Author Topic: Large image previews on SS ? (Read 79156 times)

Thomas from France · « **Reply #350 on:** November 05, 2015, 16:10 »

many of my images are still with v1 watermark

Am I alone ?

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #351 on:** November 05, 2015, 16:42 »

Quote from: Thomas from France on November 05, 2015, 16:10

many of my images are still with v1 watermark

Am I alone ?

I still have a fair number - based on a spot check, I can't go look at them all - that are still white bottom preview. I have images from 2005 through 2015 and I can't figure out any pattern to the order in which they're doing the conversions. It clearly isn't be image number or sales or size or....

It really shouldn't be taking this long. Not sure if the issue is making the previews or propagating them out to the various caches of data worldwide, but either way it's been too long.

marthamarks · « **Reply #352 on:** November 05, 2015, 18:56 »

Quote from: Thomas from France on November 05, 2015, 16:10

many of my images are still with v1 watermark

Am I alone ?

No, unfortunately. I still see a lot of the V1 WM on my images, although some do have the newer version.

I can't understand why this is taking so long. The original large V1 preview WM rolled out overnight, didn't it?

For those who haven't seen/signed it yet, here's the online petition about this:

https://secure.avaaz.org/en/petition/Shutterstockcom_team_Infringes_copyrights_of_contributors_by_Shutterstock

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #353 on:** November 06, 2015, 11:57 »

I went to see if there was any update on this from SS in their forums. There isn't, but I did get a chuckle over this guy's post

http://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/87071-update-on-shutterstock-watermark-progress/?p=1512865

For those who can't read the forums there...

"Vincent ...my sexy ladies are still unprotected...
Can we please do something about it finally???
You clean photo like this under 2 minutes.
What's your opinion on this? Do you think that's OK to give them free? Why SS is doing this? I really would like to know the answer.
And not the usual one " our goal is excellence ...bla bla" but just the straight forward honest one.
Like....... "We have no idea how to reverse it, out technician guy is on vacation"
Or......... "Jon told us we gonna be OK, he has a plan"
or......... " the person who designed the new watermark is Jon's girlfriend and we can not tell her that she sucks"
something like this..."

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #354 on:** November 06, 2015, 12:11 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on November 06, 2015, 11:57

I went to see if there was any update on this from SS in their forums. There isn't, but I did get a chuckle over this guy's post

http://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/87071-update-on-shutterstock-watermark-progress/?p=1512865

For those who can't read the forums there...

"Vincent ...my sexy ladies are still unprotected...
Can we please do something about it finally???
You clean photo like this under 2 minutes.
What's your opinion on this? Do you think that's OK to give them free? Why SS is doing this? I really would like to know the answer.
And not the usual one " our goal is excellence ...bla bla" but just the straight forward honest one.
Like....... "We have no idea how to reverse it, out technician guy is on vacation"
Or......... "Jon told us we gonna be OK, he has a plan"
or......... " the person who designed the new watermark is Jon's girlfriend and we can not tell her that she sucks"
something like this..."

kamikaze. now watch his earnings dive dive and dive.
i would not be that foolhardy to do that on ss forum. maybe here where i ~~"wear a condom"~~ practising safe ~~s*x~~

marthamarks · « **Reply #355 on:** November 06, 2015, 13:54 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on November 06, 2015, 11:57

I went to see if there was any update on this from SS in their forums. There isn't, but I did get a chuckle over this guy's post

http://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/87071-update-on-shutterstock-watermark-progress/?p=1512865

For those who can't read the forums there...

"Vincent ...my sexy ladies are still unprotected...
Can we please do something about it finally???
You clean photo like this under 2 minutes.
What's your opinion on this? Do you think that's OK to give them free? Why SS is doing this? I really would like to know the answer.
And not the usual one " our goal is excellence ...bla bla" but just the straight forward honest one.
Like....... "We have no idea how to reverse it, out technician guy is on vacation"
Or......... "Jon told us we gonna be OK, he has a plan"
or......... " the person who designed the new watermark is Jon's girlfriend and we can not tell her that she sucks"
something like this..."

Really funny! Probably really dangerous too.

