Author Topic: Agency collection? oh! boy! (Read 34010 times)

pancaketom · « **Reply #75 on:** December 01, 2010, 20:50 »

My take on the gear is that the fancier more expensive gear allows one to make high quality images more easily. Sure, you could get the money shot of the eagle flying by with a point and shoot, but you would have to be both talented and incredibly lucky with the shutter lag and needing to get a lot closer to the eagle etc. With a pro setup with high speed tele and 10 FPS your chance of getting it would be much higher. The other advantage is that you could have a much more efficient workflow etc. (as lisa says, no more hours burning out the gray, taking multiple shots because so many have motion blur etc.). But the few hits you do get with cheaper gear should sell for just as much if they are in fact good enough quality.

blackwaterimages · « **Reply #76 on:** December 01, 2010, 21:23 »

Quote from: sjlocke on December 01, 2010, 18:47

Quote from: nruboc on December 01, 2010, 18:07
Well, I gotta hand it to you, with zero Vetta's and then seeing an admin with so many Vettas like this, I commend you on not being "bitter":
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_search.php?action=file&userID=709242&order=6

For whatever reason, the editors seem to enjoy those simple headshots. I don't get it, but there you go.

I don't get why they're Vetta images, but they're decently done photos of "real" people and they buyers do seem to like them.... although I can't really imagine how they're being used - but I guess that's not the point.

donding · « **Reply #77 on:** December 01, 2010, 22:08 »

I think I need to get all my relatives lined up and take mug shots...

Quote from: blackwaterimages on December 01, 2010, 21:23

I don't get why they're Vetta images, but they're decently done photos of "real" people and they buyers do seem to like them.... although I can't really imagine how they're being used - but I guess that's not the point.

If your click on his profile there is a link to an outside portfolio. In that port he has a "published" section. Some of those shots are shown there.

loop · « **Reply #78 on:** December 02, 2010, 07:54 »

Quote from: donding on December 01, 2010, 22:08

I think I need to get all my relatives lined up and take mug shots...

Quote from: blackwaterimages on December 01, 2010, 21:23

I don't get why they're Vetta images, but they're decently done photos of "real" people and they buyers do seem to like them.... although I can't really imagine how they're being used - but I guess that's not the point.

If your click on his profile there is a link to an outside portfolio. In that port he has a "published" section. Some of those shots are shown there.

yes, I've seen them published several tim s... almost always several of them together to suggest a sense of community to wich a product or service is offered. The photos can be simple, but are very well lighted, and the expressions are ok.. Others that have been "inspired" by this concept, and have very similar shots don't sell so much, even if these photos are offered at regular exclusive or not exclusive prices.

SNP · « **Reply #79 on:** December 02, 2010, 11:41 »

I think it's very poor manners to bring someone else's work into a public forum. anyone who does it deserves it right back as far as I'm concerned. as for the example at hand, regardless of what collection the editors deemed those photos to be in--that is one crazy talented photographer. I've admired his work since well before Vetta. Do I think all those images should be Vetta....actually no. but I have four Vetta images myself that I wouldn't have placed in Vetta, and the ones I wanted in Vetta weren't accepted into the collection.

the bottom line is that buyers are deciding what deserves to be paid for and what doesn't. iStock is a close knit community despite the actual size of the community. realistically, I would expect some visibility for inspectors--especially since they are inspectors because of their talent and ability to begin with.

there's a handful of other contributors who do 'real people' REALLY well and I watch new contributors try to rip it off all the time...poorly, with crap lighting. just because a portrait is perfectly simple doesn't mean it isn't perfect. those portraits are bang on.

loop · « **Reply #80 on:** December 02, 2010, 12:13 »

Quote from: SNP on December 02, 2010, 11:41

I think it's very poor manners to bring someone else's work into a public forum. anyone who does it deserves it right back as far as I'm concerned. as for the example at hand, regardless of what collection the editors deemed those photos to be in--that is one crazy talented photographer. I've admired his work since well before Vetta. Do I think all those images should be Vetta....actually no. but I have four Vetta images myself that I wouldn't have placed in Vetta, and the ones I wanted in Vetta weren't accepted into the collection.

the bottom line is that buyers are deciding what deserves to be paid for and what doesn't. iStock is a close knit community despite the actual size of the community. realistically, I would expect some visibility for inspectors--especially since they are inspectors because of their talent and ability to begin with.

there's a handful of other contributors who do 'real people' REALLY well and I watch new contributors try to rip it off all the time...poorly, with crap lighting. just because a portrait is perfectly simple doesn't mean it isn't perfect. those portraits are bang on.

