Author Topic: Large image previews on SS ? (Read 89856 times)

60D · « **Reply #300 on:** October 31, 2015, 11:14 »

Quote from: marthamarks on October 31, 2015, 10:54

Quote from: etudiante_rapide on October 31, 2015, 10:27
i think we will do better and quicker if we twitted Mr. Oringer at his twitter site

Can you provide his Twitter username?

https://twitter.com/jonoringer

marthamarks · « **Reply #301 on:** October 31, 2015, 11:25 »

Quote from: 60D on October 31, 2015, 11:14

Quote from: marthamarks on October 31, 2015, 10:54
Quote from: etudiante_rapide on October 31, 2015, 10:27
i think we will do better and quicker if we twitted Mr. Oringer at his twitter site

Can you provide his Twitter username?

https://twitter.com/jonoringer

Thanks!

Has anybody tried contacting Jon this way? Does he respond?

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #302 on:** October 31, 2015, 12:07 »

Quote from: marthamarks on October 31, 2015, 11:25

Quote from: 60D on October 31, 2015, 11:14
Quote from: marthamarks on October 31, 2015, 10:54
Quote from: etudiante_rapide on October 31, 2015, 10:27
i think we will do better and quicker if we twitted Mr. Oringer at his twitter site

Can you provide his Twitter username?

https://twitter.com/jonoringer

Thanks!

Has anybody tried contacting Jon this way? Does he respond?

Jon does not have to respond. we only twit him under a pseudonym (if you are concern of being another joanne-canva victim)... or use a friend's twitter ...
let him be aware of the matter.
if after a month, nothing's changed,
then we know it's time to move on and find closure that he too does not give a hoot.
.. which i do not believe he does not give a hoot,
he just does not know his ppl are as reddove so humourously but no doubt accurately put it
.. spending office time flipping ping pong paddles, drinking the lapsang souchong ... and wanking with their ridiculous beards .
all that i am sure Jon has not subsidized.

LesPalenik · « **Reply #303 on:** November 01, 2015, 13:17 »

500 signatures reached. Thanks to all colleagues, mainly from Russia!

Gigì · « **Reply #304 on:** November 01, 2015, 13:47 »

So the black footer watermark is on , and that's it I guess... They won't change it again .... All of my pictures are totally exposed , and now I only want to understand if and how this will affect sales/ subscriptions in the future at least.
Honestly, I feel betrayed ... But that's it, end of the story I guess..
That watermark is so easy to remove!! It's ridiculous.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #305 on:** November 01, 2015, 18:54 »

There was a new post today by Paul Brennan on the SS forums, saying they're making progress on getting the V2 (black bottom) watermarks online. He gave examples of some of the new ones, which do certainly work a lot better than the V1 (white bottom) ones.

I posted with some examples of watermarks that are still not useful, asking if the information sent to support has made its way to those in charge and urging them to make a commitment to make improvements on those problem areas.

http://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/87071-update-on-shutterstock-watermark-progress/?p=1511932

I'd urge those of you with examples of poor V2 (black bottom) watermarks to put a reply into that thread to give him examples. It doesn't appear support is doing squat - if you don't count spewing out boilerplate text, which I don't. Possibly it might get their attention

sharpshot · « **Reply #306 on:** November 01, 2015, 19:02 »

I like the way alamy have done it, big preview but with a clear watermark. There's no reason why SS can't get this right. They have been my favourite microstock site from day 1 but this makes them look incompetent. Reminds me so much of how istock started to ruin their reputation, I still hope SS don't make the same mistakes but the most basic of things, a watermark, should be easy to get right.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #307 on:** November 01, 2015, 19:37 »

Quote from: sharpshot on November 01, 2015, 19:02

I like the way alamy have done it, big preview but with a clear watermark. There's no reason why SS can't get this right. They have been my favourite microstock site from day 1 but this makes them look incompetent. Reminds me so much of how istock started to ruin their reputation, I still hope SS don't make the same mistakes but the most basic of things, a watermark, should be easy to get right.

yes, if alamy can do it, why not ss?
unless as you say, they are following the footstep of istock to ruin the company.
which as i said before too... when all this ss mid-mgt's mismanagement started, with istock rejection review similarities and forum ignoring..etc
that they had parachuted some istock ppl over to ss. so the same culture begins at ss.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #308 on:** November 01, 2015, 19:39 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on November 01, 2015, 18:54

There was a new post today by Paul Brennan on the SS forums, saying they're making progress on getting the V2 (black bottom) watermarks online. He gave examples of some of the new ones, which do certainly work a lot better than the V1 (white bottom) ones.

