|
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 - Larry
1
« on: April 30, 2012, 21:07 »
The file name has no bearing on what appears on the iStock website. It is only how you fill in the form along with the file that matters. I think time is well spent carefully making a title and description. But I do suggest that when you upload, you keep good track of your uploaded filename and location with the iStock number you are assigned. After some time, it will be hard to get back to that file from the iStock info and you may very well need to. I create a thumbnail in the same diretory as my original uploaded image, and name it with the istock image number.
2
« on: February 29, 2012, 22:12 »
I'm pretty sick of you guys bashing me and others who have chosen to stick with the exclusive arrangement. Maybe you should make your own decision and (here's an idea) respect the decisions others have made? No two photog's on iStock have the same goals and means, why in the world would you critisize those who are doing something different than you. Pretty shallow.
What's your reasoning for going exclusive?
His profile pseudo name tells a lot... 
Illman ~= SickMan
3
« on: February 24, 2012, 18:47 »
You can download the required release .pdf, fill it out with photoshop, save it, convert it to jpg, all paper free. You would have to fudge the signatures though, too bad there is not a way to attach an electronic release. For legal reasons I like to have a genuine piece of paper with authentic signatures. Hard to dispute the signature. Old fashioned I guess, I still submit paper tax returns too.
4
« on: February 13, 2012, 10:20 »
Sales seem pretty normal for me, sort of consistent for last 2 years, not independent. Small fish but holding my own. Hoping things get better
but at least it hasn't tanked.
5
« on: November 26, 2011, 16:07 »
There are well known ways to keep a "mission critical" system running. For an internet-only business, itys web presence is "mission-critical". IStock needs to get a grip and either hire some qualified people or fire the manager who is over-driving the team beyond the point of adequacy.
6
« on: November 18, 2011, 21:29 »
As a small fish, things seem pretty consistent, picking up this fall. It may be that iStockphoto is more suitable for small players like myself.
I also have to wonder why somebody keeps pounding this drum, when they are really no longer a player in iStock, have no real interest in it, except to gripe constantly about it? Hard to understand. Maybe they should move on?
7
« on: November 01, 2011, 20:49 »
Just checked my lightbox links they are working normally.
8
« on: October 30, 2011, 10:41 »
I would like to do that. But I forget where it is? Thanks. [/quote] Sorry - I was on my phone. Here: http://seanlockephotography.com/2011/10/29/istocks-new-referral-program/[/quote] Thank you I read the post carefully. Very helpful. I tried out the link I built in the referral program and learned it slightly enlarged the iStock cookie with a few new values and also added a cookie from linkconnector.com. I would like to use the shorter link (omitting the second part - you called the web bug section). But I am referring directly from an image on my own web site so if I am understanding your explanation I should keep that part. Correct? Also I would like to explain why I went with the 20% option. I figured that if the referred customer bought even a small amount of credits, say to buy a smaller image size, then at least there would be some yield out of it, whereas unless they bought a large amount of credits there would be no yield at all. Thanks again.
9
« on: October 29, 2011, 20:33 »
"Has anybody looked at it and understood what it is doing and why it is so complex?"
Check my new blog.
I would like to do that. But I forget where it is? Thanks.
10
« on: October 29, 2011, 18:13 »
I have a specific concern about the new program. (I chose the option where you get 20% of a sale made through your link from a new buyer.) In my site there is a link from each image detail page to iStock page of the same photo. This is a very simple link, basically just the image number.
Using the new referral information, I created the link to be used for a specific image.( I expected it to be like the old one, with my contributor ID included as well. Basically just two pieces of information beyond the usual iStock URL.) But by god the link is so long and complex I was shocked. It is about 375 characters long. No I haven't figured out what it does or what is in it. (I will do a simple test case and see how it plays). Has anybody looked at it and understood what it is doing and why it is so complex? I sort of doubt something I can't understand especially when it appears unduly complicated. (I know it is "new technology", right)
11
« on: October 29, 2011, 13:16 »
To me it seems like a religion run amuck, rather than a practical tool to help you describe images and let people search for them. It is hopeless for geographic names. You can't put things in there that would help the image be found.
Allowing the search to extend among descriptions, and/or titles, would solve a lot of these problems. It is a reasonable option to give people so when the system is fighting them instead of helping them they have an alternative. But like religions, this system is dogmatic and reasonable alternatives are not allowed.
