MicrostockGroup Sponsors

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 - Whiskybottle

Pages: [1]
General Photography Discussion / Re: Keyword problems
« on: June 29, 2020, 05:53 »
I've had no replies from this, no one else getting the problem?

Further investigation using ExifTool to view a good v. bad file, this is what I'm seeing.

On the first pass (new file):

Photoshop/Bridge writes 'Document Title' to 'Object name' & 'Title' fields

Photoshop/Bridge writes 'Description' to 'Caption-Abstract' & 'Description' fields

Photoshop/Bridge writes 'Keywords' to 'Keywords' & 'Subject' fields

However if I later go back and change the details, only the second field is updated, i.e.

Photoshop/Bridge writes 'Document Title' to 'Title' field

Photoshop/Bridge writes 'Description' to 'Description' field

Photoshop/Bridge writes 'Keywords' to 'Subject' field

The first field remains unchanged but is not visable in the photoshop dialog.

The big problem is the agencies read the first invisable field, not the second correct field in each case

I'll try to come up with an ExifTool script to copy the contents of the second field to the first but this doesn't help the photos already out there and 123RF can't be edited once accepted

Well I seem to have lost interest in uploading to SS (and their BS sidekick)

Come January those $0.10 sales will go down again when we're all reset to level 1

Must go, got a lot of uploads to do elsewhere lol

General Photography Discussion / Keyword problems
« on: June 11, 2020, 05:33 »
Anyone else seeing this... and anyone got a fix?

I keyword my photos with photoshop and Bridge before uploading. What I'm seeing is that some photos once they are on the agence site are missing some or all of the keywords and I have to go back to my local copy and paste them across.

This is not down to a particular agency as one photo will show the problem on all of them.

From what I can tell, if I add specific keywords with photoshop and save as jpg, then go to Bridge and add more generic keywords from the batabase (like Blue, Large etc). All looks good on the file when views with Photoshop, Bridge or even windows explorer, but when it gets to the agencies only the first few added by photoshop are seen. Worst still, if I change the keywords (or discription) for example due to wrong identification, by the time it gets to the agencies it's reverted to to the previous discription.

It seems the the info embeded in the file is somehow layered. I see the latest version, the agencies see the first version even if I've since deleted it.

Is there any way of flattening the info in the file so there is only one version?


Would be useful if you guys say which country you're from, as the rules vary.

For me (UK) my accountant did my tax for me, but refused to accept my (significant) expenses. Seems it was too much like hard work, so I ended up with a bill and a right mess to sort out. Following year I did it myself and got a tax refund back into my back within a couple of weeks.

5 / Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
« on: November 18, 2019, 18:30 »
I'm sure that SS, BS and AS are using programs to review the pictures. Maybe humans too, maybe a mixed system.

No doubt about it.

Yes I think they are using both. in the last few weeks I've had batches rejected as I submit for invalid reasons (too quick to reach a human queue), and I've had batches take a couple of days to process (human queue) with sensible results.

Quess they're just getting too many pics to proberly check and just throwing the excess (majority) to a machine.

Quess everyone has had this email!

"Hey contributors! Great things are happening. We have some exciting updates coming up for our Shutterstock contributors. "

Maybe they're gonna switch that machine off ;D

6 / Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
« on: November 13, 2019, 16:52 »
I'm not sure I would be drawing attention to those images as you might find them deleted. In the UK the National Trust for example became much most active in enforcing their "rights" and as a result many of us have had related images removed. The rules on what is admissable seem to get stricter all the time.

Well National Trust shot them selves in the foot with me a long time ago. I still take photos on 'their natural properties' (coastline for example) but I don't pay their membership or use their car parks which I would otherwise have done. Even had their reps try to tell me they're not anti-photographers any more... too late, your loss.

Back to SS. Resubmitted a batch of rejections, got about 60-70% through. They were being accepted/rejected real time as I submitted, no way did they get into someones work queue. Automated process like spell checker of description (latin plant names, Scottish hill names etc), similar content on one image, similar to what? too quick to check back content, keyword or colour matching?

Note English spelling of Colour  ;D

7 / Re: Is it worth it?
« on: November 06, 2019, 14:42 »
I can only imagine the impact it has on sales and I don't know how or when it happened, but some time ago I looked at some of my images on Bigstock and noticed that somehow the images had all the wrong keywords and captions which belonged to other images in my portfolio. As BS is such a low earner anyway I stopped uploading there and didn't bother contacting support.
It would be interesting to know if anyone else has had the same experience.

Yes I've seen this. You used to be able to submit several pics at a time, adding the common catagories to them. If you do that now (not tested lately) it spams the title/keywords from the first across all of them. This used to work correctly.

As for sales, I only do it because I'm preparing them for other sites ::)

8 / Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
« on: November 06, 2019, 13:38 »
I've been getting almost 100% rejections in the last few weeks, prior to this almost 100% acceptance.

Current problem "Title must be descriptive of the subject matter and must be in English. Titles cannot contain special characters, spelling/grammar errors, or repeat words/phrases in excess."

So the binomial (Latin) names (for animals/plants) created by Carl Linnaeus 250 years ago which are universal and transend all languages are no longer good enough for SS (even with English names as well)

Scottish hills can't have Scottish names!!!

When I tried to complain I was palmed off with another contributor, who was getting the same problem with Welsh place names.

I wonder if some of these even reach a human viewer and are rejected by a computer spell checker!

I won't be wasting my time on this until the dust settles, other agencies are accepting and selling

123RF / Re: 123RF everything 0
« on: February 17, 2019, 16:42 »
I had the same numbers a few days ago. Back to normal now.

Hey I'm almost at $50 when I can cash it is and shut is down ;D

I had a backlog of 2-300 from November which have cleared in the last couple of weeks.

I have uploaded another batch of 50. Now when I check I see i have 35,674 downloads (yeah right)
10 accepted (thats 3500 downloads per file!)
44245 pending (as if)
and total earning ZERO

Their database is totally screwed

When I get to $50 I'll cash it in and delete everything (if I can find it)

123RF / Re: upload issue?
« on: August 12, 2018, 05:02 »
I've been looking for the missing 'contributors' for ages, thanks Pauws99

All for nothing though, nothing has gone through there approval for over a month

Is there anyone out there...

12 / Re: Upload not working well
« on: April 12, 2018, 15:03 »
Glad to here it's not just happening to me. Been doing it for a couple of weeks. F5 sometimes recovers the next image

Pages: [1]


Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results


3100 Posing Cards Bundle