Quote from: cclapper on May 05, 2011, 19:22

I'm astonished that people are even considering this, especially with a 6-month lock! A new round of koolaid must have been passed out.

I wouldn't touch that offer with a 12-inch turd, especially with the way they have lied, misled and cheated their contributors out of hard earned and well deserved commissions. 

ROFL at both of you.

"a 12-inch turd" *snigger*

You ungrateful contributors! He worked his ass off and he's jet-lagged! Poor KKT

Quote from: caspixel on May 04, 2011, 17:31

Quote from: gostwyck on May 04, 2011, 15:09

...Microstock was based on cheap images, all at the same price, selling in large volumes to a grateful public. As far as Shutterstock are concerned ... it still is.

And 123RF and Stockfresh. They seem to be maintaining the old model for the moment. Dreamstime is drifting away as well.

Where are you shopping these days (out of curiosity)? I applied to Stockfresh (which feels a lot like StockXpert did, unsurprisingly) as I thought it had some potential (even though it's early days). What do you like about 123rf as a buyer?

Simple pricing structure - 1, 2, 3 4, 5 and some pricier options for TIFFs and really huge files (which don't bother me). They do have a premium collection, but it is very clearly marked and you can exclude it. Credits at the lowest package are $1 = 1 credit and they go down from there. Unless I'm mistaken, it looks like contributors get a 50% royalty rate. Quality of photos looks to be the same as at the other sites. Search can return some irrelevant results sometimes, but I'll live with it.

Quote from: sharpshot on May 04, 2011, 15:02

This just doesn't seem like istock any more.  I wonder if someone will start a rival site that's like the old istock?  The previous owners might of singed something to stop them doing that but if so many people liked the old istock but can't get on with this one, I wonder if they might end up doing something to get back to the site they loved.

Too late. I think Shutterstock have already 're-invented' microstock ... by doing virtually nothing whilst all around were losing their heads.

Microstock was based on cheap images, all at the same price, selling in large volumes to a grateful public. As far as Shutterstock are concerned ... it still is.

And 123RF and Stockfresh. They seem to be maintaining the old model for the moment. Dreamstime is drifting away as well.

Asking a graphic designer to build a website would be like asking an engineer to paint a portrait. Or asking a painter to program a computer. The point is that a good website is some percent good code and some percent good graphic design

Modern sites need to be built by people with very good coding and code optimization skills. And they need to know about methodological approaches to database and code design etc. Graphic designers are people who are there to talk about the look and feel, branding, themes, typography etc.

It's teams who build good websites today. Almost everyone else is better off with a customization of a content management system. eg Squarespace etc. IMO (and especially with respect to the long term maintenance and evolution of the code, backend, site security etc).

ETA: that sounds kind of almost controversial, reading it back. It is not supposed to be. I love and admire great graphic design - I grew up loving the work of Neville Brody and Peter Saville etc - and all the things I found out about including certain photography because of what they were about.  The point is that people who love code should be coding and people who love design graphics should be doing that. For the most part.

I totally agree. Back when sites were just HTML and the coding was pretty basic, graphic designers could get away with doing both. I can get away with coding sites when they have been simple and finally learned how to do table-less sites a couple years ago, but I know I don't have the in-depth knowledge to know the ins and outs of truly optimized CSS. It all changes so fast and I honestly hate the browser compatibility issues. So, I can do it, sort of, but I'm moving towards a time when I can pay someone to at least create the initial HTML/CSS so it's properly done and I can save myself the extra hours of tearing my hair out. And anything that has dynamic content - forget it. I'll happily pay someone to do that or customize WordPress for people.

I do think it is ironic that a lot of companies are looking for people who do it all. It's rare to find designers who are great coders and vice-versa. Different parts of the brain. I wish I was a genius like that...but I'm not. Guess I better stay freelance.

In my opinion there is DEFIANTLY an ulterior motive...should I say strategy..behind the behavior of the IS principles. 