12
« on: October 20, 2011, 22:05 »
Sept and October are better than most previous months. Feb March and June were my best months this year. I should about hit last years royalties if things go on like they are in Sept and Oct. Signed, small fish.
13
« on: October 12, 2011, 20:46 »
For a collection of that size (and value) it would be good to have your own private solution. But there are public tools that will do the job, I would consider HTML+CSS+PHP+MySQL+Javascript. These are all very well known and well supported by numerous hosting companies. You won't actually need that much actual code, just a big MySQL database that will spit out web pages via PHP. Probably the hardest part is the commerce and managing all the photo files including the reduced size images for display that should include a watermark. Get one guru (temporary) and one kid to do the grunt work (permanent).
MySQL is a poor choice, ORCL or MSSQL would be a better choice.
I would like to hear what in your experience indicates that. They were looking for non-megabuck tools, and there are various flavors of MySQL in commercial use. It is so widespread there must be a reason for it. I would appreciate a specific reason for the response, thank you.
14
« on: October 12, 2011, 09:59 »
Q: "If somone found a photo on my website, why would I consider giving iStock one penny of commission?"
A: I have one set of photos, all RF. I am exclusive with iStock. My website shows these photos. I cannot sell them directly but can refer the viewer to iStock to fulfill the sale. But iStock should receive less share for fulfillment rather than their usual transaction.
15
« on: October 12, 2011, 06:05 »
OK, to answer several questions about "why would I refer buyers to iStock", that is a fair question. Even if you are unhappy with them. If you are exclusive with iStock, and you have your own website with your photos, then someone looking at a photo on your site can be linked through to the detail page of the same picture on iStock, where they can make a purchase. I know iStock should be finding the customers. I know their best match should not hide your work. I know their search should be effective. Failing that, if I go out and find somebody, they find a shot they like on my website, I send them to iStock, then I should get a referral bonus for that sale. That is my only interest in referrals. I would not place a "LOOK AT ISTOCK" on my site. It is MY site. I am not interested in advertising iStock.
16
« on: October 11, 2011, 11:34 »
What do you think it will include? How do you think it will work (technically)? What would you like to see in it?
I would like a slightly higher commission when a sale comes in through my website link.
17
« on: October 08, 2011, 13:15 »
For a collection of that size (and value) it would be good to have your own private solution. But there are public tools that will do the job, I would consider HTML+CSS+PHP+MySQL+Javascript. These are all very well known and well supported by numerous hosting companies. You won't actually need that much actual code, just a big MySQL database that will spit out web pages via PHP. Probably the hardest part is the commerce and managing all the photo files including the reduced size images for display that should include a watermark. Get one guru (temporary) and one kid to do the grunt work (permanent).
18
« on: September 28, 2011, 08:40 »
They always hang on to rejects, which are already titled keyworded etc. Maybe they are going to accept a bunch of them at once, with some sort of script that looks for targetted areas, when the rejection reason is a nit.
19
« on: September 14, 2011, 12:57 »
Dreamstime, however, was absolutely unconcerned that my one remaining image was hanging up my process for three months. Basically their attitide was "too bad" and "stick it". I also got a few very nasty comments on these boards as well, one person saying I was stupid to expect fair treatment.
I still do not get stuff like this, fair treatment for all parties is that an agreement is adhered to in my view... If both parties agree to a compromise it is fair enough but neither s obligated to as far as I am concerned!
If you wish tp break a contractual arrangement it is done by mutual consent and no amount of bleating changes the fact that you said that in exchange for "X" you would agree to "Y". It does make me a little angry to be honest, I am new to this whole stock thingy but in other work spheres there is a simple answer to anyone wishing to break a commercially binding contract and usually that answer is quite simply "no"!
I can understand frustrations but to throw all of your toys out of the pram as the OP did and then say he will not tolerate "Bad Practices" and throw a whole load of accusations around only to turn around less than 24 hours later and say I have apoloigised and in the end the accepted my pictures smacks of "Brattishness" and realisitcally not anything that I consider to be either grown up or adult behaviour!
Well said!
