are finding those clean images and downloading from there?

If this continues (and assuming I am out of line with the majority of SS contributors), then I may be leaving FAA!

Brilliant! The ingenuity of microstockers to develop conspiracy theories to explain their lack of sales never fails to impress me.

I reckon the lack of OD's (for a few people anyway) is most likely down to unusual sun-spot activity last month and the reduction in SOD's is possibly due to the massive meteor that hit Russia last week. That and Manchester United's draw with Real Madrid in the Champion's League. Easy really when you think about it.

RacePhoto

« Reply #36 on: March 01, 2013, 04:54 »
+1
It's the Chinese New Years effecting sales, anyone can see that.

I think the drop I'm seeing in SODs started when I put a lot of images - 700+ on Fine Art America, without any watermarks. I wonder if some people are finding those clean images and downloading from there?

If this continues (and assuming I am out of line with the majority of SS contributors), then I may be leaving FAA!


Brilliant! The ingenuity of microstockers to develop conspiracy theories to explain their lack of sales never fails to impress me.

I reckon the lack of OD's (for a few people anyway) is most likely down to unusual sun-spot activity last month and the reduction in SOD's is possibly due to the massive meteor that hit Russia last week. That and Manchester United's draw with Real Madrid in the Champion's League. Easy really when you think about it.


« Reply #37 on: March 01, 2013, 09:06 »
+1
I was on FAA briefly, but lack of watermark on WAY bigger than a thumbnail size was deal-breaker.

Over the years, I've read how certain 'serious' buyers will not consider an image if they have to view it watermarked....
Well, those days are so gone - no copyright holder/agent is wise to post image for sale bigger than thumbnail without watermark.

In fact, the #1 feature I want from PhotoShelter is option to have basic watermark for thumbnails, especially those bigger than 100p.
- Ann



I think the drop I'm seeing in SODs started when I put a lot of images - 700+ on Fine Art America, without any watermarks. I wonder if some people are finding those clean images and downloading from there?

If this continues (and assuming I am out of line with the majority of SS contributors), then I may be leaving FAA!

Steve

Poncke

« Reply #38 on: March 03, 2013, 02:08 »
0
I have disabled right click saving on all my photos posted on Flickr, but Google image search allows right click saving. They override the Flickr setting. When you click on the thumbnail the image on Flickr is displayed in full size and Google enables all my images for right click save. This needs to be stopped immediately.

I suggest we all report that here, each for their own images. http://www.flickr.com/abuse/. I have included the Google search result link to my images on Flickr in the report.

« Reply #39 on: March 03, 2013, 02:21 »
+1
I had an interesting conversation today with our SEO guy (I'll call him Fred) at work. I work on e-commerce sites, web designing, loading products, etc. Fred was asking us web doods if we had made any changes to categories, because he has been noticing a significant drop in our organic search results from about Feb. 5th through the 15th. He could not pinpoint a cause, so of course the first people to blame is us.  ::) Anyway, I related to him that that was just about the time when Google made the change in their image search.

It also took me a while to figure that out, despite the fact that I knew about the change... First I was worried about the effects a bit, but we actually benefited from it. Our sales weren't affected negatively and there's considerably less pressure on the servers without all that "fake" traffic.

The key takeaway from this is that people WILL buy the images if they can and if they know they have to, but you have to let them know by watermarking all the images you intend to sell on your own website. There shouldn't be any unwatermarked images on Google search from agencies except for the teasers on their front pages. If there are, they are doing something wrong.

It would be great however if we could provide Google with some HTML based data about the legal status and price of the images because I think that vague disclaimer stating that the image might be protected is not quite useful enough.

Great to see your input here, Peter.  Wish more agencies were concerned enough about their contributors to participate here.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #40 on: March 03, 2013, 06:44 »
0
I have disabled right click saving on all my photos posted on Flickr, but Google image search allows right click saving. They override the Flickr setting. When you click on the thumbnail the image on Flickr is displayed in full size and Google enables all my images for right click save. This needs to be stopped immediately.

I suggest we all report that here, each for their own images. http://www.flickr.com/abuse/. I have included the Google search result link to my images on Flickr in the report.


