Time to move on

123457

Comments

  • mike_kmike_k Registered Users Posts: 153 Major grins
    edited September 14, 2012
    It's really interesting how much has changed since this thread started. My first post in this thread was before the price increase bombshell. At the time I was playing around with the idea of moving, but really, really didn't want to. And now SmugMug has all but said the words "semi-pro/hobbyist users like me don't matter to us" (yeah, I know they die inside, but there's a big "but" in the rest of that quote). After six years as a Pro account holder, I guess I can take the hint.

    I just wanted to point out to anyone thinking about moving to Zenfolio or PhotoShelter - there is a great (and Free!) tool called Upload Junction that you can use to copy galleries over from SmugMug. I used it to copy everything over to my new Zenfolio account. Easy Peasy!
  • rainforest1155rainforest1155 Registered Users Posts: 4,566 Major grins
    edited September 14, 2012
    mike_k wrote: »
    This is exactly right. How hard is it to understand? Who cares about this stuff if you can't set your prices? No one. So the only possible benefit (now that SM has suddenly changed their policy on watermarks) of Portfolio is watermarks. So SM is asking people to pay $90 per year to keep their watermarks.
    Nothing changed about our watermarking policy. Watermarks were never part of the Basic or Power level. Even if you didn't remove them on downgrading, they may disappear if display sizes are re-created for any reason (like if you crop, rotate or use any other image tool). That includes changing your 'largest size' setting in the gallery settings as that may recreate certain display sizes.

    As part of the downgrade process, I've always asked customers to remove the watermarks as I'm sure other Heroes did too. For those that didn't remove them or asked about keeping them, Heroes did not enforce the removal and let you know that you'd lose the tool to remove them unless you upgraded back to Pro level.
    So while we didn't enforce the removal of watermarks, it was always part of the downgrade process.

    Now with the self service tool to allow easy account level changes, there's no more need for us to ask customers to manually remove watermarks for each gallery when they wish to downgrade to Basic or Power.

    While I can understand that not everyone is happy about that, there hasn't been any policy change and watermarks were never part of the Basic or Power account levels.
    Sebastian
    SmugMug Support Hero
  • AceCo55AceCo55 Registered Users Posts: 950 Major grins
    edited September 14, 2012
    Nothing changed about our watermarking policy. Watermarks were never part of the Basic or Power level. Even if you didn't remove them on downgrading, they may disappear if display sizes are re-created for any reason (like if you crop, rotate or use any other image tool). That includes changing your 'largest size' setting in the gallery settings as that may recreate certain display sizes.

    As part of the downgrade process, I've always asked customers to remove the watermarks as I'm sure other Heroes did too. For those that didn't remove them or asked about keeping them, Heroes did not enforce the removal and let you know that you'd lose the tool to remove them unless you upgraded back to Pro level.
    So while we didn't enforce the removal of watermarks, it was always part of the downgrade process.

    Now with the self service tool to allow easy account level changes, there's no more need for us to ask customers to manually remove watermarks for each gallery when they wish to downgrade to Basic or Power.

    While I can understand that not everyone is happy about that, there hasn't been any policy change and watermarks were never part of the Basic or Power account levels.

    No you haven't change your watermark policy but you sure as hell have changed plenty of other policies to create Portfolio and Business. What people can't understand now is the relative features and costs of your account levels. Essentially very, very few people can use any of the extra Portfolio features with the exception of "customised watermarking".

    So, for most people the price difference between Power and Portfolio is $90 for ONE feature - watermarking.

    Those of us who had Pro accounts and do sell via Smugmug are in an impossible position. Pay and extra $90 for ONE feature - watermarking ... or downgrade to Power and have all their present images stripped of their watermarks. This then means they either have to remove tens of thousands of images and then re-upload all their images with the watermark added.

    So your policy changes HAVE created an anomaly for subscribers like me. Your policy changes HAVE backed me into an impossible corner. Your policy changes HAVE created a situation where I am compelled to accept "Portfolio" for which I get ONE feature - watermarking - for an extra $90.
    My opinion does not necessarily make it true. What you do with my opinion is entirely up to you.
    www.acecootephotography.com
  • carolinecaroline Registered Users Posts: 1,302 Major grins
    edited September 14, 2012
    Weasel Words
    Nothing changed about our watermarking policy. Watermarks were never part of the Basic or Power level. Even if you didn't remove them on downgrading, they may disappear if display sizes are re-created for any reason (like if you crop, rotate or use any other image tool). That includes changing your 'largest size' setting in the gallery settings as that may recreate certain display sizes.

    As part of the downgrade process, I've always asked customers to remove the watermarks as I'm sure other Heroes did too. For those that didn't remove them or asked about keeping them, Heroes did not enforce the removal and let you know that you'd lose the tool to remove them unless you upgraded back to Pro level.
    So while we didn't enforce the removal of watermarks, it was always part of the downgrade process.

    Now with the self service tool to allow easy account level changes, there's no more need for us to ask customers to manually remove watermarks for each gallery when they wish to downgrade to Basic or Power.

    While I can understand that not everyone is happy about that, there hasn't been any policy change and watermarks were never part of the Basic or Power account levels.

    Sebastian,
    Whilst what you are saying here may be Smugmug's interpretation of it's policy, it certainly throws a very different light on the way they now choose to interpret it. The way you are now applying 'the policy' is yet another manipulation of users who would otherwise downgrade to Power level, comfortable that thier existing watermarks would be retained on viewing copies and then do their own watermarking.

    I would refer you to my recent correspondence with Hero Tom on 8th September which clearly indicated the watermarks would be retained if I downgraded to Power.

    More weasel words from Smugmug, very disappointing.

    Caroline
    Mendip Blog - Blog from The Fog, life on the Mendips
    www.carolineshipsey.co.uk - Follow me on G+

    [/URL]
  • AceCo55AceCo55 Registered Users Posts: 950 Major grins
    edited September 14, 2012
    15524779-Ti.gifagree15524779-Ti.gif I could live with retaining the watermark on my existing photos and for me to manually upload a watermarked image for future photos ... but Smugmug has changed its policy on that scenario (all current photos are now stripped of watermarking)
    My opinion does not necessarily make it true. What you do with my opinion is entirely up to you.
    www.acecootephotography.com
  • mbellotmbellot Registered Users Posts: 465 Major grins
    edited September 14, 2012
    Nothing changed about our watermarking policy. Watermarks were never part of the Basic or Power level. Even if you didn't remove them on downgrading, they may disappear if display sizes are re-created for any reason (like if you crop, rotate or use any other image tool). That includes changing your 'largest size' setting in the gallery settings as that may recreate certain display sizes.

    As part of the downgrade process, I've always asked customers to remove the watermarks as I'm sure other Heroes did too. For those that didn't remove them or asked about keeping them, Heroes did not enforce the removal and let you know that you'd lose the tool to remove them unless you upgraded back to Pro level.

    These two statements seem to directly contradict each other.

    So the Pro who moves to Power loses an obvious tool for removing custom watermarks, but the ability to do it was still there and as simple as using any of the other image tools to force regeneration.

    The automatic, site-wide stripping of watermarks appears to be a calculated move by SM after the price increase and users started talking about downgrading to Power.

    To be perfectly blunt, custom watermarking should be a feature available to ALL users. Photographers using SM should all have features that allow us to protect our online images.
  • Matthew SavilleMatthew Saville Registered Users, Retired Mod Posts: 3,352 Major grins
    edited September 14, 2012
    Unless watermarking is something that consumes huge amounts of bandwidth, I agree with the sentiment that it should be available to ALL users. In this age of digital theft, I think SmugMug should be one of the first to take a stand in defending ALL photographers, not just the high-paying pros.

    I don't think watermarking VS print sales is the best way to separate the high-volume uploaders from the low-volume uploaders. I mean you guys would know best, since you have all your own bandwidth / storage / print sales data.

