Author Topic: Large image previews on SS ? (Read 79255 times)

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #375 on:** November 07, 2015, 17:01 »

Quote from: Sandralise on November 07, 2015, 16:01

I know that is why I'm freaking out!!

i can see your concern, considering that this is good enough to print a christmas card without paying you

it won't make a very good 8 by 10 print, but who makes 8 by 10 christmas cards???

Smilla · « **Reply #376 on:** November 08, 2015, 03:33 »

* this is annoying. Anyone else considering deleting half their port from SS? I'm seriously ready to hit the button.

douglas · « **Reply #377 on:** November 08, 2015, 19:16 »

I’m looking to do the right thing so look to this forum for views.

The original large preview and weak watermark were inadequate and wrong. I signed the petition and have not uploaded since. For me, the new watermark works fine with all my, admittedly very limited, number of images on SS.

That’s not what a petition is about. The recent postings about “Dreamstime is socialism” regarding image rotation turn my stomach. Socialism is an uninformed US English term for “I don’t understand what it means but it may hit my pocket so I oppose it”. I now live in Romania which did not have the best of experiences of “socialism” but I grew up in Scotland where every right, every holiday, every benefit was fought for and dragged from the ruling class by socialism and by sacrifice from those least able to afford it. Throughout my career I have refused to cross a picket line, even as a CTO. I see the forum petition in the same terms. If you feel SS has not done enough with their “improved” watermark, I will do what little I can to support you by not uploading, and the principle is that if a 100, 1000, 10000 people follow suit, it eventually makes a difference.

Rinderart · « **Reply #378 on:** November 08, 2015, 20:50 »

Thank you Douglas. Plus One Million.

marthamarks · « **Reply #379 on:** November 08, 2015, 21:31 »

It's interesting. Today, for the first time in eons I had an EL sale. $28 for this image, which a buyer obviously found worth some money:

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=77533273

If you go to that page and click the Preview button, you'll pull up an image with the old V1 watermark (note the white bar at the bottom) and thus not even the "new and improved" protection of the V2 WM.

I dragged the image off the SS page onto my desktop, where it now sits as an 821 KB file, displaying virtually no evidence of a watermark.

Sure, I'm happy for the EL sale, especially on a Sunday. However, I'm quite unhappy that the image that produced that sale has no visible watermark protection.

Rinderart · « **Reply #380 on:** November 09, 2015, 01:02 »

I have your image on my HD at 1500 x 1100 with a very weak watermark I can erase in maybe 40 secs. There ya go.

sharpshot · « **Reply #381 on:** November 09, 2015, 05:09 »

Quote from: Rinderart on November 09, 2015, 01:02

I have your image on my HD at 1500 x 1100 with a very weak watermark I can erase in maybe 40 secs. There ya go.

Isn't that the old watermark? Until every image has the new watermark, I'm not going to judge it. No idea why its taking them so long to change them all. I have no problem with big preview images with a good watermark, like alamy has.

cathyslife · « **Reply #382 on:** November 09, 2015, 07:58 »

Quote from: sharpshot on November 09, 2015, 05:09

Quote from: Rinderart on November 09, 2015, 01:02
I have your image on my HD at 1500 x 1100 with a very weak watermark I can erase in maybe 40 secs. There ya go.
Isn't that the old watermark? Until every image has the new watermark, I'm not going to judge it. No idea why its taking them so long to change them all. I have no problem with big preview images with a good watermark, like alamy has.

I just spot checked some of my images, including best sellers, and it looks like the new watermark is making progress. Some that used to have the old one have now changed. If I sort by popular, at least the first three pages have been changed. I spot checked some of the last pages of that sort, and some still have the old watermark. I will continue to monitor. I don't know what is taking so long, either. But it IS a lot of images to crunch through.

I am ok with how the new watermark looks. I'm glad they at least listened and made a good effort to make a change. A whole lot more than some of the other agencies.

marthamarks · « **Reply #383 on:** November 09, 2015, 09:45 »

Quote from: Rinderart on November 09, 2015, 01:02

I have your image on my HD at 1500 x 1100 with a very weak watermark I can erase in maybe 40 secs. There ya go.

