Click on the Image tab, choose Information at the top of the drop down list.  Click on IPTC info at the bottom of the box, edit to your hearts content.

What/where is the 'Image tab'?

I finally figured out that you have to use Files/Thumbnails to start browsing.  Then I drill down 9 levels (it always starts at the top) and see the thumbnails I want.  But no Image tab, or any other tabs.  Google has nothing for "Irfanvew image tab".

I know this comes up every now and then - but I need an application to copy/paste all the IPTC data from one photo to another.  I used to use Nikon CaptureNX but that's dead and buried.   I've tried a number of applications, and they're either junk, or they don't  have this feature - except for Photo Mechanic, which does it well but has a nosebleed price of $150 (I let the trial expire).

Surely there is something.

Quote from: stockastic on November 09, 2017, 12:15

Quote from: GraniteCove on November 09, 2017, 12:05

No happy medium can ever exist between this kind of buyer and contributors. Particularly when complicating matters by allowing contributors to make the same images available elsewhere for a fraction of the price. As an agency where's the differentiation? Where is the value proposition for the buyer?  Provide those two elements coupled with a closely vetted collection in terms of quality and that's where I think the real opportunity lies today. nity.

That's what I keep coming back to: to change the game, an agency has to offer a product that's better in some way.  Newer and better quality images, and thoroughly vetted keywording, should make a difference over time.   And exclusivity probably has to be part of it too.   Maybe there's some other way to bridge the currently vast gap between buyers' and producers' expectations, but I'm not seeing it yet. 

I also think that younger people today just aren't as 'into' image quality anymore; they've grown up seeing cell phone photos of everything under the sun.  And they're used to small images on LCD displays, not high quality printed magazines.  I don't know where that leaves us.

So, I have no solutions to offer, just some degree of patience - meaning I've basically given up and have nothing to lose by waiting.

I think if someone can really crack having a search engine that delivers what an individual buyer is looking for on the first screen consistently then they will be onto something but I've not seen anything close. In fact with the exponential increase in images its getting further away.

Search algorithms are really limited by the quality of the data they have to work with.  Big agencies like SS now have 10s of millions of images stuffed with wrong, misleading, fake, repetitious keywords. Until so-called AI can actually understand what's in a photo and how it connects with what's in the rest of the world, there's no way a computer can clean that up.  And the cost of having human reviewers do it would be huge.   Basically, they're stuck; the question is, how can someone else start fresh and seize that opportunity?

It's no secret that for most photographers, the fizz went out of microstock long ago.  I closed my accounts at the big sites (I still have a few hundred at GL).   And I totally get the problem:  while buyers have been conditioned to expect extremely low prices, producers have given up because returns got too low.

 Is it just classic oversupply, or a disfunctional market where buyers and producers can't communicate?  Something of both I guess.  And while I see the problem I don't pretend to know the solution. 

Maybe some time has to pass. With many photographers no longer participating, at some point he existing image archives have to start looking dated, creating an opportunity - maybe buyers will gradually realize they have to pay more for newer imagery.

While I'm not in touch with buyers, I have to believe there's some burnout from searching endless pages of poor quality, repetitious images on the big sites - and that only seems to be getting worse.  That's also an opportunity.

Just my 2 cents worth.   

Quote from: stockastic on October 25, 2017, 17:29

Quote from: cthoman on October 25, 2017, 14:42

Quote from: stockastic on October 25, 2017, 13:59

Probably just some new 'contributor relations' guy at Getty, starting out with a survey so he has something for his next PowerPoint.   Nothing ever comes of these things.   

LOL. I can imagine that first day at the job and seeing the responses come in. Day 2 is probably sending out resumes. 

Right now he thinks he's in The Good Place.   But soon he'll figure it out.

I picture him in the first big meeting.  He puts up the numbers from his survey and tells the others that he was shocked to learn that their contributors basically hope they'll burn in hell.   And then there's that awkward silence, people trying not to smirk, finally someone says "ok, soooooo..."

I used to be involved in doing staff surveys....when one delivered some particularly bad results every theory was pursued except the one that maybe the staff had a point ;-)

As I recall, the typical outcome was that the person who presented the survey ended up with all the action items.   :-)

Probably just some new 'contributor relations' guy at Getty, starting out with a survey so he has something for his next PowerPoint.   Nothing ever comes of these things.   

"Classic" sounds just a bit patronizing, doesn't it?    Like it's just the thing for all us old fools who can't figure out this "cloud" stuff.  Maybe they'll make all the controls and fonts bigger, to accommodate our failing eyesight.

They might as well have called it "Lightroom for Losers" because that's how they'll treat it going forward.

I switched from LR to C1 a couple years ago and never looked back.

IMHO, comparisons like the one linked to here don't mean much.  I think you can get pretty much the same result with either software, once you get used to them.  There are a whole bunch of factors in play here - not just curves and sharpening, but 'clarity', 'structure' , shadows/highlights and more.  The defaults for all of these are different, and that's what reviewers focus on.

The big things for me, in making the switch, were C1's comprehensive 'local adjustments', and the fact that LR just doesn't seem to be advancing and will probably end up as subscription-only.

I'm happy to see the site back up.

In line with a recent discussion thread here, I have a question.   Would GL's 'extended' license allow reselling as wall art on Etsy?   

It's a big question, actually.  Society is certainly damaged by the violence and brutality in movies and TV.   We aren't quite ready to face up to that and do anything about it, yet, but movies do at least have to carry ratings in the U.S, although they mean next to nothing.

I live near one of the nation's biggest retail complexes, the Mall of America, and I'm in there frequently, and I see all the ads on the clothing stores.  There's an accelerating trend towards "honest" model shots and inclusion of big people.  It's really becoming a thing.

 

This is just the final straw for me.  I've already gotten out of microstock except for Alamy (and GL, which seems to be dead).  If I figure out that Alamy is doing this too, I'll leave them as well.

These days I sell photos on FAA - not often, but when I do, I might make 30 bucks.  If SS sells your photo to one of these Etsy parasites you might get $30 for an EL, and think wow that's great - but it's a one time payment.  You get absolutely nothing for any additional sales on Etsy.  Plus, the Etsy seller can easily undercut your price on FAA for your own photo.

I'm disgusted with microstock agencies, I'm disgusted with Etsy.  They've become slimeballs.   

I've just had discussion with a shop owner on Etsy and she claims that Getty agreed with the resale of modified files purchased with Extended Licence. If this is truth, then perhaps Getty is to blame in this case.

What does 'modified' mean? 

Those sales numbers are hard to believe.  I wonder if they've been inflated by shil buyers.