Singling out seems to be a new fashion... Not so many days ago, someone felt free to link another's istock contributor Vetta photo, with a vague excuse about another similar photo not being Vetta (photos were absolutely different concepts, hard to understand how a seasoned stock photographer couldn't see that). But well, the thread went on to hundreds of posts, so it seems its ok to post links and references to other peoples work.

SNP · « **Reply #81 on:** December 02, 2010, 12:27 »

unfortunately the downside to having a relative lack of moderation here is having to wade through all sorts of petty stuff. bad manners posting someone else's work, but bad manners seem to be the culture over here.

nruboc · « **Reply #82 on:** December 02, 2010, 13:59 »

Quote from: SNP on December 02, 2010, 12:27

unfortunately the downside to having a relative lack of moderation here is having to wade through all sorts of petty stuff. bad manners posting someone else's work, but bad manners seem to be the culture over here.

Sorry, but as I mentioned before, I have no problem posting to others portfolios where there is an apparent conflict of interest, and as I mentioned before, i will do so again in the future regardless about how you feel about it. You seem to be applying IStock's forum rules over here. What moderation is needed? I didn't make any judgements about the quality of the work. I made an observation that a "Content Administrator" at IStockphoto has a portfolio with an abnormally large amount of Vetta files that don't seem to fit with the "Vetta" criteria as stated by IStockphoto. If that hurts your feelings, oh well. That's what the IGNORE button is for.

cathyslife · « **Reply #83 on:** December 02, 2010, 13:59 »

Quote from: SNP on December 02, 2010, 12:27

unfortunately the downside to having a relative lack of moderation here is having to wade through all sorts of petty stuff. bad manners posting someone else's work, but bad manners seem to be the culture over here.

So why exactly are you here?

Frankly, if one wants to express a view about istock besides wooyay, this is about the only place it can be discussed without getting locked. I don't mind at all wading through the bad manners because there are also a lot of folks here who are very knowledgeable and I appreciate that I can get news about ALL of the sites I submit to in one place. One has to learn to let the petty stuff go and glean the useful information from ANY forum, including istock's.

loop · « **Reply #84 on:** December 02, 2010, 15:25 »

Quote from: nruboc on December 02, 2010, 13:59

Quote from: SNP on December 02, 2010, 12:27
unfortunately the downside to having a relative lack of moderation here is having to wade through all sorts of petty stuff. bad manners posting someone else's work, but bad manners seem to be the culture over here.

Sorry, but as I mentioned before, I have no problem posting to others portfolios where there is an apparent conflict of interest, and as I mentioned before, i will do so again in the future regardless about how you feel about it. You seem to be applying IStock's forum rules over here. What moderation is needed? I didn't make any judgements about the quality of the work. I made an observation that a "Content Administrator" at IStockphoto has a portfolio with an abnormally large amount of Vetta files that don't seem to fit with the "Vetta" criteria as stated by IStockphoto. If that hurts your feelings, oh well. That's what the IGNORE button is for.

Very brave attitude.

Considering that you don't have any photos at IS, neither buy there, it is difficult to understand how Vetta's or Agency's supposed issues and the fact that some contributors are selling at really higher prices and getting more net profit, affects you. Unless, of course, we should look at it from a very intricate psychological level.

nruboc · « **Reply #85 on:** December 02, 2010, 15:45 »

Quote from: loop on December 02, 2010, 15:25

Quote from: nruboc on December 02, 2010, 13:59
Quote from: SNP on December 02, 2010, 12:27
unfortunately the downside to having a relative lack of moderation here is having to wade through all sorts of petty stuff. bad manners posting someone else's work, but bad manners seem to be the culture over here.

Sorry, but as I mentioned before, I have no problem posting to others portfolios where there is an apparent conflict of interest, and as I mentioned before, i will do so again in the future regardless about how you feel about it. You seem to be applying IStock's forum rules over here. What moderation is needed? I didn't make any judgements about the quality of the work. I made an observation that a "Content Administrator" at IStockphoto has a portfolio with an abnormally large amount of Vetta files that don't seem to fit with the "Vetta" criteria as stated by IStockphoto. If that hurts your feelings, oh well. That's what the IGNORE button is for.

Very brave attitude.

Considering that you don't have any photos at IS, neither buy there, it is difficult to understand how Vetta's supposed issues and the fact that some contributors are selling at really higher prices and getting more net profit, affects you. Unless, of course, we should look at it from a very intricate psychological level.

At least one of us is brave, don't have the courage to reveal your identity yet?...lol!

