|
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 - dragonblade
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 31
76
« on: October 19, 2023, 23:42 »
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.
77
« on: October 19, 2023, 00:44 »
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.
78
« on: October 18, 2023, 00:16 »
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.
79
« on: October 17, 2023, 02:49 »
I wonder how widespread this issue is. I only have one illustration on AS (that is hand drawn) and it is not affected.
80
« on: October 17, 2023, 01:43 »
I checked the keywords again on the second tree image and the word 'fauna' isn't even there. It has been removed.
81
« on: October 16, 2023, 23:20 »
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.'
82
« on: October 16, 2023, 22:13 »
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.
83
« 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.
84
« on: October 12, 2023, 08:37 »
Thank you for the advice. I downloaded the latest version and it worked perfectly.
85
« on: October 09, 2023, 09:54 »
Ah, my version is 3.23.6. Though it wasn't downloaded all that long ago. I'll try and delete it and download the latest version. Would you know if existing metadata is carried over to the new version?
86
« on: October 09, 2023, 07:50 »
It's a pretty hopeless situation. I cancelled the uploads, closed Deepmeta and then opened it again the following morning. This time, instead of trying to upload 17 photos, I tried uploading just one. Many hours later, it's still saying: "Upload started."
87
« on: October 08, 2023, 09:55 »
Is anyone else finding that the selection of categories for photos is a bit limited on AS? Two extra categories that I could think of right now (that could be very useful) are Health and Products.
88
« on: October 08, 2023, 04:26 »
Still not working. Maybe I'll cancel the upload, exit Deepmeta and try again.
89
« on: October 07, 2023, 22:33 »
Is anyone else having trouble with Deepmeta at the moment? It can't look up certain keywords because of a server issue so I can't add them to the metadata of the submitted images. I'm trying to upload 17 photos in this current batch. I started the upload process last night and it's still running this morning. Says there are still 17 photos in the queue. Looks like it's making no progress at all.
90
« on: September 27, 2023, 00:13 »
Also, 3 AI photos that were rejected for "Quality Issues" had 6 fingers on a model. So, I got to be more careful.
I remember watching a news story years ago about a family who had quite a few members with six fingers. So that can actually be a real thing.
91
« on: September 25, 2023, 21:29 »
I entered the forum last night but for some reason, I can't access it today (from your link.) I am logged in. This time, I'm lead to the home page of the ESP site. And I don't see any link to the forum on this home page.
Edit: Never mind. I managed to get there again.
92
« on: September 25, 2023, 13:05 »
I agree. I think this is rather poor taste. I don't know why we need an artificial recreation of something that was so horrific and still strong in some peoples memories. I can't visualise any editors using these images.
93
« on: September 25, 2023, 11:14 »
Thank you!
94
« on: September 25, 2023, 10:36 »
To be honest, I find batch processing in Photoshop very awkward and fiddly. I don't mind doing the conversions file by file as there shouldn't be too many Adobe RGB photos. Not a huge number anyway.
Out of curiosity, whereabouts would I find the iStock forum? Ive heard about it but never used it. Is it located on the ESP site?
95
« on: September 25, 2023, 07:38 »
if you upload to multiple sites, why deal with making two versions?
A valid question. Not too long ago, I was foolishly exporting processed Raw files as Adobe RGB. So I have a bunch of these files that are in the Adobe RGB colour space. After that, I exported my photos in sRGB and will likely keep doing that. So if iStock still accepts Adobe RGB, I may as well submit my Adobe RGB files there and use the sRGB versions of the same images for the other agencies (just as a temporary thing.) Once Ive submitted all the Adobe RGB files, I'll go back to using one version (sRGB) for all of the agencies.
96
« on: September 24, 2023, 19:37 »
I believe in the recent past, iStock accepted both sRGB and Adobe RGB files but I'm not sure if that's the case anymore. I did a search online but couldn't find any info on that. If they still do accept Adobe RGB files, do they display them online correctly so that the colours don't appear flat or dull?
97
« on: September 23, 2023, 12:26 »
There will always be a market for editorial images. That's something that shouldn't be 'faked' or 'created.'
98
« on: September 21, 2023, 01:29 »
Woops. I think I misread those quoted passages from DT. So it's 30% of your media that was submitted within the last 6 months. Not 30% of your port. Looks like I may have reached my limit.
99
« on: September 21, 2023, 01:05 »
Yea I believe I read that before. I did request DT to remove a certain number of images from my port fairly recently. About 17 photos. At the time, my DT port consisted of about 600 image files (mostly photos and a few videos.) So those 17 files that were removed would have only made up a tiny percentage of my port. After that, I tried to disable two files myself (by clicking the trash can icon.) But a message comes up saying that I have reached my disable limit.
I got an e-mail from DT saying that I should be able to disable these two extra images and that's it's normal for there to be a delay. Now three days have passed since I clicked the trash can icon and those two files are still visible in my port.
100
« on: September 18, 2023, 23:02 »
I want to disable two images in my DT port. So last night, I clicked the trash icon for each of the files but they were still visible afterwards. I refreshed my port page many times but the two images were still there.
And now, the following day, they are still there (many hours later.) How long would it take for these two photos to disappear from my port?
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 31
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
