|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - SNP
Pages: 1 ... 42 43 44 45 46 [47] 48 49 50 51 52 ... 54
1151
« on: September 27, 2010, 10:35 »
Almost everyone pays in dollars, I don't know why. Istock always has right from the beginning. It doesn't make it an American company. If it was, we would be getting re-shafted over withholding taxes, just to add to the misery. And Getty doesn't have a monopoly even though it is dominant enough to influence the whole industry.
I agree, more accurate then my point. but ownership of iStock is technically by a US company now. would be interesting to see how they deal with the tax issue. because until I get my W7 done, Getty takes a whopping 30% of my income.
1152
« on: September 27, 2010, 10:29 »
I'd say between 200-300, the charts don't really tell us much. There could be a newer guy sitting at position 1200 selling like crazy, it would take him years to climb the chart, but he might still make the 40%. I'm at 318 and will make it.
Bingo!!
agreed....just went through all the numbers I have available to me and this number makes the most sense. not far off of what sharply_done said earlier...
1153
« on: September 27, 2010, 10:26 »
that image posted was entirely offensive. as for the topic in here...I'm wondering when we'll see something from HQ. if at all. I think perhaps this is the new normal and we'll just see adjustments made to the sticky without any direct response to the individual points in the thread. half of what's in that thread is nonsense anyways, and that's probably an understatement....
1154
« on: September 27, 2010, 01:24 »
. nope, why bother
1155
« on: September 27, 2010, 01:00 »
.
1156
« on: September 27, 2010, 00:38 »
who cares about such baloney anyways?
Clearly you do or you would never have mentioned it.
I didn't mention it. I responded to JoAnn's concern that perhaps she hadn't made THE list.
1157
« on: September 27, 2010, 00:35 »
and iStock isn't really Canadian anymore. it is operated by Canadians, but it is owned by Getty, pays out in USD etc. regulating the industry, that's all we need is more bureaucracy in our ASA
1158
« on: September 27, 2010, 00:24 »
I don't think so JoAnn. again, it was not of any special nature or because of any special relationship. despite the comments made here, I've never even met an iStock admin in real life yet.
the call I received was from Andrew, it was just a check in about the announcement. if it were a clique thing, I wouldn't have gotten a call....clearly I'm not part of the in-crowd, at least not over here and who cares about such baloney anyways? I'm certain no one meant to diss you, you get plenty of positive admin attention in the iStock forums and you are widely respected AFAIK.
1159
« on: September 27, 2010, 00:11 »
have you shot with a monopod before? just asking because I really hate shooting with one. any conditions that require the use of a tripod I either use a tripod or bump up my ISO as far as possible. I've found a monopod is essentially useless in stock shooting. it just doesn't produce sharp enough focus. there are some very light tripods that are as easy to carry around....I bought a Sherpa with a trigger head for $89 USD, and it works as well as my heavy duty Manfrotto tripod, sometimes better because of the trigger head. it is much lighter and when compacted I can hang it from one of the loops in my camera bag for easy portability.
1160
« on: September 26, 2010, 23:54 »
so can we just say you guys are way cooler and move on? as much as I enjoy the attention, I'm pretty sure no one else cares how much you dislike me.
1161
« on: September 26, 2010, 23:34 »
yes, a call. the morning of the announcement. and lots of other people got calls, this isn't big news. I was simply refuting yet another piece of misinformation over here. I'm a middle of the road contributor, so if they took the time to call me, that certainly doesn't indicate a lack of concern for the well-being of contributors, financially or otherwise, ven if the mandate is to push through an unwelcome change. spin that whatever way suits you best.
1162
« on: September 26, 2010, 22:12 »
koolaid isn't as bitter as whatever you're drinking....
1163
« on: September 26, 2010, 22:09 »
you're not thinking stock and you need to if you want to be even remotely successful in MS. the first shot is quite beautiful. with some curves adjustment, and white balance adjustment...it could be a stock worthy environmental background. the others are too artsy. you may want to have them in your portfolio as examples of your range of talents, but otherwise they probably wouldn't sell.
1164
« on: September 26, 2010, 22:00 »
I think it is naive to believe that Istock did not open dialog with some of the very top producers before the announcements and I would not be surprise that communication is ongoing because of the conseqences to the bottom line should those contributors decide to leave. Not rocket science by any means.
On the contrary I think it is naive to assume that they did. Perhaps Lise G. was informed but then she's a fairly senior Admin anyway. Clearly the RC scales were carefully constructed to ensure that the top-selling exclusives would not be upset however those individuals are harnessed by their extraordinary incomes anyway. If your portfolio is earning several hundred thousand dollars per year, as many of them are, then you're unlikely to be going anywhere by choice.
you're wrong on this. I'm no Lise Gagne and I got a call warning me of the announcement. I'm not a top producer, just an active and fairly involved contributor.