Yup. Just ducky.

I just checked my EL history, and this is the second time that Wild Turkey image (photographed in the Texas Panhandle) has been sold as an EL, plus lots of subs & SODs… making it one of my better sellers on SS.

Sure would be nice to see it better protected one of these days!

marthamarks · « **Reply #384 on:** November 09, 2015, 09:53 »

Quote from: sharpshot on November 09, 2015, 05:09

Isn't that the old watermark? Until every image has the new watermark, I'm not going to judge it.

Yes, it's the old WM for sure, which is why it's invisible. You can judge that, I'm sure.

Quote from: sharpshot on November 09, 2015, 05:09

No idea why its taking them so long to change them all.

This thread has been going since October 21. Nineteen days, and one of my best-selling images still isn't decently protected.

It surely didn't take this long to roll out the original large preview w/ this feeble WM. Did it?

cathyslife · « **Reply #385 on:** November 09, 2015, 12:51 »

Quote from: marthamarks on November 09, 2015, 09:53

Quote from: sharpshot on November 09, 2015, 05:09
Isn't that the old watermark? Until every image has the new watermark, I'm not going to judge it.

Yes, it's the old WM for sure, which is why it's invisible. You can judge that, I'm sure.

Quote from: sharpshot on November 09, 2015, 05:09
No idea why its taking them so long to change them all.

This thread has been going since October 21. Nineteen days, and one of my best-selling images still isn't decently protected.

It surely didn't take this long to roll out the original large preview w/ this feeble WM. Did it?

If you are that worried about it, why not just delete your portfolio?

marthamarks · « **Reply #386 on:** November 09, 2015, 13:07 »

Quote from: cathyslife on November 09, 2015, 12:51

If you are that worried about it, why not just delete your portfolio?

Gee, Cathy, thanks for that helpful suggestion!

Very early in this thread, I said I might do just that and go exclusive with FT. But I also said it would be hard to do because SS is my best earner (as it is for most of us) and I've resisted being exclusive anywhere because all agencies tend to screw up sooner or later. Diversity is a better strategy, methinks.

So, anyway, please know that I appreciate your always-useful comments!

cathyslife · « **Reply #387 on:** November 09, 2015, 15:08 »

Quote from: marthamarks on November 09, 2015, 13:07

Quote from: cathyslife on November 09, 2015, 12:51
If you are that worried about it, why not just delete your portfolio?

Gee, Cathy, thanks for that helpful suggestion!

Very early in this thread, I said I might do just that and go exclusive with FT. But I also said it would be hard to do because SS is my best earner (as it is for most of us) and I've resisted being exclusive anywhere because all agencies tend to screw up sooner or later. Diversity is a better strategy, methinks.

So, anyway, please know that I appreciate your always-useful comments!

Yes, you did say that you were going to delete your portfolio if they didn't do anything about the watermark. Sounds like you still aren't happy with it. Just curious.

I am so glad you appreciate my useful comment.

marthamarks · « **Reply #388 on:** November 09, 2015, 15:35 »

Quote from: cathyslife on November 09, 2015, 15:08

Quote from: marthamarks on November 09, 2015, 13:07
Quote from: cathyslife on November 09, 2015, 12:51
If you are that worried about it, why not just delete your portfolio?

Gee, Cathy, thanks for that helpful suggestion!

Very early in this thread, I said I might do just that and go exclusive with FT. But I also said it would be hard to do because SS is my best earner (as it is for most of us) and I've resisted being exclusive anywhere because all agencies tend to screw up sooner or later. Diversity is a better strategy, methinks.

So, anyway, please know that I appreciate your always-useful comments!

Yes, you did say that you were going to delete your portfolio if they didn't do anything about the watermark. Sounds like you still aren't happy with it. Just curious.

I am so glad you appreciate my useful comment.

Always do!

ETA: actually, what I believe I said earlier was that I might delete my port. But since most of my images now have the "new and improved" V2 wm, that's not looking so likely.

It did surprise me, though, when I saw this EL come through yesterday, to find that image still wasn't better protected. Now, really… can you blame me for being unhappy 'bout that?

cobalt · « **Reply #389 on:** November 10, 2015, 08:05 »

The watermark that I see on my images looks good and covers the whole image. I suppose I am seeing the new version.

marthamarks · « **Reply #390 on:** November 10, 2015, 09:30 »

Quote from: cobalt on November 10, 2015, 08:05

The watermark that I see on my images looks good and covers the whole image. I suppose I am seeing the new version.

I like the new V2 wm also. Just am getting anxious to see it on all my images!

FlowerPower · « **Reply #391 on:** November 10, 2015, 09:33 »

Quote from: cobalt on November 10, 2015, 08:05

The watermark that I see on my images looks good and covers the whole image. I suppose I am seeing the new version.

What's a V1 look like compared to V2 or V3?

ravens · « **Reply #392 on:** November 10, 2015, 10:36 »

The problem is the super huge preview. You can download the image at 1500 * 1100 which is insane. The v2 watermark is too weak on many images.

cathyslife · « **Reply #393 on:** November 10, 2015, 10:49 »

Quote from: ravens on November 10, 2015, 10:36

The problem is the super huge preview. You can download the image at 1500 * 1100 which is insane. The v2 watermark is too weak on many images.

I disagree. I think v2 works just fine on the large previews. As Martha said, I am still waiting for all my images to switch. I only saw 1 still not switched on my random check this morning, but there are probably more.

rimglow · « **Reply #394 on:** November 10, 2015, 11:43 »

Quote from: FlowerPower on November 10, 2015, 09:33

Quote from: cobalt on November 10, 2015, 08:05
The watermark that I see on my images looks good and covers the whole image. I suppose I am seeing the new version.

What's a V1 look like compared to V2 or V3?

There is no V3. There was the original preview that you saw a year ago. Then, on October 21st, they rolled out a new larger preview with weak watermark. (version 1 of the new) Then on October 24, they rolled out a newer version with a better and larger watermark. (version 2 of the new)
V2 is easily recognizable by the dark grey footer.

cobalt · « **Reply #395 on:** November 10, 2015, 11:58 »

I am wondering if the larger preview is maybe a necessary step to work on their rejection policies.

For instance if SS was to introduce a real mobile stock collection, they would have to accept all these things they now don´t like: brutal lighting, out of focus, bad compositions, "creative" overfiltering and visible artifacts...all these things that make a mobilestock image look like an "authentic" mobile stock image.

If they have much larger previews, the customer can look more closely and decide for themselves if the quality is good enough for them.

Or maybe I am just hoping that they will find a solution to their photo rejections and I can start uploading again

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #396 on:** November 10, 2015, 12:42 »

Quote from: cobalt on November 10, 2015, 11:58

I am wondering if the larger preview is maybe a necessary step to work on their rejection policies.

For instance if SS was to introduce a real mobile stock collection, they would have to accept all these things they now don´t like: brutal lighting, out of focus, bad compositions, "creative" overfiltering and visible artifacts...all these things that make a mobilestock image look like an "authentic" mobile stock image.

If they have much larger previews, the customer can look more closely and decide for themselves if the quality is good enough for them.

Or maybe I am just hoping that they will find a solution to their photo rejections and I can start uploading again

if that is true, that is even more proof that the lower management decision makers are all bloody stoned smoking too much of that weeds that is spamming allowably in ss.

because it is putting all the good work at risk to being stolen for free
just to placate for their totally effed-up reviewing system caused no doubt by one or a handful of f****up reviewers.. at the expense of the majority good reviewers that once made ss the
enviable site to contribute to.

it would be like saying, "ok, because our neighbourhood is so full of dope fiends and drug addicts
we will legalize drugs and needles and let you decide if you want to live in this neighbourhood
with all this and make it a dive...
if you don't like it, you can move out of this neighbourhood because we declare it
open season for all kinds of deviant and undesirable .

what kind of logic is that???

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #397 on:** November 10, 2015, 12:52 »

Quote from: FlowerPower on November 10, 2015, 09:33

Quote from: cobalt on November 10, 2015, 08:05
The watermark that I see on my images looks good and covers the whole image. I suppose I am seeing the new version.

