MicrostockGroup

Show Posts

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 - Plank

Pages: [1]

General Stock Discussion / Popular at 500px

« on: April 29, 2015, 07:58 »

This photo is "popular" in the food section of 500px

https://500px.com/photo/106878901/fruit-tart-by-azahar-omar?from=popular&only=Food

General Stock Discussion / Re: 500px issue

« on: April 23, 2015, 14:44 »

To the 500px people

concerning metadata I made a mistake, and beg your pardon.

The backstage is the following:

Went to the Fine Art section; clicked on Trending Profiles; choose one of the authors;
and choose a photo which I downloaded. (I am not posting the actual example since
I think I have not the right to do so without author permission).

Then opened the photo in phostoshop and looked for File info: all blank!

So, I wrongly concluded that the metadata has been stripped out.
I thought so because it never occurred to me that someone will post a photo
without a copyright notice in the metadata.
In fact without ANY metadata at all, which is odd.

However, it seems that this guy did just so.
Maybe is the only one in the whole site.
---

Looking to other photos, they DO have ALL the metadata.
Not only copyright notice but description , keywords, etc.

Sorry for the wrong assumption.

General Stock Discussion / Re: 500px issue

« on: April 23, 2015, 14:37 »

Quote from: click_click on April 23, 2015, 14:02

It's a mystery to me how many top photographs are uploaded to 500px without any watermark at all. I don't understand the intention behind that from the photographers.

They are there for the glory.
Many are thrilled just to be seen and liked.
I may add that in a very fine composition a watermark will spoil it, unless you are Dürer.

They are not there for the money, contrary to us, venal laborers

General Stock Discussion / Re: 500px issue

« on: April 23, 2015, 12:39 »

Quote from: adriana_manni on April 23, 2015, 10:34

Thanks for your suggestion. Many of our users prefer to share higher-res images, so we provide the low-res option for those who don't. Duly noted about the watermarking

1- I do believe that some people like hi res images; however others don't.
The instructions and FAQ are obscure to say the least on this matter

2- I noticed also, and forgot to mention it in the initial post, that the copyright notice embedded in the metadata
has been stripped out!
I understand that you may want to delete phone numbers and contact data, but deleting copyright notice is certainly
NOT acceptable.

General Stock Discussion / 500px issue

« on: April 23, 2015, 07:06 »

I would like to share the following info on 500px.

To taste the water I submitted a few dozen images to 500px.
I had assumed a decent level of security so I took no precautions.
I uploaded 3000 pixels (bigger side) since that was the minimum requirement to sell.
I had not yet realized that you could upload low res and then upload hi res in the market.
The preview image was about 700/1000 pixels (bigger side) when seen on my screen, so it looked ok.

I then stumbled using Google image search on 500px pictures which were MUCH bigger.
Since I doubt that Google will resort to shady behaviour, this looked like something wrong in their site.

If you right click on the image it tells you that the image is copyrighted and do not allow you to download.
But we all now that is a fake protection.

I started looking at the source code of the page displaying my images. The link to the image was in plain sight. No attempt to obfuscate the url with some fancy javascript footwork as many do.
Not a big problem since you assume that the link is to a low res picture.
Alas, this is not so.
In my case the 3000x2000 picture has ,yes, been downsized but to 2048x1370.
This is WAY to big for showcase purpose. Is is bigger than a full HD screen (1920x1080).

I really wonder why the feed a 2.8Mpx asset to the browser.
This rise some questions.
1- are they grossly incompetent ?
2- are they aware but have their reasons (which I would like to know) ?

The only reason I see is that they did it for 4K monitors.
If this is the case they should have some code to feed the browser according to screen resolution and not scatter 2.8Mpx media everywhere.

Hope this helps.

Pages: [1]