|
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 - Bateleur
Pages: 1 ... 25 26 27 28 29 [30] 31 32 33 34 35
726
« on: November 14, 2006, 02:34 »
Yeah, it's certainly a help. And, I don't know about anyone else, but I need all the help I can get with disambiguating. It's a major pain in the backside.
Whilst on the topic, does anyone know of a way of skipping from one file, when you've done it, to the next in line?
At the moment, when I've finished disambiguating one file I get the blank 'Continue' page. Then I have to go back to my personal stats page, click on 'uploads', go to the page I was working on and scroll down to find the next file that needs doing. It adds about 50% more work to the whole process.
I've only got 500 and something files with them at the moment. The big players, with thousands of files, must be tearing their hair out.
727
« on: November 13, 2006, 12:00 »
And making this akin to jpg's, if you took the image in jpg format, how are you ever going to prove anything if this was a concern.
Another option on the other hand is converting the canon raw file into a DNG file. Since it is in a dng file it is still a raw format, but it is not the ORIGINAL format so they could not claim the image was theirs.
My head's spinning. I'm gonna hang on to my RAW files. Why should anyone else want them anyway? I can only think of 2 reasons. 1) They want to take copyright for the picture. Fair enough. Then they can pay me handsomely for it. 2) They want to make their own modifications that are best done (or can only be done) in RAW. No thanks. I'll keep as much creative control over my pictures as I can. Yes, I know changes can be done in JPG and TIF ... I have to live with that.
728
« on: November 13, 2006, 02:19 »
Which site are you referring to? Anyone in particular?
Looking at some of the keywording on iStock I'd say a definite no. Read my post, in another thread, on the keywording of an Australian flag image that I found on iStock. It had the most bizzare entries.
I don't think the inspectors even bother to glance at the keywords.
729
« on: November 12, 2006, 14:06 »
I don't want to be a doubter, but are you sure they're your jellyfish on there? I can't quite see at this resolution, but they do look a little bit different to me. How did you find the collage with your images on?
730
« on: November 10, 2006, 15:52 »
Wait. You "fired off a complaint" because you and many others haven't followed directions on disambiguating your files? It would be one thing for a designer to complain, but for a contributor to complain because the contributor hasn't done what they were suppose to do seems a little strange to me.
No. I fired off a complaint about the Djibouti flag, which had no 'swiss' in its keywording at all, and the Australia Flag which doesn't have 'swiss' in its keywording either, but has just about everything imaginable including 'garlic', 'onions', 'paris', 'markets', 'euro', 'olympics', 'skin' and the names of a load of big cities in Australia. It seems suspiciously like 'keyword spamming' to me. And I asked them, ever so politely, if they could tell me how come, when I search on the terms 'swiss flag', those two pop up ... as 2 out of only 7 images I stress. And not a single one of the 7 images a true Swiss flag. Of course mine wasn't there if I hadn't disambiguated it as instructed. I accept that.
731
« on: November 10, 2006, 15:33 »
"MSP is A Dead Parrot. It ceased to be. It's expired and gone to meet his Maker. It has been. It's deceased. It's an ex stock site. It's like the Norvegian Blue http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYWA8DdVEw0. "
That video made my day 
Completely off topic ... clicked on the link about half an hour ago and haven't stopped smiling since. Brilliant! There's never been anyone like them.
732
« on: November 10, 2006, 04:19 »
so in your example, would we need to have
swiss flag
flag
swiss
as tags, or could we just have
swiss flag
and get all the searches for the term "swiss flag" as well as the individual word searches such as "swiss"
I've no idea I'm afraid. I've modified the keywords on the image, adding the phrase "swiss flag" and checking the Switzerland (Central Europe)and Swiss Culture (European Culture) boxes that pop up, but it still doesn't show up in my test search. Mind you, it does say give them 24h to make the changes. If nothing's happened by tomorrow I'm gonna complain again. Getting the Djibouti flag, which doesn't even have the word "swiss" in it's title, description, keywords or categories is totally crazy.
733
« on: November 10, 2006, 02:16 »
Oh boy! The plot thickens. I went back and followed this up a bit further. When I clicked on the choice " We found the term "swiss flag" as a phrase. Would you like to search for swiss AND flag instead?" I got another 7 images. There was the flag of Djibouti (where?), the flag of Australia, and a shot of downtown Georgetown, Colorado, with a Norwegian flag in it, plus four other distantly related images ... but no true Swiss flag. I've fired off a complaint to IS. Now I'll probably get banned for life. 
734
« on: November 10, 2006, 01:57 »
I think you're partly right. Here's my experience ... I have a bog-standard shot of a Swiss flag flying against a blue sky with, obviously, the keywords "swiss" and "flag" attached. I've just done a search on those two keywords. A mere 5 images came up, only one of which was a real Swiss flag (and one which has such a minute Swiss flag in the picture that you need a microscope to see it.  ) My Swiss flag isn't amongst them. However, under the keywords box is a small message, " We found the term "swiss flag" as a phrase. Would you like to search for swiss AND flag instead?" If you choose that option a load more images come up, and mine is amongst them. It's not a very obvious choice and if a designer is rushed for time s/he will probably ignore it and choose one of the images presented. Of course, I've now added the phrase to my picture's keywords. But, like you say, it's going to be nigh on impossible to think up every possible phrase for for every image. I feel really, really, really sorry for those who have gone exclusive with IS and have huge portfolios.
735
« on: November 10, 2006, 01:40 »
Yikes! Sounds as if it's about to go critical.  Don't blame me.
736
« on: November 09, 2006, 17:59 »
this is getting confusing :S
I don't think i understand anything anymore.
Me neither ... but to re-disambiguate it (I made up that word) I opened it in the editing screen again, added a couple of sort of relevant keywords, removed a couple that I thought were the least relevant, checked a few more boxes here and there, and saved it once more. Still hasn't sold, but at least it's appearing in searches now. I just hope I don't have to re-re-disambiguate it tomorrow. 
737
« on: November 09, 2006, 04:41 »
My best selling file (which has a flame) suddenly stopped selling as from the big change, and hasn't sold since. I've disambiguated it, but it still isn't selling. It's just stopped dead.
More alarmingly, I've done a search on the three most important keywords in its list ... 15 files come up and it isn't even amongst them!
Okay ... I've re-disambiguated it (these words are getting crazy) and now when I do the same search, with the same keywords, 16 files appear. Mine is now there (15+1=16 ) and it's third in line. Let's see if it starts selling again.
738
« on: November 09, 2006, 04:30 »
Yeah, they're tough. I've got a little over 50% rejection rate. And unfathomable too. There's no telling what they want. I've just had a very simple, clear, almost graphic image of two meshed gearwheels against a clear blue sky rejected. It's a good, steady seller on most other sites and has an iS rating of 5/5. And yet they have images like this: http://www.crestock.com/image/5573_Finally.aspx(Warning: Do not click on this link if you are of a sensitive or squeamish nature) The mind boggles.
739
« on: November 09, 2006, 04:16 »
I would definitely be interested. As for location ... a suggestion ... how about somewhere in South Wales? That's got scenic upland terrain (The Brecon Beacons and other places), spectacular coastline (the Pembrokeshire Coast) various interesting places (the Welsh Botanical gardens for example) and a couple of biggish towns/cities (Cardiff and Swansea). It's also got lots of accommodation choices. (I'm not from South Wales, by the way. I live in Switzerland )
740
« on: November 08, 2006, 05:30 »
What's a 'case by case basis'? What sort of things do you suggest looking for?
My best selling file (which has a flame) suddenly stopped selling as from the big change, and hasn't sold since. I've disambiguated it, but it still isn't selling. It's just stopped dead.
More alarmingly, I've done a search on the three most important keywords in its list ... 15 files come up and it isn't even amongst them!
741
« on: November 07, 2006, 06:31 »
Not knowing what an 'EPS/AI vector file' is, I couldn't say. But some of the difference between a RAW file and a JPG file are: 1) You can alter exposure (to a certain extent) white balance and other things with a RAW file which can't be done so easily with a JPG file. 2) Every time you work on a JPG file and save it you lose a little quality. RAW is what it says it is, the raw data, un-tampered with, that was collected from the camera's sensor. And I do the same as Geopappas - select my images carefully and work on the RAW files to 'improve' them (at least, I think its improvement ). I guess, on average, I only submit 10% of the pictures I take.
742
« on: November 06, 2006, 11:55 »
Interesting. The results we have so far (30 people have completed the poll so far) divide quite clearly into two groups.
I wonder why that is? Anyone got any ideas? Theories?
743
« on: November 06, 2006, 11:51 »
The RAW file is effectively the original. It's almost like sending the buyer the film negative (in the pre-digital days).
I'd hold out for a load more money if you're going to do that.
744
« on: November 06, 2006, 01:58 »
Microsite: Istock.com
User: Kameel
Image ID: 1280040
Image Link: 
Type of publication: Newspaper
Date of find: 19. march 2006
Tear Sheet Image, or link:
Interesting. This image appears on the iStock title page from time to time, and underneath it says 'Exclusive to iStock' photography. And yet the same image is available on Bigstock.
745
« on: November 06, 2006, 01:46 »
# SS seem to be closing the gap between them and iS
I wonder if that's because of the major hassle now involved in 'tagging' (as they call it) when submitting to iStock. I know my heart sinks when I see that long list and a load of 'Did you mean?'s when I come to sort out my keywords on IS
746
« on: November 04, 2006, 02:51 »
My sales absolutely crashed on iStock yesterday (Friday 3rd November) ... so much so that I thought it had been a public holiday in the US.
But no, I checked, it was a working day.
I know all about 'ebb and flow' but this was ridiculous, worse than an average weekend.
Anyone else experienced this, or am I suddenly an outcast on the great IS?
747
« on: November 03, 2006, 17:21 »
Time warp??
748
« on: November 03, 2006, 17:19 »
Betaleur , we are not talking about same photo. We are saing that the gray card photo was blurred and manipulated. The teddy photo is obviously original , its full of noise
Ooops ... sorry ... misunderstood you.
749
« on: November 03, 2006, 08:50 »
I saw this image - it is so clearly faked that it cracks me up, there is no noise what so ever, they guy should learn to fake things better it would not be hard to shoot something at ISO 100 and claime it was 1600
Actually, I don't believe it is a fake. If you look at the bottom corner of the teddy bear photo at 100%, an image he finally posted (after a bit of faffing about and trying to fool everyone) you can see it's howling with noise. The guy's obviously a troll. Well ... at least he's good at something.
750
« on: November 02, 2006, 12:21 »
And consider this ...
If someone's going to keyword an image accurately (rather than cut and pasting) it's going to take longer than a minute ... agreed? But, let's for sake of argument say it can be done in a minute. 20 cents a minute is $12 per hour (without taking into account any breaks).
You could earn more serving fries in a fast food restaurant.
Pages: 1 ... 25 26 27 28 29 [30] 31 32 33 34 35
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
