jump to navigation

IPTC Support Coming Soon! (and a few words on our keywording policies) July 16, 2007

Posted by Team SnapVillage in Service Announcements, snapvillage.

Happy Monday everyone. We wanted to post a quick update on a hot topic. As many of you have noticed and commented on, SnapVillage does not enable IPTC metadata extraction at present. Well, we’re pleased to announce that this will be changing when we turn on support for IPTC metadata extraction. We’ll post an update when we get closer to the release to provide more detailed information.

However, please know that, now and in the future after we enable IPTC data extraction, meta data is not, repeat NOT required when you upload your photos. That’s right – when you upload images to SnapVillage, you don’t have to spend time adding titles, descriptions or keywords to the images you submit. Our review team will add meta data to your images as part of the review process which means you have more time to take pictures!

On a side note, we’re moving into a periodic release schedule when we’ll be regularly fixing bugs, rolling out enhancements, and shipping features. The most recent release contains fixes for the more critical sign-up and upload issues some of you have experienced during the account registration and upload process.  As always, please report any bugs or issues you experience on the site here, or feel free to post a comment to the blog.

Thanks and we’ll see you around SnapVillage!



1. CJPhoto - July 17, 2007

“SnapVillage does not enable IPTC metadata extraction at present. Well, we’re pleased to announce that this will be changing when we turn on support for IPTC metadata extraction.”

Is that so. When will this be (ie. the next periodic release).

Also, what about FTP support?

And why weren’t these offered at the start!?! (if you were concerned about volume you should have limited how many we can submit per day, not release a hobbled site).

2. mimbrava studio - July 17, 2007

You say that meta data will not be required. However, I hope that we will still have the option of being able to add our own tags. I certainly would prefer that.

Is one of the enhancements you are talking about the ability to search for photographers, not just images?

3. JohnC - July 17, 2007

Can we modify descriptions and titles after an image has been uploaded? Will we be able to add more than one keyword at a time after a file is already online?

4. wayoutwest - July 17, 2007

Is the watermark going to be improved? I am not going to upload much here when it is so easy to take my photo and remove the logo in the top left corner. Every other site has a better watermark to make it harder to use photos without paying for them. I hope this is changed soon.

5. Douglas Freer - July 18, 2007

It takes multiple attempts to successfully upload images using the current method; its impactical for serious use.

FTP upload and metadata extraction are essential and needed now – photographers are checking out the site and being put off by lack of these basics. A timescale for their introdution would be appreciated.

6. sorsillo - July 18, 2007

I still think you all are doing great!
My only complaint, and it really isn’t a complaint, is the need to log in every-time I come back to the site…..
I personally think that FTP can wait, look at iStock, the have been around for years and they don’t have FTP.
Now, an Aperture plug in, that would make me happy!

All the best and keep up the good work.
(feel free to ignore the grouchy folks, most of us wont mind! 😉

7. PeterC - July 18, 2007

I have to agree about the watermark, I feel it needs to be moved to the middle of the image.

8. hospitalera - July 19, 2007

Sorry, to contradict, but most mind! A short look around the relevant forums would tell you how many contributors hold off with uploading until ftp or another form of mass upload is established. You can’t compare a start-up site with an established site. Each start-up needs to reach critical mass asap to start to attract buyers. With single file upload that will never happen. SY

9. Michael Shake - July 21, 2007

I agree, until FTP and IPTC data extraction is in place its not practical to upload here. I understand that they will add keywords and categories to the photos but I prefer to do that myself and I am sure most of us do.

I am also hearing lots of talk about the placement of the watermark. It does need to be across the photo or it is useless. The whole point of a watermark is for it to go across the image not for it to be out of the way. Many photographers won’t upload here until that placement is moved to the center.

In saying that I am excited to be here and eagerly awaiting those things to be implemented so the uploading can begin.

10. Os - July 22, 2007

i keep on uploading and every 3 times i will sucessfully upload one photo ..!! that too if im lucky. !! the site keeps on giving me all sorts of error messages ..most of them after the uploading is over at the submit to approval page.. very frustating !! and my photos still have not been reviewed !!

11. Judy Tillinger - July 24, 2007

Anyone else having serious inconsistency problems in terms of what is declined and what is accepted? There are photos with similar characteristics appearing in both categories and it seems like a serious lack of discernment or judgement on the part of those making the judements.

For example several photos taken with a Diana camera which I include a think black border on were accepted but several were rejected just for having a border. Some images with ‘artistic’ blur are accepted while others state that the blur “does not appear to be an intentional stylistic device.” Images with obviously unidentifiable individuals are rejected with a request of releases…

I certainly understand most of the issues involved but the inconsistency is
both frustrating and worrisome.

Anyone else?

12. FlemishDreams - July 25, 2007

Come on guys (and gals), this is a beta. The upload is a bit cumbersome for now, but iStock is much worse. What we can do now is reserve our screen name and upload some photos to test the water. Fair enough?
As long as SV doesn’t have FTP, a 10-photo web-upload and IPTC extraction would be OK for a long time.

As to the tagging, well, finally a site that takes tagging seriously. Most of us are uploading to the big 6, so we tagged our photos already. I hope the reviewers/taggers will respect that work, and just edit our existing ones.

And yes, the watermark needs to be improved and FAST. A solution like on thephotostorage would be neat: determine the position of the watermark yourself.

Many beginning microstock sites around these days, and most are programmed more complete than SV right from the start. But… a successful site is not made by programmers but by marketeers. I expect SV will start marketing like shock & awe as soon as it has a couple of 100,000 photos online. And it sure has a name (Corbis) and deep pockets (MS) behind it.

The pioneers (uploaders) often get the arrows in their back, but they also reap the rewards of an early adoption.

13. Kalani - July 25, 2007

You are a very patient person Os. I got frustrated with the error messages that come after waiting through the upload and then the uploading the model releases. I too will wait for ftp.

14. hatman - July 30, 2007

IPTC extraction is a surprising oversight for such a large and respected organisation. Like others here I shan’t be uploading until IPTC is in place.

I did upload ten pictures when the beta site was launched; I am not impressed with the choice of keywords and categories chosen by the image inspectors: keywords very limited and uninspiring and category choices incorrect.

Photographers need to be able to choose their own selection of categories, after all only the photographer knows what his/her intended market was when creating the image.

Early days. Presumably SV will need an image bank of at least 500,000 before making any significant marketing spend, and it is also unlikely that many customers will sign up when there are other agencies with a huge choice of images. So no sales for perhaps six months or a year. Let’s hope SV smoothes out the missing facilities over that time.

15. Snappy - July 31, 2007

For me the main problem are the endless DB Errors.

16. Barry - August 1, 2007

It’s possible to get rid of the initial obvious and repeatable bugs in the site within a matter of weeks. The bugs I encounter do not appear to be addressed week over week. Beta does not have to = “static”. That is a choice.

If Corbis is serious about this, why not have a dynamic beta where the site is visibly improving, and basic functionality (like FTP upload) is included out of the gate or within weeks of the initial beta?

Best wishes in the work that lies ahead of you. Here’s a challenge: Exceed our expectations!

17. José Elias - August 2, 2007


Although FTP and IPTC would be very nice, we all know it isn’t essential at this stage. iStock is much, much worse and people continue to upload there.

But the watermak issue is very worrying. It is totally, completly and absolutly USELESS in isolated objects turning SV into a huge Free Images stock agency.

Even in many non-isolated images it can be eliminated without much trouble. Considering that MANY images are for web use the samples shown are more than enough for most purposes.

The objective of the watermark is to protect the image. If it doesn’t protect why do you bother to put it there?… For advertising only?!

I’ve stopped uploading images because of this. The agency should be an ally against stealling, not an ally of thieves.

José Elias

18. carousel - August 2, 2007

can watermark really protect your images?
If an image is sold for only once it will be available either in print or on the website for anyone to copy without water mark, possibly full size as well.
The only way to protect your images is don’t upload them to the Internet.
A thief is always a thief they will steal your images with or without watermark. The watermark only protect the agencies for saying those stealling did not happen at their end. watermark don’t protect your images.

19. wayoutwest - August 9, 2007

A watermark makes it much harder for someone to take the photo for nothing and put it on their website. It just doesn’t feel right uploading photos that have poor watermark protection. Perhaps a thief will steal a photo with a watermark but they might be put off by the time it takes to remove it. Some have been caught because the watermark can still be seen.

What is so wrong with having a good watermark that covers more of the image? All the big sites use one and they don’t have people refusing to upload.

This is the main reason why I am not uploading here at the moment. If this isn’t sorted out, there are lots of other sites that will keep me busy.

20. Tara - August 19, 2007

I have also stopped uploading at the present time…why? Because everytime I try too…I get an error and cant. You NEED to get FTP upload. I find ‘trying’ to upload on this website to be a complete waste of my time. For a connected name like Corbis, you would think these issues would have been taken care of a long time ago. This looks poorly on them.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: