|
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 - Anyka
Pages: 1 ... 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 21 22 23 24 ... 38
452
« on: February 22, 2013, 12:38 »
Oh god, Pinterest...
No real news there, except that someone on staff is making, essentially, light boxes on Pinterest and giving it the ok. The ImageIRC bit is a distraction and has nothing to do with Pinterest.
Unfortunately, nothing new with Google.
"Interesting Technology, I have no clue how effective it is or the workings behind it but if it can talk to image search engines and add that fingerprint based on visual recognition it should help with the spread of illicit downloads."
Jb, it has nothing to do with that. It is a searchable database for a browser plugin, afaik.
As far as I understand the fingerprinting technique, it means that the image itself is in the database, with "all metadata", including the fact that the image is "Istock content". But my images are not only on Istock. So if Istock or Getty starts collecting royalties of illicit downloads, they could do this with every download of the image, even if it was stolen from one of the other agencies? In theory that would mean I would get paid for these downloads through Istock only, but (1) I don't trust Istock, and (2) what if Fotolia/Shutterstock/... start working with the same technique?
453
« on: February 22, 2013, 08:08 »
If you want to do clothes like that lying flat on a white background, you can use white translucent plexiglass as a background on 2 stands. Then light it from above AND under the plexiglass. This way you won't have shadows at all.
454
« on: February 18, 2013, 11:42 »
I have liability insurance, but no insurance against theft or equipment damages. I did look for good equipment insurance here in Belgium, but as soon as they hear you're a pro, the price goes up like hell. Also : when on location, I take $7000 maximum with me, so that would mean I can get robbed every 4 years or so compared to annual insurance fees.
As for theft at home, or in a hotel (or anywhere that I stay temporarily), the fire/theft insurance of my house will cover it. Is this not the case with your home policies?
The only insurance policy I really miss is professional indemnity. I know such policies exist abroad. I'd love to be covered in case of claims concerning copyright problems, angry models etc.
455
« on: February 18, 2013, 02:02 »
same problem here. Can't login, requested a password reset, received the reset immediately, but now I cannot login with the new password either. If it's a general problem, then I don't have to look at my computer settings, clear my cache etc.
456
« on: February 17, 2013, 07:26 »
Same here, about 1/3 of December 2012. Cannot be caused by deactivations, as I only deactivated on 2nd February AND they have not removed 1 single deactivated file from TS yes until today!
457
« on: February 14, 2013, 12:00 »
I love their hair at the end of the shoot:)
But yeah, shooting with kit lens in low light will result in lots of "out of focus" rejections, and rightfully so. The thing is, they don't need stock quality - even it the image gets printed in a cookbook/magazine or gets shown on TV screen, the dimensions are not that big, so you can size down from your 18 MP or whatever and it will still look great. So many people don't realize the pain that stock photographers have to go though to get perfect sharpness and low noise levels at 100% resolution for huge files.
You are so absolutely right! Those rejections made stock photographers the shooters with the best eye for detail in photoshop. I often catch myself removing little logos, making the backgrounds perfectly black or white, or do other typically "stock stuff" for baby shoot clients!
458
« on: February 14, 2013, 07:14 »
Every time I try shooting food like that, at f4 or lower due to ambient light, 90% gets rejected due to focus "not where we like it".
Nevertheless, I love shooting food. It's the only time I get to eat my models after the shoot.
459
« on: February 11, 2013, 16:41 »
Was Sean's name on the previously public facebook list of Stocksy members?
There is no Stocksy member list. There is a Facebook group of people interested in Stocksy. There were more than 100 people on that list but almost none of them have actually been involved in Stocksy in any ways. It can't be a reason for someone to be in a Facebook list to terminate his account.
Yes, I saw Sean's name on the facebook list before it went secret, but I agree that I don't believe this to be the (only) reason for kicking him out. I think the deactivation script might be a more important reason, and I must say I feel a bit guilty. I have, like many others, praised Sean (well deserved!) for making the script. All the praise may have given Istock the impression that Sean was the Leader of the 2nd February "movement". 2nd Feb. was not his idea, nor did he lead us, but we did praise him A LOT for making the script.
460
« on: February 08, 2013, 06:49 »
I'm starting a co-op stock site called crapsy. For all of those artists who get rejected by stocksy. Who's in?
haha, well it depends ... what are your plans : micro, mid or macro stock ? And will you exclusively sell crap or are some average quality images allowed too? 
461
« on: February 07, 2013, 16:06 »
Just saw there are 2 Tyler Olson's member of the facebook Stocksy group, while I'm still waiting to get accepted. Tyler, what's your secret? (except of course that little detail that this forum is The Voice of Microstock  ).
462
« on: February 07, 2013, 04:53 »
By invitation only ... OK I sent my e-mail address, cause indeed I'm curious!
463
« on: February 05, 2013, 15:41 »
Rejections for bad isolations when you have not isolated anything at all ...
464
« on: February 04, 2013, 10:55 »
WOW! I'm at 3253 now! They removed 10 whole images of my deactivations!! That is about 1%! If they keep this speed, I'll by out of Thinkstock by May 20th! 
465
« on: February 03, 2013, 14:54 »
All of my deactivation files are still on Thinkstock. It was 3283 three weeks ago. I deactivated 21. Nothing happened on TS. A week ago I sent a nice (really nice) e-mail to Support, they appologized for the delay and told me the files would be gone in 48h (and they sincerely thanked me for supplying the Thinkstock file numbers!). 48h later 20 of the 21 were gone. Now I'm on 3263 images, one of the early deactivations is "stuck", and the 1052 I did yesterday too of course. I hope they don't expect me to look up 1052 Thinkstock numbers .... 
466
« on: February 03, 2013, 01:53 »
I'm not trying to change your mind, but I think free downloads are done by a different kind of customers. A while ago I clicked "free" instead of "delete" on a Dreamstime message about a file that had not been selling for 2 years. After that, it was downloaded thousands of times. No hard feelings with Dreamstime of course, because it was ME who decided to click on "free" and I could CHOOSE which file!
467
« on: February 02, 2013, 15:46 »
I did 552 more than listed (got carried away).
It's easy to get carried away, right? Good old Sean made it a breeze. 
He deserves a statue. Without that script, I would have quit after 50 deactivations ...
468
« on: February 02, 2013, 15:17 »
Leaf asked to put our numbers in this thread, so I'll repeat it here : I deactivated 1052 this morning, so I did 552 more than listed (got carried away).
469
« on: February 02, 2013, 15:01 »
I have a few in the Microsoft deal through Fotolia, and was willing to agree to it because I was ASKED, it was just a couple of images, and I was given approval over which ones. Not to mention that the images in MS Word linked to the same image on Fotolia so they could download a larger size or see what else I had to offer if they wanted.
Yes, being ASKED and having the CHOICE which files makes a huge difference.
470
« on: February 02, 2013, 11:17 »
Of course there is the possibility that Google just buys Getty, it is not unusual for Internet companies to acquire content this way. They can then just say "new owners, new rules" . . . . . . . .
Yes, anything is possible with giants like Google. The idea alone is pure horror.
471
« on: February 02, 2013, 10:51 »
I don't think Google would be tempted to deal with 12000 contributors directly, just to save $10 per image. Would be nice of course, but not really practical.
472
« on: February 02, 2013, 10:33 »
This morning, while I was deactivating, I noticed how many good stock images had no downloads at all. I already knew that of course, but I noticed it again. I'm sure we all have files like that. They are good stock material, but just had bad luck : accepted during the weekend, or just not sold the first week and then they disappear into the black depths of Best Match. Some of these files even have bad luck on all agencies (one of my favorite vintage photos has never EVER sold  ). Now suppose Istock/Getty had told us - in August - about the Getty/Google deal. Suppose they had asked 1 image per contributor, and we would be paid 12$ + no stripping of metadata. Would you have submitted a good file, one of the non-sellers, but still good stock? I would (I think). The difference is huge of course : no deceiving, no bestsellers, no stripping of metadata, and the choice would've been ours, not the Google-drive-users. And only 1 file per contributor "opted in".
473
« on: February 02, 2013, 10:15 »
I'm having a little problem with the deactivation process. I used the traditional method at first and everything worked fine. I then installed Sean's Grease Monkey Script and used that. It seemed to work, but my total file count did not change and the images are still there. Does this method take longer to process?
That's weird. I did a little test, but my total count goes down within seconds after deactivating a file, and I receive the deactivation e-mail within a minute.
Also for me, it worked almost instantly without any problems.
Tried again, but same problem. Don't know what I'm doing wrong. Guess I'll just do them one at a time.
Just checkin' : (1) You use firefox? (2) you installed not only Greastmonkey, but also Sean Locke's script(s)? (3) In Firefox, you go to your portfolio details, and you have a new column on the right handside of the page, a column where you can click "deactivate" + room for a reason? (4) You paste/type a reason + click? (5) You can see the word "deactivate" change into "executed" ? (6) When you refresh your page with F5, your image total does NOT go down? If you said yes to all 6 questions, then I really don't know why it's not working for you.
474
« on: February 02, 2013, 06:11 »
I'm having a little problem with the deactivation process. I used the traditional method at first and everything worked fine. I then installed Sean's Grease Monkey Script and used that. It seemed to work, but my total file count did not change and the images are still there. Does this method take longer to process?
That's weird. I did a little test, but my total count goes down within seconds after deactivating a file, and I receive the deactivation e-mail within a minute.
475
« on: February 02, 2013, 06:10 »
The deed is done.
Reason given:
O, what a tangled web we weave when we practice to deceive.
by Sir Walter Scott, not Shakespeare
You won the prize for most poetic deactivation!
Pages: 1 ... 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 21 22 23 24 ... 38
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