    My original statement was that if you want to sell prints and call yourself a pro, you should just pony up $300 per year. This statement stands for those pros who have full-time aspirations and who upload hundreds of GB of photos, since in my opinion $300 per year is a TINY business expense for hosting that much data, and we photographers already have some of the lowest overhead costs of ANY career!

    However, I neglected to consider the hobbyist who simply wishes to sell a few fine art prints here and there, and has no full-time aspirations. They would simply like to help pay for their next lens or photo adventure. These are the photographers whom you are hanging out to dry with a $300 price. And, in my opinion, many of these photographers are the lifeblood of the SmugMug community. Sure, you've got a few big-name full-time pros and other high-volume shooters, but I bet that most of those people are too busy working to be participating in the community.

    Therefore, you should consider offering a $250 pro plan that involves at least some form of print sales. I know you say you aren't paying any attention to your competition, but ZF's $250 price bracket offers a slim 8-12% cut from in-house sales, and 0% on self-fulfilled sales. This cannot go un-competed with.
    My first thought is always of light.” – Galen Rowell
    My SmugMug PortfolioMy Astro-Landscape Photo BlogDgrin Weddings Forum
  • jfriendjfriend Registered Users Posts: 8,097 Major grins
    edited September 14, 2012
    mbellot wrote: »
    These two statements seem to directly contradict each other.

    So the Pro who moves to Power loses an obvious tool for removing custom watermarks, but the ability to do it was still there and as simple as using any of the other image tools to force regeneration.

    The automatic, site-wide stripping of watermarks appears to be a calculated move by SM after the price increase and users started talking about downgrading to Power.

    To be perfectly blunt, custom watermarking should be a feature available to ALL users. Photographers using SM should all have features that allow us to protect our online images.
    I think what they are saying is that before, the situation was messy when you downgraded. Yes, watermarks were not automatically removed when you downgraded, but there were a number of situations where they would get stripped as a side effect of some other operation (cropping, changing max size, etc...). They weren't really allowing you to keep them (and have access to all Smugmug features) and they weren't just removing them. Instead, they were left in a limbo where, as long as you didn't touch the image in a number of ways, they would stay. This was likely a bad situation to be in because customers would think they had their watermarks, make one change to a gallery and they'd all disappear - poof. Many would call that a bug, but a bug that some downgraders probably relied upon.

    Because of this unstable situation that downgraders were in with their watermarks, the heroes were previously asking downgraders to remove the watermarks so that their images wouldn't be in this unstable situation, but they weren't previously forcing that. Now, the watermarks are automatically removed.

    I can't say for sure and I don't know if it really matters in the end, but I'm reading between the lines here that the watermark removal code was added to save some hero workload and to prevent downgraded watermarked images from being in this unstable mode and the demand for the feature was probably driven more from this direction than from a desire to tempt people not to downgrade because they'd lose all their watermarks (though it is having that effect). Even before this change, there were many other circumstances where a downgrader might lose watermarks on one or more images - it just didn't happen automatically on all images.
    --John
    HomepagePopular
    JFriend's javascript customizationsSecrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
    Always include a link to your site when posting a question
  • mbellotmbellot Registered Users Posts: 465 Major grins
    edited September 14, 2012
    jfriend wrote: »
    I can't say for sure and I don't know if it really matters in the end, but I'm reading between the lines here that the watermark removal code was added to save some hero workload and to prevent downgraded watermarked images from being in this unstable mode and the demand for the feature was probably driven more from this direction than from a desire to tempt people not to downgrade because they'd lose all their watermarks (though it is having that effect). Even before this change, there were many other circumstances where a downgrader might lose watermarks on one or more images - it just didn't happen automatically on all images.

    Possibly, but the timing is extremely suspect.

    Given the uproar over pricing and the flood of current Pros that all stated they would drop to Power "knowing" they would retain watermarks on already in place images (as long as they didn't muck with them) I believe it was a very calculated move by SM to limit the number of users who would take that route.

    You may chose to believe otherwise, but IMHO SmugMug's actions of late have been clearly against the hobbyist level Pro user.
  • carolinecaroline Registered Users Posts: 1,302 Major grins
    edited September 14, 2012
    mbellot wrote: »
    Possibly, but the timing is extremely suspect.

    Given the uproar over pricing and the flood of current Pros that all stated they would drop to Power "knowing" they would retain watermarks on already in place images (as long as they didn't muck with them) I believe it was a very calculated move by SM to limit the number of users who would take that route.

    You may chose to believe otherwise, but IMHO SmugMug's actions of late have been clearly against the hobbyist level Pro user.

    100% agree with you. This decision has been made since 8th Sept. I have emails from support confirming that the watermarks would stay on my display copies and not be embedded in the originals.
    Mendip Blog - Blog from The Fog, life on the Mendips
    www.carolineshipsey.co.uk - Follow me on G+

    [/URL]
  • jfriendjfriend Registered Users Posts: 8,097 Major grins
    edited September 14, 2012
    mbellot wrote: »
    Possibly, but the timing is extremely suspect.

    Given the uproar over pricing and the flood of current Pros that all stated they would drop to Power "knowing" they would retain watermarks on already in place images (as long as they didn't muck with them) I believe it was a very calculated move by SM to limit the number of users who would take that route.

    You may chose to believe otherwise, but IMHO SmugMug's actions of late have been clearly against the hobbyist level Pro user.
    Don't get me wrong, I think Smugmug messed up big time and seemed to not realize that there was a large group of hobbyist pros willing to pay $150 for pro-type features, but not willing to pay $300. I have not defended that action at all. They hurt their own business by throwing away all those customers (who will probably downgrade to power and still use just as much storage). Further, the Porfolio account level is a joke. You are pretty much paying $90/yr for watermarks. It would have made a ton more sense to let Portfolio have commerce (perhaps without packages, coupons and events) and implement a storage limit at the Standard, Power and Portfolio levels. This allows Porfolio to have the main feature that hobbiests wanted at the previous price level AND addresses the two main cost drivers that were causing a problem (storage use and the support costs of packages, coupons and events). Instead, Smugmug didn't really address the main storage cost driver at all and left themselves with a much less appealing offering.

    My interpretation of the watermarking sequence of events is that when the price increase was being discussed internally, the people responsible for support and support costs said something like this: "This price increase is undoubtedly going to cause a number of people to downgrade from pro to power - no surprise to anyone. Right now downgrades are a 100% manual process - people have to contact the help desk. If there are going to be a lot of these and they will be spread out over time at people's renewal dates, can you please build this into the system so customers can manage this themselves rather than add to this to the support workload. And, while you're at it, can you fix the problem with watermarks on downgraded accounts. Many times, we either have to manually remove them all (since there is no longer a feature for customers to manage watermarks themselves) or customers are surprised when the watermarks are there at first, but then start disappearing later when they edit their images or change gallery settings."
    --John
    HomepagePopular
    JFriend's javascript customizationsSecrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
    Always include a link to your site when posting a question
  • carolinecaroline Registered Users Posts: 1,302 Major grins
    edited September 14, 2012
    From December 2011
    Sean Rogan
    DEC 17, 2011 | 06:43AM PST
    Hi Caroline,

    Thanks for contacting SmugMug.

    I apologize for any confusion - as mentioned on the billing help page: http://www.smugmug.com/help/acctbills

    "If you have a Pro or Power account and would like to step down to a different account level, contact us using the link below."

    In order to avoid feature conflicts, we handle downgrades here at SmugMug HQ --- just say the word and we'll make it so > Which level did you want to be moved to?

    You can compare the benefit/cost of all the levels here http://www.smugmug.com/photos/photo-sharing-features/

    Before you request the change, if you have any unpaid profits on your pro account, be sure to fill out and submit all the paperwork to get paid -

    http://www.smugmug.com/help/reporting

    And you will need to remove any watermarks in place, as well - downgrading will eliminate the tools to do this.

    http://www.smugmug.com/help/custom-watermark-protection

    And please be sure to turn off the PRINTABLE option in any galleries that you do not want images/prints purchased from as they will now be available at the wholesale/default cost.

    REMOVING MARKS

    You have the ability/option to add MULTIPLE custom marks to a single gallery, to pick and choose which photos are/are not marked and with which custom mark (no limit).

    Because of this, setting watermarks to YES/NO in gallery settings only turns the feature on/off - it is a 'blanket' convenience option > it only adds the selected marks to photos as added to the gallery, it does not remove marks from existing photos.

    And along the same lines, changing the setting globally does not produce changes on existing galleries/photos - again, only for photos added after the change is made...

    As mentioned in the watermarks help page: http://www.smugmug.com/help/custom-watermark-protection, this must be done using the CORE watermark tool:

    Choose Watermarking from the Tools Menu. Then select your thumbnails, choose add/remove and click the watermark button.

    And check out these short tutorials in you like:

    Make into a watermark - http://www.smugmug.com/gallery/16284658_arFaN#1252384962_HmDEr-A-LB
    Application & Removal - http://www.smugmug.com/gallery/16284658_arFaN#1253216193_wdjLszH-A-LB

    Let us know when you are ready and we'll initiate the downgrade -

    If I didn't explain enough or you have additional questions, please let us know. We're always glad to help.

    All the best,


    8th September 2012
    Tomasz Nowicki
    SEP 08, 2012 | 10:50PM PDT
    Caroline,

    Yes, you will need to remove the watermarking from your galleries prior the change to Power account. Otherwise you will see watermarked photos.
    Mendip Blog - Blog from The Fog, life on the Mendips
    www.carolineshipsey.co.uk - Follow me on G+

    [/URL]
  • mike_kmike_k Registered Users Posts: 153 Major grins
    edited September 14, 2012
    Unless watermarking is something that consumes huge amounts of bandwidth, I agree with the sentiment that it should be available to ALL users. In this age of digital theft, I think SmugMug should be one of the first to take a stand in defending ALL photographers, not just the high-paying pros.

    I don't think watermarking VS print sales is the best way to separate the high-volume uploaders from the low-volume uploaders. I mean you guys would know best, since you have all your own bandwidth / storage / print sales data.

    My original statement was that if you want to sell prints and call yourself a pro, you should just pony up $300 per year. This statement stands for those pros who have full-time aspirations and who upload hundreds of GB of photos, since in my opinion $300 per year is a TINY business expense for hosting that much data, and we photographers already have some of the lowest overhead costs of ANY career!

    However, I neglected to consider the hobbyist who simply wishes to sell a few fine art prints here and there, and has no full-time aspirations. They would simply like to help pay for their next lens or photo adventure. These are the photographers whom you are hanging out to dry with a $300 price. And, in my opinion, many of these photographers are the lifeblood of the SmugMug community. Sure, you've got a few big-name full-time pros and other high-volume shooters, but I bet that most of those people are too busy working to be participating in the community.

    Therefore, you should consider offering a $250 pro plan that involves at least some form of print sales. I know you say you aren't paying any attention to your competition, but ZF's $250 price bracket offers a slim 8-12% cut from in-house sales, and 0% on self-fulfilled sales. This cannot go un-competed with.


    Matthew - as with all of your posts - this is a thoughtful, very well said post. SmugMug needs to hire you as their voice of reason. I just want to mention that for most of us talking about watermarks - I think the biggest issue is with the existing watermarks - this is bandwidth that is already spent.

    Also - wanted to mention that ZF has a $120 per year package (with watermarks and custom prices).
  • jasonscottphotojasonscottphoto Registered Users Posts: 711 Major grins
    edited September 15, 2012
    There are other differences between power and portfolio besides watermarks, no? Pro labs... Maybe not enough differences...

    Maybe SmugMug should let the Portfolio customers have proof delay and Events? Everything Business customers have except setting prices (and coupons, etc which go along with setting prices), perhaps?

    We're going with the Business account. We don't make a ton on print sales (~$900 last year) but we always said if we could make enough to cover the membership, it was worth it. Even at $250, we're still making enough on print sales to cover it. thumb.gif
    Posts by Allyson, the wife/assistant...

    Jason Scott Photography | Blog | FB | Twitter | Google+ | Tumblr | Instagram | YouTube
  • mbellotmbellot Registered Users Posts: 465 Major grins
    edited September 15, 2012
    There are other differences between power and portfolio besides watermarks, no? Pro labs... Maybe not enough differences...

    Maybe SmugMug should let the Portfolio customers have proof delay and Events? Everything Business customers have except setting prices (and coupons, etc which go along with setting prices), perhaps?

    Sure, then Portfolio customers can "sell" their images AT COST and pay SM $150 for hosting the pictures. eek7.gif

    Every feature that Portfolio has above Power (except custom watermarks) is POINTLESS without the ability to set custom pricing.
  • jasonscottphotojasonscottphoto Registered Users Posts: 711 Major grins
    edited September 15, 2012
    mbellot wrote: »
    Sure, then Portfolio customers can "sell" their images AT COST and pay SM $150 for hosting the pictures. eek7.gif

    OR, they can self fulfill their orders - benefit from pro labs but still set their own prices when they discuss orders with customers...
    Posts by Allyson, the wife/assistant...

    Jason Scott Photography | Blog | FB | Twitter | Google+ | Tumblr | Instagram | YouTube
  • jfriendjfriend Registered Users Posts: 8,097 Major grins
    edited September 15, 2012
    OR, they can self fulfill their orders - benefit from pro labs but still set their own prices when they discuss orders with customers...
    One can also set up their own account at one of these pro labs too and order prints that way (no need to pay Smugmug $90/yr in order to order prints from a pro lab). It's maybe not quite as convenient as ordering directly from your gallery, but Smugmug doesn't even really support print ordering only by the site owner so you have to hack that just to use it (temporarily password protect the gallery, enabling print ordering, place your order, then disable print ordering, then removing the password) while preventing your customers from ordering at cost? The fact is that this Porfolio level is really not very well thought out other than a way to stay at $150/yr and keep your watermarks. If you were starting from scratch, you might as well go with a Power account, upload only watermarked images and just do your printing/fulfillment directly with your own lab.
    --John
    HomepagePopular
    JFriend's javascript customizationsSecrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
    Always include a link to your site when posting a question
  • Art ScottArt Scott Registered Users Posts: 8,959 Major grins
    edited September 15, 2012
    mbellot wrote: »
    Sure, then Portfolio customers can "sell" their images AT COST and pay SM $150 for hosting the pictures. eek7.gif

    Every feature that Portfolio has above Power (except custom watermarks) is POINTLESS without the ability to set custom pricing.

    EXACTLY... ... ... I just can't can see paying $90 to keep the WaterMarks... ... ... anyone considering a Portfolio Account is wasting money, imvho, and I understand that going thru and watermarking all of your own prints is time and money...but just look at it like SMUGMUG died and you're FORCED TO MOVE ON....then You'd have to do all of this anyway....so get a POWER ACCT watermark everything yourself, add PayPal button or Google Buttons and self fulfill ...or spend 120/yr and move to ZENFOLIO and save $30 over that screwed up Portfolio That SM offers....
    "Genuine Fractals was, is and will always be the best solution for enlarging digital photos." ....Vincent Versace ... ... COPYRIGHT YOUR WORK ONLINE ... ... My Website

  • Erick LErick L Registered Users Posts: 355 Major grins
    edited September 16, 2012
    I'm another one of those amateur who had a Pro account and the Portefolio account doesn't make sense. I'll either downgrade or move, probably both since my renewal is due on october 20th. I'd keep the Portefolio if I could still sell digital downloads. I might upload all my images twice, once with watermarks for display, once without to sell as download. For SM, that would mean twice the data for less than haf the money.
  • dbvetodbveto Registered Users Posts: 660 Major grins
    edited September 16, 2012
    Well i made the jump to Zenfolio even though the ability to customize is different they have so many of the features i had been waiting on smugmug to impliment. I am just going to let my smug mug account expire. I do. Have to thank smug for the push.

    Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
    Dennis
    http://www.realphotoman.com/
    Work in progress
    http://www.realphotoman.net/ Zenfolio 10% off Referral Code: 1KH-5HX-5HU
  • Pure EnergyPure Energy Registered Users Posts: 180 Major grins
    edited September 16, 2012
    I have to wonder... how long have SmugMug's competitors had features we've requested a long time ago? How is it possible that other competitors can have features we want and SM can't implement them or even give us a timeline?

    I understand not wanting to put your foot in your mouth, but for the mom & pop image SM is trying to portray... I think we're all used to relatives putting their best foot forward on estimated timelines and failing. So why not tell us something more SM or are you really just getting ready to go public and sell out?

    Or are you really afraid to admit that the feature(s) we really want aren't on your front-burner or back-burner... and most likely may only be a blip on the outer reaches of your radar... you know, ideas for where you see yourselves in 10 years.

    So, how about it SM? Got something to share on your immediate goals, 2-year, 3-year, 5-year plans, etc.? How about we start seeing the ranking of feature requests being worked on? Is the number one request even in the top 10?
  • DemianDemian Registered Users Posts: 211 Major grins
    edited September 17, 2012
    Hahaha, this thing is still going on.


    Anywho, I just noticed that Smugmug also slashed the prizes for their dgrin challenge. I'm gonna double down on my financial troubles guess :)
  • kygardenkygarden Registered Users Posts: 1,060 Major grins
    edited September 17, 2012
    I guess I'll be on the list of people downgrading from Pro to one of the lesser plans. After reading about the watermark issue (it being the only meaningful upgrade over Power vs. Portfolio), I may drop down two levels to Power....or switch to a new hosting site. I don't know. I don't want the hassle of changing, but since I never really sell anything here, it doesn't make a lot of sense for me to pay more than I need to just for photo hosting.

    Speaking of watermarks...I've tried to remove then in the recent past and can't get them to go away. I set a gallery to no watermarking and they won't remove. I went to the tools to manually mark the photos for watermark removal and over an hour later, still watermarked. I wanted to update them to a new watermark but I couldn't get it to work. I've always had weird issues with watermarks - anytime I needed to change them. Anyway...I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but after reading about Andy leaving and all the other stuff people have mentioned, I do wonder what's going on. It certainly has been a long time since there have been any meaningful cosmetic changes to the site, which is what me and many other 'hobby' photographers are very interested in. I guess it's not as bad as flickr's slow changes though.
  • dbvetodbveto Registered Users Posts: 660 Major grins
    edited September 17, 2012
    kygarden wrote: »
    I guess I'll be on the list of people downgrading from Pro to one of the lesser plans. After reading about the watermark issue (it being the only meaningful upgrade over Power vs. Portfolio), I may drop down two levels to Power....or switch to a new hosting site. I don't know. I don't want the hassle of changing, but since I never really sell anything here, it doesn't make a lot of sense for me to pay more than I need to just for photo hosting.
    That used to be my reason too until Zenfolio pointed me to http://www.uploadjunction.com/ it automatically moves all of your Photos free. As Far as I have found Zenfolio has more of the Features I have been waiting for but the customizing is not as wide open but still a lot of choices.

    Dennis
    Zenfolio site realphotoman.net
    Smug site realphotoman.com
    Dennis
    http://www.realphotoman.com/
    Work in progress
    http://www.realphotoman.net/ Zenfolio 10% off Referral Code: 1KH-5HX-5HU
  • kygardenkygarden Registered Users Posts: 1,060 Major grins
    edited September 17, 2012
    dbveto wrote: »
    That used to be my reason too until Zenfolio pointed me to http://www.uploadjunction.com/ it automatically moves all of your Photos free. As Far as I have found Zenfolio has more of the Features I have been waiting for but the customizing is not as wide open but still a lot of choices.

    I have a year to decide. My account renewed at the old pro rate right before the increase.
  • mbradymbrady Registered Users Posts: 321 Major grins
    edited September 17, 2012
    caroline wrote: »
    Tomasz Nowicki
    SEP 08, 2012 | 10:50PM PDT
    Caroline,

    Yes, you will need to remove the watermarking from your galleries prior the change to Power account. Otherwise you will see watermarked photos.

    Perhaps he was just unaware of how the new automated system worked?
  • carolinecaroline Registered Users Posts: 1,302 Major grins
    edited September 17, 2012
    mbrady wrote: »
    Perhaps he was just unaware of how the new automated system worked?

    Perhaps he was - like so many things at the moment I doubt we'll know, I've no doubt the Heroes find themselves in a difficult situation and as individuals each does their best:)
    Mendip Blog - Blog from The Fog, life on the Mendips
    www.carolineshipsey.co.uk - Follow me on G+

    [/URL]
  • Rogue 1Rogue 1 Registered Users, Retired Mod Posts: 150 Major grins
    edited September 17, 2012
    kygarden wrote: »

    Speaking of watermarks...I've tried to remove then in the recent past and can't get them to go away. I set a gallery to no watermarking and they won't remove. I went to the tools to manually mark the photos for watermark removal and over an hour later, still watermarked. I wanted to update them to a new watermark but I couldn't get it to work. I've always had weird issues with watermarks - anytime I needed to change them.

    Hi KyG - sorry to hear you have ongoing issues with watermarks - I did check, the feature is functioning perfectly at our end - there are several reasons / possibilities for local issues, usually based in browser communication or cookies and cache -

    Straight off, I'd suggest testing application and removal using an alternate web browser - and be sure to clear the cache to avoid loading old versions of the marked images - and send an email to the heroes outlining the issue - they'll help ID where the problem is... Be sure to include a link to one of the galleries you are having trouble with, as well as the name of the custom mark you wish applied...
  • Rogue 1Rogue 1 Registered Users, Retired Mod Posts: 150 Major grins
    edited September 17, 2012
    caroline wrote: »
    Perhaps he was - like so many things at the moment I doubt we'll know, I've no doubt the Heroes find themselves in a difficult situation and as individuals each does their best:)

    Hi Caroline - that is exactly what the issue was - I'm the hero that assisted you previously (Sean) :D - there was quite a bit going on, and it looks like Tom was not aware that we'd built a tool to automatically remove the marks for you, rather than asking you to do it manually as I'd outlined in the email I sent you.
  • carolinecaroline Registered Users Posts: 1,302 Major grins
    edited September 17, 2012
    Rogue 1 wrote: »
    Hi Caroline - that is exactly what the issue was - I'm the hero that assisted you previously (Sean) :D - there was quite a bit going on, and it looks like Tom was not aware that we'd built a tool to automatically remove the marks for you, rather than asking you to do it manually as I'd outlined in the email I sent you.

    Sean - it's late here but if my memory serves me correctly, I was informed back then that if I didn't remove the watermarks manually they would remain on my images - which is of course what I would prefer now as would many others by the sound of things.
    Are you now saying that if we chose not to use this new tool to remove watermarks when downgrading they will remain on our images?

    It would be helpful if you could provide me with copies of all previous exchanges between us by email or pm and not here on the forum:) Can you do this please?

    Caroline
    Mendip Blog - Blog from The Fog, life on the Mendips
    www.carolineshipsey.co.uk - Follow me on G+

    [/URL]
Sign In or Register to comment.