"They do a MASSIVE amount of marketing"

Where? Before I started working at BTL ageny for a while, I didn't even know they existed. I recently talked to a few high level creative colleagues, and they never heard of it either. People tend to think when they are involved in something that it's all bigger than life

Quote from: Nordlys on September 09, 2010, 21:57

Quote from: KB on September 09, 2010, 21:45

Quote from: Nordlys on September 09, 2010, 20:03

Quote from: KB on September 09, 2010, 17:16

Quote from: anonymous on September 09, 2010, 16:57
and I'll buy nothing with a crown : P

Why is that? What have exclusive contributors done to earn your wrath? In some ways, we are hurt more by this move than independents. Of course, it's your decision, and your money. I'm just curious why you feel that way.

Well - when some one pissis on me I for one Piss back.

Beisides - you should thank us, while on your knees whining. Hurting IS on the wallet, is the only thing that can bring the silly management at IS to the negosiationg table. The independents leaving, and taking their businnes and clients with them, is "money talks".

Remeber - there are 80%+ non ex. on IS.

Perhaps you should make sure you know who pissed on you before you piss back?

But I'm not going to contribute to this stupid argument any longer; I agree with those that say it's counterproductive. We are all getting screwed by Getty -- that's the part to focus on.

It's beacuse you don't get it. IS will keep changing goals until all exclusives are down to the standard Getty 20% royalty. You wil get F* over, and over, and over again.

The only way to get Getty to the negociating table, it to give them a hit on the wallet - i.e. IS sales. This is what the independents are doing for you. We are trying to save your asses. At the same time we free ourselves from the tyranny of Getty by taking our pics, our clients, and our DL's to other sites.
Wake up - wipe the cloth of IS sweettalk from your eyes....

why . do you ppl think it's just getty being The Bad Guy here? I even heard laughable crap like how Istuck used to be a nice communinty site.. yeh, for a few months in 2004 or smthng like that, I guess. The site has been around for more than 5 years, and in all that time they developed these rich features for contributors:
1. a single file upload button : )))
2. their very own village idiot running auroud in their forums insulting and mocking the the ppl who actually work for his pay, STFU-ing them by bans and locked threads if they wanted to discuss anything more serious then what they would like to have for next lunch.
3. random rejections from maltrained granpas pretending to be quality controllers.

They have been treating you like turds for years with or without getty... and getty's low commision were at least on several times higher prices.

Quote from: ThomasAmby on September 09, 2010, 17:00
MORTON
I'm listening but not hearing much.
Admins, check how much i spend here. And I'm only here because I was referred by a contributor who I'm very fond of. Out of respect for that contributor, and others I am actively looking elsewhere for my images.
I'm sure Getty don't need my money anyway. You have now placed Vetta out of my reach. The agency collection doesn't interest me at all and you are constantly trying to get me to Thinkstock. If I'm looking for a subs package I've found a better deal on another site outside of the Getty empire.
Contributors. It's a big step but you need to get together, take your content and your ethics and reasonable prices and royalties and start up again. Designers will follow. Designers are cool. iStock was cool, Getty isn't.

What a rotten way to treat people.

LIZZIELOU (buyer who has spent more than $10000 over the last five years, documented with a screenshot)
I'll have to go where the images go. I believe this will have to start with the big contributers moving, buyers following then the smaller conrtibutors follow. but in support I will try to shop elsewhere before here especially if the artist is not wearing a crown (which is looking more like a dunce hat)

POLEKSPRESS (member since 2005)
I will never buy credits from Istock again!!!!!!!!!

ABDESIGN
I am the art director for a company who has purchased close to 2500 images here at istock. We will never again purchase images from here. In fact, is there a way to get your current credits refunded. I will be throwing away my crown before the end of the year and moving on. This place disgusts me.

SDbT
In protest ... I just used up the last of my credits and will not purchase further content at iStock until this situation is resolved.

MORTMATCH (corporate master)
I'm a pissed-off buyer. Microstock is cheap to begin with. Giving contributors less of a piece of the pie -- and I pity the non-exclusives taking such a hit as well as the exclusives who bought in to the promise of rewards for selling only to iStock customers -- is beyond greedy and mean-spririted. It's sweatshop labor. Hear that, iStock? S-W-E-A-T-S-H-O-P. I'm disgusted.
A couple of months ago, I had my company open a corporate account for thousands of dollars. And I can change that.
By the way, let me take a crack at running your business. I think I can make those margins sustainable without screwing your artists. I really think I can. How hard can it be to make something profitable when you're raking in 70 percent of the income of a product you don't even make?

anonymous
Photography is a "hobby" for me and my tiny little port of 250 images at IS will not sway their decision, my REAL job is creative director for fortune 1000 co.
Not only do you have my support in no longer purchasing from IS (have about 50 credits that I'll spend this weekend so that some of you can get your 20% - and I'll buy nothing with a crown : P   ), but I'm pulling my port as well. It's only worth about $500 per year, but I'll feel better about myself. We also have monthly "designer meetings" (people from area design companies get together to suck down scotch and crab cakes) and I will take my 10 minutes of speech time to make sure that they're at least aware of this.

It's unfortunate that Wall-St found its way into MS

added: and even if all of this gets IS to modify or completely drop this plan, I'm done with them.

GBALEX
I have worked in the advertising industry for years and our clients are mainly medium to small local businesses and a few large local corporations. I became a submitter in early 2004 to and thought seriously about quitting my job to develop a port large enough to live on.
I decided against it because I was afraid that it would end this way. I worried about the # of images flooding the market to the extent our work would be devalued. The writing was on the wall as you started seeing photographers who used to make decent money producing stock start offering workshops and frequenting micro forums to scare up customers simply because the money they made teaching others to produce stock is better than the money they made producing stock content themselves.
The end result has been many more submitters with LCV work burying images that we as buyers actually need for our projects.  Those submitters would never have made the cut if they had not been coached and most will never produce the type of work that most agencies and their clients need.
Besides being a buyer of images I know many submitters who have worked long and hard to provide a good living for themselves and I do not take the moves that IS has made lightly!  I think IS has forgotten that a great many buyers are also submitters and that as creative's we have respect and empathy for each other.
Micro does need to make changes, however I will not be supporting IS any longer.  Even before this move I have been buying my images more and more from sites who support photographers, graphic artists, video & audio producers.
With this move I have discussed this with my co workers and we have decided to no longer buy our content from IS.
I don't see things improving any day soon unless sites make moves to reduce LCV work, improve search engines and also raise prices for the end product.  That is hard right now because advertising in general has dropped because of the global recession.
I will encourage other buyers to examine how IS has treated its content providers and I will encourage them to seek other options.  Our company will no longer be buying IS content!

cameronpashak
I have continued to be a loyal customer and will buy an image that might not be the best out of all the ones i also found on other sites but still have bought it just because. If this goes thru, I will look at things for a year or so as a contributor. If I do worse next year under this structure, then i will look at my options as i can't really afford the time to upload to other sites at this moment.

But I can assure you the 60% of my earnings that i spend here buying images will definitely be spent somewhere else from the moment this is confirmed. I know that sounds crazy and not fair to our contributors but this is out of principle. If HF want to milk me of my continued hard work....they aint getting one bit of it back in the form of me buying images and I have the assurance of 3 other designer friends (none of which are contributors) of mine they are going to do the same as they see how hard outside of my regular work contributing images to istock.
Full post