How do you get Google to show your Flickr images.
I just searched on two files that I thought would have very few hits anywhere and neither of them showed up in a Google Search, or in Google Images.
(I double checked by searching for them within Flickr, cut and pasting the keywords I'd used, and they are showing on an internal Flickr search - both months old, so definitely should be catalogued by now).
I don't care if Google doesn't show them, I'm not on Flickr to sell; but on principle over-riding right click is wrong, even if people can screendump and get the same file.

Poncke

« Reply #41 on: March 03, 2013, 07:25 »
0
I have disabled right click saving on all my photos posted on Flickr, but Google image search allows right click saving. They override the Flickr setting. When you click on the thumbnail the image on Flickr is displayed in full size and Google enables all my images for right click save. This needs to be stopped immediately.

I suggest we all report that here, each for their own images. http://www.flickr.com/abuse/. I have included the Google search result link to my images on Flickr in the report.


How do you get Google to show your Flickr images.
I just searched on two files that I thought would have very few hits anywhere and neither of them showed up in a Google Search, or in Google Images.
(I double checked by searching for them within Flickr, cut and pasting the keywords I'd used, and they are showing on an internal Flickr search - both months old, so definitely should be catalogued by now).
I don't care if Google doesn't show them, I'm not on Flickr to sell; but on principle over-riding right click is wrong, even if people can screendump and get the same file.


Flicker user name + the word flickr. That should bring your images up.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #42 on: March 03, 2013, 07:46 »
0
I have disabled right click saving on all my photos posted on Flickr, but Google image search allows right click saving. They override the Flickr setting. When you click on the thumbnail the image on Flickr is displayed in full size and Google enables all my images for right click save. This needs to be stopped immediately.

I suggest we all report that here, each for their own images. http://www.flickr.com/abuse/. I have included the Google search result link to my images on Flickr in the report.


How do you get Google to show your Flickr images.
I just searched on two files that I thought would have very few hits anywhere and neither of them showed up in a Google Search, or in Google Images.
(I double checked by searching for them within Flickr, cut and pasting the keywords I'd used, and they are showing on an internal Flickr search - both months old, so definitely should be catalogued by now).
I don't care if Google doesn't show them, I'm not on Flickr to sell; but on principle over-riding right click is wrong, even if people can screendump and get the same file.


Flicker user name + the word flickr. That should bring your images up.


Thanks.

I just hate the new Google, for search as well as all the other stuff we've discusssed of late. I've noticed since they changed that the general search is now pretty irrelevant. Contrary to what other people here have said, I always found Google Images largely irrelevant too, and it's no better now.

I just searched my Flickr user name + flickr. The top of the search has 18/20 of my pics, after that, it's only about 20% of my pics. 16 out of the top 18 are from the same set, from a while back.

(Clicking on any of these leads to the same file, which isn't mine, but is in a pool where these pics are - but all of them lead to the same file. I tried one not in that pool, clicked on it, and again it led to a different file in a different pool which that image was in. There doesn't seem to be any way of clicking to get onto the actual photo shown in the thum. I guess if a photo wasn't in a pool that would be OK (?) but I don't have many of these, and it would just be clicking in the dark to try to find one. That would make me furious if I was using Flickr as a marketing tool, but as it is, I just think 'Stupid Google'.)

Hovering over the thums does indeed offer a right-click save. However, all I seem to be able to save is the enlarged hovered-over thum, with loads of jpg artifacting.

BTW, it seems that if you do an internal search within Flickr, not signed in, you can always save out the tiny thums from that search. I then looked back at the Google results, and suspect the thums I'm seeing are enlargements of these tiny thums, as even when not hovered over, they show jpg artifacts.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
1 Replies
2596 Views
Last post February 28, 2007, 00:42
by Bateleur
11 Replies
5991 Views
Last post March 21, 2007, 15:55
by a.k.a.-tom
42 Replies
12194 Views
Last post November 15, 2007, 12:28
by zorki
21 Replies
7207 Views
Last post March 12, 2012, 22:55
by RacePhoto
0 Replies
2361 Views
Last post June 16, 2020, 18:20
by PaulieWalnuts

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle