Search function is not working on IE. Also clicking on Timeline logo doesn't take us to homepage. The count number of images already croped shown is the same as the total amount of images available to crop. I dont know if this is the right place to report bugs. I like this new site.
Hope this is of some help. This is what I find on my system running the latest Firefox version.
The 'top' search function does not operate for me from the home page (main image loads very slowly btw) - have to use the link at the bottom (Search for your Facebook cover image). The search is apparently (can't be positive) only searching the 'selected' covers (the "hand-picked collection").
If you select an image (for downloading say) the link to the contributor, though now 'live' does not return images among the 'also rans' - including the one you are viewing! i.e. when selecting a contributor, you will only get a result if the contributor has a 'selected' image, not those listed under the bottom section - "Show only selected cover photos (crop it yourself)". Therefore, unless you have an image among the 'selected' ones, linking to the contributor will return zero pics.
The above is making the search exceeding restrictive. Further, adding another keyword will probably KO all images unless a)both keywords exist in the image b)the image is among the 'selected' ones.
Some help on the search function would be welcome.
I am trying to be 'gentle' with DT as requested, the above is offered as an insight into what is probably the average experience - and I have to say it is a little frustrating at the present time.
Quoted Message: Would it be reasonable to add the keyword cover and/or facebook to images that would be a nice fit for FaceBook covers?
Keywords should describe what's in the image, not what it might be used for. I'm pretty sure that most images would make sense as a facebook cover, I don't see the need to indicate that.
Dreamstime made a selection and precropped those images, probably to show new customers what the cropped images would look like. But all other images available on DT can be cropped manually, I mean it is certainly an advantage being in the collection of already cropped images but it is not a must.
Brilliant! One comment: I selected a category (Travel, Nature). When browsing through the images I found that images repeat themselves on the next pages. More than once I saw an image appear twice on the same page in the same cropped section (just select travel and you will see Canola Road on rows 2 and 4). Kind of makes it a little unprofessional and probably affects other images that should appear and maybe don't.
I'm sure DT are working to fix all the reported problems making this new site perfect. Thanks.
Various Nikon Lenses
Quoted Message: Just a thought. Not everyone wants their children`s photos on facebook. Would it be possible to have a special `opt out` button for specific models whose parents feel uneasy?
When you submit photos on a microstock site, you never know what they will be used for. It is already possible to put images you buy here on Facebook, as on almost any other site for that matter (with some exceptions explained in the contract clauses).
If you feel sensitive about having your children's images on the web or on any other kind of media, you should not have them submitted on a microstock site.
Quoted Message: When you submit photos on a microstock site, you never know what they will be used for. It is already possible to put images you buy here on Facebook, as on almost any other site for that matter (with some exceptions explained in the contract clauses).If you feel sensitive about having your children`s images on the web or on any other kind of media, you should not have them submitted on a microstock site.
I was not speaking for myself, however there will be those who feel there is a difference between a reputable business site such as DT with its contract of usage and a social networking site. I would not criticise any parent who wants a little extra assurance over the use of their childrens images.
Interesting idea .. but it will suck when you wake up one morning and see that Facebook decided to get rid of timeline images for something else. When I speak at seminars or workshops on Facebook marketing for portrait photography the first thing I say is Don't count on Facebook for ANYTHING .. They will change their mind on the flip of a dime and then change it again a month later. I've already had to change my timeline templates 3 times because of their little .. "hey let's move this a few more pixels to the right." or "you know what let's jack around with the aspect ratio on these timelines." Which when you're maintaining your studio page plus those for 100 representatives .. yeah .. it's extremely annoying.
How about investing in a YoVille for Photographers game instead .. then you can in-app sell people new camera gear and bigger studios. :)
Quoted Message: Its a very small list dont get sad, they will show later on
Hmmm, I wonder how images are selected, the database is huge and I understand not all photos fit the format but is there anything contributors can do to push forward the images they think could be good for it?
Quoted Message: ElifranssensI was not speaking for myself, however there will be those who feel there is a difference between a reputable business site such as DT with its contract of usage and a social networking site. I would not criticise any parent who wants a little extra assurance over the use of their childrens images.
I was of course not criticising anyone, I was just explaining the state of things. Designers can buy your images and use them in any way the licence they bought allows them. There's a clause about Unauthorized Use and this excludes for example pornographic sites but I'm pretty sure Facebook was already allowed also before the creation of TimelineImages.
Without limitation, Images may not be used as a trademark or service mark (unless the appropriate extended license is being used), for any pornographic or unlawful purpose, to defame a person, to violate a person's right to privacy or publicity, to infringe upon any copyright, trade name, trademark, or service mark of any person/entity.
So if anyone feels there are some sites they do not want their children to appear on, they should not sell these images through microstock sites but should use more traditional channels in order to have more control on where these images are used.