What's a V1 look like compared to V2 or V3?

You can take a look at some previews of my images in this dropbox folder

https://www.dropbox.com/home/Public/SSpreviews

Some I have both the V1 (white bottom) and V2 (almost black bottom) there is a "-v2" suffix on the latter file name. You'll see what an improvement the V2 preview is in most cases

Some images I didn't get a copy of the V1 but you can see the problems with some of the V2 versions, particularly on white backgrounds or medium toned busy backgrounds, for example:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12956972/SSpreviews/stock-photo-morning-newspapers-in-a-snowy-driveway-2533761-v2.jpg

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12956972/SSpreviews/stock-photo-airbrush-abstract-of-leaves-in-shades-of-green-81634708-v2.jpg

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12956972/SSpreviews/stock-photo-detail-of-a-wall-in-the-nunnery-quadrangle-uxmal-mexico-80026621-v2.jpg

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12956972/SSpreviews/stock-photo-sketch-of-spring-flowers-in-a-vase-78964114-v2.jpg

If there is only a V1 preview, it hasn't been updated yet. I can't see how they are taking so long. And the V1 preview was truly terrible

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12956972/SSpreviews/stock-photo-front-of-suburban-home-in-a-snow-storm-78866146.jpg

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12956972/SSpreviews/stock-photo-inner-face-of-the-mayan-vaulted-arch-labna-mexico-188788217.jpg

PixelBytes · « **Reply #398 on:** November 10, 2015, 12:57 »

Quote from: marthamarks on November 09, 2015, 15:35

Quote from: cathyslife on November 09, 2015, 15:08
Quote from: marthamarks on November 09, 2015, 13:07
Quote from: cathyslife on November 09, 2015, 12:51
If you are that worried about it, why not just delete your portfolio?

Gee, Cathy, thanks for that helpful suggestion!

Very early in this thread, I said I might do just that and go exclusive with FT. But I also said it would be hard to do because SS is my best earner (as it is for most of us) and I've resisted being exclusive anywhere because all agencies tend to screw up sooner or later. Diversity is a better strategy, methinks.

So, anyway, please know that I appreciate your always-useful comments!

Yes, you did say that you were going to delete your portfolio if they didn't do anything about the watermark. Sounds like you still aren't happy with it. Just curious.

I am so glad you appreciate my useful comment.

Always do!

ETA: actually, what I believe I said earlier was that I might delete my port. But since most of my images now have the "new and improved" V2 wm, that's not looking so likely.

It did surprise me, though, when I saw this EL come through yesterday, to find that image still wasn't better protected. Now, really… can you blame me for being unhappy 'bout that?

Reading this forums for over six years it seems like a lot of us complains and for good reason in this case. I never found the response 'why don't you just delete your portfolio ' to be helpful or realistic and I never saw a case where it was meant to be.

Some of the worst complainers are the least sympathetic when the others have problems.

cobalt · « **Reply #399 on:** November 10, 2015, 12:57 »

Well the alternative is to open a seperate agency for mobile stock, would that really be better for the customer?

There is a lot of money in this new genre, it is up to them if they want to have the money or leave it to Adobe, eyeem and all the others with dedicated mobile stock collections.

I am not a hipster and feel no connection to the hipster vibe what so ever, but will suffer in silence until the trend ends. However, I won´t demand that companies don´t carry hipster content because I personally have no connection to it.

But leaving easy money to other companies, not sure if that is the clever thing to do.

Who knows, maybe they have other ideas, I am just wondering why they haven´t joined the mobile stock vibe yet. Personally, I am in love it. I haven´t had this much fun since discovering stock photography.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Large image previews on SS ? (Read 79255 times)

etudiante_rapide

Smilla

douglas

Rinderart

marthamarks

Rinderart

sharpshot

cathyslife

marthamarks

marthamarks

cathyslife

marthamarks

cathyslife

marthamarks

cobalt

marthamarks

FlowerPower

ravens

cathyslife

rimglow

cobalt

etudiante_rapide

Jo Ann Snover

PixelBytes

cobalt

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors