@Leaf - many thanks for the update info re Paypal.

(currently putting together some scans to submit there RM).

^ great post

Who cares whether a photographer likes to call themselves a professional? Many of the world's greatest images were shot by, so called, gentlemen amateurs (but not only men) - and until recently 'professional' was something of a dirty word anyhow.

The past 25 years or so has been all about the snapshot. I very much like the Getty flickr collection.

Does hardly anyone read design magazines anymore Sue?

their ambitions to make spectacular short-term profits and sell the business on.

I think you have said similar before. I cannot find a link, sorry, but I believe it was either here or on the iStock forum. And I wondered then -- which bit of the business do you believe will be "sold on" - the portfolio of Getty brands as a whole or iStockphoto in isolation ?

Do you think that it is likely that iStockphoto would be sold in isolation when so much of what has happened over recent years seems to point towards stratifying and streamlining the various brands such that there is product available at all price points across various different models - whilst really they are all part of the same whole. The whole thing surely only works if they are all part of a whole.

 ^ what I mean is that there is no way of excluding other potentially unknown factors and therefore experimenting only with geo location - because other potentially unknown factors are unknown. So the experiment cannot demonstrate anything for sure.

Anyhow the best recipes are a secret. Lobster � la Riseholme etc.

It's neither. It's selling original fine art and prints. It's not advertising related, so even though Saatchi is a big name in advertising this website has nothing to do with stock.

The website is an offshoot of Charles Saatchi's art gallery. He is a very influential art collector who sets trends.

Let's be clear. The website has nothing to do with Saatchi & Saatchi - that advertising agency still carries their name but they departed from it many years ago. And according, to the press, they (the two brothers) are also no longer involved with the agency which they founded after leaving their original agency.

(It's like the Gates Foundation has nothing to do with Windows.)

It's selling original fine art and prints. It's not advertising related, so even though Saatchi is a big name in advertising this website has nothing to do with stock.

The Saatchis are no longer involved with Saatchi & Saatchi.

Nor M&C Saatchi according to the press.

@jsnover - I am not going to argue with you. You are finding negative nuances where none are intended. Really I was being about being positive about the often amazing work from a whole new influx of photographers who never post on any of the forums.

FWIW I regret bothering to express my honest opinion.

@bunhill

Do you do this full time?

Broadly yes. But I have not got all of my eggs in stock. I respect iStockphoto as a brand and the exclusive arrangement suits me well enough for the moment. I have learned a huge amount from being involved there and I should put more into it  sooner or later. I am broadly sanguine.

If your stock money pays bills, I'm amazed at your carefree attitude that we shouldn't feel entitled to receiving fair payment for our work.

I worked as an assistant in the 90s these same arguments existed around people who sold RF. One of the guys I worked for hated people who sold RF. RF has always been an evolving story. I hope I am being realistic rather than carefree. If I did not feel that I was receiving a fair payment I would not be involved. The money I get is about right I reckon - which is not to say that more money would not be lovely.

So anyhow I am not here to defend iStockphoto against overwhelming negative opinion. The people I listen to see it as a great brand. I do not believe that the anti iStockphoto attitudes often expressed here are especially indicative or typical. I certainly do not feel locked in. Digital assets are portable. I certainly very much admire and like some of the other sites. I'm not one of those "woo yayers" either despite "gostwyck"'s caustic post. For example I much prefer the toned down quieter way the forum is at iStock today.

You need to extract your head from Istock's arse

Now that's pretty offensive actually. It is perfectly reasonable to try to express a contradictory opinion. Or are we all supposed to march in your line here ?

FWIW I am not clear what even makes you believe that iStockphoto is not doing well as a business. Especially given that it is not a business in isolation but part of Getty as a whole. It's margins that matter, no ?

The new appointment has presumably not been employed to be the best friend of 7 million members. I am relieved that we did not get something in the style of an inaugural address. We just want her to quietly get on with the job. Beyond that it would be dotty to try to divine potentially negative nuances from a brief understated introductory 'hello'. She said something about working towards better serving the clients. Good. That's what matters.

I wonder what people expect today - other than to hope that the business as a whole will be run to be successful including iStockphoto as a part of that. It's their business. iStockphoto is mature. It is a still a fantastically democratic entry point - nothing like that existed all those many years ago when it was first developed. But that was a very different time and a very different economy. We might as well be remembering the 60s. Times are very different now.

Look today through the work which is coming online via iStockphoto and flickr. Much of it is amazingly high end top notch and creative stuff. From people who never post anything in any of the forums. Or look at 500px, tumblr or your favorite Flipboard feeds etc. Whilst we are posting our opinions on the forums there is a whole new (and old) generation of amazing photographers and designers who come without this sense of pre entitlement. The challenge and inspiration should surely be to try to make better work rather than moaning all the time ?

When he joined iStock in 2004, he certainly couldn�t have imagined how loathed iStock would be today. Or maybe he doesn't even know.

A handful of people here and a few old-timers are the only people who loath iStockphoto.

Most active contributors are probably earning more from (and via) iStockphoto than they were in 2004. And every buyer I have ever talked too thinks that iStockphoto is a fantastic resource.