I posted with some examples of watermarks that are still not useful, asking if the information sent to support has made its way to those in charge and urging them to make a commitment to make improvements on those problem areas.

http://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/87071-update-on-shutterstock-watermark-progress/?p=1511932

I'd urge those of you with examples of poor V2 (black bottom) watermarks to put a reply into that thread to give him examples. It doesn't appear support is doing squat - if you don't count spewing out boilerplate text, which I don't. Possibly it might get their attention

as always joanne leading the front.
maybe Jon is watching you too
but this time with more appreciation of your feedback than Canva

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #309 on:** November 01, 2015, 20:27 »

Quote from: etudiante_rapide on November 01, 2015, 19:39

...maybe Jon is watching you too
but this time with more appreciation of your feedback than Canva

If Shutterstock wants to remove me as a contributor for suggesting to them that their watermarks need to be improved, then they'd really have jumped the shark. Go right ahead (although I once read some police report that said that it was a very common occurrence for the last words of a shooting victim in an altercation to be some variation of 'go ahead then, shoot me'...).

I think that even though they're now a public company, Shutterstock is basically a straightforward organization. They've always paid us on time and have, until now, been remarkably free of shenanigans. Their near-total mangling of their review system is a problem, but that's harder to get them to fix as there are substantial, on-going costs attached to having a good, consistent review system.

Fixing this preview problem, if we can get them to agree that it needs fixing, is a one-time cost and it's just automated from here on out.

photog-teo · « **Reply #310 on:** November 01, 2015, 21:09 »

Quote from: LesPalenik on November 01, 2015, 13:17

500 signatures reached. Thanks to all colleagues, mainly from Russia!

What next ?

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #311 on:** November 01, 2015, 21:44 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on November 01, 2015, 18:54

There was a new post today by Paul Brennan on the SS forums, saying they're making progress on getting the V2 (black bottom) watermarks online. He gave examples of some of the new ones, which do certainly work a lot better than the V1 (white bottom) ones.

I posted with some examples of watermarks that are still not useful, asking if the information sent to support has made its way to those in charge and urging them to make a commitment to make improvements on those problem areas.

http://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/87071-update-on-shutterstock-watermark-progress/?p=1511932

I'd urge those of you with examples of poor V2 (black bottom) watermarks to put a reply into that thread to give him examples. It doesn't appear support is doing squat - if you don't count spewing out boilerplate text, which I don't. Possibly it might get their attention

The internet is amazing. One click on one of your examples, and I start getting SS ads all over facebook with that image.

anathaya · « **Reply #312 on:** November 01, 2015, 23:52 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on November 01, 2015, 18:54

There was a new post today by Paul Brennan on the SS forums, saying they're making progress on getting the V2 (black bottom) watermarks online. He gave examples of some of the new ones, which do certainly work a lot better than the V1 (white bottom) ones.

I posted with some examples of watermarks that are still not useful, asking if the information sent to support has made its way to those in charge and urging them to make a commitment to make improvements on those problem areas.

http://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/87071-update-on-shutterstock-watermark-progress/?p=1511932

I'd urge those of you with examples of poor V2 (black bottom) watermarks to put a reply into that thread to give him examples. It doesn't appear support is doing squat - if you don't count spewing out boilerplate text, which I don't. Possibly it might get their attention

In this thread, SS forum users are talking about V3 watermark. What is this V3 watermark? Isn't it same as V2 with that black bottom?

Hongover · « **Reply #313 on:** November 02, 2015, 00:20 »

I came across the new watermark today and it's a HUGE improvement over the previous one. It seems like it's only on a small percentage of images so far, but I expect a bigger migration in the next week or so.

The logo much larger and it's covers the image very well.

Here is an example of the new one:
http://image.shutterstock.com/z/stock-photo-the-sunset-highway-pavement-224655796.jpg

Compare to the old one:
http://image.shutterstock.com/z/stock-photo-traffic-on-the-highway-blurred-image-background-concept-about-transportation-267385760.jpg

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #314 on:** November 02, 2015, 00:22 »

Quote from: anathaya on November 01, 2015, 23:52

This this thread, SS forum users are talking about V3 watermark. What is this V3 watermark? Isn't it same as V2 with that black bottom?

There are only two versions of the new enlarged preview:

http://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/87071-update-on-shutterstock-watermark-progress/?p=1511983

ruxpriencdiam is just adding more heat than light to the discussion, which is a shame.

anathaya · « **Reply #315 on:** November 02, 2015, 00:39 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on November 02, 2015, 00:22

There are only two versions of the new enlarged preview:

http://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/87071-update-on-shutterstock-watermark-progress/?p=1511983

ruxpriencdiam is just adding more heat than light to the discussion, which is a shame.

