pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Show Posts

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 - dragonblade

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 30
51
Pond5 / Re: New rules - Editorial content etc
« on: December 01, 2023, 11:46 »
Reminder about trademarks not allowed in keywords.

According to the e-mail, that restriction applies to commercial videos. I'm under the assumption that trademarked keywords are still allowed in editorial videos. And it would make sense. Suppose you have editorial footage of a trademarked item. It would be silly to exclude that item from the metadata.

"Trademarked Terms: Specifically for Commercial Use content, please refrain from including metadata with trademarked terms."

52
Adobe Stock / Re: Similars policy
« on: November 29, 2023, 10:48 »
Actually, I do have another question regarding similars. Is it okay to submit both a horizontal and a vertical composition (as the main point of difference) of the same subject?

Generally yes, this is fine. Don't crop from one larger file to make two different compositions however. They should be unique images.

-Mat

Thank you Mat for the clarification.

53
Adobe Stock / Re: Similars policy
« on: November 29, 2023, 07:43 »
Actually, I do have another question regarding similars. Is it okay to submit both a horizontal and a vertical composition (as the main point of difference) of the same subject?

54
Adobe Stock / Re: Similars policy
« on: November 27, 2023, 18:42 »
I know that AS has a very strict policy on similars. I seem to recall that a change of angle is usually not acceptable when submitting more than one photo of the same subject. Though what if I changed the distance? For example, with a small subject, I stood further back for the first photo and then moved 1 - 3 feet closer for a second photo. Would this be acceptable?

You need to make sure that each asset you submit offers unique value to a potential customer. If the changes you describe in your post could be just as easily accomplished by a customer with a simple crop, then it's likely too similar. If it's a genuine difference in the image that could prompt a customer to buy both variations, then you are fine.

-Mat Hayward

Matt, thank you. I have a set of two images of a small subject where I moved closer and also changed the shooting angle as well. So in this case, it would not be possible to duplicate the second shot with a simple crop.

55
Adobe Stock / Similars policy
« on: November 26, 2023, 21:51 »
I know that AS has a very strict policy on similars. I seem to recall that a change of angle is usually not acceptable when submitting more than one photo of the same subject. Though what if I changed the distance? For example, with a small subject, I stood further back for the first photo and then moved 1 - 3 feet closer for a second photo. Would this be acceptable?

56
Actually, I just remembered that you can see pictures of advertising on the electronics store that features people. Though there are no living, breathing people in the photo. I didn't consider that before - pictures of people within a photo. Maybe we can't have pictures of people within an illustrative editorial image. Previously, I assumed the rule applied to living, breathing people.

Regardless, my accountancy firm photo features no people at all. And Her Ugliness, it sounds like your submitted editorial photos are the same - no people. So yea I guess we have to rely on a little luck to see if these photos get accepted.

57
Thank you for sharing your experiences. The inconsistency of the reviewers for these kinds of images is crazy. Previously, I thought I was starting to get the hang of this EI thing as in which images would be suitable. Though yea I now think there's some luck involved. I'll keep submitting newer images to this category but if some get rejected, I'll just have to accept that and move on.

58
I think Ive been getting a better idea overall of what gets accepted as illustrative editorial. In fact, the majority of my IE images do get accepted at AS. However, there have been a few surprises in recent times. For example, I have a photograph of an electronics store with the brand name clearly visible on the building. Additionally, there are no people in the image. I thought that this would be ideal as an IE image. But it was rejected by AS for not meeting the IE guidelines. A few weeks later, I submitted the same image again with a modified description and it was rejected again for the same reason. I also have a photo of an accountancy firm with the name of the business visible on the building. Once again, there are no people in the photo. And this one was also rejected for not meeting the IE guidelines. I admit I'm really puzzled by these particular rejections for these images. Mat, can you offer any insight?

59
General - Stock Video / Re: 1080p video still worth to produce?
« on: October 28, 2023, 20:42 »
The vast majority of my video sales are HD. In fact, Ive never sold any 4k videos at 4k prices. I did sell 2 or 3 4k videos through Adobe Stock but I only got about $5 each for them.

Out of curiosity, is there much demand for 4096 x 2304 footage? I don't suppose anyone has sold any 4096 x 2304 clips?

60
General - Stock Video / Re: 1080p video still worth to produce?
« on: October 28, 2023, 20:38 »
Out of curiosity, is there much demand for 4096 x 2304 footage? I don't suppose anyone has sold any 4096 x 2304 clips?

61
Ive heard great things about Davinci Resolve but haven't used it as yet. I'll have to check out some more tutorial videos. Yea I think the paid version would be worth it. I know the paid version also has a dust removal tool which would come in handy. I do have a fair number of clips with annoying dust spots.

62
DepositPhotos / Re: Removing photos from your DP port?
« on: October 23, 2023, 00:07 »
In their ToS they write if you cancel your account, all images will be deleted within a year, but remain in their database till then. They do not mention any rules about how they proceed with images sold through partner sites. Though, from what I have heard, having images removed from partner sites even after you delete content or a whole account is very often problematic on all stock agencies.

Yea in the past, Ive read about Yay Images and the issues with removing images from that agency. I know that with Yay, any photos removed will still be available for sale on the partner sites. I was hoping that other agencies would be better in that regard (allowing removal from all partner sites.)

63
DepositPhotos / Removing photos from your DP port?
« on: October 22, 2023, 23:17 »
I'm considering joining DepositPhotos for a little extra cash. So far, Ive mainly contributed to the big agencies like SS, IS and AS. I'm not expecting huge sales from DP (seeing as they're a small agency) but a few extra dollars would be nice.

Out curiosity, is it straight forward to remove or disable individual photos from your port at any time? And would those same images then be removed from the partner sites?

Also, is editing metadata after submission straight forward as well?

64
DepositPhotos / Re: You are now a Revenue Share program member.
« on: October 22, 2023, 23:00 »
I am not a DepositPhotos contributor but out of curiosity, were at least some of you able to opt out this program a second time? And do you remain opted out? That is incredibly sneaky of this agency to place contributors back into this program after they asked to be removed from it.

Yes, after they opted me in against my will and I sent a mail totheir  support they opted me out again and I am still opted out.

Ah great to hear that you have remained opted out since the last mail. I'll have to be super vigilant if and when I sign up with these guys.

65
DepositPhotos / Re: You are now a Revenue Share program member.
« on: October 22, 2023, 12:22 »
I am not a DepositPhotos contributor but out of curiosity, were at least some of you able to opt out this program a second time? And do you remain opted out? That is incredibly sneaky of this agency to place contributors back into this program after they asked to be removed from it.

66
Adobe Stock / Re: This is highly unprofessional
« on: October 21, 2023, 05:29 »
Not too long ago, I was also receiving the harsh rejections on my photos. Previously, I had a pretty high acceptance rate. Though more recently, reviewers are becoming more generous again. Reviews are good at the moment but very slow.

67
Just wondering if there's any free software out there that does a good job of reducing noise in video and still preserves detail?

I did hear good things about Neat Video but that's paid software and is quite expensive.

68
I do find this annoying because prospective buyers will assume that I added this keyword myself. They would likely think that I'm trying to mislead them.

Its funny you think buyers would care about this.

Well when I do searches on stock agencies and come across highly irrelevant keywords that have absolutely nothing do with the images, I don't have very high praise for the contributors who choose to use those words. They come across as silly and desperate. I don't want to be lumped together with those kinds of individuals.

69

Based on the description your provided of your image, it sounds potentially highly relevant. I.e., a buyer might look for something like "animal background". Aka - "no animals" - because they want to put something on it

More than likely, a buyer will use the word 'animal' in a search because they are searching for animals. And there are no animals featured in my two photos of trees so the keyword 'animal' is highly irrelevant and shouldn't be there.

70
Ive looked at keywords from more of my images in my iStock port and I'm starting to notice a pretty serious issue. There are some important keywords (added by me in Deepmeta) that are not present. For example - names of buildings, street names etc. These really need to be included so that buyers can find the images. There is a tutorial video on Deepmeta that states that some keywords will not be recognised by iStock but will still be included if you manually select them. But that is not true at all. I did manually select these words in Deepmeta and they are not visible among the keywords under the photos when viewing them in my port.

71
I wonder how widespread this issue is. I only have one illustration on AS (that is hand drawn) and it is not affected.

72
I checked the keywords again on the second tree image and the word 'fauna' isn't even there. It has been removed.

73
Actually, Ive just thought of something. There could be a reason why the keyword 'animal' was added to my photo of a tree. Previously, I had made the mistake of adding 'fauna' to the metadata when I meant to add 'flora.' It's super rare when I make those kinds of mistakes though yea I was going to try and correct that after submission (with another support ticket.) So I wonder if the inclusion of the word 'fauna' triggered some automatic word generator to add 'animal' there as well.

And I do have another recent tree photograph submission where I mistakenly added 'fauna' instead of 'flora.' Maybe I was doing the keywording for both images at the same time (can't recall exactly.) I'll check that one out on iStock as well and see if 'animal' is added there too.

Edit: Yes, the keyword 'animal' is included with the other tree photograph. So it's a fair chance that it was the 'fauna' keyword that is responsible for this (a word that shouldn't be there.) I'll ask them to remove 'animal' and 'fauna' and add 'flora.'

74
Gosh, I didn't realise that the adding of additional keywords by iStock was so common. Yes, I'll definitely open a support ticket and get them to remove this 'animal' keyword from my photo of a tree.

I do find this annoying because prospective buyers will assume that I added this keyword myself. They would likely think that I'm trying to mislead them. One of the ridiculous things that I notice when I browse stock agencies is the instances of highly irrelevant keywords. People would add all kinds of different animals and random things to the metadata of images which don't feature any of those subjects. There are also photos of well known cities that include names of other cities from different parts of the world. One of the most ridiculous examples Ive seen was a photo that had a description which identified a koala in a tree. But the actual photograph was an underwater image featuring a turtle swimming over coral.

As for myself, I try to add keywords that are relevant to the image. This situation sucks because now I'm lumped together with the people who add nonsense keywords to their photos. And it may not be just this tree photo that's affected. There could be others too. It would be a huge hassle searching for them though.

75
iStockPhoto.com / Keyword added to my photo without my knowledge
« on: October 16, 2023, 07:46 »
Just now, I did a search for one of my photos on iStock. The image happens to be a landscape photograph that is dominated by a large tree. I then checked the keywords and I was really surprised to find the word 'animal' there. A word that I did not add. And it is totally irrelevant. There are no animals in the photo. Ridiculous.

How often does this happen at iStock? It would be a huge hassle going through most or all of your photos to see if this issue is widespread. And extremely time consuming because you would have to search for each photo like a buyer in order to see the keywords. When I view my port (as a single collection) the keywords are not visible.

I recall reading that as contributors, we can get punished with the use of irrelevant keywords. Something about photos appearing in lower search positions when they're passed over by frustrated buyers. I'm not sure how much truth there is to that.

At iStock, it looks like you can get punished through no fault of your own if they decide to add silly keywords to your photos. And you may not even notice.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 30

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors