| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/25/2005 11:47:47 AM · #26 |
Lol, istock fine combs images like no other. Even I have trouble meeting istock standards with my g5 set on iso 50.
Originally posted by coolhar:
Who is tricking/cheating who here? Some posters have picked on Joey a bit but isn't it shutterstock that is doing the large scale tricking/cheating? They are apparently passing on to their customers images that they don't whether they can be upsized successfully or not.
Jon said he would have to remove Joey's picture even though earlier in the thread it was made clear that they both passed thru the site's acceptance procedure and were done in complience with the site's rules.
Joey is not the bad guy here. But if he's smart he'll switch to iStock and dump shutterstock. |
|
|
|
|
01/25/2005 12:37:12 PM · #27 |
Poor picked-on Joey will not get his pictures accepted to iStock.
I really do not understand the ethics involved in this thread. Sites have rules. Rules are in place to be followed. If you do not follow the rules and are called on it, really, who is the bad guy? IMO, it's not the person that pointed out that the rules were exceded. Why do you all feel that Joey was right in what he did. Just because some schmuck accepted his pictures into the library? I know I shouldn't compare the two sites, but, I've seen plenty of pictures disappear off the front page after they won a challenge. Are you saying that because that person fooled everyone, the picture should stay? |
|
|
|
01/25/2005 12:52:42 PM · #28 |
All the guidelines say is "Images must be at least 2MP (2 Megapixels/2 Million Pixels). To calculate the number of pixels in a photo - multiply the width by the height. For example - a photo that's 1700x1300 is 2.21 million pixels."
It doesn't say you can't upsample.
|
|
|
|
01/25/2005 01:03:51 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by mk:
All the guidelines say is "Images must be at least 2MP (2 Megapixels/2 Million Pixels). To calculate the number of pixels in a photo - multiply the width by the height. For example - a photo that's 1700x1300 is 2.21 million pixels."
It doesn't say you can't upsample. |
...and more importantly. YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR!! A 20 cent image should look like an upsampled 1.5 mega-pixel image. You can't even by a news paper for that, and people are giving away rights to their images.
People should read up on to how hard past photographers had to fight to get the copyrights to their images in the first place...
|
|
|
|
01/25/2005 01:06:30 PM · #30 |
| Yes. I should have understood it was a problem with the language. So if Jon now adds "native resolution of your camera must be 2 megapixels", everyone would agree with that and say Joey was wrong? However since it was only implied that that was the meaning, anything and everything should be accepted and Jon is the bad guy for not being more precise. Thanks. |
|
|
|
01/25/2005 01:08:24 PM · #31 |
| No one is giving away any of their rights. Where ever did you get that from? |
|
|
|
01/25/2005 01:15:13 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by pcody:
Yes. I should have understood it was a problem with the language. So if Jon now adds "native resolution of your camera must be 2 megapixels", everyone would agree with that and say Joey was wrong? However since it was only implied that that was the meaning, anything and everything should be accepted and Jon is the bad guy for not being more precise. Thanks. |
If Jon doesn't want photographers altering their files in what is a pretty standard way, then yes, perhaps Jon should be a bit more specific in his wording. Especially if their quality check doesn't do a thorough job of checking quality.
If Joey's post had said something like "haha, I tricked Shutterstock and stole a bunch of someone elses's photos and uploaded them as mine and now they are selling them for me," then yes, I'd think he was at fault. Or even if the rules had said "absolutely no upsampling" and then Joey had posted that he had upsampled and snuck it by. Instead, it said "I found a way to make my photo fit the requirements that they asked for and they agreed that it was good enough quality" so no, I don't really see a problem. |
|
|
|
01/25/2005 01:27:47 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by pcody:
No one is giving away any of their rights. Where ever did you get that from? |
What do think royalty free is?
|
|
|
|
01/25/2005 01:29:11 PM · #34 |
The truth of the matter is that the photos would have been reported as low quality and removed at some point anyway.
And at that time I would confront Joey, and then if he told me that he tricked me - i would remove his account and never let him back.
I have a lot of communication with my buyers - which is why there are some photographers making $400 per month now with ShutterStock - having just 400 photos online.
Communication with my buyers is important to me - and the photos which don't meet our standards are eventually removed. Communication with photographers has been excellent as well - well, except a few like Joey.
This thread is pointless- and nothing we aren't prepared to deal with.
Jon
|
|
|
|
01/25/2005 01:33:31 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by shutterstock:
The truth of the matter is that the photos would have been reported as low quality and removed at some point anyway.
And at that time I would confront Joey, and then if he told me that he tricked me - i would remove his account and never let him back.
I have a lot of communication with my buyers - which is why there are some photographers making $400 per month now with ShutterStock - having just 400 photos online.
Communication with my buyers is important to me - and the photos which don't meet our standards are eventually removed. Communication with photographers has been excellent as well - well, except a few like Joey.
This thread is pointless- and nothing we aren't prepared to deal with.
Jon |
Are you a designer or a photographer?
|
|
|
|
01/25/2005 01:44:24 PM · #36 |
Will you be updating your rules to be more specific?
Originally posted by shutterstock:
The truth of the matter is that the photos would have been reported as low quality and removed at some point anyway.
And at that time I would confront Joey, and then if he told me that he tricked me - i would remove his account and never let him back.
I have a lot of communication with my buyers - which is why there are some photographers making $400 per month now with ShutterStock - having just 400 photos online.
Communication with my buyers is important to me - and the photos which don't meet our standards are eventually removed. Communication with photographers has been excellent as well - well, except a few like Joey.
This thread is pointless- and nothing we aren't prepared to deal with.
Jon |
|
|
|
|
01/26/2005 12:39:28 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by shutterstock:
The truth of the matter is that the photos would have been reported as low quality and removed at some point anyway. .... Communication with my buyers is important to me - and the photos which don't meet our standards are eventually removed. |
So what is your standard? Is passing the accepatance when uploaded?, or is that the some designer gets whiny when they can't upsample a twenty cent image? I think you are just making the photographer a scapegoat to cover up for the failure of your acceptance procedure.
Originally posted by shutterstock:
And at that time I would confront Joey, and then if he told me that he tricked me - i would remove his account and never let him back. |
And in that case you would be making Joey the scapegoat for your poorly worded rules. A designer complains about a cheapo image and you blame a young photog who hasn't broken any rules. What a fine business model you are running.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 07/20/2025 02:48:38 PM EDT.
