251
LuckyOliver.com / Re: Disapointing image review feedback
« on: October 08, 2006, 20:34 »
...and still Sept.22nd for me ~ ~
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. 251
LuckyOliver.com / Re: Disapointing image review feedback« on: October 08, 2006, 20:34 »
...and still Sept.22nd for me ~ ~
252
iStockPhoto.com / Re: IS option: Allow Prints« on: October 07, 2006, 20:18 »Where? Go to the 'my upoalds' page Just underneath the title there is a line with subtitles: Details | Images | Prints | Lightboxes | Designs | Extended Licenses Choose 'prints' At the right bottom, 'select all' Don't forget to chechmark the bottom left box to that it becomes "You are currently allowing prints ", otherwise the new setting won't work And then select the 'all on' underneath Kind of a tricky setting, it would be much easier to have it set along with the Extended Licenses option. 253
iStockPhoto.com / Re: IS option: Allow Prints« on: October 07, 2006, 12:03 »
Done! Thanks Quevaal
![]() 254
New Sites - General / microstockphoto changed hands...« on: October 07, 2006, 09:49 »
Just received this email:
Dear Microstock Forum user and Photographers, We are still waiting for the domainname microstockphoto.com to be moved to us as new owners and were planning to wait with moving the microstockphoto.com website to a new server untill this was finished, but because of this delay, we don't want to wait longer and will start moving all content this weekend. Because of this, we will close the login to the Forum and photographer login just untill the movement of the website is completed. We will also present some screenshots of the new design for microstockphoto here later today, which we will try to implement into the site asap. We will send out an email to all photographers about this and hope you all have understanding if any problems should occur. (which we don't hope so offcourse) As stated previously, many updates are planned, concerning updates, marketing etc. and we will try to keep everybody updated on it. please check the forum announcement page now and then for updates. Denne melding og oppdateringer ligger ogs p: http://www.microstockphoto.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=152 Ruben ViaStep 256
Shutterstock.com / Re: can't get onto shutterstock« on: October 06, 2006, 21:43 »
Veinglory, here is what I did (copy below of the message I posted on the SS forum, I put on bold what seems to be important). Hope that it can help you. If you're not using Firefox, then it may be something else.
berryspun Post Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:08 am Regarding the access problem, i did the drastic thing: close all the windows, clear all the cookies, history, cache, etc. and shut down the computer to erase the remnant glitches from the past which were virtually memorized somewhere. And it worked, all the pages are accessible now. Whew! from: http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=13168&start=30 257
iStockPhoto.com / IS option: Allow Prints« on: October 06, 2006, 19:16 »
Right now I'm going through my portfolio to rectify the new definition keywords. I noticed that for each picture, above "Allow All Extended License Options For File", there is another checkbox for "Allow Prints". I have 3 questions about it:
1. Do you think that ckeckmarking it would make a difference in the download numbers ? 2. Are there some consequences which I should be aware of if I checkmark it? 3. If I decide to do it, is there a way to do it in one stroke, or do I have to open every single picture to checkmark it? Thanks 258
Shutterstock.com / Re: Is it just me but....« on: October 06, 2006, 16:51 »
I noticed it, and was very happily surprised
![]() Edit: I didn't read the first line correctly: I NEVER resubmitted old photos. But recently I noticed that some of my old photos were downloaded again, and assumed that it was due to a modified SS search engine. 259
iStockPhoto.com / Re: slow day at istock yesterday« on: October 06, 2006, 16:47 »wow, that is confusing. ![]() 260
LuckyOliver.com / Re: Disapointing image review feedback« on: October 05, 2006, 00:02 »
It would be nice for each picture to have a reference. About 2 weeks ago I noticed that I had 8 pictures missing, emailed them the references from the accepted list which didn't show up in the portfolio (nor the keyword search), and fortunately they were very quick to put them back online and apologetic for the mistake. Very nice and friendly administration team, that's for sure.
But sure I wish that there would be an individual photo reference, for both the acceptance batch and the online photo ID. I like the convenience of keeping track, it frees up my mind. My last batch still in queue at LO is from Sept 22. Except for ScanStock, all the other sites have already processed it. What concerns me the most is the lack of views (it has been 917 views for more than 10 days), with the frozen $0.30 'piggy bank' as a result. I know that the marketing has not started yet, but I wonder... Since the team is young and very friendly and have a desire to enjoy life (and it shows in their personal participation on the site!), I really wish them the best. But of course to wish them the best is to wish us the best, isn't it? Bottom line: I don't mind waiting a few more days if I see this little piggy go to the market and start to unfreeze ![]() 261
ScandinavianStockPhoto.com / ScanStock waiting queue« on: October 02, 2006, 09:46 »
I uploaded a big batch on Sept.2nd. A few of them have been approved, drop by drop, until Sept.29. And then nothing.
I edited this post, because after having mentioned it a few hours ago, all the pictures are getting reviewed right now. Which is a good sign. 262
New Sites - General / Re: photos.com« on: October 01, 2006, 23:49 »
Would this help? I don't know what it means:
http://www.jupitermedia.com/corporate/releases/03.10.22-animations.html (exerpt) About the ArtToday.com Network The ArtToday.com Network offers paid online subscriptions for photographs, clipart, Web graphics, animations and fonts. Network sites include Photos.com (www.photos.com), ClipArt.com (www.clipart.com), Graphics.com (www.graphics.com), FlashComponents.com (www.flashcomponents.com), RebelArtist.com (www.rebelartist.co) and Animations.com (www.animations.com), among others. ClipArt.com is the largest subscription-based graphics resource on the Web with more than 2.6 million clipart images, animations, photos, fonts and sounds. The entire ArtToday.com Network of Web sites generates in excess of 60 million page views per month and has approximately 3.0 million unique visitors per month. 263
CanStockPhoto.com / Re: Canstock requiring model release for all minor models even if face isn't vis« on: October 01, 2006, 18:19 »
You're welcome
![]() The comment "even when you can't see their face" could have meant that maybe someone could recognize this person, even from the back, that doesn't necessarily means a change of policy. Sometimes the short explanations can be puzzling, to say the least. Also, there is definitely an human touch in the review process to consider, we all know it, what may pass for one may be rejected by the next, and vice-versa. Nothing personal. But I understand that it can be frustrating at times. ![]() Submitting to several sites, I find it therapeutic, because the pictures that are questioned are usually never the same, and I take it more as a site policy than a personal slap! So... I just go with the flow... 264
CanStockPhoto.com / Re: Canstock requiring model release for all minor models even if face isn't vis« on: October 01, 2006, 15:32 »
When I was on the other side of the fence, the key regarding MR was: could this person be identifiable or not ? if the answer was yes, or if there was any kind of doubt about it, we would ask for a model release. I can understand why the approver would err on the side of caution with these pictures. You can see part of your son's face too, even if the picture was taken from behind. Hope that this helps, Stacy.
265
CanStockPhoto.com / Re: Canstock requiring model release for all minor models even if face isn't vis« on: October 01, 2006, 14:26 »
Scrappinstacy, I just got a picture approved at CS with 3 teenagers not showing their faces.
Has this specific picture been already approved on another site without a MR ? 267
New Sites - General / Re: Image theft« on: September 29, 2006, 17:01 »
Fotolia's reputation was put at risk because of this Galastock employee (I suppose that he was an employee since GS admin said that this thief was fired). It seems that Fotolia's headquarters are in New York. I did a search, here is the link:
http://www.fotolia.com/info/privacy_policy.php Fotolia LLC 41 East 11th St 11th Floor New York, NY 10003 I wish and I hope that Fotolia will pursue this thoroughly via a legal avenue, and ask for some compensation, not only for their site, but for the photographers whose pictures were stolen - no compensation for me BTW...by the way ![]() Note to Leaf: the 'image theft' in the fotolia category may be misleading. I am relieved that you took out GS from the stock links. 268
LuckyOliver.com / Re: Last chance to upload for credits.« on: September 29, 2006, 12:08 »
That was a quick answer Bryan, very well appreciated
![]() Bryan, at least you are clear on your intentions, and you have a very positive reputation to work with at this point. Your transparency approach makes your strength. I hope now for all of us, and for a long-term win-win situation of course, that the 'piggy-bank' will start to unfreeze, and this will only come with a good designer's outreach marketing approach. We count on you and your team, and we can be patient ![]() 269
LuckyOliver.com / Re: Last chance to upload for credits.« on: September 29, 2006, 11:07 »
KWIM Know What I Mean?
http://www.acronymfinder.com/af-query.asp?String=exact&Acronym=KWIM 270
New Sites - General / Re: Image theft« on: September 28, 2006, 23:07 »
AreaPhotography, in the SS forum, mrslevite said said:
"It had to come from inside a stock agency because the image has never sold." http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=13055&highlight= That's why I assumed that it was an internal theft. 271
New Sites - General / Re: Image theft« on: September 28, 2006, 22:42 »
What could clarify the whole thing very quickly is a statement from the Galastock owner confirming or not that this person had access to their internal files. It should be easy.
I never joined GalaStock, and I don't have any stolen pictures. 272
iStockPhoto.com / Re: my first flame.... FINALLY!!!« on: September 27, 2006, 13:55 »
Congratulations Tyler!
![]() Did they let you know about it, or did you just happen to see it? 273
Site Related / Re: What's up with "istock news"...« on: September 26, 2006, 15:54 »
Thanks Leaf, very good addition feature! I know that internet didn't exist in 69, and computers weren't squeezed in a small box. But I wondered if you were even born at that time...
![]() 274
Dreamstime.com / Re: dreamstime down?« on: September 26, 2006, 15:49 »
It's a blank page for me...
275
ImageVortex.com / Re: Is IV freezing?« on: September 23, 2006, 08:39 »
Thanks for your feedback. My pictures are still in the pending mode after 2 weeks, very unusual, because it used to be so quick... Now after uploading there is a link which says:
"Hint: to maximize your sales, use our banners or your personal gallery link on your website." Would it be a one-person business which only takes the pictures without doing anything else ? Your comments helped me make a decision... I am going to erase my portfolio this week-end. Time to move on. |
Submit Your Vote
|