0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Do I get more downloads because I'm exclusive?No.
Quote from: Lior on May 17, 2009, 07:40Do I get more downloads because I'm exclusive?No.You're kidding, right? The whole purpose of going exclusive with iStock is to get more downloads due to the best match placement advantages, and of course the commission increase.
Quote from: DanP68 on May 17, 2009, 11:05Quote from: Lior on May 17, 2009, 07:40Do I get more downloads because I'm exclusive?No.You're kidding, right? The whole purpose of going exclusive with iStock is to get more downloads due to the best match placement advantages, and of course the commission increase.The current best match does not seem to favour exclusives. This hasn't always been the case, and may not be the case in the future.
This one would never pass iStock review due to some policy known only to them as well as I don't know to comply to their 'needs' in stock illustration ;-)
Quote from: Milinz on May 17, 2009, 07:25This one would never pass iStock review due to some policy known only to them as well as I don't know to comply to their 'needs' in stock illustration ;-) Thank goodness.
I totally agree that the exclusives should be entitled to higher commissions, more uploads and fast reviews. But the quality and contents should be equal standards for all.
Someone just opened the gates to hell.
This image I didn't even try to submit to IS because I am sure it will be rejected, but I sold it OD on SS yesterday:and so on....I hope IS people will see this thread and think once more about raster graphic. Of course, vectors sell better, but raster graphic can cell better than some photographs I think.
Quote from: Whitechild on May 16, 2009, 06:47This image I didn't even try to submit to IS because I am sure it will be rejected, but I sold it OD on SS yesterday:and so on....I hope IS people will see this thread and think once more about raster graphic. Of course, vectors sell better, but raster graphic can cell better than some photographs I think. You might be missing the point - have a look at this weeks Design Spotlight http://www.istockphoto.com/design_spotlight_details.php?ID=26164Let the designers, design! They do a better job
Just looking around IS.. here is someone who seems to have gotten their stuff on there.http://www.istockphoto.com/file_search.php?action=file&userID=509729I am going to try out 2 Rastered Images just to see if they reject them on IS. 2 that were accepted at other sites and have some views going.With SS, I have just failed my first application so I am wondering if I could / should throw some rasters in it next time?
Wow, those 27 uploads have 1356 downloads. istock should be trying to get your portfolio on their site.Their policy is wrong but it is one of several reasons why they will find it impossible to dominate the market, so in a way I hope they don't change. It is healthy for the buyers to have competitive sites that have something to offer that istock doesn't.
Quote from: sharpshot on May 20, 2009, 03:16Wow, those 27 uploads have 1356 downloads. istock should be trying to get your portfolio on their site.Less is more
Wow, those 27 uploads have 1356 downloads. istock should be trying to get your portfolio on their site.
Quote from: Noodles on May 20, 2009, 03:40Quote from: sharpshot on May 20, 2009, 03:16Wow, those 27 uploads have 1356 downloads. istock should be trying to get your portfolio on their site.Less is more Exactly what I thought when I see 10.000+ images on Dreamstime of which less than 2% had 10 or more sales. There are certainly quite a few brillant images among them. Why not drop the other 98% and double the amount of work spent on the rest...