ForwardDesign
While having been a $1000 - $1400 per year "buyer" at Istockphoto, I'm rather surprised by their indifference to their contributors. We seem to live in a day and age where corporate greed is king. At our 10:00am meeting tomorrow, I will bring this up to our design staff and see if they know of an image source that plays more fairly at the schoolyard. After reading the forum posts, I have to agree that there is a serious difference in the mathematical understanding and a rather callus response from Istockphoto staff. It's likely that somebody upstairs desires a larger paycheck and/or they're jockeying to sell.
CNET

leremy
I am a contributor and also a buyer at istock. I still have 26 credit. I have so far only buy images from istock (I had spent about usd500 so far since 1 year ago), and with this recent development that really irritate me, I will definitely not buy anymore credits from istock. Yes, there are plenty other agencies out there that I can buy pictures from. Just a side note, one of them has helped me in making 6x times more money than what I have made here. The more I think of it, the more it make sense for me to buy elsewhere. [...]
Full post

dsteller
[...]I am a contributor and I am a buyer. I am not big in either, but my 2000+ purchases are significant to me. It is sad for me to say but I am going to be purchasing elsewhere from here on out. [...]
Full post

caspixel
[...]As a buyer, I am very excited to see some new fresh content at some other sites. You guys provide great content. The best, really. Time to share.
Full post

anthony_taylor
As the library depletes, so will the custom. As a contibutor I'm being forced out. As a designer and buyer of images for national retail chain here in the UK I'll be taking my company's business elsewhere.
Full post

emrah
[...]I'm definitely not buying any photos and stupid announcements of istock any more
Full post

GeoffBlack
I will no longer buy here.
Full post

Jancouver
[...]BTW. I also bought 440 files from iStock for our projects but I will NOT buy a single file again from iStock!
Full post

ChrisGorgio
Shame on you for treating your long-standing contributors this way. Especially non exclusives who will be dropping to a base rate of 15%. If I'm not mistaken the lowest commission in the industry.
I will no longer be buying here or recommending the site to others.
Unbelievably greedy and ungrateful. Shame
Full post

Anja_Kaiser
If these changes should actually take effect, I'm going to delete my entire portfolio on new year's eve. *NOONE* will take up to 85% of what *my* work earns. I was almost about to reach the golden canister level and now it's for the trashbin? Plus a huge pay-cut? Plus a slap in my face? NO. Enough is enough. I'll lose about $400 to 500 a month (still), but my pride's worth something, too. iStock will lose me as a contributor and a buyer as well. The whole thing is blatantly barefaced and respectless.
Full post

JDehoff
I don't upload photos or illustrations of my own, so this does not effect me the same way. However, I have been downloading images to use in design projects from istock for years. The rates for images continue to go up each time I need to buy credits. I thought this would go to overhead and the artists. And now you're giving the artists I depend on a paycut? It seems like you're collecting more from both sides. Has someone gotten greedier?
The allure to istockphoto was that istock was NOT Getty images. I am saddened that istock has chosen to sell out and has opted to grow too large to maintain what made them unique in the first place. Change is only good if you don't lose the core of what made you good to begin with.
I guess I will increase my patronage to other, "smaller" stock image sites in the future in order to support the artists, instead of a corporation. Very disappointing istock.
Full post

ktasos
I deactivated my second file!!! I have nothing to loose as a non-exclusive contributor.I think if the things remain the same i will delete my entire portfolio soon... plus i will never buy not a single $ from this place anymore
Full post

Lazyfish
[...]But as a buyer i'm pissed off. I spend several thousand dollars on here every year through my corporate name, and i did that percisely because you guys were not getty. i liked the iStock model and always felt i was helping the little guy with the money my design agency makes. My business partner and I will have to re-evaluate were we spend our money now. I don't feel right giving it to you.
I feel sorry for people making their living on here. Good luck to you all!
Full post

anonymous
I had dinner tonight with the two people with whom I built the redacted. The artist/co-designer is currently working on an independent film and was shocked when I told him what IS are currently doing - he said that he's spent around $2,000 in the last month at IS on images and videos, and he will no longer buy there.
Full post

acromedia
Although its been said many times already, I just have to add: Wow.
As a partner/creative director at a web design firm, I've used and steered numerous client to istock for years. I just added up our invoices and we've spent over $6000 here in the past few years.
However, once our credits run out, we will no longer purchase from istock or any other getty sites. It is insane how the contributors here are being treated, and I cannot in good conscious support a company that abuses its suppliers in these manners.
I urge you all to remember that you have a choice; creating thousands of posts is a good way to let of some steam, but I'd encourage you to spend that effort moving your content to other sites, of which I hope to see and buy your work.
Change, take action, send a message.
Full post

Crooky0
[...]I am not a contributor...I merely came here to buy stock photos, and have spent a decent amount of money here over the past few years. I have never boycotted a business in my entirely life before now. Congratulations, iSP...you are the first! How's it feel to be #1?
Full post

mericsso
I contribute to iStock for fun. My real job is Art Director at a Canadian Magazine. I'm starting to feel like I'm supporting a big corporation instead of the artists. After I burn up my last batch of credits, I'll be taking my business elsewhere. 85% percent is just too much profit IMO.
Full post

hqimages
Yup, I'm downloading from Stockfresh now.. it's the only good alternative for me anyway.. but it feels good that there is an alternative with similar quality to istock, and better % for uploaders..
Full post

luriete
(I'm a photographer, and a client who buys usually 750 credits a year - we'll switch to someone else on that front and ask other agencies we work with to do the same)
Full post

The problem is that there are no reasonably big numbers showing. I used Istock for about 2,5 half years working for a BTL agency. It wasn' big, wasn't small either, but very busy. I was in very good termns with the owners, and the one doing the finances told me that we used (7th month) more than 2,5 million HUF for buying stock, which is about 13 000 dollars... and that was only a mid sized agency.

Looks like I hit the nail on the head again : )

It's interesting how people who have been okay with 20%, even praising the site, are suddenly in fury with 15%. Is that reasonable? Or is that this always sucked, but they just played the fashionable smiley fanboy and all the frustration building up suddenly burst out with this latest move? I vote for the latter.

Quote from: Vonkara on October 17, 2010, 05:46

Quote from: molka on October 16, 2010, 23:47

So, tens of thousands of photographers shooting the same generic theme in the same generic style, with thousands joining every month, how is that gonna lead to good sales for them on a longer term?


btw, the original question was: "Has Microstock made you a better photographer?"

Yes I did buy large amounts of micro for a time.

This cycle will happen soon, or did it already happened ?

I dunno, ask istockers 8 )

Quote from: crazychristina on October 16, 2010, 23:24

Quote from: molka on October 16, 2010, 23:05

Quote from: crazychristina on October 16, 2010, 22:56

Quote from: molka on October 16, 2010, 22:42
Definately not. If someone grew up having art training, especially if in an enviroment that had a lot of influences toward good taste and aesthtetics, it's just a pain in the ass.  It's likely to be pushing anyone away from what would make photography actually great. It's not hard to deliver what they want, but it's severily restrictive without those restrictions having much point - more freedom wouldn't get in the way of business at all, actually it would improve it because it would improve real quality and variety. The whole things screams of being created by blockheads, who's closest experience with visual creativity before getting into managing images, would be something like watching barney the purple dinosaur : )

Microstock photographers tend to shoot what buyers buy. Perhaps you could direct your comments to the buyers. Photographers who wish to produce more artistic work are probably exhibiting that in galleries rather than in stock portfolios.

I am a buyer.

Do you buy micro? The equation most photographers here work to is $/dl x dls = $. When $/dl is low the dls need to be high to generate reasonable return, ie, generic imagery. If work is more unique then the dls will be low so the $/dl needs to be higher. Macro is a better place to look for more unique imagery. Of course some photographers place work in all markets, depending on the production values and likely sales of any given image. If a buyer want unique imagery at generic prices however he/she may be out of luck.

So, tens of thousands of photographers shooting the same generic theme in the same generic style, with thousands joining every month, how is that gonna lead to good sales for them on a longer term?


btw, the original question was: "Has Microstock made you a better photographer?"

Yes I did buy large amounts of micro for a time.

Quote from: crazychristina on October 16, 2010, 22:56

Quote from: molka on October 16, 2010, 22:42
Definately not. If someone grew up having art training, especially if in an enviroment that had a lot of influences toward good taste and aesthtetics, it's just a pain in the ass.  It's likely to be pushing anyone away from what would make photography actually great. It's not hard to deliver what they want, but it's severily restrictive without those restrictions having much point - more freedom wouldn't get in the way of business at all, actually it would improve it because it would improve real quality and variety. The whole things screams of being created by blockheads, who's closest experience with visual creativity before getting into managing images, would be something like watching barney the purple dinosaur : )

Microstock photographers tend to shoot what buyers buy. Perhaps you could direct your comments to the buyers. Photographers who wish to produce more artistic work are probably exhibiting that in galleries rather than in stock portfolios.

I am a buyer.

Quote from: basti on May 05, 2009, 15:15
No. Actually I have my own brain and I do not follow sometimes really insane "standards" like no noise or CA/artifacts everywhere policies. These severely interfere with logical way and technical/physical aspects. Absolutely insane requirements on noise, CA, artifacts are very far from reality on micro.

Microstock reviewers are of very disputable irregurarly distributed quality and I think for ppl not really knowing real basics and real world printing, this could severely hurt they quality and artistic judgement. Also keywording is a big problem, while many agencies accept obvious keyword spam, they sometimes ridiculously reject properly keyworded pics. Requiring MR for silhouttes or general part of human body (hands, legs etc.) and PR for shots made obviously from public space is also microstock specialty. The biggest problem I see is spreding of these dangerous habits and insane "standards" to other agencies and public judgement. Technically great picture with bad compo and light is ok for micro, but overall its junk - greatly composed and lighted picture taken on iso400 is junk on micro, however it could be stunning picture. This is what Im talking about...

I agree with sharpshot - its not good to think about money anytime you touch camera...

agreed on just about every word! I would add the lighting thing: they generally want most things 'floodlit' and overexposed, especially models... they demand least creative, flat, dull lighting that kills character. At least it's easy to do, you can do it stoned braindead, just blast from left and right, from slightly over and slightly under. Sometimes even shots where the moody lighting and strong shadows obviously compliment the setup and the modell get rejected, that's when it's easy to see that they have total amateurs sitting in as reviewers. The good part is they almost always accept those kind of shots at the next submission, which tells me there's a percentage of reviewers that are at least not totally clueless

Definately not. If someone grew up having art training, especially if in an enviroment that had a lot of influences toward good taste and aesthtetics, it's just a pain in the ass.  It's likely to be pushing anyone away from what would make photography actually great. It's not hard to deliver what they want, but it's severily restrictive without those restrictions having much point - more freedom wouldn't get in the way of business at all, actually it would improve it because it would improve real quality and variety. The whole things screams of being created by blockheads, who's closest experience with visual creativity before getting into managing images, would be something like watching barney the purple dinosaur : )

Quote from: caspixel on October 12, 2010, 15:02

Quote from: JamesGdesign on October 12, 2010, 10:22
I am still banned from forums & sitemail... any other ban'ees in a similar spot? Whats the record for these sorts of things (other than permanent ban, of course).

Still banned too. I expect mine is permanent. I'm still ticked about not being able to check sitemail though. I'm considering contacting support about that. Could really care less about posting on the forums.

Maybe they think you are trolls, for saying stuff they don't like to hear 8 )

I don't see why these images are any worse then wetta, which is childish garbage mostly. These are at least kinda nice, but nothing really special either.

Quote from: mtkang on July 17, 2010, 19:24
hi all, just started in alamy..and just realise keywords in alamy is a time-consuming job..

so my first questions is, is it possible to edit your keywords and other informations once submitted?

seconds question is.. as RM licensed images, is shouldn't be sold as RF before right?

Imho alamy has one of the best, if not the best batch editing tools, it's fast, and youn can also edit any images at any phase - ready, not ready, on sale, with the same great tool. This is lightyears ahead of most micro sites where you often forced to edit images at any phase one-by-one with a lot worse interface

Quote from: Pheby on October 13, 2010, 16:05
Neither is that the point of RM nor has it been gotten rid of.

They are the points, and nobody said that they got rid of it. It's there.

Quote from: djpadavona on October 13, 2010, 00:12
Helix, though I generally am in strong agreement with you, I don't believe the existence of microstock is in any way a statement of what free markets will pay for imagery.  Actually that argument has long been a pet peeve of mine.  Perhaps the ultimate version of the free market is the stock market - a highly liquid and ever-changing opinion on the worth of individual companies and the indexes of those companies.

Microstock on the other hand is simply a take-it-or-leave-it price point, which often is the same or similar for wildly different products.  It doesn't matter if you are Joe Snapshot uploading pictures from his vacation taken on a point-and-shoot, or someone using the best digital camera known to man, multiple models, high quality lighting expertly applied, and an excellent concept.  The price to any buyer is still a few dollars.  There is no market saying, "Hey that picture from Yuri is darn good.  It's worth $200, not $2."  There is no market saying, "That $2 snap shot is probably worth 50 cents, or $2.50, or whatever."  You don't like the price the microstock agency is asking?  Then you go to the next microstock agency and find that the same image is available for a similar price, if not exactly the same price.  We can fret about iStock being several dollars more expensive than some other site, but in the end it's not really a big difference.  

To say microstock is a "market statement" about what images should cost, is like saying people sharing files on the old Napster was a statement that music should be free of charge.  If you offer excellent images for a ridiculously low price point, of course buyers will jump at the offer.  It isn't a free market so much as it is a fire sale, run by agencies which have convinced a sourced crowd to learn as much as they possibly can about photography and produce images for very small royalties.  

In my opinion microstock pricing made a lot of sense when they were accepting vacation snapshots and selling them for $1 or less.  The skill level required to produce the image was in line with the royalty.  While royalties have grown substantially since the early days, they are still microstock royalties after all.  Yet the skill level required to get images accepted, let alone have them meet success, is well beyond the original intention.  We've taught an entire generation of buyers that images of pristine quality can be bought for a few dollars.  This is why I feel we have undercut our ability to sell images in the future.  We are stuck in the vicious circle of always needing equipment upgrades, and talent upgrades, just to tread water while competing for one dollar bills.  It's not for me anymore.

That's why you have RM. The bigger the customer is, the more valuable they find your shot, the more money you get. But of course just about everybody abandoned that... was that a smart move, hmm? I guess many newcomers didn't even know such thing exists before they got quite deeply involved in microstock.

Quote from: helix7 on October 12, 2010, 21:54

Quote from: cclapper on October 12, 2010, 20:49

I disagree about the argument from the trads...to me, comparing microstock to high quality, "artsy"-type stock images is like comparing apples to oranges...I always felt that microstock was fulfilling a need for small companies and individuals...those who couldn't afford to spend $200 a pop for an image for their church bulletin or their company newsletter mailout. But I am totally with you on the rest of your statement...

It's not apples to oranges. It never was. Just look at the istock HotShots newsletter. Nearly every time I look at that thing, I think "The istock images are better than the Getty images!"

That said, I do disagree that microstock is undercutting anything. It's simply fulfilling a need based on market demand, and given the proliferation of more affordable pro-sumer digital photography equipment, software, computers, etc., the value of a stock image isn't what it used to be. Not because of microstock. Just because the market has changed and expanded in many different ways.

But microstock and traditional RF stock are not operating on two different platforms. They are most certainly competing head-to-head and microstock is certainly benefiting from customers reassessing the value of stock images and what they are willing to pay for them, and moving their business accordingly.

Why do poeple think the market demand is an excuse for anything, and should always be served? There is a great market demand for you getting 50c an hour payment (or nothing), most company owners would love that. There is great market demand for drugs, weapons, and prostitution, do you think they should all be served just because they exist?

Quote from: eggshell on October 12, 2010, 12:37
I got my first "Limited commercial value" rejection today on a credit card super macro shot . Looking through the newest images on that same subject I stumbled upon this port - http://www.shutterstock.com/results.mhtml#page=1&gallery_id=434212

I was amazed by the poor photography - lighting , composition ( the lack of ) , subject choice ...
These are pretty recent submissions , not some relics from the dawn of microstock . These are not 10-15 accidently approved shots . There's no way this port was built going through the normal approval process . What's the point of raising the quality bar if this kind of work still finds its way in agency's catalog ?

you shouldn't be surpirised, altho they make a lot of money, these are pretty ragtag companies, with an inspection policy and crew that is at best amateurish, and always inconsistent. Imho they simply throw people at unfilled positions like a kid would slap a handful of wet sand in a sandcastle. If the cue is too big, I bet you they would drag in granpa, granma, and just someone from the street walking by, tell 'em they don't want shadows and weird stuff like that, and there you go. : )) I had shot that were rejected for LCV, poor lighting, comp, all at the same, accepted right the next batch, and sell too. You just shuouldn't give a flying f**k about it

So did this 47 pages of 'intelligent conversation' achieve anything? Yeah, I thought so. But when I add my 5c in few posts to the end of that freight train of pure smart, it's 'rant' 

Quote from: markrhiggins on October 10, 2010, 09:28
"bogging"? Ow well keep trying. Why don't you try to sell something? No talent troll. This is about microSTOCK not microBRAINS

: ) Try reading, angry lil' boy

"This is about microSTOCK not microBRAINS"

well, khhmmm... hehe... This might just go around, but not the way you intended. Good stuff!

Quote from: gostwyck on October 10, 2010, 01:44

Quote from: molka on October 09, 2010, 23:13
I obviusly ment the current situation with 'outsiders' dumped into it, otherwise it makes no sense.

Altho imho so called damins / 'inspectors' seem to be hijacking the system since god knows when, but I guess that's just accepted as regular busines at a place like that.

I wouldn't mind a pint of whatever you're drinking. 'Obviusly' truly liberating.

self delusion is cool... for kids

Quote from: markrhiggins on October 10, 2010, 09:19
from what I gather you don't sell much. No not the rally guy, the photographer.

Oh so your just another nobody who can't read but keeps bogging me. I like rally.

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on September 25, 2010, 11:04
If I was going to deactivate images I might as well cancel my membership of the site. Dumping non-sellers won't achieve anything and pulling my best sellers which might have a tiny effect on them would destroy my sales (20:80 and all that).

The crucial element in all of this is and always will be the reaction of buyers.

they would react to finding a half empty site.

Quote from: markrhiggins on October 10, 2010, 03:49
I am upset at the changes at Istock and even more upset my macro sales aren't doing better. Please tell me how to fix this Molka. Maybe I should start shooting large format film again. Where do you sell? Are you the Molka at Can Stock or did just use that name?

I sell on Wall Street under the name getty. are you the rally guy?

Quote from: jbarber873 on October 09, 2010, 23:32

Quote from: molka on October 09, 2010, 23:23
wow, this is even better than the old xsreality forums with pent up frustrated pimplefaced teens all raging from too much and duke nukem and coke-sugar  : )

duke nukem=windows 3.0=traditional stock=1993=macrosaur=molka

math in everyday life

Sherlock Holmes, eat yout heart out. That was pure genius : D show that equation to nasa, they'll hire you instantly

wow, this is even better than the old xsreality forums with pent up frustrated pimplefaced teens all raging from too much and duke nukem and coke-sugar  : )