|
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 - yingyang0
Pages: 1 ... 24 25 26 27 28 [29] 30
701
« on: October 18, 2006, 20:54 »
What I really don't understand is seeing photos show up that don't have ANY of the words I searched on listed in the keywords. How in the heck does that work?  I keep telling myself to just stay away from there until they get this whole mess sorted out but it's just so hard to look away from a train wreck.
This system will only work when all the files have been fixed. Untill then any ambiguous keyword maps to all possible meanings, so that's how you get photos that don't have the keyword in it. They're trying to get a system close to Getty without hiring the people neccessary to just set all teh keywords themselves.
702
« on: October 18, 2006, 16:04 »
Do you mean the "did you mean" word in the brackets?
American passport proves my point. Red car is not an official addition to their tagging system. American flag is. You completely missed what I said and proved my point. I'm talking about using the "Did you mean" thing to add the phrase to there system.
WHAT? now you're confusing me, what brackets? I'm talking about when you edit the keywords to your photo. When the system doesn't recoginze a word or phrase it puts a pull down menu where the keyword should be. If you choose add 'whatever the word/phrase is' (and sometimes you have to do it many times), then the pull down menu goes away and the word/phrase is now part of the iStock word/phrase library.
703
« on: October 17, 2006, 16:50 »
Does anyone get any acutal sales there?
704
« on: October 16, 2006, 20:36 »
My sales haven't suffered too much but I have been uploading my full quote of 50 images a week so I would be expecting my royalties to be climbing steadily.
I had my best day ever today. My sales have gone up exponentially since the change. I think the old hands are just upset because they had the old system clocked and now they have to figure out a new system, and until they do the rest of us have a far shot.
705
« on: October 16, 2006, 19:23 »
This is not true. Although there are times that the search engine will return the phrase, there are other times that the search engine will NOT return the phrase, so it is a crap shoot.
For example, if you search using the keywords"American passport" (WITHOUT the quotes), then the search results show for "american AND passport" and you will receive 23 results. If you search using the keywords "American passport" (WITH the quotes), then you will receive the phrase "American passport" and you will receive 1 result.
The same is true of the famous example "red car" and many other keyword combinations.
But other examples, such as searching for the keywords "American flag" (WITHOUT the quotes) will show up as you stated (with results from the phrase).
So there is no rhyme or reason to the searches at this point.
On top of that, the search results keep changing as the days go by. One day, the keywords will return the phrase and on another day they will return the separate keywords...
American passport proves my point. Red car is not an official addition to their tagging system. American flag is. You completely missed what I said and proved my point. I'm talking about using the "Did you mean" thing to add the phrase to there system.
706
« on: October 16, 2006, 01:02 »
I don't think it is just ebb and flow. The more phrases you put in the system, the more rewards you get. example phrase (silly boy): lets say that before you added the phrase 'silly boy' if a buyer were to search "silly boy" the search engine would search for "silly AND boy". But now that you've added the phrase to their system, when anyone searchs for "silly boy" the system will only return the photos that have that exact phrase. It is normally a much smaller return.
This example is based on a real example I tried out. The photo sold for only the second time, in three months, the day after I made the change. It was a Sunday too!
707
« on: October 14, 2006, 21:39 »
You do know that you can see a difference though, regardless of which algorithm you use. That was the whole point of the post right? You want to upsize photos for microstock. If you are upsizing more than 20% then I'm willing to bet they get rejected for one of the following: "over filtering", "pixelation", or for the photo being too soft.
708
« on: October 14, 2006, 17:52 »
If you actually read the whole article you'll see that the page I linked to was the only one that you could see any difference at all. It was also at 400% which is way beyond what you could get away with if you wanted to upload it to a stock agency. At the lower levels Photozoom and PS are identical.
I hate to tell you this but s-spline "xl" is more hype then improvement. The mathmatics behind it can't be improved much more then they already had. Photozoom uses a nearest neighbor, weighted, low-degree polynomial algorithm. The only thing they can do is tweak the weighting (which is what they did).
You're welcome to believe whatever you want, but you're going to have a hard time proving to me that splining produces better results than fractalization, when they are done correctly. I wrote my master's thesis on use of fractals in image rasterization.
709
« on: October 14, 2006, 14:55 »
and the interpolation engine in Photozoom (s-spline) is much better than PS's bicubic.
Photozoom's s-spline algorithm is just a slightly weighted version of the bicubic interpolation that CS2 uses. Every unbiased comparison I've seen says they are almost identical. Genuine Fractal's algorithm has always been considered the best interpolation algorithm available. Check out this comparison: http://www.ronbigelow.com/articles/interpolation3/interpolation3.htm
710
« on: October 14, 2006, 14:15 »
Only if you are exclusive it doesn't change for non exclusives and the upload limit is 30 not 25.
Straight from the iStock page! The upload limits per 168 hours (week) for non exclusive are: Default: 20 Bronze: 25Silver: 30 Gold: 35 Diamond: 50 Your were right that the royalties stay at the base level for non-exclusives.