Very true. It seems like he has nothing else to do other than washing dirty laundry of SS.

Rinderart · « **Reply #316 on:** November 02, 2015, 01:10 »

Quote from: Hongover on November 02, 2015, 00:20

I came across the new watermark today and it's a HUGE improvement over the previous one. It seems like it's only on a small percentage of images so far, but I expect a bigger migration in the next week or so.

The logo much larger and it's covers the image very well.

Here is an example of the new one:
http://image.shutterstock.com/z/stock-photo-the-sunset-highway-pavement-224655796.jpg

Compare to the old one:
http://image.shutterstock.com/z/stock-photo-traffic-on-the-highway-blurred-image-background-concept-about-transportation-267385760.jpg

I could and have many times removed watermarks like this in under 90 Seconds. The smaller the image overall. the harder it is. 1500 size Images are childs Play.

Dodie · « **Reply #317 on:** November 02, 2015, 03:45 »

Quote from: Hongover on November 02, 2015, 00:20

I came across the new watermark today and it's a HUGE improvement over the previous one. It seems like it's only on a small percentage of images so far, but I expect a bigger migration in the next week or so.

The logo much larger and it's covers the image very well.

Here is an example of the new one:
http://image.shutterstock.com/z/stock-photo-the-sunset-highway-pavement-224655796.jpg

Compare to the old one:
http://image.shutterstock.com/z/stock-photo-traffic-on-the-highway-blurred-image-background-concept-about-transportation-267385760.jpg

Your new one is the very old V2 announced on 24the Nov. and criticized here on all these pages.
Still good that you finally came across it too.

angelawaye · « **Reply #318 on:** November 02, 2015, 09:35 »

Okay so who is going through uploading withdrawal waiting for them to fix this?

I really don't like them putting the high resolution images online at all! No watermark will make me feel safe because they are so easy to remove ...

Rinderart · « **Reply #319 on:** November 02, 2015, 10:31 »

Quote from: angelawaye on November 02, 2015, 09:35

Okay so who is going through uploading withdrawal waiting for them to fix this?

I really don't like them putting the high resolution images online at all! No watermark will make me feel safe because they are so easy to remove ...

Correct.

ravens · « **Reply #320 on:** November 02, 2015, 10:33 »

V2 offers slightly better protection, but not good enough. The gigantic preview and save feature are still there. Why can't they make a watermark which has a large central SS logo on it?

Don't understand why this is taking so long. They introduced the crap watermark overnight but fixing the issue takes forever.

Won't upload until they can offer protection for my images.

Photobomb · « **Reply #321 on:** November 02, 2015, 12:13 »

Quote from: angelawaye on November 02, 2015, 09:35

Okay so who is going through uploading withdrawal waiting for them to fix this?

I really don't like them putting the high resolution images online at all! No watermark will make me feel safe because they are so easy to remove ...

First I want to make it clear I think the SS watermark on the large previews could and should be better.
I also think it’s about time someone figured out a way to protect our image rights in a way that makes it difficult for unauthorized use.
But I’m confident that as soon as somebody came up with a way to do that some low-life would figure out a way around it.

That said, I think everyone who is up-in-arms over this has forgotten one thing:
The moment you uploaded your images to Shutterstock or to any other stock site you gave up all control of how your images would be used and abused, now and forever.

The SS watermarked preview image for your most popular image (girl with camera, teddy bear and balloons) is 1500x1087.
A quick google search finds that image without watermark (without attribution to you) and at a size of 2900x2109.
So it’s already out there in a larger size without watermark and no copyright notice attached.
Which is more likely to be stolen and misused, a smaller one with watermark or a bigger one without watermark?

I know when to let go of something I have no control over.
If I had an image I thought so highly of that I’d be devastated if it was stolen, it wouldn’t be on the internet.

Fab · « **Reply #322 on:** November 02, 2015, 13:56 »

The grid of the preview v2 (black footer) is not even visible on black backgrounds....

Rinderart · « **Reply #323 on:** November 02, 2015, 14:24 »

Why dont you guys write something On the SS forums. they dont think we care. They don't come here that much Guys.

Microstockphoto · « **Reply #324 on:** November 02, 2015, 14:26 »

And then get slated for complaining no thanks

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Large image previews on SS ? (Read 89856 times)

60D

marthamarks

etudiante_rapide

LesPalenik

Gigì

Jo Ann Snover

sharpshot

etudiante_rapide

etudiante_rapide

Jo Ann Snover

photog-teo

Sean Locke Photography

anathaya

Hongover

Jo Ann Snover

anathaya

Rinderart

Dodie

angelawaye

Rinderart

ravens

Photobomb

Fab

Rinderart

Microstockphoto

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors