...in fact, if I start toning down my comments about IS you know I'm considering going exclusive!

So not this week?

Oh, com'on people, the AOTW's work is f****** perfect! Overfiltered? Well procesed!

Loosely translated into old fashioned English English:

Oh, come on chaps, the AOTW's work is simply spiffing, what, what? Overfiltered? Top drawer processing!

simply spiffy ! and if you're from Wales... GOOOORGGEOUS!

Quote from: Microbius on July 25, 2008, 14:21

...in fact, if I start toning down my comments about IS you know I'm considering going exclusive!

So not this week?

LOL 

Susan, I think you also have the right to voice an opinion, as do I, I may be non exclusive but their cut of my sales is about $10,000 per month, so if I have something to say they'd better listen.
 All I'm saying is that someone in your position has a vested interest in not voicing negative opinions about IStock publicly in a way that someone in my position doesn't. That is not to say that you personally would not do so. Only that as a whole exclusives are less likely to be expressing an unbiased view on a public forum.
That is not to say that their views should be ignored, only that they should be heard with this in mind.

Susan S, which comes to the scary part of becoming exclusive, isn't it? How much say do you think you , as exclusives, have with the decisions of the site?
I don't think it is like that of a shareholder, but more like someone in the pecking order.  The higher your sales, the more preference you get, but unless you're a top draw, I can't see anyone getting the special treatment equal to that of being a shareholder.

I suspect on most issues individually I have very little influence on the Powers That Be at Istock. There have been a couple of issues where I think I and several  others acting as a group have had some effect
 Generally I think istock will listen when a significant number of exclusive/high performing (which I'm not) contributors all speak together on an issue - as with the recent wiki problems, there has at least been some admission that there has been something of an issue, even if the response is not as yet terribly satisfactory. The response only happened when some relatively senior istock members, including some who have been very supportive of the wiki system, said that there was something odd going on with wikiing, en masse.

Ain't thread drift great.

Returning to the original theme of this thread, I think SarahLens images are striking, if not necessarily quite stock. istock seem to run with artists like this who they decide can represent the edginess available at the site from time to time. Personally I've never had any problems getting filtered images up on istock - I've got HDR (mild!) and heavily saturated landscapes through. The key thing is that whatever you do mustn't muck up the appearance of the file when you look at it at 100 per cent.  It helps if you have a body of work in a particular style to upload, I think, rather than random heavily processed images. And of course getting composites through is reportedly a bit of a lottery. But then I don't do them, so it doesn't affect me.