I agree, they are biting the hand that feeds them.

I don't handle mass rejections well, so i am considering closing my account there if this behavior doesn't change.

Patrick.

Hi,

This is a rant, a big rant.

Almost 70 % of about 200 of my latest batches rejected for :
Background not white
noise

checking in photoshop at 100 % magnification i can't see any noise.. and i mean NO noise.
We all know how picky SS is on noise issues... they haven't rejected a single one from those batches.
checking background color it shows perfect 255/255/255 white.

If they want me to take my business elsewere, than just say so... don't let me spend hours uploading for nothing.

Patrick.

Add to that my today rejection experience from DT :
13 in a row rejected for :

"The signatures of the photographer and the witness look stitched. We cannot accept digitally manipulated model releases (we only accept hand-written signatures)."

They are actually me calling a fraud, a cheater.

The model release in question is a standard model release i use for all my shoots, the witness sign on it is from the woman who accompanies me on my shoots almolst 90 %, the photographers signature is mine... that model release has been copied numerous times, thus the fading compared to the original...

But no, for DT the quality of the model release print is even as more important as the picture.
Never had any problems with my releases besides a occasional data missing (had some rejected because for belgium i had filled in B, while according to DT it had to be BE....)

Remarkable that these new reject reasons show up the same week new reviewers start.

Patrick.

ps  : wanted to add that if a reviewer/inspector can't see the difference between faded ink and an digital manipulated release he/she is clearly not qualified being in that job...!!!!

Quote from: rjmiz on December 05, 2007, 08:50
It's unfortunate that the practice of using irrelevant key wording exits on any website.
However, consider the fact that any stock photography company is free to practice and
set policy as they see fit.

We must remember that we are guest contributors of any stock site we submit too. We exist
as contributors at the pleasure of any site that will host our images. I know from experience
rocking the boat does more harm than good.

Your request for action can be seen as inappropriate, and harmful to the site you're partitioning.
Be careful you are not violating any terms of agreement you may have with the site you wish to
target.

My advice is to contact the site's support team and voice a complaint before you sound off, and put
your account in jeopardy. Be conservative, and realize it is not your place to set policy or call negative
attention to any site that is hosting your images.

Good luck,
The MIZ

Numerous complaints have been done.... and nothing has been done by the site admins to this practice....

If you learn to read between the line than you will have noticed that i was not saying we should all start doing it.... just a sarcastic remark... nothing more.

Patrick.

Quote from: hatman12 on December 04, 2007, 21:28


I'm not particularly interested in the high iso stuff.

Hi,

Me neather....

Who in their right mind would be shooting at higher iso for stock....?..
Even the best camera produce some noise in darker areas at lowest iso, noise that gets worst at higher iso.
Knowing how picky some sites are regarding noise..... the conclusion is obvious... lowest iso.
Unless you like soft images, overprocessed with noise reducing programs, then i really can't see the benefits of having a good camera with high resolution when you destroy the details with noise reduction programs.

Patrick.

Nikon.....

When deciding to go dslr some years ago i handled several brands, the canon and nikon felt best in my hands, ultimate choice became the nikon and never regretted it.  Both deliver excellent quality, however, nikon had some features the canon had lack of (spot metering, disabeling pre-flash etc).

Patrick.

It seems StockXpert is not going to do something about this obvious keyword spamming.

I have a suggestion, we all start adding a huge amount of keywords to our pictures, don't bother if they make sence or not.... now let's see how long this guy can keep up this practice.

And in the mean time our pictures would have more exposure because of the very good keywords.

Patrick.

When i started in stock some years ago i created a clipping path in my illustrations and isolated shots.
Later on, most sites started offerering different sizes at different prices, so pictures were being resized/downsampled for customers.

I decided to do a test : since i included the keywords "clipping path" in keywords and description i wanted to be sure that customers also got that clipping path in their download.  Surprisingly, every file of my own i downloaded/purchased from every site the clipping path  when checking in photoshop was no longer there.  To be sure i downloaded/purchased files of other members/photographers who included and mentioned "clipping path'... and again, not a single file had a clipping path.

My conclusion, the resizing of our images on the sites destryed the clipping paths.

I contacted every site about this issue and got a reply from SS only that they don't support clipping paths.

With all that in mind i don't take the time anymore to create one in photoshop.

Patrick.

Quote from: Bateleur on November 06, 2006, 06:58

Quote from: leaf on June 19, 2006, 11:37
Microsite: Istock.com
User:  Kameel
Image ID: 1280040
Image Link:

Type of publication: Newspaper
Date of find: 19. march 2006
Tear Sheet Image, or link:

Interesting. This image appears on the iStock title page from time to time, and underneath it says 'Exclusive to iStock' photography. And yet the same image is available on Bigstock.   

And on some other sites also.. ahum...

Patrick.

Hi,

It's terrible when such things happen.  I hope it doesn't happen to me...ahum...:-)

I have a double savety routine installed.  Incoming mail goes through an email checker (mailwasher pro) that filters most spam and hack attempts.

Secondly  i always have my mcaffee active on background, highest settings, actually, i use the full package of them and never regretted it.  Mail is checked before it comes to my hard drive,  Internet surfing is monitored also, allerting for possible dangerous sites etc... Regular checks of the drives is done on a daily basis... updates come in  and are being installed as sone as available, almost on a daily basis also...

Thirdly (is that correct grammar.?.)... for finacial sites i won't let firefox remember login paswords etc....  and i change those on a weekly basis.

And it also helps that the server i'm using here in belgium has all users/clients behind a firewall, actively monitoring for hackers and blocking all attempts from what remotely looks like hacking/phising etc... but informing you of the attempt and if you want to accept or not....

Sounds paranoid... nope... one can't be carefully enough these days.

Patrick.

I never respond to those raw requests... it's imo like giving away your (digital) negative.  And, much more worth than one dollar.

Patrick.

Better layout... but...

I can't seem to find my downloads on a daily basis, not for subscriptions, not for credit sales.  Being a number freak i like to keep detailed spreadsheets of my sales.
Only thing i find is my monthly earnings.

Patrick.

Ps : on the inlog page there is the quoate "absolutely free images"...
IMO this is a misinterpretation of the free pictures section, and would/could encourage donwloaders to use them in any way they like....
They are free to download, but use is restricted to term of use...they should mention this also.

I don't quit follow eather...
If someone tries to hack your account, and enter your email adress... the new temp password is sent to me, not the hacker.?..

Or am i missing something.?..

Patrick.

On a certain site that also introduced subsciptions this year :

October 2006 average income per picture : 1.02 $
October 2007 average income per picture : 0.66 $

I'm still confused as how this subscription plan benefits the photographers.

Patrick.

ps : forgot to add that october 2006 i had 155 downloads, october 2007 186, but earnings from this year october are still roughly about 30 $ less then income from october 2006.... hoera subscriptions (sarcastic)

And still nothing has been done on this obvious spamming...
Patrick.

mon - thue and wednesday... thirsday slowing down and on friday, always my worst day.

Patrick.

Seen this on the SS forum too but didn't reply over there.

When i open it i see it turning anti clockwise... but concentrating on it i can change it to turn clockwise.... and even back to anti clockwise... does that make me a weirdo.?.

Patrick.

Quote from: hatman12 on October 06, 2007, 20:00

To be fair to Fotolia, ever since I have been a member there, there has always been a warning notice on the upload confirmation page that 'the most important keywords should appear first' and of course there is the sliding box thing to allow for reordering.  Any contributor who ignored that notice should kick themselves rather than Fotolia.  Of course it isn't made clear that only the first seven words will count.

Hi,

My guess is you are not reading what people are saying... sorry, no offence.
What i read is that most of the 'complainers' are putting the keywords in right order.... as I do in photoshop already when keywording.
when i upload to FT they appear in the right order on the FT page, but neather can i find most of my pictures via the search function.  And trully, i made it my task to put them in right order and checking on submitting in the first place.

So obvious there is something wrong with the search function on FT.  I have great days... i have days without any sale... that with a port of more than 2000 pictures is.................... fill in the blanks.

I'm sure that phildate... andres.... forgiss... etc will have great sale... but we are speaking of big port... portfolios that get priority if something needs te be fixed.

Patrick.

Hi,

Most of the problems could also be perception.
For instance.  My brother lives with me.  Has a computer, also partially into photography, more video.  Computer room, both computers next to each other.... and... both give differerent results on same sites viewing, same pictures, same videos.

I tried to even the monitors.... still different results.
I tried to even the used program properties, color settings, color space used..... still different results.

But, we have different brand monitors.  My brother AOC.. me having a Dell....
Even with same settings (both in monitor settings and program setting, color space etc...)  these two produce different results.

Frankly... sometimes I also wonder... why does a picture looks good on my screen but looks awfull once online'.... ?...

Patrick.

ps : some uniform calibration amongst all monitors would be extremely helpfull.....

Such portfolios should be disabled.... 

Patrick.

Hi,

There is a definite increase in sales from older files, i'm not complaying though...:-)

Patrick.