Did you mean DEFINITELY, not DEFIANTLY? Just curious if that was a typo. Either way, it fits. Because they sure do seem to be DEFIANTLY disregarding the complaints of both buyers and contributors. And they are DEFINITELY doing that as well.

Except it seems like more and more most of our clients think they can do the work themselves. Pretty soon we'll all be out of a job. :/

I know what you mean.

On the other hand...this is not related to photography, but web design. In the past couple of weeks, I have had 3 clients tell me that they tried to build a site on their own, because they thought it would be easy. Turns out, it's actually not! Even with templates and content management.
[/quote]

Ah that's good. I've heard a few people acknowledge it's difficult and realize that it's not worth the time, and others who like to "figure it out". Of course they are only figuring out the HTML and their CMS, not the design part. People don't seem to understand that there's more to building a site than text and some photos stuck on a page. It's like when people think it's the CAMERA that takes the great photos, not the person who is using it. Oh vell.

If things continue to look so dismal, I wonder if iStock will eliminate the monthly sales threads. Certainly doesn't look good for the company.

Quote from: caspixel on May 03, 2011, 09:56

Instead of attacking me, why don't you give us your version of what they are all looking at?

I just did!

PS.  No one is attacking you.  You just don't like my opinion and I don't like yours.  Move on *.

Saying I'm drunk when I post (which you conveniently now deleted) is an attack. Just because you don't like what I'm saying doesn't mean I'm drunk. From what you have been saying, it's pretty easy to conclude that nothing short of *your* first hand witnessing of the event would convince you otherwise. I don't think I'm the one that needs to move on. Just sayin'.

Instead of attacking me, why don't you give us your version of what they are all looking at?

�The neighbours knew the owners of the house � the courier and his brother, described as ethnic Pashtuns � as secretive types. They dispatched children to buy food at local shops, and although they regularly prayed at a local mosque, they didn't engage in small talk.�

So if OBL is reqularly traveling to and from the local mosque, doesn�t the government have footage or photos of this? 

That proves what exactly? That maybe they saw *some* people who came and went from the house? No one knows if OBL ever left that house or not. They thought the courier owned the house, but where is a courier going to get the money to build a million dollar compound.

You accuse other people of blindly following the government, but you take every little thing and supply a sinister angle to it. I actually think it's laughable that you, and only you, seem to now the truth. LOLOLOL

1.   We have a 40 minute firefight and a video of a room that doesn�t look like it was in a 40 minute firefight.
2.   We have a burnt down mansion and a room that doesn�t look like it was involved in a fire.
3.   We have a dead OBL but the body was disposed of immediately.
4.   We have apparent DNA evidence that was gathered and ivestigated by the people who are telling this story.
5.   We have Obama saying no American was injured or hurt in this fight, yet one of the US choppers was shot down and crashed into the mansion destroying further evidence.
6.   We have OBL supposedly hiding in a mansion located close to the Pakistan military base... is this going to be used as an excuse in the future to start a fight with Pakistan to get in there and take their Nuclear weapons?
7.   We have eight months of surveillance by the US government, yet there is no footage of OBL or anyone in that time.
8.   We have images of OBL on CNN claiming to be �new� photos of OBL yet he doesn�t look any older than he did 10 years ago.

1. Who said the entire 40 minute firefight was held in one room? And what does a room look like after a 40 minute firefight? Did you see the video of the room? It was trashed and there was blood all over the floor. Probably faked too though, right?
2. The compound was 1 acre. What makes you think the helicopter crashed directly into where they were fighting or that the mansion was burnt down?
3. Probably not the wisest choice, but supposedly there are photos.
4. Who would you expect to gather and test the evidence?
5. How do you know the copter crashed into the mansion?
6. No.
7. How do you know survelliance means *video* sureveillance? There are lots of ways to monitor people, not just by video. And it's unlikely they were even able to get video. I did not see any reports of them claiming they had video surveillance.
8. Haven't heard about any "new" photos of OBL. Is that CNN's goof or the governments?