Thanks, Jo Ann, for sharing.

cathyslife · « **Reply #356 on:** November 06, 2015, 15:40 »

I got this reply from support yesterday, after sending another email...

Quote

Dear Cathleen,

As you noted, we have now implemented our new watermark with the black bar on many of the images and we are nearing completion of applying this new watermark to all images.

We expect to be finished with this soon. We will provide additional updates on our forum as we complete the roll out of the new watermark on the balance of all images.

Best regards,

Shutterstock
Contributor Support

So really, nothing new.

Kenny · « **Reply #357 on:** November 06, 2015, 16:56 »

Quote from: cathyslife on November 06, 2015, 15:40

we have now implemented our new watermark with the black bar on many of the images and we are nearing completion of applying this new watermark to all images.

The "black bar" in the following image is rendering as "very dark grayish blue" on my screen. It has a hex value of #282f39. Black should have a hex value of #000000.

mal-fuhngk-shuh-3217510.jpg

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #358 on:** November 06, 2015, 18:34 »

excuse me if i am wrong. but i just checked the watermark and i cannot see anything wrong with it.
there are 3 bands of transparent watermark on my larger preview. and you say that it will get a bigger image if i click the large preview. i don't see that.
from where i am today, the large preview is about what? 600 by 300 or something.
that is not that big. to print an 8 by 10 ins print you need at least 3MP
. 600 by 300 won't even print anything risky.
unless you mean the use of it on the web for such a size.

really, with the 3 bands of watermark i don't think it is that bad.
not unless i am seeing the wrong thing.
pls confirm if i am seeing the wrong watermarked size.

but whatever, i also agree with laurent that there should be an opt-out
for a larger 600 by 300 px preview, so it's up to us to decide if we agree to let themn
see a bigger one or not. i think the magnifying glass should be the best way to go...
so the client can check for fringe, noise , etc at a specific edge or whatever.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #359 on:** November 06, 2015, 18:36 »

my previous comment is to show good faith to oringer 's ppl, that we at least are not out to
have them all fired; but to get a winwin solution.
of course, i still want that rogue reviewer of poor lighting, out of focus,etc to be fired
for favoritism of weed buddies;)

PhotoBomb · « **Reply #360 on:** November 06, 2015, 18:44 »

Opt out will never happen. How can they explain to customers why only certain images can be viewed larger?
It will be all or nothing.

LesPalenik · « **Reply #361 on:** November 06, 2015, 19:08 »

Quote

from where i am today, the large preview is about what? 600 by 300 or something.
that is not that big. to print an 8 by 10 ins print you need at least 3MP
. 600 by 300 won't even print anything risky.

I hate to repeat myself, but you see 600 pixels because the browser was instructed to scale it down. If you right-click on Save or Inspect image, you'll see that the retrieved image is actually 1500 pixels wide or high.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #362 on:** November 06, 2015, 19:38 »

Quote from: LesPalenik on November 06, 2015, 19:08

Quote
from where i am today, the large preview is about what? 600 by 300 or something.
that is not that big. to print an 8 by 10 ins print you need at least 3MP
. 600 by 300 won't even print anything risky.

I hate to repeat myself, but you see 600 pixels because the browser was instructed to scale it down. If you right-click on Save or Inspect image, you'll see that the retrieved image is actually 1500 pixels wide or high.

oh, that's not good news. considering if the person also know this...
so is ss intent on fooling us???

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #363 on:** November 06, 2015, 19:41 »

Quote from: etudiante_rapide on November 06, 2015, 18:34

excuse me if i am wrong. but i just checked the watermark and i cannot see anything wrong with it.

Take a look at these (black bottom, V2 watermark) previews of mine:

http://image.shutterstock.com/z/stock-photo-illustration-of-holly-leaves-and-berries-in-a-frame-87078218.jpg
http://image.shutterstock.com/z/stock-photo-christmas-collage-of-drawn-elements-with-foliage-frame-86921119.jpg
http://image.shutterstock.com/z/stock-photo-antique-and-well-worn-gold-jewelry-cameo-amethyst-enamel-garnet-and-three-ring-lover-s-knot-331483934.jpg

They're very large - 1500 pixels on the long edge - and the watermark is near useless.

