Can't really help - I call them car transporters and it seems like the manufacturers call them that too.

Searching iS with "trailer car transporter" on best match seems to up the hit rate but there's still plenty of non-specific artics/semis in there.

So a musical piece using unlicensed images?

That's stock and stole, baby.



*runs off, sniggering*

Quote from: Travelling-light on May 22, 2013, 02:16

Quote from: falstafff on May 22, 2013, 01:22

Quote from: Travelling-light on May 22, 2013, 01:13

Quote from: falstafff on May 22, 2013, 01:06

Well there isnt really. Unless you turn to the world of  commissioned photography. I do not think uploading to micros or other stock sources counts as being true pro photography.

The traditional definition of a professional photographer is someone who makes more than half of their income from photography. That has included us since 2005, and probably a whole bunch of other people here.

Yes thats the traditional definition but as much as we all wish to be labelled pros. In the world of stock?  I doubt it.

Speak for yourself, sonny.

Jim actually. He, he.

 

so the only one left will be .. Lobo ??

And Yuri...

Actually, I have to say as a relative n00b to stock, that the current shenanigans are fascinating.

And Rob Sylvan's book is da bomb.

That's good practice - if your catalog is corrupt for some reason, you don't want to overwrite your last good backup with a duff one.

Just delete the old folders every so often. LR doesn't back up the previews, just the catalog, so the backups aren't too big anyway.

However, if you remove all information from caption, keywords and location it can't be found by any new prospective buyers. Unless things have changed, you need to remove them via manage images BEFORE you hit delete, you can't do it afterwards.

No, it hasn't changed, much to my chagrin.

<snip>

Still months later it doesn't work.  I use the web upload and it comes up with "unknown error" very helpfull. Tried using FTP and couldn't get it to work either.

<snip>

As they are in the low earners category they really need to make this work seemlessly if they want people content.

Just out of interest, have you tried exporting JPEGs at lower quality? It's a PITA but I now export 2 batches of microstock-bound JPEGs from Lightroom - one batch at full quality for other agencies and then the same images in a separate batch at a quality setting of 80 for Veer. The browser uploading seems to work OK with the reduced quality JPEGs and Veer do themselves advise this in their JPEG Upload Howto.

It's been a while since I uploaded microstock anywhere and I'd forgotten this little tidbit when I was uploading to Veer this morning, until I checked the Howto again.

<snip>
My naming convention (using date) has been in place for many years.  It would be far to confusing to change now.
<snip>

Thanks Warren. Actually naming individual files by date is good practice as it reduces the possibility of you having files with the same filename if your camera runs out of numbers. It eliminates the possibility altogether if you use YYYYMMDDHHMMSS-{something sequential} of course. In other words, that particular system has a purpose.

I'd argue that using a date-based folder system is perhaps OK if you're using a browser (like Bridge) but if you're using a DAM program like Lightroom, other methods of folder structure are more appropriate in that they too have a purpose.

As an example, if you use a folder system just based on size, and keep originals in separate folders to derivatives*, it makes for easy archiving (i.e long term storage, not backup) of your images. Fill your folders of originals to about ~4GB and you can burn each onto a DVD. Or even better, make them ~20GB and burn each folder to a standard Blu-Ray disk.

Give each folder a sequential name like Originals_### or Derivatives_###* and it's easy to keep track of things in Lightroom. They'll end up more or less in date order as you add later files sequentially anyway but it doesn't matter that the 2012-11, 2012-12 and 2013-01 files are all in the same folder because you can find files by date using the LR metadata filter.

Sure you can do a similar thing using a folder structure based on date but it's a faff if you want to archive and you end up with hundreds of folders, some with a few images, others with thousands if you have a busy month. 

All I'm saying is that there are more efficient and more purposeful ways of structuring your image storage once you start using Lightroom. At the end of the day you may not feel it's worth the hassle to change but I think that now, before you start using Lightroom, is the perfect time to rationalise your folders and to consider other, better options.



*If you just use LR, you don't necessarily need to keep your derivatives as you can use your Virtual Copies to reproduce any image you need. If you do any external editing in PSE via round-tripping via LR (i.e. setting up the "Edit in..." option in LR), you'll end up with derivative PSD/TIFF/JPEG files. Oh, and you can make Virtual Copies of these images too if you want.

If you want to maintain your original "profit", you need to add more than 30%. As an example --

Your original price $100.

You add 30% to get $130.

They withhold at 30% taking $39 and so leaving $91.

In this example, you're $9 down on the deal.

Now you may be willing to take the hit but it's just something to bear in mind.

One of the good (little known?) features of keywording in Lightroom is the "non-exporting" keyword. So you can allocate say, "shutterstock_rejected" to an image & even set up smart collections based on them but you can tell LR not to export them with the image.

Unfortunately, this feature isn't found in Aperture & I'm not sure about Bridge or other DAM programs.