|
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 - Big Toe
127
« on: June 08, 2023, 17:21 »
This is complete nonsense. The wave function collapses even when the detector is placed behind the slit, and which-way detection takes place after the particles have already passed through the slits.
The which-way detection can take place immediatley after the slit, but before the waves had a chance to interfere. After that it is too late to get the which-way information. Also in complex setups, such as delayed-choice quantum eraser. There is nothing to "physically influence" the behavior of the particles before the slits. The which-way information can be obtained either by measurement (detection) after the fact or by logical deduction based on events which happen after the particle has gone through the slits. It just doesn't matter how you obtain the information about which way the particle went - if you have got that information - no matter how you got it, then the wave function already collapsed, in the past.
In the delayed-choice quantum eraser the which way information is obtained immediatley after the particles went through the slit. It is just evaluated later. See also the video "The Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser, Debunked" by physicist Sabine Hossenfelder: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQv5CVELG3U
128
« on: June 08, 2023, 15:49 »
The double-slit experiment is probably the most famous experiment in quantum physics. And maybe the most puzzling one in the history of mankind so far.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9tKncAdlHQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txlCvCSefYQ
In a nutshell, the act of observation/measurement of the experiment changes the result. Whatever can happen, does happen - the particle is in multiple places at the same time. Until you try to observe it. Before observation, particles have no defined properties. They are kind of "rendered" only when observed or measured. In other words, the reality is super-weird and super-crazy, until you try to observe what exactly is going on - then it immediately changes and behaves as our intuition would tell us.
There is really nothing all that mysterious about the double slit experiment. According to the concept of waveparticle duality photons, electrons, protons and even atoms can behave in a way that we would describe as wave like and in ways that are more particle like. The heavier an entity is or the more energy it has, the more pronounced is the particle likeness and the less it behaves as a wave. Therefor you can for example use electrons as a wave and can create electron microscopes. You can also perform the double slit experiment with electrons or protons. It is a lot harder to do it with atoms, what is what the first of your videos talks about. The first time this succeeded was only in 1990. But in the end, it matters not, whether we use photons, electrons or atoms. The allegedly mysterious effect the video mentions turns up when performing so called "Which-way" experiments. If we modify the experiment in a way that we can tell, which of the slits a particle went through, the interference pattern vanishes (although it should be noted that there is still the interference pattern you get when a wave goes through a single slit, so the particles still show wave properties). Now how can that be? The answer is really simple. In order to determine which slit a particle went through, you have to modify the experiment in a way that destroys the basis of the double slit experiment. In the experiment with the atoms in the video, using a detector to register all atoms that went through one slit, would consume the atoms and then the atoms (or part of the wave from one atom) going through the other slit have nothing to interfere with. The picture shown in the video where you can just detect an atom "flying by" without intefering with it is pure fantasy. Most often, the "which way" experiment is probably conducted with photons. Then one possibility to find out through which slit a photon went is by polarizing them differently just before they enter the slits. Then the photons that go through one slit swing in a certain direction and the ones that went through the other swing in a 90 degree shifted direction. That way, you can tell, which photons went through which slit. However, the photons now swing in a 90 degree shitfted direction to each other and can no longer interfere with each other and the interference pattern vanished. Well, duh! Some of the widely discussed implications of the double-slit experiment are the Multiverse Theory and Schrdinger's cat, which, theoretically, is both dead and alive at the same time.
Schrdinger's cat experiment is very often misunderstood. No physicist actually thinks that the cat in this thought experiment would be both dead and alive at any time. The cat experiment was a thought experiment proposed by Schrdinger in order to discredit the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics because he claimed that this interpretation would result in the cat being both dead and alive until the box with the cat is openend, which is obviously absurd. This is a misinterpretation of the Copenhagen interpretation, though. As soon as descision at the quantum level has macroscopic consequences, the wave function collapes and the cat is either dead or alive, but not both. Opening the box is just the equivalent to reading the result of an experiment from a display. It does not change the result of the experiment and the results are already determined.
129
« on: June 08, 2023, 10:31 »
In what hypothesis you took a picture this year and you do not know the exact date?
it's easier to describe photos. Just copy paste "Valmeinier, France - Circa 2023" after description and done, instead of wasting time on exact date. Of course there are cases when you want to have exact date, but in most case "circa" is enough.
