|
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 - molka
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9
176
« on: October 09, 2010, 17:13 »
I will sit here and take it... since i will be one of the very few that will go up a level. Doesnt mean that i like or agree with the changes
Let's hope I'm not right, but I think the commission cut was the smaller part. The real spanking will come from the search results
the search results (best match) is a zero sum game. meaning for every loser there is a winner.
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.
177
« on: October 09, 2010, 15:41 »
I will sit here and take it... since i will be one of the very few that will go up a level. Doesnt mean that i like or agree with the changes
Let's hope I'm not right, but I think the commission cut was the smaller part. The real spanking will come from the search results
178
« on: October 09, 2010, 15:36 »
The only thing I'v got to do with macrostock is buying it for layouts.
Well, if that's true, then I wonder why you're even here. And if macrostock is so superior, I'm sure your clients are happy to pay up for it, given your great creative sensibilities. If i had to guess, however, i would say that you're more like a deer in the headlights- not sure what is happening. But you've got to be angry at someone, so here you are. So let's see- "The only thing I'v got to do with macrostock is buying it for layouts"- brings up the question- what have you got to do with microstock? Except trolling, of course.
" you're more like a deer in the headlights- not sure what is happening."
that's a decent description of this thread about istock isn't it? Actually I'v been saying a long time ago to people involved with istock and the like: 'just wait untill they tank up on images and market position, they'll start really skinning you'. Nobody beleived me. Now that I took a look inside I realized that's far from the truth - actually they have been treating cintributors like second class citizens way before the current mess, It's just that the poeple I talked to involved in it played fanboys, but I'm not bad at reading people, it was very apparent reading between the lines things weren't that nice at all.
"what have you got to do with microstock?"
I bought rather large amounts of that too, one of the agencies I worked for, was buying thousands of credits there, so that's where I had to go for images when working for them, unless marketing poeple at the clients started searching for images (they like to do that nowadays) they liked, for some reason their preference seemed to be shutterstock. Oh man I'v browsed pages and pages and pages, getting thru thuosands and thousands and thousands of images to find something that might at least to some extent worked with the concept at hand, and of course always in rush. It was so bad, I had to actually train myself to only spend a certain amount of time looking at each thumb. That's something most of you might not comprehend, but I got so tired with all that, I said to myself that I never-ever want to go around browsing that, unless someone is paying for it, because I'm gonna have nightmares of falling into an endless void with floating thumbnails : ) and I'm truly sorry but still find it hard to get myself to look at people's ports that argue around here too, tho I know this and that nick is a succesful contributor, etc.
But more and more of my time went to photography as hobby, which got me talking to people doing micro, so I wanted to have peek inside this. It's like a little subculture, and people involved in it seemed to be so secretive, only giving vague hints of information, that it was almost fishy. And of yourse the kind of stuff that floats around, like for examle "istock's standards are os darconian, they reject most of the stuff", etc, didn't tell me much, becouse people saying things like that were usually total amateurs at visual 'arts' and even more at PS. I realized the obviuos : ) that getting involved is the only way to see what this whole thing really is.. So I started contributing to several places to have a peek inside. It's not nice. You poeple are really badly treated, even besides the financial things, just terribly disrespectfully, and many of you cheer for it ( ). This is beyond me. If I would ever have been handled like that at the places I worked, I would have thorn heads off and put them up on a spike raised really high for everyone to see. Thats it basically. Satisfied? : )
Yeah. And really tired of reading these rants.
the only rant here is 47 pages of microshooter's : )
179
« on: October 09, 2010, 15:30 »
But that's not big deal, because stock in general is anything but creative - it works around reproducing qiute banal cliches over and over, in a restrictive, narrowed down visual manner. If you want ceativity I suggest look you somehwere else... unless your idea of creativity is stuff like someone holding a copyspace banner upside down. ; )
I'm not sure I'd confuse commercial work with lacking creativity. Some of the best commercial work is reinventing a cliche or defining an archetype perfectly. I was never all that into editorial or conceptual stuff (some of that seems like a concept slapped onto poor execution). I like the freedom of creating bright and colorful stuff that I'm interested in. Yeah, making money influences it, but I think that is probably true with all art. I agree that there are a lot of people in stock that are just producing "me too" items, but I don't think there is anything wrong or lacking creativity about coming up with new images in a known commercial niche.
well, is it niche or clihe? It's not all the people that lack creativity, but the final product. And if it doesn't lack real creativity, it's prolly not really stock coz it wont sell. There are quite a few micro shooters who show great talent, but I really don't think it's gonna be the micro or macro where it's they can truly show it. But I don't want to get too deep into that argument, because the term 'creativity' has been totally hijacked for dacedes now, most people simply use it instead of 'gimmick'. Stuff like shooting your models with eyes crossed is considered top-notch creativity nowadays. : )
180
« on: October 09, 2010, 15:16 »
The only thing I'v got to do with macrostock is buying it for layouts.
Well, if that's true, then I wonder why you're even here. And if macrostock is so superior, I'm sure your clients are happy to pay up for it, given your great creative sensibilities. If i had to guess, however, i would say that you're more like a deer in the headlights- not sure what is happening. But you've got to be angry at someone, so here you are. So let's see- "The only thing I'v got to do with macrostock is buying it for layouts"- brings up the question- what have you got to do with microstock? Except trolling, of course.
" you're more like a deer in the headlights- not sure what is happening." that's a decent description of this thread about istock isn't it? Actually I'v been saying a long time ago to people involved with istock and the like: 'just wait untill they tank up on images and market position, they'll start really skinning you'. Nobody beleived me. Now that I took a look inside I realized that's far from the truth - actually they have been treating cintributors like second class citizens way before the current mess, It's just that the poeple I talked to involved in it played fanboys, but I'm not bad at reading people, it was very apparent reading between the lines things weren't that nice at all. "what have you got to do with microstock?" I bought rather large amounts of that too, one of the agencies I worked for, was buying thousands of credits there, so that's where I had to go for images when working for them, unless marketing poeple at the clients started searching for images (they like to do that nowadays) they liked, for some reason their preference seemed to be shutterstock. Oh man I'v browsed pages and pages and pages, getting thru thuosands and thousands and thousands of images to find something that might at least to some extent worked with the concept at hand, and of course always in rush. It was so bad, I had to actually train myself to only spend a certain amount of time looking at each thumb. That's something most of you might not comprehend, but I got so tired with all that, I said to myself that I never-ever want to go around browsing that, unless someone is paying for it, because I'm gonna have nightmares of falling into an endless void with floating thumbnails : ) and I'm truly sorry but still find it hard to get myself to look at people's ports that argue around here too, tho I know this and that nick is a succesful contributor, etc. But more and more of my time went to photography as hobby, which got me talking to people doing micro, so I wanted to have peek inside this. It's like a little subculture, and people involved in it seemed to be so secretive, only giving vague hints of information, that it was almost fishy. And of yourse the kind of stuff that floats around, like for examle "istock's standards are os darconian, they reject most of the stuff", etc, didn't tell me much, becouse people saying things like that were usually total amateurs at visual 'arts' and even more at PS. I realized the obviuos : ) that getting involved is the only way to see what this whole thing really is.. So I started contributing to several places to have a peek inside. It's not nice. You poeple are really badly treated, even besides the financial things, just terribly disrespectfully, and many of you cheer for it ( ). This is beyond me. If I would ever have been handled like that at the places I worked, I would have thorn heads off and put them up on a spike raised really high for everyone to see. Thats it basically. Satisfied? : )
181
« on: October 09, 2010, 08:22 »
But there's something many of you should realize: you are experiencing the same kind of aggressive intrusion into your little playfield, as did old time pros by you with the onslaught of microstock. They are kinda getting back at you for that .
Yeah. We get it. You don't like Microstock. Troll. 
Sure, it's always the easiest to just call anyone a troll who has a different opinion. I find it kinda curious tho, how many of you even go down to the level of getting personal with someone criticizing the system that they got repeteadly shafted by in a really mean way... prejiduce never shows much reason, does it? It wasn't getty or anything, the going of things was built into this system. It was inevitable. You get into a business with sites competing by having super low cut flea-market prices, and than they compete among each other starting from that point... what . do you expect? Do you people ever think? jesus... : )
Yeah, and it's easy to come back and gloat when something changes for a competitor, troll. The fact is that the microstock photographers beat the traditional ( read : oldtimers with connections and legacy images paid for by clients) at their own game by creating fresh, new and creative work. Digital imaging and the internet ran a bulldozer through your little playground and you don't like it. It's called creative destruction, and it's happened throughout history. What you were part of was a guild, and the microstock photographers weren't allowed in. Rather than just give up, they went around your tired old distribution model and created a new one, and now you're on the outside looking in. Any changes at istock will be dealt with, adapted to and taken advantage of, with the same creative spirit that made this whole community what it is. The sad part for you is that you just want to have someone to blame. Do you really think that if microstock hadn't come along, your old world would be intact? Now, that's naive!
The only thing I'v got to do with macrostock is buying it for layouts. Maybe you should read and understand what you read, before you waste so many words just to make a fool of yourself. Btw, you didn't beat anybody just played your part in creating a mess, but I guess on your level dragging others down into to the mud is kinda of a victory. Being proud of that 'bulldozer thru your little playground'... bringing that into this thread in that context, that was smart dude, did you check the thread title? Congratulations. Microstock being fresh and creative : ) You gotta be sh*tt**g me. Maybe if you were raised in a barn. I've seen some very nice shots there yes, about 4%, maybe (and I probably know a lot more about the content than you). As someone justly pointed out on IS forums most of you just copied the shots of pros, than copied each other endlessly. But that's not big deal, because stock in general is anything but creative - it works around reproducing qiute banal cliches over and over, in a restrictive, narrowed down visual manner. If you want ceativity I suggest look you somehwere else... unless your idea of creativity is stuff like someone holding a copyspace banner upside down. ; )
182
« on: October 09, 2010, 03:29 »
Istock sent me an email to take the survey about their uploading and submitting system. So, I clicked to fill-out the survey, and then they started asking questions like, do I have a studio or not, do I have professional lighting equipment, do I hire professional models....
What kind of questions are that? What does this have with uploading process? My conclusion is that Istock just wants to learn more, to make some future changes, that will make the business better for "all of us".
What do you think?
They want to know which of you are professionally equipped. The rest is coverup, they know, everybody knows that theit upload system is medieval.
183
« on: October 09, 2010, 03:24 »
I just can't talk about this without pointing out that you did a lot to bring this on yourselves. and right now, you just sit around an take it... or rather have go at me than the people who actually took a nice big sh*t in your lap. Yeah that's reasonable. All you should have done is deactivte your files, non destructive, undoable.
Im getting quite tired of seeing these clueless statements from people who obviously do not take in hundreds or thousands of dollars a week from microstock. Everyone knows what is going on at istock is wrong. All this talk of taking the moral high ground and deactivating or deleting your images on istock must not have that much income to lose because in the end, money talks. For many successful exclusives, there seems to be no viable alternative.
Maybe its getting real crowded on itsock. maybe a ton of independants leave istock. maybe exclusives make more money with less competition. too many maybes
Okay, just sit there take it. Fine with me.
184
« on: October 08, 2010, 19:52 »
'than leave forever'
Assuming you meant 'then', maybe you could leave sooner -than- later.
your communiction kinda lacks variety. : ) you need to work on that. I'll leave way before you get bored of yourself, so don't worry
185
« on: October 08, 2010, 19:27 »
"It is always sad to see someone trying to put the blame of his failure on others."
agreed, and that's what you people are doing, in case you haven't noticed... you too, right now.
"And should everything fail, what I wouldn't to do is spending seven years in all available forum with all available nick moaning, crying and playing the prophet. I would consider suicide before adopting such clowning attitudes"
get a rope then, because that's you. funny how you despise an action while doing it. : ) I registered yesterday, never seen this place before.. but nice rant anyways, If that's any consolidation to you, I'm probably gonna have my say in a few things as it is due in a reasonably free world, and than leave forever, not that interested in all this. than you can go on monaning and crying, making up childish conspiracy theorries abnout some old nicks to all your liking
186
« on: October 08, 2010, 18:50 »
I'm still not sure if the part in the alamy terms where they say that RF and RM licences shouldn't be used for the same image appleis only to images on alamy or those that are also on other sites. It isn't clear to me and I wouldn't sell licenced there if they have been sold RF elsewhere.
This is what i can tell you, than you decide whether it's useful, or I'm just a fool next to these all knowing wisemen : ) I submitted a batch to alamy, and when batch editing, I punched in RF for all of them. I simply wasn't paying attention, and intended to upload those files elsewhere as RF too. Since you can't just remove stuff from alamy - deleting is a request that takes effect a year later as far as I can remember - I searched around if it's a problem, and found some old time stockers saying that you should never-ever go around selling the same thing as RF and RM. They looked like realiable sources, but I wanted to be thorough, and my realtive, a contratc lawyer knows about my little 'endeavours' and being a loyal nice guy always notes me to contact him if I run into any problem (that mostly means people not wanting to pay : ) ) So i did ask him if it's a problem, ha looked aorund, and said it yes, that definitely can be problem. So I wrtote to alamy if this can be changed, altho it says you can't change it. They responded very quickly, and changed the license, no hassla. Two big thumbs up for them, they seem to be very responsive and nice people.
187
« on: October 08, 2010, 18:26 »
Exclusivity has been pointless in micrstock for quite some time now, it's just that these sites got kinda big and really slow to react... but it's starting now.
Gosh, thank goodness you came around to point this out with your excellent reasoning for stating so. I may change my working paradigm now.
There wasn't reasoning, it was a simple statement.
At least he admits it 
You are both really good at pointing out the obviuos : )) Okay now... I didn't come here with the intention of being mean to you, I do find the way they are treating you dispicable, but I just can't talk about this without pointing out that you did a lot to bring this on yourselves. and right now, you just sit around an take it... or rather have go at me than the people who actually took a nice big sh*t in your lap. Yeah that's reasonable. All you should have done is deactivte your files, non destructive, undoable. When your elders went about making this world a more livable place, they had to fabricate signs, get to the streets and risk getting beaten up by the police, jailed, loosing their jobs, you name it... you just needed clicking around and you couldn't even do that. Shame on you, really.
188
« on: October 08, 2010, 18:04 »
Exclusivity has been pointless in micrstock for quite some time now, it's just that these sites got kinda big and really slow to react... but it's starting now.
Gosh, thank goodness you came around to point this out with your excellent reasoning for stating so. I may change my working paradigm now.
There wasn't reasoning, it was a simple statement. In short: content got way too generic. You are a smart boy, you can figure out how and why that makes it useless... since they can't just throw it away, they arrange things so they don't have to pay any notable benefits for it. Familiar?
190
« on: October 08, 2010, 13:00 »
I think what most people ment was destroying the industry as a noble means of making a good living for photographers, turning it into something far less respectable, reliable and stylish, not that the whole thing just stops.
Was my job supposed to be respectable, reliable and stylish? When I got my BFA, I was just hoping I wouldn't be working at McDonalds.
Any job supposed to be respectable and reliable. : ) Of course just a handfull of those are stylish at the same time.
191
« on: October 08, 2010, 12:22 »
But there's something many of you should realize: you are experiencing the same kind of aggressive intrusion into your little playfield, as did old time pros by you with the onslaught of microstock. They are kinda getting back at you for that .
Yeah. We get it. You don't like Microstock. Troll.
Sure, it's always the easiest to just call anyone a troll who has a different opinion. I find it kinda curious tho, how many of you even go down to the level of getting personal with someone criticizing the system that they got repeteadly shafted by in a really mean way... prejiduce never shows much reason, does it? It wasn't getty or anything, the going of things was built into this system. It was inevitable. You get into a business with sites competing by having super low cut flea-market prices, and than they compete among each other starting from that point... what . do you expect? Do you people ever think? jesus... : )
I personally welcome the alternate view. That's why I read this forum is to see what everyone is thinking (good or bad and right or wrong). I'd say I'm not too worried about the competition of the agency stuff, but I do worry that it is going to poison the well. That is, adding overpriced files to the micro collection at the top of searches may turn buyers away. Although, that worry is a little tempered by not really giving a crap about what IS does anymore. As far as revenge from the macros, someone is always claiming that one thing or another is destroying the industry, but the industry is still here.
I think what most people ment was destroying the industry as a noble means of making a good living for photographers, turning it into something far less respectable, reliable and stylish, not that the whole thing just stops. Sure, the corps make a lot of money the business is ok moneywise. Hey, the coal mining business was great back 100 years ago when 8 year old kids worked in the mines for pennies untill an early death. In my humble opinion, getty is trying to elimininate the low price market, but instead just putting up a "closed" sign on the site, (which is not unheard of in the corporate world: big company buys smaller one simply to close it down - even if it was making good profit) but demolish it from the inside. They probably just want to drive away the people who produce stuff that's not up to their style standards, which would be the tipical low-price-bulk micro style stuff that they don't want really want to be associated with, people shooting their car keys, and half eaten fortune cookies, and turning the whole thing into some overtly desciptive thing with a nasty typo. And than... raise the rest to regular prices.
192
« on: October 08, 2010, 12:05 »
well you just have to live with the fact that people can have their say and opinion about things, because, hey, maybe that's what forums are actually invented for.. Wrong. Forums are organized around an area of interest to share experiences and tips. It happens that this forum is organized around microstock. Since you're not interested in stock, your opinions are pretty worthless. Have a nice day and ploink.
You just repeated what I said about forums with different words. The fact is that I am interested in microstock, and you are infantile. All you do is rant like spoiled kids instead of any sensible argument, just because someone has opposing opinion about something. Grow up! Now! : D
193
« on: October 08, 2010, 11:36 »
I'm not a fan of any stock, I'm a fan of photography.
Gosh, too bad there aren't any "photography" forums on the internet for you to hang out in and you are forced to spend your time digging up old threads on a microstock forum, when you so clearly hate the medium... 
well you just have to live with the fact that people can have their say and opinion about things, because, hey, maybe that's what forums are actually invented for... but maybe in another life, where you are elected president of the universe, you'll get a remote controll that can mute people. untill that, get a dog or smthng : )
194
« on: October 08, 2010, 11:13 »
Welcome back, Macrosaur.
Hi microsour. Nice to see you. 8 )
That was just a little bit too fast Hippie, for credible deniability.  Bingo, I assume.
Actually I don't know what . are you talking yout, but have fun with it anyways : ) ok, i do get it that I'm supposed to be some old time foe here who's a fan macrostock. Well I'm not. I'm not a fan of any stock, I'm a fan of photography.
195
« on: October 08, 2010, 11:05 »
well... do you just generally beleive everything people tell you? thats all
No, actually, personally, I DON'T, and I, like a handful of others, questioned it. We were made assurances. We were operating on trust. We were betrayed. That trust has being irreconcilably destroyed.
Gloat on that.
Ok i get that. I very much doubt tho that you had any real assurances. I doubt even more that they really did think that's the way things will go when they said that. I have this question for you, seriuos question, please don't take it as any kind of mokckery no inention of that sort: would say now, that you were naive?
196
« on: October 08, 2010, 10:34 »
You guys really are being treated as 4th class citizens there. They also lied to you: they said the new content gonna go thru inspection just like your stuff. You have to go thru inspections, get a lot of rejections, and if you do get rejections, start all over with uploading, keywording, etc... The agency stuff was uploaded in bulk, and when found to have bad keywording, it just gets corrected by the nice people at istock for them : ) But if you do wrong keywording, you have to start all over and it's deducted from your upload limit. This is humiliating beyond all measures.
But there's something many of you should realize: you are experiencing the same kind of aggressive intrusion into your little playfield, as did old time pros by you with the onslaught of microstock. They are kinda getting back at you for that .
How this is different, is that it is our 'coachs and managers' have sold out to the big boys league and have invited them to take up residence and are giving them the advantage, on our home turf.
This is completely contrary to the field notes we were given:
QUOTE
"It's important for our professional photographers to understand that it's completely separate," says Getty director of photography and filmmaker relations Paul Banwell, adding, "It effectively means nothing changes. It's business as usual."
Similarly, iStock CEO Bruce Livingstone and vice president of marketing Kelly Thompson say their day-to-day operations will not change as a result of the sale to Getty.
"They want us to keep our culture. It's what makes our site great," Thompson says.
Getty spokesperson Deb Trevino and Thompson both say there are no plans to market the two brands together, or to direct traffic from one web site to the other.
END QUOTE
from this article - now only on the wayback machine
http://web.archive.org/web/20060317050825/http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001994651
well... do you just generally beleive everything people tell you? thats all
197
« on: October 08, 2010, 10:28 »
But there's something many of you should realize: you are experiencing the same kind of aggressive intrusion into your little playfield, as did old time pros by you with the onslaught of microstock. They are kinda getting back at you for that .
Yeah. We get it. You don't like Microstock. Troll.
Sure, it's always the easiest to just call anyone a troll who has a different opinion. I find it kinda curious tho, how many of you even go down to the level of getting personal with someone criticizing the system that they got repeteadly shafted by in a really mean way... prejiduce never shows much reason, does it? It wasn't getty or anything, the going of things was built into this system. It was inevitable. You get into a business with sites competing by having super low cut flea-market prices, and than they compete among each other starting from that point... what . do you expect? Do you people ever think? jesus... : )
198
« on: October 08, 2010, 10:13 »
Simple Istuck will do
199
« on: October 08, 2010, 10:11 »
I thought you might want to be concerned with setting yourself up as someone who speaks without knowing what they are talking of, but I see from this and the other thread that you're not afraid of that.
yeah you are the all knowing wise man, whatever... be happy with that : ) I guess every genre of forum has it's infantile local little long time bullies
200
« on: October 08, 2010, 09:05 »
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
