|
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 - ShadySue
13176
« on: September 14, 2011, 09:33 »
diapositive = slides
I had to look it up. In all my photo classes and surfing the internet, never ran across that term before.
Wasn't it on all Kodachrome boxes? It certainly was on at least one of the Fuji or Kodak slide type slide boxes as sold here (UK), but maybe not in the US (?)
Hi Sue, yes it was but the word Diapositives is just another word for transparancies, dia-slides, etc, may it be Kodachrome, Ektachrome, Velvia or Provia. The OP however seems to have dug out some really old stuff and even if you drumscan very old trannies, its extremly hard to get good quality, unless its large format 4x5 or 8x10.
I can see why DT rejected them flat out.
Quite. I was just curious as to why Cathy wasn't familiar with the term. @OP: see how things can get convovulated?
13177
« on: September 14, 2011, 08:04 »
@OP: take it from one who likes a good rant as much as the next person. It's bad enough posting when you've got the RedMist coming down over your eyes - my typos go up about 100% from a high base - but when you're posting in a language which isn't your native language, it just compounds the problem, and leads to all sorts of misunderstandings.
13178
« on: September 14, 2011, 07:47 »
diapositive = slides
I had to look it up. In all my photo classes and surfing the internet, never ran across that term before.
Wasn't it on all Kodachrome boxes? It certainly was on at least one of the Fuji or Kodak slide type slide boxes as sold here (UK), but maybe not in the US (?)
13179
« on: September 13, 2011, 11:56 »
Anyone (as well as aenof) getting good sales in September? Mine seem to have literally fallen off a cliff since the end of August. That's comparing to myself, not to BDs!
13180
« on: September 13, 2011, 10:30 »
According to Wikipedia, "On February 9, 2006 iStockphoto was acquired by Getty Images for $50 million USD. ...
Ha! I skimmed the rest of the Wikipedia entry on iStock and it is all very postive, anything negative is reported in a very short way. Previously, there was mention of the issues concerning contributors, but they've all been expunged. I guess Lobo or someone else from The Company is always jumping in editing out dissenting views. However, there's a banner at the top saying, "This article is written like an advertisement. Please help rewrite this article from a neutral point of view." They wish!
13181
« on: September 13, 2011, 10:26 »
My memory sucks. Wasn't Istock disambiguation before the sale?
I don't think so. I joined in late 2006, when Getty had already bought iStock, and everyone was whining about DAing their files - especially the long-established members with already several hundreds or thousands of files. According to Wikipedia, " On February 9, 2006 iStockphoto was acquired by Getty Images for $50 million USD. ... ... On September 18, 2006 iStockphoto displayed the first results of the Getty Images ownership. A new keywording taxonomy called a Controlled vocabulary was borrowed from Getty Images and implemented on iStockphoto to control and manage keywords and searches, and to provide multilingual searching abilities."
13182
« on: September 13, 2011, 09:10 »
Has anyone noticed the iS ads that appear on web pages that you are reading? I get that google can look thru your bookmarks or browser history and pull up ads that are more targeted to you. However, I just saw some iS ads while reading something on a web page that featured one of my images. Does google pull that kind of information out of my history to customize the ad to that degree? It's a bit ridiculous if they do. It's not like I'm going to pay to download one of my own images...
I think they must be doing that, or something like that, as I see whichever of mine which I've looked at recently in iStock ads I see. I guess they haven't got it as fine tuned as to see that you were a contributor looking at your own image. A lot of ads for different products seem to feature something I looked at, even if I bought it. I seem to get adverts for an organisation I support persuading me to join for about a week after I visit their site, but I don't think I've ever indicated when I'm on the site that I'm already a member.
13183
« on: September 13, 2011, 05:23 »
{double post, sorry}
13184
« on: September 12, 2011, 10:13 »
I would think that IS would want to block true teams from being exclusive - as a way to game the system. Both the old canister system but especially the RC one. Imagine if say 30 good exclusives teamed together - they would have lower upload limits each, but they would also probably hit the top tier for RC, something that IS can't really allow (it is "unsustainable" remember).
It's so obvious, I'd be astonished if people haven't already moved that way. You'd need to draw up a cast iron contract.
13185
« on: September 12, 2011, 06:32 »
I guess everyone has their opinions, but for me sjlocke has proven himself as a bully who likes to bait newbies on this forum.
It's called 'tough love', and is honest. He's the ONLY 'top' contributor who takes on TPTB openly in the forums, and tries to make them honest, although it's a David and Goliath situation. 
13186
« on: September 11, 2011, 13:30 »
Sean wins for most pro active community contributor. If the exclusives could vote for "most trusted member" hed win that in his sleep. But then...he never sleeps...;-)
+1, +1 and ... +1
13187
« on: September 11, 2011, 10:18 »
^^ unless you are both of them's accountant there is no way to know.
What he said. Plus, why do you "have" to ask? I guess you 'can' be curious, but it's not compulsory. In addition, there's at least one member who claims his model is 'maximum sales for minimum outlay', so it might be that someone who has fewer sales, but doesn't have studio, lighting, props, models etc., together with the need for insurances etc. might have more actual profit. But then you have to take 'taxable expenses' into account. Someone with minimum expenses has to pay tax on all their earnings. So you can't possibly get a simple answer.