You guys make this so simple and black and white. Maybe you didn't read the situation. I had removed all but ONE IMAGE from Dreamstime. They refused to consider removing it so I could move on. They made me wait THREE MONTHS to remove that image, so I could go exclusive elsewhere. During that time, they made no sales of the image, they made no money on it, it made no practical difference to them AT ALL. It is unreasonable, belligerant, uncooperative and spiteful behavior. You support that behavior? Weird. Their behavior was pointless and destructive. You like that? Weird.
20
« on: September 14, 2011, 10:08 »
About 6 years ago, I wanted to go exclusive and I had to get out of several agencies. Most of them were courteous, understanding and cooperative. They even wished me well. Dreamstime, however, was absolutely unconcerned that my one remaining image was hanging up my process for three months. Basically their attitide was "too bad" and "stick it". I also got a few very nasty comments on these boards as well, one person saying I was stupid to expect fair treatment.
21
« on: September 13, 2011, 09:36 »
I have seen these ads, they usually but not always have one of my images in them, which I happened to be recently looking at. There is a help button you can push. It identifies the outfit that posted the ads, which is not google but somebody else whos name I cannot remember. It tells you how you can stop them from appearing, (until anyway you happen to revisit iStock). It seems to me I've also seen similar ads representing other stock sites, but might not be the same advertising network.
22
« on: August 30, 2011, 21:11 »
I was about ready to drop my exclusive status, so I can have my own sales outlet. This new wrinkle that non-exclusives get their files sprayed all over at low prices, where each image size costs the same, seems to make that less desireable. What do you think the impact on non-exclusives with a collection of large images, such as XL, XXL, and XXXL , and do not wish those to be sold at garage sale prices? Is that a real issue or a nit? thanks
23
« on: August 30, 2011, 18:18 »
I think it would be important when you license an image to make sure an actual written license is provided to the customer, and they accept it as part of the purchase. I bought a template for several such contracts where you can fill in the details as you wish, I do not know of the legal quality of the documents but it has to be better than nothing. Here is where I got the templates: http://www.proposalkit.com/index.html.
24
« on: August 28, 2011, 16:01 »
In the days when Alamy required images to be upsized to 48MB uncompressed, there was a script that would do this automatically for you - it's gone now, but I still have a copy.
It has a variable set to 48 which is then converted to an absolute pixel count and does the appropriate conversion. Not exactly what you're asking for perhaps, but I should think if you can do a little scripting you could easily convert it for your purpose.
I've put a copy here http://www.bullersofbuchan.me.uk/istockphoto/stuff/Alamy%20Resize.zip if you want to try it.
Okay worked out that what Photoshop calls "pixel dimensions" of 71.5 correspond to a total number of 25000000 pixels (5000X5000 pixel square image) which is the maximum size for a raster illustration on SS. So for my use I just changed the 48 to 71.5 in the script and it now does exactly what I wanted. Thanks!
Now can anyone explain what "pixel dimensions" in the PS "Image Size" pop up menu means? It sounds like it should be the result of height X width but it clearly isn't.
Hi. Yes, I just figured that out. There is two factors in it, the use of 1024 x 1024 rather than 1000 x 1000 for the term 1 Meg. And the use of 3 bytes per pixel. When you peer into that script that was kindly provided, the author multiplies his desired size (TargetMb) by 1,024, by 1,024, then divides by 3. (In memory, 24 bit images use three bytes of storage per pixel). And his term was Mb not MP. So if you look at an image size, then do the same calculations, you will get the number that Photoshop rather mysteriously describes as pixel dimensions. They are describing memory use not image size. For my use of the script, I just put my target size straight away into, 25 megapixel is 25000000, ditched the divide by 3 and set the new dimensions to these factors: target = 25000000; (...get existing height and width..) var aspectRatio=width/height; var newHeight=Math.sqrt(target/aspectRatio); var newWidth=newHeight*aspectRatio; and this produces the desired image dimensions. (For worriers, these are in floating point figures, when you chop them to ints, then the overall image size is alittle shy of what you want, so you have to jack around somewhat. Huge thanks to Gannett, I am solving my file creation problems readily now.
25
« on: August 27, 2011, 15:03 »
In the days when Alamy required images to be upsized to 48MB uncompressed, there was a script that would do this automatically for you - it's gone now, but I still have a copy.
Wow. I had no idea that Photoshop could deal with Javascript code. I done some javascript (for browsers of course) This should give me
something to dig in to. I appreciate your help !
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
