|
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.
Messages - ShadySue
13401
« on: July 26, 2011, 16:22 »
Maybe you two are talking at cross purposes Sue. For iStockphoto I think your version of the format is right. Perhaps Baldrick is thinking of the format for a different agency ? I am guessing you meant iStockphoto, right ?
So possibly the bit you need to focus on is the "too brief and does not describe the scene successfully". I think you maybe need to take the opportunity to use the caption to tell a little bit more of the story. Maybe try for two sentences - the what it is and then something brief about that. With as many memes as possible. Good luck.
Ha, yes, for iStock (as this is the iStock forum). Often I put loads of info (probably too much) in the caption, but some are as short as this. I could say, "On the beach" (but you can't see the beach). There are adults and children in a group, but I can't put that they're a family as I don't know that for sure, and we've been told not to assume things, which is fair enough. The most relevant thing would be details of the traditional artwork on the chairoplane, about which I haven't yet found any relevant information (the operator didn't have a clue: he just hires it, apparently). That said, I've still got probems with that photo in the editorial article, where there's a fairly close crop of a bloke looking out of a bus window (cropped right into the bus, no surroundings), with the caption, "Istanbul Turkey - November, 2009: A man and woman ride a tram on İstiklal Caddesi, a busy pedestrian shopping street leading to Taksim Square in Istanbul." - there is absolutely nothing in the photo which makes such a detailed location detail relevant. I wonder if just 'on a bright summer day' would be enough of an addition. http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=996
13402
« on: July 26, 2011, 14:20 »
DCMA is a US law, so can't see it applying outwith the States, though fine for USians, of course.
I'm pretty certain the plethora of my iStock pics that I've seen all over the place are one legitimate buyer then loads of copiers, 'proved' by them all being exactly the same crop and size, which isn't the crop or size the pics are on iStock. Too much of a coincidence.
13403
« on: July 26, 2011, 12:29 »
I wrote to Alamy yesterday because I had a use last week in a UK newspaper website (at least). Then I found the image being used in some sort of site that linked to the article in the newspaper's website. So I wrote to ask if this was a legitimage usage - the linking site isn't linked to the newspaper. The reply I got was: " ...Please note that Alamy do not follow up usages in the following situations: 1. If an article has been linked to from another web site/ blog article or forum/chat site. 2. If an entire article including the image has been copied in a web site/ blog article or forum/chat site. This is because Alamy sold an image to a client, and another source copies this usage from the client without their permission. You are free to follow this up at your end contacting the website in questionNo better than iStock, then. 
13404
« on: July 26, 2011, 11:39 »
I've just had a caption rejection for the caption:
"Bray, Republic of Ireland - 12th July, 2011: People on a Chairoplane decorated with traditional artwork."
Well, to start with you aren't allowed to put the year in the dateline so it should have been rejected for that. Then they want you to repeat all the dateline info PLUS THE YEAR in the caption. Try this and see if it works:
Bray, Republic of Ireland - 12th July: People on a Chairoplane decorated with traditional artwork in Bray, Republic of Ireland, 12th July, 2011.
Of course, this contains absolutely no additional info and uses up a lot more of the 212 characters, but as you can see the 4 Ws are now in the caption (apparently they aren't interested in "why").
I can't give any assurance that my version will be accepted but I reckon it's got a much better chance.
You absolutely MUST give the year. If it's an old photo, you can get off with just the month and year, maybe only the year. Also, lots of my accepted captions have well over 212 characters - I didn't even know there was a limit It's clearly inspector inconsistency again, but I'll try adding the place again in the caption (the actual location isn't visible in the photo) and see what happens. I usually don't do this, unless it amplifies the location, e.g. I might have 'Anytown, country' and in the text I might have, blahblahblah in the West End of Anytown. I've also never repeated the date in the caption - in over 400 editorial acceptances. Have you had acceptances without the year in the first bit (before the colon)?
13405
« on: July 26, 2011, 07:36 »
I've just had a caption rejection for the caption: "Bray, Republic of Ireland - 12th July, 2011: People on a Chairoplane decorated with traditional artwork." "The caption information for this submission is either too brief and does not describe the scene successfully, or it is unclear, or both.