1165
« on: September 26, 2010, 21:21 »
I think the 'other' thread on istock is the longest of its kind too. I don't know what is happening there. I haven't any real interest since it's the same discussion circling in there now, the whole situation seems a bit moot. we're moving forward, it's done and I don't know that much else will be said. perhaps gradual additions to the sticky and that's it.
sales seem good. glad about that.
1166
« on: September 26, 2010, 19:51 »
One of the two don't remeber well, but I'm not going now to dive in istock forums archives to make my point. Maybe others remember too.
No, we don't. Either make your point with substantiated evidence or shut the f*ck up.
^ do you ever wonder if anyone in your life is honest with you when you shut people down with that kind of belligerent and abusive attitude? your talent and knowledge is eclipsed by your hideous and bullish behaviour. you should really consider some yoga or something. I don't want to pick on caspixel, but if I were to make a constructive comment.....she has truly been threatening to stop buying at iStock since I joined, which was four years ago. it was one of the very first things I noticed about her username in the forums. so, to suggest that loop's comment was anything but correct just makes you look as biased as you clearly are. seriously tired of watching you attack people, it's completely unproductive.
1167
« on: September 25, 2010, 00:22 »
I can. I don't ignore anyone. I'm too nosey! 
well then, within reason I promise never to ignore you blufish...I don't often ignore posts either.
1168
« on: September 25, 2010, 00:19 »
well I was at 4 last night...and I've made one post....so I'm not sure which 5 people I ticked off last night...lol. oh well, half of you probably can't see this post anyways.
1169
« on: September 24, 2010, 15:31 »
Wow. Really sorry to hear Rob's left. He was always a calm and reassuring presence. He will really be missed.
exactly my feelings. he's just released a new book and I'm certain his own photography has been harder to shoot as a result of his work as an admin. I'm sure it will be too good to be true for everyone hoping this is out of protest, but that is not Rob's style AFAIK. I hope he is simply going onto other things and happy about the decision.
1170
« on: September 24, 2010, 10:15 »
my sales have been very good this week. I've had two days that were stellar in fact. I think it is far too early to start suggesting sales are plummeting because of an issue being primarily covered in forums, which most buyers don't really visit.
1171
« on: September 23, 2010, 10:26 »
roflmao - who's Stuart? let me get this straight pseudo...you don't even contribute to iStock because they are bonkers. ok, well, thanks for your comments that have zero frame of reference
1172
« on: September 22, 2010, 23:51 »
I've compared being exclusive to being employed in some contexts. I also use the analogy that we are iStock's client, many of us do. we basically hire them as our agent, to give us a gallery/storefront, to market our images, and ultimately to sell them. as long as I feel iStock is doing those things for my images, as long as my income and dl numbers continue to rise...I'm generally happy. I also enjoy the community and the opportunity to learn from my peers through the community. I've found the inspection process is one of the single greatest contributions to my evolution as an artist, or in the least as a commercial stock producer. so, I'm getting my money's worth.
I don't think there was anything ridiculous at all about the employment analogy. pseudo, I'd quit while I'm not too far behind in this debate. frankly, there are enough pissing contests to wade through, pardon the pun, over here already.
1173
« on: September 22, 2010, 23:30 »
Why be so judgemental about how others choose to live their lives?
dude, it's almost laughable this question came from you... I care about how young people are treated in our industry, absolutely I do. I've heard absolute horror stories about how models have been treated by photographers. a few of us we were having a conversation about MM, the site, the business around the site.....why do you have to be such a troll, why comment if you don't like the conversation?....why be so judgmental about how others choose to live their lives?
1174
« on: September 22, 2010, 20:56 »
I don't know who said it above, but I don't think any exclusive should be comfortable with dls numbers decreasing as long as income is increasing. I already said this once, but that is a fairly short-sighted, destructive way to manage your business. after 2008 when dl numbers fell for everyone pretty much, I started watching my numbers increase steadily. granted, money is increasing exponentially while dl number are creeping up slowly....but both are moving upward and that's what I want to see.
It's strange that that has ended up being the iStock strategy. HQ has never confirmed it, but it has seemed like the company was headed for a midstock model for several years now. Just not sure it's a good way to go. There is so much potential in lower-priced high-volume content. When you could get an X-Small image for your blog for $1, it didn't take much debate to click the Purchase button. At $3.00 or more for the same image, it's a different story.
It looks like iStock is betting on midstock to be the more profitable and long-term successful model, but I wouldn't bet on microstock and $1 images going out of demand.
Why do you think they developed ThinkStock?
agreed. I am not opted into the partner program in any case. not even worth the effort to click the check box.
1175
« on: September 22, 2010, 14:01 »
I don't know who said it above, but I don't think any exclusive should be comfortable with dls numbers decreasing as long as income is increasing. I already said this once, but that is a fairly short-sighted, destructive way to manage your business. after 2008 when dl numbers fell for everyone pretty much, I started watching my numbers increase steadily. granted, money is increasing exponentially while dl number are creeping up slowly....but both are moving upward and that's what I want to see.
Pages: 1 ... 42 43 44 45 46 [47] 48 49 50 51 52 ... 54
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
