Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on March 19, 2011, 14:36

Quote from: madelaide on March 19, 2011, 14:34

when did the best match change, so I can give a reply?

Since 2007 the changes I have noticed have been around the 17th of March and November of each year. I think they do other changes as well, but I havent noticed. 

Too early for me to tell, but if old good sellers are up, that is good for me.

Two things come to my mind when I read these kind of news:

1. I have no direct experience with them but - with all the bad things that have been said - why did the new owner bother to resurrect that brand instead of starting anew?

2. On a general note - while many of us (not all) are whining about the crisis of microstock - more and more new agencies are opening every day - are they just plain crazy or the microstock model is not declining and there's space for further developments?

my first thought was that it was the same owners, and I still wonder as I struggle to imagine anyone paying for the site and collection.

my best selling image on IS has made me over $2000, So Istock has made over $8000 on this image alone. I would think that it was justified that I would get some level of support if required.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=314342&page=14

hmm, any size $1

most sold photo is 4 sales of myson the 'holly' land

http://www.albumo.com/MY-SON-HOLLY-LAND/stock-photo-842452.html

(yep I have typos too), when we were there a few months back, people thought me and my kids were weird as we spent half and hour following and photographing an absolutely gorgeous snake

yes, couldnt read it on email (dark grey text on black??) but has a link to view in browser

http://www.blog.fantero.com/Fantero-Network-News/Welcome-from-the-fantero-creative-network/Blog-2329.html

I know some people dont like traffic stats but

http://www.cubestat.com/www.fantero.com

959 daily pageviews (scanstock 3404, featurepics ~ 40k)

deleted

Quote from: ComfortEagle2095 on March 16, 2011, 00:53

I realized if it wasn't for microstock I never would have learned to take a good picture.  I used to noodle around with snapshots here and there--always thought I could take a good picture but didn't have any other aspirations.  Looking back I shudder to remember what I used to think was a good picture.  

I was given my first digital camera as a gift.  One day, being bored, I uploaded a few snaps to a site  a friend mentioned to me.  Sometime later, someone bought one.  Maybe you know how great that can feel.  That $0.21 meant a lot to me then.

So I kept trying to get that feeling over and over again.  It kept getting harder all the time.  Microstock kept pushing me.  I kept improving, buying better equipment, learning more about tools, taking classes.

Now I think much of what I shoot is as good as anyone's.  I've done pro work outside of stock and have numerous publishing credits.  More importantly I have people who love photos I've made for them.  Someone told me recently that portraits I took for them are "treasures".  Maybe you know how satisfying that is.

So even though I no longer think I'll ever make my living from microstock I believe I could make a living with my camera some other way if I wished.  More importantly, I've a creative outlet that brings me great joy and satisfaction.  I've learned so much.  I see the world in ways I never imagined before.  None of this ever would have happened without the micros.  I'll always be thankful for that, at least.

Agree. I realised how bad my early photos were thanks to microstock.

Then, I realised how bad the microstock style is. Nevertheless, what I learned - regarding technical issues - is unvaluable, beyond microstock.

yes, I am a better photographer for doing stock. But I did a weekend with Bobby Deal (photoshow, which I'd recommend if anyone is in Vegas) and looked at his pics and realised that for the past few years all I'd looked at was good selling stock and remember how good some different styles are - like stuff with lots of shadows

I also did the school formal a couple of weeks ago. I walked in knowing that I was giving the images away so no worries about needing perfection or stunning photos or the cost of the shoot, and having done a few shoots with this year group was pretty comfortable with them and they with me. I did formal shots when wanted but mostly the kids stuffing around with their mates (I'd also taken in a few sets of angel wings and other props), I tried to shoot while doing the nutbush and the timewarp, twice was literally on the floor laughing so hard etc etc. Anyway we 'decorated' the gym partly with A0 prints of each of the kids (waist up so larger than life size), I took the shots a few weeks before, ran portraiture over them, processed 30 pics in under 2 hours, less than half would technically be good enough for stock, a number were soft, most were between 10-15mp crops (one was 6mp), another dad printed them on photo paper (his expertise is click b&w and then print). They were absolutely stunning, yes get 6 inches away and you could see the softness but really who cares? everyone (including another photographer was amazed) so I am looking at the technicalities of stock, tiny amounts of noise or artifacts that I struggle to find at 100% on a 24mp image and asking is it really an issue on an image that sells for a few dollars? throw that in with istock and fotolia and it is hard to be motivated (I'm sure in a month or two I'll feel better about it again

thanks,

more about him on wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergey_Prokudin-Gorsky

google images has more of his images too

This is interesting (via Cogent_Marketing):

I forwarded the NDA to a colleague of mine this evening - he is a sitting District Court Judge in the UK. He was immediately concerned by the contents of the NDA and sent it onto a QC (Queens Counsel) based in a London chambers for comment. She has now responded back, pro bono.

Her feedback is interesting. Without the legalistic jargon - "This NDA is unenforceable under English or international law and is in contradiction to seven specific and identifiable criteria of non-disclosure censure" I quote, "even a very junior counsel could ride a horse and carriage through this NDA in either an English or an international court". It would also be unenforceable.

I'll state in again, only this could happen in Canada. What a bunch of amateurs. They cannot even get the wording of an NDA. What possible hope do they have in stopping the theft of our copyrighted IPR's?

I saw a couple of things that I was dubious about, but seven? ROFLAMO

I've uploaded a few images this year, cant really be bothered. Had a blast shooting my daughters school social, doing some landscapes that have little stock potential, doing other stuff, keep thinking I should get back to stock but cant really be bothered.

What is the current exclusive / independant ratio? the 5 should be divided the same 3-4 independants, 1-2 exclusives LOL

Does noone else see the analogy with the ideal that the majority should be represented solely by the minority as they cannot be trusted and the minority knows whats best. The majority still havent even been told if they have a vote at all. To keep the analogy going further, while there is at least 30000 independants, how many go to istock forums and post? We just congratulate Lisa in our own part of town.

One thing that has not been touched on is wheather or not we may need a model / property release for the cow in the field. Yes the photo may be taken in a public place but most dairy cows ( holsteins, black & white ) are as identifiable as any person!

you have to clone out tags and such. I'd expect someone could sue if they could identify much like they can for pets