New Forum Rule From User Loop (Who chooses to hide identity)

- There will be no posting on topics unless you have a vested interest in such topic.

molka · « **Reply #86 on:** December 02, 2010, 15:50 »

so apparently a comletely public photo can be dragged into publicity. : ) amazing that this concept of the mentally challenged still pops up after 10+ years of internet : )

loop · « **Reply #87 on:** December 02, 2010, 15:54 »

Quote from: nruboc on December 02, 2010, 15:45

Quote from: loop on December 02, 2010, 15:25
Quote from: nruboc on December 02, 2010, 13:59
Quote from: SNP on December 02, 2010, 12:27
unfortunately the downside to having a relative lack of moderation here is having to wade through all sorts of petty stuff. bad manners posting someone else's work, but bad manners seem to be the culture over here.

Sorry, but as I mentioned before, I have no problem posting to others portfolios where there is an apparent conflict of interest, and as I mentioned before, i will do so again in the future regardless about how you feel about it. You seem to be applying IStock's forum rules over here. What moderation is needed? I didn't make any judgements about the quality of the work. I made an observation that a "Content Administrator" at IStockphoto has a portfolio with an abnormally large amount of Vetta files that don't seem to fit with the "Vetta" criteria as stated by IStockphoto. If that hurts your feelings, oh well. That's what the IGNORE button is for.

Very brave attitude.

Considering that you don't have any photos at IS, neither buy there, it is difficult to understand how Vetta's supposed issues and the fact that some contributors are selling at really higher prices and getting more net profit, affects you. Unless, of course, we should look at it from a very intricate psychological level.

At least one of us is brave, don't have the courage to reveal your identity yet?...lol!

New Forum Rule From User Loop (Who chooses to hide identity)

- There will be no posting on topics unless you have a vested interest in such topic.

If those are all the arguments you can gather... case ended.

nruboc · « **Reply #88 on:** December 02, 2010, 16:08 »

Quote from: loop on December 02, 2010, 15:54

Quote from: nruboc on December 02, 2010, 15:45
Quote from: loop on December 02, 2010, 15:25
Quote from: nruboc on December 02, 2010, 13:59
Quote from: SNP on December 02, 2010, 12:27
unfortunately the downside to having a relative lack of moderation here is having to wade through all sorts of petty stuff. bad manners posting someone else's work, but bad manners seem to be the culture over here.

Sorry, but as I mentioned before, I have no problem posting to others portfolios where there is an apparent conflict of interest, and as I mentioned before, i will do so again in the future regardless about how you feel about it. You seem to be applying IStock's forum rules over here. What moderation is needed? I didn't make any judgements about the quality of the work. I made an observation that a "Content Administrator" at IStockphoto has a portfolio with an abnormally large amount of Vetta files that don't seem to fit with the "Vetta" criteria as stated by IStockphoto. If that hurts your feelings, oh well. That's what the IGNORE button is for.

Very brave attitude.

Considering that you don't have any photos at IS, neither buy there, it is difficult to understand how Vetta's supposed issues and the fact that some contributors are selling at really higher prices and getting more net profit, affects you. Unless, of course, we should look at it from a very intricate psychological level.

At least one of us is brave, don't have the courage to reveal your identity yet?...lol!

New Forum Rule From User Loop (Who chooses to hide identity)

- There will be no posting on topics unless you have a vested interest in such topic.

If those are all the arguments you can gather... case ended.

You're the one who implied there was something psycologically wrong with me for posting in a thread I didn't have an "obvious" interest in, correct?

If you're going to make such an implication, why choose to hide? I can respect people who want to remain anonymous, but to make such an implication and then hide behind an unknown alias seems cowardly, no?

If you change your mind, You can site mail me who you are, I promise I won't reveal it to the group, then I will publicy recount my coward statement for all to see. Thanks.

SNP · « **Reply #89 on:** December 02, 2010, 19:23 »

I think loop's point was that the loudest, ranty and usually inaccurate statements over here tend to come from people who don't actually do any business on iStock. why post so vehemently about something you know little to nothing about?

...edited to be less snarky

cathyslife · « **Reply #90 on:** December 02, 2010, 19:32 »

Quote from: SNP on December 02, 2010, 19:23

I think loop's point was that the loudest, most ranty and inaccurate statements over here tend to come from people who know squat about actually doing business on iStock. why on earth ARE you posting so vehemently about something you know little to nothing about?

MSG = Many iStock disGruntleds

Ah, I was just waiting for someone to throw out the old disgruntled word. Too funny!

What's that FD-regular always says just before hitting the button? Ploink!

edited: oops, she edited out the disgruntled word before I could post, good thing I quoted her
edited again: since SNP remains anonymous, not exactly sure if it's a he or she. No matter.