For some photos, the "circa" may be enough, for others, the buyer may appreciate to know the exact date. Shutterstock probably does not want to waste time making a judgement call on each submitted photo into which category the photo falls, and expect the exact date on photos taking recently. It's not that hard to provide it.
130
« on: June 08, 2023, 06:18 »
Actually, I think you would be quite surprised at how high the approval ratio is at Adobe Stock.
How recent is your information about the approval ratio? It seems like the massive complaints about rejections are mostly very recent. Could you perhaps inquire how the approval ratio was in the last two weeks and compare this with previous values? Also, is the approval ratio perhaps different for different media types (photos, illustrations, ai, video)? An overall high approval rate may then still not mean that there could not be areas where the rejection rate is unusually high.
131
« on: May 26, 2023, 05:35 »
I've never seen a UFO. Keep in mind that my cameras haven't either. My night timelapse cameras, usually one but sometimes two, have recorded nothing. There are people with 24/7 sky watching cameras looking for meteorites. There's a world network of those. No space ships. Astronomers around the world, watching day and night. No space ships.
They all use cloaking devices, so you cannot see them. The cloak is only dropped in the presence of a true believer.
132
« on: May 14, 2023, 18:04 »
That's a Babylon 5 reference 😳 I'm afraid mentioning Babylon 5 is now regarded as a hate crime. Like mentioning George Lazenby. He exists but we never speak of him.
Of course I would have preferred a Star Trek reference. However, it is fairly well established that the most likely candidates there, the Vulcans, will ignore the Earth until we will develop the Warp drive. Now, if you are looking for an explanation of the Roswell incident, it is clear by now that this was caused by three Ferengi inadvertently traveling back in time (and one shape shifter, but I think he was not registered at the time).
133
« on: May 13, 2023, 06:25 »
https://streamable.com/4nkwsz
This is a section of one of the videos. I see the light moving and use the phone camera. It is gliding slowly. Any quick movement is me. It also gets bigger because I zoom in. I'm not sure how much I zoomed in by. It's max is 10x so it has been magnified by 10 at most. But the lens is 26mm so pushes it away. The size I saw was between these two sizes.
Probably a Vorlon vessel. The First Ones are looking out for us. Or else it could be a helicopter partially obscured by veil clouds. But how likely is that?
134
« on: April 20, 2023, 13:32 »
Account closed for Twitter Posts? I'll assume they also blocked you from Twitter access to their pages and removed your posts?
https://submit.shutterstock.com/legal/terms?language=en#:~:text=The%20following%20Terms%20of%20Service%20%28%22TOS%22%29%20is%20a,carefully%20and%20be%20sure%20you%20understand%20it%20fully.
Nothing about Shutterstock's Discretion in section 4.
See the last words in 4 c: "Shutterstock has the right to refuse to establish an account or to close any existing account, for fraud, intellectual property infringement, violation of a third party's rights including those of privacy or publicity, artificially inflating downloads, submission of material that is obscene in nature, violent or that might be construed as defamatory, failure to comply with Shutterstock's guidelines as may be amended from time to time, for any breach of the terms of this or any other agreement that you have with shutterstock, or for convenience." So they reserve the right to close accounts whenever they find it inconvenient to keep the account open.
135
« on: April 06, 2023, 17:35 »
But okay, at least it seems to be possible to continue a political career even in Germany if you had a criminal record. Excerpt from the German Criminal Code:
45
Loss of the ability to hold office, eligibility and the right to vote
(1) Any person convicted of a crime and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of at least one year shall lose the capacity to hold public office and to obtain rights from public elections for a period of five years.
How that would play out with the Chancellor now, I don't know. But as a legal layman, I would say that this is also possible here. Unless, as Zero Talent also quotes, that a court prevents that.
Apparently not much has changed. With Hitler, there were also more than 5 years between the imprisonment and the election as chancellor.