* The caption is where you supply the 4 W's:
* Where was the image made?
* When was the image made?
* Who or what is in the image?
* What is happening in the image?
Please provide adequate information, clearly, and entirely in English."That's a where, when, what, who, surely? There isn't much else to be said: it's against the sky. Bah! 
13406
« on: July 26, 2011, 05:35 »
Will they notify me when it is closed?
In direct response to your question, no they will not - in fact if you get an answer from supprt at all you will be lucky. But don't expect anything from them. Also, you can have as many support tickets open as you would like but again - chances of an answer are slim - I have had emails to support outstanding for 2 months now ... are they open? Who knows? Apprently support answers emails only when the feeling hits them, and the feeling does not appear to have hit them for quite some time now.
I had two Scout tickets replied to a few days ago - open since mid-March - both upheld. 
13407
« on: July 26, 2011, 04:11 »
I've just had a perfectly good editorial image rejected because I had the city and country in capitals (as Shutterstock requires) when iStock don't want capital letters...
You would have thought is would be easier for the reviewer to change them - it is only about 20 letters...
Steve
got the same last week but I have sent like 10 pictures  I guess we should read before uploading 
Yes, but it would also have helped if all the inspectors had read before inspecting. I had well over 30 rejections using the same caption format as all the rest, which were either overturned or accepted on resubmission with the same caption. Hopefully that inspector has been educated.
13408
« on: July 25, 2011, 18:50 »
Ardbeg - Corryvreckan. Special treat.
Sorry, I have no answer. Just butting in to ask about your Corryvreckan pics. Have you got them online somewhere? Did you shoot from a boat or a plane?
13409
« on: July 25, 2011, 17:41 »
As IS announced a new referral program today, I assume the perceived lower traffic (on the part of long time contributors) is real.
And they seem to be resuming advertising. Slightly strange targetting reported so far: internet banners for people who have already been at the site (e.g.contributors), though other sites seem to do that, and two magazines which I wouldn't expect to have a large readership of buyers - would the target market of 'Advanced Photography' be obvious buyers? Or are they trying to obtusely attract new contributors? But I've been complaining for ages that I got far more downloads, with far, far fewer files, when they advertised widely. If I'd read about the advertising program yesterday, I'd have spent time in WHSmith in Glasgow flicking through the mags aimed at people who are more likely to be buyers (they're not on the shelves in newsagents out in the country).
13410
« on: July 25, 2011, 09:41 »
Don't necessariy panic. It may be the notorious 'summer slump'. You may rise again.
Thanks, but only summer in IS? Better month in 123RF (spectacular), and good in FT and Shutter... It is a bad year in IS, but now three months going down in IS. It is no accident. And they have gone down the commissions...
Sometimes I have the feeling to be a masochist 
123 RF and Shutterstock seem to be (mainly?) subscription sites, so obviously their sales will be more steady as buyers make sure they get value from their subscriptions. I thought Fotolia was too, but hopping over there, it seems not. In previous years, most (but not all) iStock subscribers have reported significant dips in sales in July and August. Generally the best months are October and November (from anecdotal evidence on the forums, and from a claim by Kelly Thomson, which wasn't borne out last year). This year my sales were relatively (to previous years) poor from Jan - April, then rose in May until mid-July. Who ever knows what's going on? Ebb and flow? Best Match? The Moon in the Seventh Sun? You just have to do what feels best to you. As you're independent, there can't be much harm in iStock being one of the sites you upload to, but if you don't want to, as Sean would say, that's less competition for the rest of us. 
13411
« on: July 25, 2011, 06:13 »
The real genius of the microstock system was the introduction of pre-paid credits which (ignoring card fraud) ensure every sale is paid for and provides the agency with an interest-free loan from every customer.
True, and some businesses won't allow this type of purchasing, in case the company goes bust and they don't get what they paid for, so they lose some potential customers (probably not that many). But without it, they'd have to raise prices to earn the same, so robbing Peter to pay Paul.
13412
« on: July 25, 2011, 05:42 »
IS awful. The worst month in almost 2 years without stopping to upload images ... I have stopped rising. Before his rise was complicated offsetting gains, but now ...