SNP · « **Reply #91 on:** December 02, 2010, 19:36 »

well thank you for restirring the pot I tried to unstir....I think most of the people here enjoy conflict. stupid me for trying to avoid it

caspixel · « **Reply #92 on:** December 02, 2010, 21:37 »

Quote from: SNP on December 02, 2010, 19:36

well thank you for restirring the pot I tried to unstir....I think most of the people here enjoy conflict. stupid me for trying to avoid it

Seems to me you enjoy it too. Otherwise why even post when it's pretty obvious the reaction you are going to get as the official iStock cheerleader.

sharpshot · « **Reply #93 on:** December 03, 2010, 04:33 »

Quote from: SNP on December 02, 2010, 19:23

I think loop's point was that the loudest, ranty and usually inaccurate statements over here tend to come from people who don't actually do any business on iStock. why post so vehemently about something you know little to nothing about?

...edited to be less snarky

You can always use the ignore button. molka is up to 40 now

I can't be bothered reading peoples posts if they are just 100% against microstck. I have done a lot of business with istock but I rant about them all the time. It's good to have a place where you can express your feelings without getting the thread locked. There's an anti istock bias here but I prefer it to the censorship on the istock forums. We can all make up our own minds about the credibility of the person expressing their opinions here, much better than having a biased forum moderator doing it for us.

cathyslife · « **Reply #94 on:** December 03, 2010, 06:22 »

Quote from: SNP on December 02, 2010, 19:36

well thank you for restirring the pot I tried to unstir....I think most of the people here enjoy conflict. stupid me for trying to avoid it

StaceyN, you are a die-hard IS fan. Why are you here? I asked that earlier, but you must have missed it. Seems to me if you think this forum is so worthless and full of ignorant people, you wouldn't even waste your time here. I think it is you that enjoys the conflict, else you would be over at the IS forum wooyaying. Oh wait...there isn't much to wooyay about, is there?

Here is my post #83 since you apparently missed it the first time:

Quote

So why exactly are you here?

Frankly, if one wants to express a view about istock besides wooyay, this is about the only place it can be discussed without getting locked. I don't mind at all wading through the bad manners because there are also a lot of folks here who are very knowledgeable and I appreciate that I can get news about ALL of the sites I submit to in one place. One has to learn to let the petty stuff go and glean the useful information from ANY forum, including istock's.

briciola · « **Reply #95 on:** December 03, 2010, 07:21 »

(removed)

SNP · « **Reply #96 on:** December 03, 2010, 11:27 »

brilliant powers of deduction.

SNP · « **Reply #97 on:** December 03, 2010, 11:38 »

Quote from: sharpshot on December 03, 2010, 04:33

Quote from: SNP on December 02, 2010, 19:23
I think loop's point was that the loudest, ranty and usually inaccurate statements over here tend to come from people who don't actually do any business on iStock. why post so vehemently about something you know little to nothing about?

...edited to be less snarky
You can always use the ignore button. molka is up to 40 now I can't be bothered reading peoples posts if they are just 100% against microstck. I have done a lot of business with istock but I rant about them all the time. It's good to have a place where you can express your feelings without getting the thread locked. There's an anti istock bias here but I prefer it to the censorship on the istock forums. We can all make up our own minds about the credibility of the person expressing their opinions here, much better than having a biased forum moderator doing it for us.

good post. but, I don't agree that the lack of moderation breeds truth and freedom over here. where moderators are not present, thugs are. there are still a number of posters over here whose points of view I find very informative and of course a place offsite is good for getting some version of the real scoop when things are announced etc.

anyways, back to Agency -- my biggest beef with Agency is the exclusivity 'flexibility' for Agency contributors trucked in. no word from admin on that. I think it's unfair and BS that some contributors get flexible exclusivity. that's the biggest issue as far as I'm concerned about Agency.

briciola · « **Reply #98 on:** December 03, 2010, 12:19 »

(removed)

SNP · « **Reply #99 on:** December 03, 2010, 12:31 »

since you're new here, in general, no matter how much you dislike someone, we respect one anothers' anonymity. Cathy doesn't respect much of anything over here, but you might, since you;re new...and apologies. I hadn't noticed cathy used my name since I am ignoring her posts....

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Agency collection? oh! boy! (Read 34010 times)

pancaketom

blackwaterimages

donding

loop

SNP

loop

SNP

nruboc

cathyslife

loop

nruboc

molka

loop

nruboc

SNP

cathyslife

SNP

caspixel

sharpshot

cathyslife

briciola

SNP

SNP

briciola

SNP

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors