Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on September 18, 2014, 08:56

"Deborah Dorchak - Also, the larger images sizes made no difference to me. I have a plugin on my Photoshop that allows me to blow up an image to any size without losing the resolution. I saved a lot of money over the years buying 1 credit images and then blowing them up as needed."

thanks for the laugh Deborah

Obviously, they're not going to be the quality she thinks they are, but there's nothing that says she can't modify the image as needed.  There's no licensing terms that say an image has to be used at or below the size licensed.

I've never paid a fee for any Paypal payout from an MS site.  The site always picks up the bill.

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on September 16, 2014, 08:38

Quote from: stock-will-eat-itself on September 16, 2014, 06:52

Just out of interest why do you still support DP when they pay a 3% royalty? It seems at odds with why you support Stocksy.

A: My response was to the idea that small buyers do not deserve the opportunity to license content legally.  It had nothing to do with who pays what royalty, so I'm not sure where you pulled that out of.
B: I don't participate in the program that you are referring to, so I don't support it.

Sorry, my comment was random I just saw the DP logo on your post.

How did you opt out of the DP subs programme?

I asked and said I wasn't interested otherwise.

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on September 15, 2014, 14:05

Our budget doesn't support this sort of pricing. Please bring back the smaller sizes at a reduced rate. Otherwise we have no choice but to pursue other more economical options for web-resolution images.  "

if they can't afford micro images i'm sorry but there's no reason for them to stay in a business where they require stock images, simple as that, and good riddance.

pursueing cheaper options ? where ? how ? the other agencies will move in the same direction sooner or later.

web resolution ? 1024px screens are the minimum even on cheap smartphones nowadays.

Oh, stop being so melodramatic.  There are lots of people who would like to pay for an image they can use, just like people want to pay $1 for a song on itunes, to be legal.

Why would you think that?

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on September 15, 2014, 09:33

Churches, schools, students, small businesses, scouts, ad circulars, etc., were the backbone of the explosive growth in micro.

That was a pre Facebook, pre iPhone, pre YouTube world. Once upon a time, when fast internet and digital cameras were new.

Little shops and church groups do not need vanity websites or blogs today. The social media is a much more effective way for them to communicate. And they can get the content they need shared and 'liked' via their 'friends'.

That's not at all the usage I'm talking about.  Churches use images during their services, in powerpoints, and in their flyers.  Small shops advertise in local circulars using images to catch eyes, and even on television sometime.  Students use images in presentations for classes and so do teachers.

They are working through the huge backlog.  I believe that there were 10 or so new members added last week. 

Quote from: Julied83 on September 15, 2014, 06:18

I just don't like the categories when editing and image. Hard to find quicky the best one.

It's surprising that they removed categories so quickly, given that "The marketing research we did back in February this year was exclusively buyer centric, without completely recognizing sellers needs", which implies that they put categories in because buyers had asked for it.
Hmmm.

They seem to be willing to change anything people complain about or point out, which means they really didn't do their research or they just copied the same features as every other site and don't particularly feel strongly about anything they've implemented.   Get rid of categories?  Ok, sure, whatever.  Taxes?  What?  Ok, we'll just pay that if it's an issue.  Etc.

Buyer comments:
From the forum: "We use photos with low dimensions, specifically for online use. But now with new pricing system, the price of 1 photo is: 3 credits x $15 = $45 (before 3$-$5)... !?"
From my blog: "The latest change has made me leave iStockPhoto for other alternatives, because mostly, I only need XS and S sizes. It just isn't worthwhile to pay $8 or $24 for one picture that I only need 200 pixels wide.  Personally, I think charging the same price for a 600 pixel wide image as a 6000 pixel wide image is crazy."
From twitter: "*Improved* @iStock photo prices raise my monthly a la carte stock photo costs from $54.90 to approx. $300. Loyal customer since 2006 = Done"

No one is going to stop someone who has purchased a license from using it on social media as long as it doesn't violate one of the usual terms.

Looks like they dropped the price for the "essentials" sub plan and raised the priced for the "signature" sub plan, yes?
http://www.istockphoto.com/plans-and-pricing

And the one month signature plan is $500.  No extra for the contributor from that, though, right?

And the pricing slider is gone, whose functionality is covered by the now confusing "subscriptions" filter.

Incredible coincidence that three new msg members randomly signed up in the last fortnight, all of whom are very enthusiastic about Stocktal.

Lol.  Busted.

Hey - when I'm trying to drag and drop to upload to SS, the upload doesn't work - it just shows me my image, as if I had dragged the image into a new tab or something.  Trying to manually select files results in the upload blocks just sitting there, not doing anything.

Just me?