Don't necessariy panic. It may be the notorious 'summer slump'. You may rise again.
Are you exclusives in a slump? So far I've mostly hear non-exclusives complaining. I've added more photos than usually, they weren't some BS shots just to fill up the limits and it didn't help. At all!
My first two weeks of July were fairly good (for me), but this past week was awful. I'm hoping it's just the Slump.
13413
« on: July 25, 2011, 04:38 »
IS awful. The worst month in almost 2 years without stopping to upload images ... I have stopped rising. Before his rise was complicated offsetting gains, but now ...
Don't necessariy panic. It may be the notorious 'summer slump'. You may rise again.
13414
« on: July 24, 2011, 05:24 »
One has to wonder how calm Lobo would be if his - uneroded - wages were to come in over a week late.
13415
« on: July 23, 2011, 15:04 »
I wonder if Lobo rescinded his ban?
It was a temporary ban, but I thought his latest incarnation was ShankAli_reborn or somesuch.
13416
« on: July 23, 2011, 14:49 »
I was absolutely shocked. Great sympathy to all involved directly and indirectly. The Norwegians I've seen interviewed have reacted with incredible strength and grace. I hope you can all support each other through this. Sadly, things won't be the same again.
13417
« on: July 22, 2011, 13:16 »
Uploads are OFF again.
Really . . . . couple of hours ago it worked fine.
That was then, this is now: and word is (from the Help forum) it might off for a while yet.
13418
« on: July 22, 2011, 11:47 »
Uploads are OFF again.
13419
« on: July 22, 2011, 09:58 »
What a fuss about nothing.
The 'Good old days' in the Istock forum consisted mostly of sycophants wooyaying and telling each other and the admins how great they were.
I used to drop in occasionally, and leave feeling sick.
That's the truth! It didn't do them any good either __ they got stuffed same as the rest of us.
Is there an acronym for 'rureful LOL'? Because you just hit the nail on the head.
13421
« on: July 22, 2011, 06:24 »
http://www.alltageinesfotoproduzenten.de/2011/07/05/drei-jahre-microstock-meine-umsaetze-und-erfahrungen/
You can post this link from Robert Kneschke, its in German and they have to run it through google, but after 3 years he now earns around 3600 euros a month with roughly 5000 images in microstock.
Very interesting that his iStock income is decreasing while at the other sites they're constantly increasing. I don't read German, and though the iStock link on that page leads to his iStock port, it doesn't on SS or Fotolia. Do you happen to know if it's the independent upload limit that's holding him back on iStock, i.e. does he have much larger ports on the other sites?
13422
« on: July 22, 2011, 05:52 »
Remember the day when IS had the pickiest reviewers? My current observation is they seem to accept almost anything i submit. They are propably desperate for new material (?)
In the other hand, SS, DT, FT are getting more and more difficult to submit to. I used to have a 90%+ acceptance ratio, but now its more like 50% (I haven't got the courage to check out my numbers...)
This is how the tables turn...
(Bottom line: the sites should accept almost anything that is technically good enough. Let the customers vote with their clicks and buys and weed out the non-selling crap after it has been online for a couple of years. It's getting really frustrating to submit decent images and get them rejected because they are "too similar" oor "limited commercial value" or something else)
If you're independent, why not spread your similars over the different agencies? Just a thought, and not one I've ever tried.
13423
« on: July 21, 2011, 19:27 »
BTW, it might be worthwhile checking your upload page in case you have any images which haven't been completed even though you though they were in the queue. I found one last night and one just now: i.e. I'd captioned and keyworded them, and sent them, and received no error message, but somehow they hadn't gone into the queue and had lost all the info I'd typed in.
13424
« on: July 21, 2011, 18:16 »
It's working now. 
13425
« on: July 21, 2011, 17:30 »
Blank for me also. It did register as an uploaded image so I suggest others to wait until this problem is fixed.
Don't know if others are seeing it now, but it says "File uploads have temporarily been deactivated for all users. Please try again later."
Yeah, they've deactivated uploads to investigate and fix the problem. It didn't seem consistent: people had been reporting it since Monday, and I've been uploading like crazy all week and didn't have issues until last night. Even today I had three went up without problems, although the rest were getting blank pages.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