There is also the case of Dieter Althaus, who was Minister President in Thuringia, a German state, who was convicted of negiligent homicide for a skiing accident in Austria in 2009 and fined 33,000. He stayed in office and even ran for office again later the same year. His party, the conservative CDU, lost the election by a landslide, though, so it may not have been the smartest decision to run for office again. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dieter_Althaus
136
« on: March 02, 2023, 14:21 »
Really curious what do you think about it and if you agree with conclusions
Thank you for your effort to analyse this. I can't really say that I agree with the conclusions, though. You write: "Looking at how much you can earn, its easy to see that the majority of money actually comes from low and middle-earners, multiplied by large numbers. Highest income comes from too few files to hope to make a difference. Even the lowest earning category of Steves files that produced as little as $1 for the lifetime (!), multiplied by 1000 of files, multiplied by 10 selling agencies, already produced $10,000."
However, the diagram about the earning per agency and year clearly shows that until 2015, the majority of sales come from just two agencies, Shutterstock and Getty/iStock. In 2017 Adobe Stock joins the club. Only in 2016 the earnings are mor evenly distributed. Also the share of the medium and low earners diminishes over the years, again with the exception of 2016. in 2022, the three leading agencies earned more than three quarters of the overall earnings. If you get to a different result by multiplying earnings per image with files per category, your calculations must be flawed. Perhaps due to rounding erros, because the category with images in the category with lifetime earnings of $1 proably also includes images that earned less than $1. Another confounding factor is probably that most of the images that earned money at the low earners did so in previous years, when it was still easier to sell images. For example you can see in the diagram with the earnings per year and agency that Canva and 123RF used to make decent amounts of money, but do not do this anymore.
137
« on: March 01, 2023, 18:56 »
Maybe interesting.
A comparison of average RPI from some stock photographers.
https://photutorial.com/how-much-can-you-make-selling-stock-photos/
Hmmm,
I find this source rather questionable.
"Key Takeaways
On average, stock photographers make $0.02 per image per month with stock photos, while professionals make $0.05-$0.25 per image per month."
Professionals, in my view, must be many times higher than $0.25. Some who are here on the forum are at ten times that without being professionals.
And I also find it very difficult to imagine that contributors create or shoot 10,000 images, keyword them and upload them to earn an average of $200. I think the data is wrong.
It is clear that the person who wrote this does not know the first thing about the stock photo market or statistics. Just consisder the first diagram, which is labeled "Mean earnings per royalty-free license sale" and compare it to the table below. What they call "mean" is not the arithmetic middle or anything making any sense, but the mean distance between the minimum and maximum value given in the table for license sales for the various agencies. That way, they calculate a "mean earning" of about three dollar per sale for Shutterstock, not taking into account that the 0.1$ sales are far more frequent than the 5.8$ sales. The rest is mainly anecdotic evidence form people who published there earning on Youtube channels or Websites. The first person he quotes has uploaded a whopping number of 30 images to Shutterstock and had 10 saels in four months. On that solid data basis, they calculate the average earnings per month. The other people they mention have uploaded more images, but it still remains anecdotical. The number about what professionals earn per image and month seems to be taken from these anecdotes.
138
« on: February 21, 2023, 15:58 »
And it didn't wilt under the lights? Tell us your secret!
SS = 983,678 sliced tomato stock photos, vectors, and illustrations are available royalty-free.
AS = 745,250 results for sliced tomato in all
DT = 144,603 sliced tomato stock images and stock footage are available royalty-free.
According to some theories, you should be uploading your slice tomato images to DT for better sales? 
I do not doubt that the field of sliced tomatos is very competitive. It should be noted, though, that only a very small percentage of the nearly one million images at Shutterstock show sliced tomatos as the main subject. If you switch the sorting to Fresh Content, you will see that most of the images coming in show things like pizza with tomatos, or even just tomato sauce or other stuff that contain tomatos or one of it's products as ingredient and some sort of slice (for example pizza slices). Shutterstock obviously does a good job of presenting the user with the best (or at least most popular) images within the minority of real tomato slices when the sorting is set to Popular.
139
« on: February 21, 2023, 15:49 »
How dare you insult my catalog of 52,000 photos of the same tomato.
You should consider investing in a second tomato.
140
« on: February 17, 2023, 06:11 »
What about the Lizard People? Where do they fit into this?
You are probably thinking of the Cardassians here. While they have been described as somewhat lizard like or reptile like, this is mainly based on purely superficial similarities. They are clearly a humanoid species, proven by their ability to successfully interbreed with Bajorans. And then there are the somewhat less well known Gorn, of course, for which the reptile comparison is more justified. They have no connection to contrails on earth, though, as we will not meet them for at least another century, although there are people like Sheldon Coooper who have been troubled with Gorn infested nightmares. Some people claim that this has been caused by watching too much Star Trek, as if that was possible.
141
« on: February 15, 2023, 17:20 »
if you make out call signs (the #'s on the back of the jets), then you 'may' need to say it is editorial (depending on the site).
also - most likely they are 'chemtrails' (not contrails). depends on altitude and length, and whether it dissipates into a cloud (in which case its a chemtrail).
the ones spraying chemicals in the sky are most likely military, although sometimes they go in aircraft that looks like regular aircraft.
The term "chemtrails" is almost always used in connection with chemtrail conspiracy theories and should not be used for contrails. Whether a contrails dissipates into a cloud depends on the altitude of the aircraft and the weather conditions and is no indication that anything other than the combustion engine exhaust is emitted by the plane. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemtrail_conspiracy_theory
142
« on: February 14, 2023, 11:58 »
Hey, Sometimes If I want to take a closer shot of lets say smartphone - the screen gets some ugly flickers. I don't even know how to call it. But mostly if screen is brighter and you move camera closer then the flicker gets more visible. Do you guys know how to avoid it? Maybe it is technically impossible to remove it and it all depends on "Screen technical characteristics" like LED, OLED, refresh rate and etc? However if I change screen refresh rate from 60 to 90, nothing changes. Also enabling Canon setting "flicker remove" does not help either.
The effect in the first picture looks like a Moir interference pattern to me. This can happen when two (or more) period pattern are overlaid, like in this case the pixel on the screen and the pixel on the chip of the camera. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moir%C3%A9_patternYou can try to minimize the the effect by varying the angle and/or distance. In which you take the photo. Wikipedia suggest a 30 degree angle when taking a picture of a TV screen. Perhaps this also works with a smartphone display.
143
« on: February 12, 2023, 15:52 »
I wonder, did you expect to find in the link "Shutterstock uses algorythm XYZ to serve your files (just like ribtoks said)"?
No, what I would expect is that there is some evidence at Shutterstock (or Adobestock ect.) that keywords are matched to concepts as you claim. Unless you are saying that this is just an internal thing and has no practical consequences. In that case, why should we care? You see, I'm not here to prove something to you.
And we are not here to accept your word as gospel, just on your say-so.
144
« on: February 10, 2023, 16:39 »
Do you have any shred of evidence that anything like this happens?
Well, as I said, I do not have access to their systems so I cannot say exactly how to they store/index data. However, this part, as I mentioned, is well-researched so I would imagine they use an industry-level solution which I can relatively precisely describe.
If you are interested to read about concepts and search, I'd recomment to start here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compound-term_processing. Note, this is also a bit of generic hand waving in the article, but at least, if you are interested, it will give you a better direction of the search.
As I mentioned, what is not standardized is how they sort outputs of the search results, while storage and indexing more or less is.
So you are just guessing. I looked into the link you provided and also into wikipedia article on concept search that is linked there, and I do not see any evidence that the search engines at the major microstock sites work that way, except that they may address issues like various forms of the same word (strike vs. striking was given as an example) and sometimes minor misspellings, but the issues with polysemy and synonymy. That means that a search for "fast" will not show images that only have the keyword "quick", even though the words stand for the same concept.
145
« on: February 10, 2023, 16:24 »
Some search engines will also include pictures where Paris is only in the title, but not all do that and it would be stupid to rely on that. Even if an image shows up, when the search term is only in the titles, you would have no guarantee that it stays that and also the image may get a better search placement when the word is in the title and the keywords, instead of only in the title or only the keywords.
Only in the title? Where and then why do we worry so much about keywords if they are irrelevant? Maybe I don't understand, but using the Paris example, why would some search ignore the keywords?
...
But the question is, where do you find a search that only uses Title or Description?
This is not what I wrote. what I am saying is that some search engines will include images in the search result where the word entered in the search (the search term) is included in the title/description but not the keywords. That does not mean that the search ignores the keywords.
146
« on: February 10, 2023, 08:38 »
Could you please elaborate ?
Indexing for search is quite more complex than just taking taking all the keywords you entered, creating tens of thousands of "lists" (per each keyword) with all the files that have that keyword and then when customer entered "mangrove forest background", checking if the given file in the in the list of "mangrove", in the list of "forest" and in the list of "background" - then showing it.
Of course the search engine does not check each file individually, whether it fits the search criteria. What happens is that the engine runs a SQL query (or possibly some other query language) against a database, where the relationships between files and keywords is stored in large tables. It is then task of the database management system to access this information as efficiently as possible.
The way it works in reality is that all of the these keywords are essentially replaced to one of the concepts (in the so-called "concept tree") that agencies search engine understands. Amount of concepts is smaller than amount of the keywords (there're just too many different words, just the first 100 pages of search results contained approximately 49 thousand different keywords, that's a lot). It could be that the concept is exactly equal to the keyword (e.g. "background") or might be that it's not (e.g. keyword is "paris", but the concept is "city").
Do you have any shred of evidence that anything like this happens? When a buyer is entering "paris" in the search, they will expect pictures from Paris (or possibly from Paris Hilton or other people with that name) and not images from Berlin, London or New York, just because those also fulfill the concept "city". And therefor the search will only show pictures from Paris or where there is antoher connection to Paris, unless the contributor spammed a picture from Berlin etc. with the keyword "Paris". Some search engines will also include pictures where Paris is only in the title, but not all do that and it would be stupid to rely on that. Even if an image shows up, when the search term is only in the titles, you would have no guarantee that it stays that and also the image may get a better search placement when the word is in the title and the keywords, instead of only in the title or only the keywords.
147
« on: February 10, 2023, 08:20 »
will they detect it and,reject it? would it cause a ban?
Just don't do it, then you will not have to find out the hard way, whether they can detect it and what the consequences are, if they do.
148
« on: January 30, 2023, 21:08 »
Just to be more clear.
After this first positive announcement:
Hi Everyone,
I'm pleased to inform you that the 2021 bonus codes have been applied to all accounts of contributors who qualified. Visit the Adobe Stock Contributor portal. If you qualified, you should see the banner with the unique URL that will take you to redeem your code.
Congratulations to everyone who qualified! We are so grateful to you for your contribution at Adobe Stock. Without you, there is no us.
Stay creative!
Mat Hayward
I would like to hear something like:
Hi Everyone,
I'm saddened to inform you that the 2022 bonus codes have not been applied to all accounts of contributors who would have qualified. Considering the economical environment and challenges within the microstock photography we are not able to prolong this program.
Condolences to everyone who would had qualified. We are so grateful to you for your contribution at Adobe Stock. Without you, there is no us. We need all profit to stay with us and not give away freebies to you contributors.
Stay creative!
Mat Hayward
It would indeed have been nice if Adobe had informed us about not prolonging the program or at least admit to it if asked directly. However, as there never was a 2022 bonus program, there have been no contributors who qualified for it. The text you quote is about the 2021 program. So there is no need to apologies for not giving out bonus codes to people who qualified, as there are no such people.
149
« on: January 26, 2023, 06:36 »
150
« on: January 26, 2023, 06:20 »
David Holz, midjourney CEO, said less than an hour ago that he doesn't like midjourney-generated images being put up for sale through stock agencies. He said that he is seriously considering banning the sale of midjourney-generated images through stock agencies.
I can't find any source for this.
And it would be a complete nonsense, if real: why in the earth Midjourney would donate this market to dozens of competitor?
Also from legal point of view it seems very hard to say "You have commercial rights BUT not for this specific market". David Holz cannot "ban" that market, at the contrary the market can "ban" midjourney, that has been already done by SS and Getty.
By the way... it's a strange world and anything it's possible  I would like to read the original source with the words of David Holz
I have no information about the accuracy of the quote, but of course it would be no legal problem to restrict the usage in this way. After all, stock agencies do it all the time. They sell commercial licences for the usage of images, but certain usages require an extended licence and some usages are forbidden even with an extended licence, notably reselling the image at other stock agencies.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