711
« on: October 14, 2006, 11:52 »
No, there's no other benefits except that you can now apply for exclusivity.
Wrong. There is also an increase in your royalties. With the broze canister you get a 5% royalty increase. So the .20 minimum royalty becomes .25
712
« on: October 14, 2006, 11:47 »
and laptop,ipod or mp3, car. Where do you draw the line.
You draw the line where the the law does. Very few laptops could have trademarks or design patents because they aren't orignial designs. Same with cars, only very distinctive cars qualify (anything by ford wouldn't, the new VW mini would). You have to remember that you cannot tread stock photography as a hobby, because it is not. Stock photography is a business and you have to respect other businesses' property. You also have to remember that just because a photo contains a trademarked, etc. item doesn't mean that you are doing anything wrong by selling it. It all depends on how the item is used in the final design. However, if the stock photography agency gets sued for selling an image as RF that wasn't, the photographer will have to pay the legal expenses for both the agency and himself (it's in the contracts you agreed to). I wouldn't be complaining about it, I'd be thankful that they are spending the time to protect the photographers from having to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal expenses.
713
« on: October 14, 2006, 00:44 »
I have an image that was accepted over 4 months ago. I recently received an email that they might remove it because of a copyright problem.
The image has had over 30 sales, and I was wondering if they remove the image, would they also remove the sales that I received???
I've never had a photo removed because I don't take any risks. I have reported a few copyright/trademark/design patent violations. For instance any blackberry, any photo I knew was taken at the San Diego Zoo, etc. The inspectors can't catch everything and it is better for the photographer if they don't have a photo up that violates someone else's IP. My favorite are all the people that upload photos of cell phones with the brand names taken off thinking it is ok. EVERY MODERN CELLPHONE'S DESIGN IS BOTH TRADEMARKED AND DESIGN PATENTED.
714
« on: October 14, 2006, 00:36 »
It reminds me of the kind of photos that I saw on a Nancy Grace special on "teen model" website. I know it wasn't your intension but I would have to agree on that one. The swimming suit top is hanging a little low.
715
« on: October 11, 2006, 15:05 »
No same at iStock. One release for all photos. If you use the iStock release you are going to have to photoshop the logo, and the copyright notice at the bottom, out of the jpg that you upload. SS doesn't like it. If you are accepted you should copy the language into a word document and create your own custom release.
Note: SS is much stricter on noise so watch out.
716
« on: October 11, 2006, 14:56 »
My downloads at iStock have gone up a lot since the keyword change up. My downloads at SS have gone down slightly. I think it is just normal ebb and flow.
717
« on: October 10, 2006, 08:03 »
YingYang0 - The iStock problem may have been related to a broader server issue they had yesterday (reported on this forum and in others). Please check it again; I have double checked it from my end and it appears to function.
Marcviln
Nope. Still not working for iStock. It works for the other sites, just not iStockphoto. It is 8am US central time here. Update: It's working now. It was my fault, didn't read the manual so didn't know I had to delete the name/password, restart the widget, then retype it information in .
718
« on: October 10, 2006, 00:14 »
I noticed the same change as virago
719
« on: October 09, 2006, 23:31 »
IT STILL DOESN'T WORK FOR iSTOCK! 
720
« on: October 09, 2006, 16:09 »
FT? Is that Fotolia?
722
« on: October 07, 2006, 19:55 »
Where?
723
« on: October 07, 2006, 02:39 »
I had to wait 1 1/2 week for my pictures got reviewed
But all of them got rejected by Istock, they really start to piss me off.
From now on i don't think i,m gonna send them any photos anymore only vectors, hope it will get better then.
Did you consider that the stuff you considered "good" actually wasn't? Just because it sells on other sites doesn't mean it is not poor quality. They are really picky on the quality of the photos at iStock and it sounds to me that you're stuff just isn't good enough(0 out of 20). If the rejections had been for things like noise then things would be different, but since you said the rejections were for composition and such, I think you should go buy a book on photography with all that money you are making on the other sites.
724
« on: October 06, 2006, 19:54 »
Sounds like you were taken, no real seller would say he is going to be gone right after selling an item. That's why I would never consider buying a camera on ebay, especially one that doesn't explicitly say that there is a US warranty.
Don't send the item back until you actually talk to the person. Get his phone number and do a reverse lookup to get his real address. Contact Ebay first, then your credit card company (I assume you used a credit card) and place a stop payment on the paypal transaction, then contact paypal about the situation. If you don't contact your credit card company then you will probably get screwed. Paypal almost always sides with the seller and you can't do anything about it if you paid for the item using funds that were in a Paypal account.
725
« on: October 06, 2006, 19:45 »
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
1. No, in the last three months I've only heard of two people getting a print sale. 2. No. 3. You have to check every single checkbox for each picture. Since you have to change all your keywords anyway, you should probably just take the time to click the checkboxes. Who knows, you may make a few dollars sometime.
Pages: 1 ... 24 25 26 27 28 [29] 30
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