13188
« on: September 11, 2011, 08:12 »
The real competition is net profit and not total d/l's, in that case I wouln't be suprised if Sean is higher up.
Yeah, some of the top hitters are not individual photographers but teams, with all the ensuing expense and time-consuming paperwork that involves. Sean is a Lone Wolf; so, I believe, is Lise.
13189
« on: September 10, 2011, 19:49 »
49253 now
The last thousand + are back to red carpet celebs. These dark safari pics were an odd 'insert'. Wonder what they'll sneak in try out next?
13190
« on: September 10, 2011, 15:58 »
That's what happens when you don't disambiguate.
Although I thought iStock's DA was based on Getty's; weren't these files properly DAd?
13191
« on: September 10, 2011, 15:33 »
It looks like we've sorted out on this thread what type of artists most photographers are! 
Drunk?
13192
« on: September 10, 2011, 07:36 »
Re: Popularity: In SS's case I think it's more like downloads per month - an age weighted downloads search with some brief boost for new files
Just out of interest! price-slider? well thats a joke and a half. I asked some creative buyers I know, here and in England and France, not one, not even one, can be bothered with this slider, some dont even know it exists. So much for that Einstein idea.
No-one is forced to use it. If price doesn't matter they can see everything easily (except the Dollar Bin). Those for whom price is a major issue (and who were vocal in the forums) can use it. I usually use sorts by price when shopping online. But hey, I'm Scottish (we're canny, which means careful, not 'mean/stingy'). Sometimes I even sort from top down, e.g. looking for a lens, it's easier to sort by top price then come down a few models. Your point was?
13193
« on: September 10, 2011, 06:29 »
'edstock' is a collection of existing wholly owned Getty content from a variety of editorial photographers. It isn't one man or a team, and it's already keyworded and sitting on Getty. You're right though. Under 1k sales from 40k images show it's not really working.
Didn't Getty try this wholly owned content thing somewhere else with similar results a while back? I seem to remember reading something ages ago.
They seem to think that if they jump this stuff off the back of an existing successful site it will take off, whereas what would seem more likely is that too much of it will upset the delicate balance of what buyers actually want, and cause the original to crash.
To state the obvious it seems to me that they really are in danger of turning iStock into something that no-one will recognise any more, and which buyers may well find a turn off. Nobody looking for images wants to be told what to buy by the seller. They want what fits their needs best.
A lot of the original Thinkstock stuff was wholly-owned content, and perhaps (?) some of the original ingestion of Agency, some of which were dire, too, and were removed after forum protests. They're not allowing public protest about quality, keywording or captioning with the EdStock dump. To be fair, I'm keeping an eye on the 'dark safari' stuff and it is sinking fairly fast in best match, just like my own new uploads. If you don't sell within the first 24 hours, you're going down, fast.
13194
« on: September 10, 2011, 05:15 »
I'm in the UK and only got one message, about the BAPLA Academy. I thought I read in the forums there that another had gone out a couple of weeks ago; if so (and ICBW), I didn't get the first one.
13195
« on: September 09, 2011, 20:52 »
'edstock' is a collection of existing wholly owned Getty content from a variety of editorial photographers. It isn't one man or a team, and it's already keyworded and sitting on Getty.
Oh, I didn't realise it was wholly-owned content. That's why even non-editorial stuff is getting shovelled up, then. Am I right in thinking that Getty keywording is done by Getty staff? I've often thought they do a poor job, and this lot confirms it.
13196
« on: September 09, 2011, 11:20 »
So true!! the old adage, cream always floats to the top, is long gone. You can produce the most fantastic, most creative shots and they just fade away into oblivion. This happens to all searches that use relevance or best match, hence "popularity" is by far the most effective.
How does 'popularity' differ from 'downloads'?
13197
« on: September 09, 2011, 09:14 »
Why to they keep changing the best match searches. WHY ? 
Because no one best match is ever fair to everyone? (that would be impossible). (that's the nice hypothesis) After all, would you be happy if they stuck with a best match which happened not to favour your images? Because they're trying to maximise profit (that's the realistic hypothesis). TBH, I'd vote for a totally 'random' match to be an option, maybe to replace the 'name' search, which can't be much use to buyers (who can search by a contributor name if they've forgotten to bookmark a port).
13198
« on: September 09, 2011, 08:23 »
And for those who think iStock has it in for independents, here's what I get on a best match for "blue butterfly". Just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean they're not out to get you. 
13199
« on: September 09, 2011, 08:13 »
by sending in this pile of photos they might make something like $2/image per year or so for not much effort for stuff that wouldn't be selling on Getty. There'll be 100,000 on there within another month, obviously there is no reviewing cost so $200K or so extra profit.
Pity they're saving on reviewing costs: titling, captioning and keywording could do with review - and in the why-the-h*ck-is-this-editorial? category quality also, diluting the overall atrractivelness of the iStockphoto collection.
13200
« on: September 09, 2011, 08:03 »
One day you're in...the next day you're out.
I think there is definitely a 'person' component in the best match search. Plus best match has shifted again for the fourth day in a row on my two standard search terms. And on a broader note, after a good-for-me June to August, Sept has started relatively slowly, but a bit better than last Sept.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
