0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
[.................BTW who is JJRD?
Quote from: nosaya on July 23, 2008, 09:11[.................BTW who is JJRD?see here -> http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=385BTW who is bittersweet? Maybe somebody on this "whos who" list?
.....................He or she staunchly claims not to be ...
LOL, this little secret will keep us busy for some time.....stay tuned, the quest for bittersweet will continue after the commercial break....
Deleted because trying to work out who bittersweet is might not be very nice to him/ her (not sure about the etiquette here?)
Quote from: Cooper on July 23, 2008, 02:04I agree that they're great images but would be interesting to see if any old schmuck could get them accepted. It has been said over and over and over again by JJRD that the "overfiltered" rejection is not used in the case of artistic images that are very well done. Bruce himself has stated that their inspection philosophy is that for a borderline image, they are to look for a reason to accept. It is really sad that some people are so adamant that any rejection they ever get MUST be because they are not exclusive or because istock sucks or any other thing except the flicker of possibility that it might actually have something to do with the merits of their own images.In my opinion, it's really rude and disrespectful to have even posted this thread at all. Any beef you may have with istock should not involve singling out and calling into question another artist's abilities on a public forum. It comes across as petty and jealous, and really lends no credence whatsoever to any of your conspiracy theories.
I agree that they're great images but would be interesting to see if any old schmuck could get them accepted.
Personally I think that most of them are really great images and I think Artist of the week is well deserved.
Quote from: bittersweet on July 23, 2008, 05:58Quote from: Cooper on July 23, 2008, 02:04I agree that they're great images but would be interesting to see if any old schmuck could get them accepted. It has been said over and over and over again by JJRD that the "overfiltered" rejection is not used in the case of artistic images that are very well done. Bruce himself has stated that their inspection philosophy is that for a borderline image, they are to look for a reason to accept. It is really sad that some people are so adamant that any rejection they ever get MUST be because they are not exclusive or because istock sucks or any other thing except the flicker of possibility that it might actually have something to do with the merits of their own images.In my opinion, it's really rude and disrespectful to have even posted this thread at all. Any beef you may have with istock should not involve singling out and calling into question another artist's abilities on a public forum. It comes across as petty and jealous, and really lends no credence whatsoever to any of your conspiracy theories.Bittersweet, how does my comment in any way call "into question another artist's abilities on a public forum"? I mean, for god's sake, the part of my post you quoted has me saying, "I agree they're great images". What a stupid response. Seriously this really bugs me. I thought this was supposed to be an independent "meeting place for microstock photographers" where you could express views and discuss the particular sites. I never, ever questioned the ability of the artist in question and the fact that you have turned my comments around to try to portray that in an effort to "protect" iStock is pretty pathetic and transparent. I mean god's sake, it's not like I even attacked iStock in any major way. The whole thing was a bit tongue in cheek. Is iStock that precious that it can't take a bit of a ribbing?
I thought this was supposed to be an independent "meeting place for microstock photographers" where you could express views and discuss the particular sites.
Quote from: Cooper on July 23, 2008, 18:44I thought this was supposed to be an independent "meeting place for microstock photographers" where you could express views and discuss the particular sites. It is, and the subject of this thread is one of those photographers who quite possibly is a member here. Put yourself in his/her place for a moment, re-read the comments made in this thread (the majority of which are not positive), and see if you can stretch your imagination to understand that it was not istock that I was "protecting".
There's at least one IStock employee here I know about, but it doesn't really matter. Any exclusive should tow the IStock line as their financial future is so closely tied up with IStock's success. Any post by an IStock exclusive should be viewed with this in mind.
Quote from: Microbius on July 23, 2008, 10:58There's at least one IStock employee here I know about, but it doesn't really matter. Any exclusive should tow the IStock line as their financial future is so closely tied up with IStock's success. Any post by an IStock exclusive should be viewed with this in mind.If you think that exclusives agree with every iStock action you really need to read more.
Quote from: thesentinel on July 24, 2008, 10:07Quote from: Microbius on July 23, 2008, 10:58There's at least one IStock employee here I know about, but it doesn't really matter. Any exclusive should tow the IStock line as their financial future is so closely tied up with IStock's success. Any post by an IStock exclusive should be viewed with this in mind.If you think that exclusives agree with every iStock action you really need to read more.Love your work.I am not saying exclusives agree with every action IStock takes. My post said they should tow the line. The exclusive agreement means you are almost an employee on commission payments. It would be foolish to be too critical about your employer as maintaining their reputation effects your income. If you are wise you don't bite the hand that feeds you.For the rest of us this means taking opinions of IStock exclusives on IStock with a pinch of salt.
I am not saying exclusives agree with every action IStock takes. My post said they should tow the line. The exclusive agreement means you are almost an employee on commission payments. It would be foolish to be too critical about your employer as maintaining their reputation effects your income. If you are wise you don't bite the hand that feeds you.For the rest of us this means taking opinions of IStock exclusives on IStock with a pinch of salt.
Skepticism is healthy!PS: Oh, com'on people, the AOTW's work is * perfect! Overfiltered? Well procesed!
Quote from: JoanVicent on July 25, 2008, 11:14Skepticism is healthy!PS: Oh, com'on people, the AOTW's work is * perfect! Overfiltered? Well procesed!Wow, we can't type J E S U S but the f word doesn't get filtred!
Quote from: Microbius on July 25, 2008, 02:47I am not saying exclusives agree with every action IStock takes. My post said they should tow the line. The exclusive agreement means you are almost an employee on commission payments. It would be foolish to be too critical about your employer as maintaining their reputation effects your income. If you are wise you don't bite the hand that feeds you.For the rest of us this means taking opinions of IStock exclusives on IStock with a pinch of salt.Exclusives aren't employees, not even almost. We all criticize the sites we make money from - have a read in here at the threads critical of just about every one of the sites at one time or another.I do like to know if someone is exclusive to one site or not as it helps to know if they've actually got any experience with the other sites if they opine on that subject (in the past there would be folks on IS forums talking about how other sites did or didn't do things and they had no idea what they were talkinng about). It's also good to know if someone is an admin at a site (remember the bosters for LO while it was still alive) so you know about someone's vested interests.As for takiing opinions with a pinch of salt that depends upon the writer and past experience with them. IS exclusivity doesn't necessarily render them unable to make a cogent point about IS
Author
Topic: AOTW SarahLen (Read 19277 times)
