racephoto, here's one I got recently. Can you help me with it? 


image upload

Simple type in  "youtuest".  That's all you need.  Same with every other captcha request.  Just type in the one garbled word and your done.  There will never be any symbols, foreign letters, etc. in the garbled word (it's net really a word), just a bunch of English alpha characters.

In general it seems to be working OK.  Only problem I've had so far is when the first submittal is bounced for a misspelled word or the like it deletes any model release I may have attached.  If you miss that, like I did the first time around, it's seven days and start all over.   

time for me to drop my garbage crown =)

Thats great! i thought the license was for sensitive purposes... that got me thinking about doing some illustrations for the "mature" audiences... lol

I don't know about Morphart, but mine was about the farthest thing imaginable from either a sensitive purpose or something for a "mature" audience.  It was a photograph (not illustration) of fall leaves, composite of three individual leaves actually, with some shadowing and text thrown in.  I can't imagine an application for this image that would call for a sale of a couple hundred dollars (my commission $112).  I have received a couple of EL's and numerous OD's for this image, but big dollars ..... I just don't know.   No complaints of course, but I sure am curious.

Wow.  Seven months for a response.  LOL

Well the rejected image has continued to sell briskly and just returned a $112 commission on SS as an SOD.  It may be that Veer doesn't like text.  If not that, then I haven't a clue.

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=83097568

Anthony at Shutterstock just posted on their forum that this is legitimate.  Only a small number of contributors were affected so only they were contacted by e-mail.  If you didn't receive this notice then you should be fine.  Although it's always a good idea to change your password(s) every few months or so.

I'm wondering if the reviewers actually see and make a decision on similars.  I uploaded a set of four images about a month ago.  I knew two were similar to the others, but felt there was sufficient difference that buyers would want to be able to select between them.  They were uploaded via FTP.  When I checked the images to complete the submission (within one hour of upload), two images only showed a blank square, no picture.  The other two were fine.  It appeared the computer system was comparing newly uploaded images and kicking out those it considered too similar.  When I eventually got my acceptance notice for the two images that went through, it stated the other two were rejected as being too similar, even though to all appearances the reviewer had never actually seen the images.

Anyone else had a similar experience?

Quote from: w7lwi on June 08, 2012, 15:13

Quote from: ruxpriencdiam on June 08, 2012, 13:25

Quote from: w7lwi on June 08, 2012, 13:22

Quote from: JPSDK on June 08, 2012, 11:08

ja, and I miss SS, but they wont let me back.
Who are you!?

Russ, the other Nevada

Russ!

PHlange & PHence

Now we just need Perry and evanders

Let me guess, you guys hang out in the SS critique forum and offer workshops or have aspirations of offering workshops!

Nope.  Just guys I know from the SS forums.  Comment is an inside joke.  As to aspirations, I don't have any beyond what I'm currently doing (retired and loving it).  I taught photography at college level for several years.  Don't any more, don't offer any workshops nor do I have have any plans to.  I'll post a critique once in a while if I think the OP shows some talent, but that's about it.  Nothing regular.  I'll let the others speak for themselves as to whatever their aspirations may be.

ja, and I miss SS, but they wont let me back.
Who are you!?

Russ, the other Nevada

Quote from: Microbius on June 08, 2012, 09:43

What has that got to with reviewers? are you saying that they would be reviewing using a web browser set at a higher than 100% zoom?

You got it what if they are reviewing at a larger resolution then 100% screen view which then makes the image go OOF or soft?  We have no idea but it is a possibility.

Several years ago it was pretty much accepted that IS was reviewing some images, particularly isolations, at greater than 100%.  Whether that is still the case or not I don't know.

Just for fun and to see if there indeed may be a new policy in effect,  I submitted three more images to DT with text in the white background.  Basically the same as the previously rejected images except I used different accent pieces and arranged them somewhat differently on the white field.  Went straight through without a problem.  Apparently some reviewers are taking matters into their own hands and are accepting/rejecting as they see fit.

May be positive or negative for us.  I don't really know.  All we usually hear about are the negative consequences.  It could be positive as we may be getting some through because a reviewer knows better than to blindly follow some strange direction form HQ.

I just received a rejection from Dreamstime requesting I remove the text (on a white BG) from several images I had newly uploaded.  Is this a new requirement at DT?  I have several images already up and selling that include text on a white BG.  I don't follow the DT forums and didn't see any e-mail to this effect.  I know GL doesn't accept these, but this is the first time I've bumped into it on DT.

I uploaded several images Friday via FTP.  They still haven't transferred in as of this morning.  I use Firefox and there's no way I'm switching to Chrome if that's what it takes for multi-uploading.