There are many images for which the new black bottom preview works very well, but they can and need to do better.

Here's a good example:

http://image.shutterstock.com/z/stock-photo-paper-and-plastic-masking-for-spray-painting-of-kitchen-during-a-remodel-330050414.jpg

It's clearly possible to remove the watermark, but I think the above is a decent balance that's sufficient to deter the casual and barely skilled thief who's looking for a quick route to an image.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #364 on:** November 06, 2015, 19:49 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on November 06, 2015, 19:41

Quote from: etudiante_rapide on November 06, 2015, 18:34
excuse me if i am wrong. but i just checked the watermark and i cannot see anything wrong with it.

Take a look at these (black bottom, V2 watermark) previews of mine:

http://image.shutterstock.com/z/stock-photo-illustration-of-holly-leaves-and-berries-in-a-frame-87078218.jpg
http://image.shutterstock.com/z/stock-photo-christmas-collage-of-drawn-elements-with-foliage-frame-86921119.jpg
http://image.shutterstock.com/z/stock-photo-antique-and-well-worn-gold-jewelry-cameo-amethyst-enamel-garnet-and-three-ring-lover-s-knot-331483934.jpg

They're very large - 1500 pixels on the long edge - and the watermark is near useless.

There are many images for which the new black bottom preview works very well, but they can and need to do better.

Here's a good example:

http://image.shutterstock.com/z/stock-photo-paper-and-plastic-masking-for-spray-painting-of-kitchen-during-a-remodel-330050414.jpg

It's clearly possible to remove the watermark, but I think the above is a decent balance that's sufficient to deter the casual and barely skilled thief who's looking for a quick route to an image.

*, that is frigging large and yes, absolutely like as if no watermark

that is frigging insane. now i get it. ss is frigging totally stoned .
who is running the business these days at ss??? is oringer aware of this???

60D · « **Reply #365 on:** November 06, 2015, 20:12 »

I think watermark not too bad on most of the medium size previews. I really don't understand the point behind releasing large size previews if they only want to show a medium size preview. SS is not gonna correct this. They seem to be too arrogant and sound like, hey, we are the market leaders, whatever we do will generate more sales. They drive me crazy.... I just want to opt out of this thing...

Rinderart · « **Reply #366 on:** November 07, 2015, 01:06 »

Another issue. Thieves are gonna steal Images that they can use. Posting examples of stuff they don't care about is useless. They want T-shirts and Prints. and stuff they can change in sec to sell as Prints on POD sites or to a million Tourists on cruse ship stopovers. Thats a billion dollar industry.. a Interior Kitchen redo doesn't qualify.

We lost Guys and they don't get it because it's not there work anyway. *.

skyfish · « **Reply #367 on:** November 07, 2015, 02:40 »

For those who thinks that previews are now smaller: one click - yes you have a small preview. Then you can save it at size 1600x1164,
1500x1086, etc, drag/drop. Compression is not enough done, IMHO. Now it is no matter was this an intention of the management or it is a qualification of a programmer "hired because he is from my village". All is attached to the name "Shutterstock". SS gave a huge field to play for competitors. Other names will grow. This industry even oversaturated by supply has niches which are in the same demand as usual every day goods.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #368 on:** November 07, 2015, 09:03 »

Quote from: skyfish on November 07, 2015, 02:40

For those who thinks that previews are now smaller: one click - yes you have a small preview. Then you can save it at size 1600x1164,
1500x1086, etc, drag/drop. Compression is not enough done, IMHO. Now it is no matter was this an intention of the management or it is a qualification of a programmer "hired because he is from my village". All is attached to the name "Shutterstock". SS gave a huge field to play for competitors. Other names will grow. This industry even oversaturated by supply has niches which are in the same demand as usual every day goods.

sounds like they hired the company who design the page for flickr
because flickr also let you download in every size possible.
only thing is that wihen you put your work on flickr, you know it is going to be downloadable
or you can choose not to be downloadable...
and you can embed your own watermark all over the photo if you don't give a hoot
what those others consider watermark as "tacky".

ShadySue · « **Reply #369 on:** November 07, 2015, 09:16 »

Quote from: etudiante_rapide on November 07, 2015, 09:03

Quote from: skyfish on November 07, 2015, 02:40
For those who thinks that previews are now smaller: one click - yes you have a small preview. Then you can save it at size 1600x1164,
1500x1086, etc, drag/drop. Compression is not enough done, IMHO. Now it is no matter was this an intention of the management or it is a qualification of a programmer "hired because he is from my village". All is attached to the name "Shutterstock". SS gave a huge field to play for competitors. Other names will grow. This industry even oversaturated by supply has niches which are in the same demand as usual every day goods.

sounds like they hired the company who design the page for flickr
because flickr also let you download in every size possible.

Well, yeah, but only if you choose to upload your files to Flickr in large sizes.
Uploading in small sizes, appending a huge ugly watermark and disabling right-click save a lot of misuses, but absolutely not all. Though so far I've only seen my Flickr images misused on porn sites (wildlife pics, I don't shoot porn or 'glamma'); but I've seen various iStock files, with watermarks, on a range of very-low-class commercial sites. However, someone else showed me some commercial sites using his Flickr files, protected as I noted above.
These are serious thieves, not just the genuinely clueless, 'if it's on the internet it's OK to use it' types.

Kenny · « **Reply #370 on:** November 07, 2015, 13:43 »

Side by side comparisons.

v1 vs v2

sample-1-o5753.jpg
sample-2-odb2b.jpg
sample-3-o44c2.jpg
sample-4-o6433.jpg

VB inc · « **Reply #371 on:** November 07, 2015, 13:57 »

Quote from: Rinderart on November 07, 2015, 01:06

Another issue. Thieves are gonna steal Images that they can use. Posting examples of stuff they don't care about is useless. They want T-shirts and Prints. and stuff they can change in sec to sell as Prints on POD sites or to a million Tourists on cruse ship stopovers. Thats a billion dollar industry.. a Interior Kitchen redo doesn't qualify.

We lost Guys and they don't get it because it's not there work anyway. *.

I am surprised that your site doesn't have any watermarks to protect your images. most of them appear to be 800 by 650 px. It is very easy to copy these images on a mac. pressing command and shift and 4 at same time brings up a rectangular box you can adjust where you can screen capture any image.
Just giving you a heads up if you are not aware of this capability on a mac.

Sandralise · « **Reply #372 on:** November 07, 2015, 15:56 »

I'm chiming in late, been busy lately and hadn't notice the big change in the preview size...OMG! Why did the have to change this, it was fine before. OK, maybe make it a little larger but not humongous...it's insanely large! The watermark for this size is useless.
WTH are they thinking!

Here is a preview one of mine:

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-327930608/stock-photo-rustic-door-opening-into-a-room-decorated-for-christmas.html?src=kYzuUqqj9Zsdan9V1r57wQ-1-0

skyfish · « **Reply #373 on:** November 07, 2015, 15:59 »

Quote from: Sandralise on November 07, 2015, 15:56

I'm chiming in late, been busy lately and hadn't notice the big change in the preview size...OMG! Why did the have to change this, it was fine before. OK, maybe make it a little larger but not humongous...it's insanely large! The watermark for this size is useless.
WTH are they thinking!
Here is a preview one of mine:
[urlhttp://www.shutterstock.com/pic-327930608/stock-photo-rustic-door-opening-into-a-room-decorated-for-christmas.html?src=kYzuUqqj9Zsdan9V1r57wQ-1-0][/url]

Sandralise, your image is downloadeable with size 1261x1600.

Sandralise · « **Reply #374 on:** November 07, 2015, 16:01 »

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

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Large image previews on SS ? (Read 79156 times)

Thomas from France

Jo Ann Snover

marthamarks

Jo Ann Snover

etudiante_rapide

marthamarks

cathyslife

Kenny

etudiante_rapide

etudiante_rapide

PhotoBomb

LesPalenik

etudiante_rapide

Jo Ann Snover

etudiante_rapide

60D

Rinderart

skyfish

etudiante_rapide

ShadySue

Kenny

VB inc

Sandralise

skyfish

Sandralise

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors