276
General Stock Discussion / Re: Cool Indiegogo Microstock Project
« on: May 23, 2012, 01:37 »
I'd be interested to check it out.
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. 276
General Stock Discussion / Re: Cool Indiegogo Microstock Project« on: May 23, 2012, 01:37 »
I'd be interested to check it out.
277
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Who is Lobo?« on: November 16, 2010, 16:43 »I can see how Lobo has angered a lot of people, and I'm not about to defend all the forum bannings and general surliness. Probably if I was still posting in the Istock forums I would have been banned by now too. Agreed. To me this is another prime example of why I really don't enjoy participating at this forum much. I don't really understand what people get out of personal attacks and negativity. 278
iStockPhoto.com / Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA« on: November 14, 2010, 03:24 »
Hmmm...maybe we have a different definition of "calling out" but I really feel this thread is a little discourteous.
Put yourself in the shoes of the photographer who's images were linked ... if you were to read the sarcastic thread title, and click on the thread only to find it's about your images and the relative pricing of one of your Vetta's being "a joke" while some people join in to have a good chuckle over it, how would you feel? If by any chance the photographer does think that image is worth the Vetta price then you've flat out insulted her judgment. On the other hand, the Vetta approval process seems to be just as subjective as normal iStock approvals and there has been frustration expressed on the contributor end too when trying to figure out how some of their similar images made the cut or didn't. You can't really know how this particular file ended up at Vetta pricing. I know my opinion probably means about as much as threads like these mean to iStock management I just don't like seeing the frustration that should be aimed at the company itself being taken out on individuals who aren't here to have their say. 279
iStockPhoto.com / Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA« on: November 13, 2010, 16:43 »
I think it's been proven several times over that the new Vetta prices in some cases create a very large price difference between very similar images. I do not think there is a need to be calling people out and linking to specific examples. Sorry, but I can't see how someone having similars that are Vetta/non Vetta in their portfolio affects you personally to the point that you feel justified in picking them apart on a public forum.
I understand venting about policies you don't agree with and that we are lucky to have a place here to do just that. But I still think it's very bad form to make it personal and link to people's images this way. If you feel that strongly about it and actually wonder what the photographer's thoughts are on this why don't you contact them privately and ask? (Realizing of course that they have absolutely no obligation to explain themselves to anyone.) 280
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Deactivating files on IS« on: November 11, 2010, 19:50 »
I can definitely say as an exclusive I had no sense of what people make at the other sites, but I'm happy to be finding out and significantly less worried than I was when I hit that cancel exclusivity button.
FYI iStock apparently deletes your stats tab if you deactivate your portfolio So if any of you who are deleting want to keep your past stats to compare I'd make sure you grab them first. Fair warning. 281
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Deactivating files on IS« on: November 11, 2010, 18:22 »
Oh I agree people can do very well without iStock and hopefully the misconception that you can't goes away sooner rather than later. As far as earning potential on the other micros goes I was very pleasantly surprised with sales numbers in my first month even with a very tiny sample group of images. Based on my experience so far I have absolutely no doubt I could get back to my average monthly earnings within a couple of months without the Getty beast.
I'm more hoping to prove that it's possible to do well with direct sales. I'm an idealist, I guess. I love the idea of not being at the mercy of waiting on payouts and worrying about search placement and being forced to offer extended licenses at some sites. (Not to mention the potential for some of these agencies to be bought out.) I'm taking it as a fun and hopefully profitable challenge. All I know is I have thoroughly learned my lesson about relying on agencies to stick to their word and putting all my eggs in one basket. 282
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Deactivating files on IS« on: November 11, 2010, 17:00 »
Don't worry, I have big plans. I have been testing out over a dozen other sites with a specific batch of images to get a feel for their policies, sales potential and uploading process. More exciting (to me at least) I've been working like crazy on getting a new site built as my own outlet for selling directly.
Edited to add: I was going to go into why I think this was a viable option before I realized that was wildly off topic Let's just say I'm setting out to prove that we can make money in this business without someone taking up to 85% commission on our sales. 283
General Stock Discussion / Re: Need help finding where to buy these figurines.« on: November 02, 2010, 17:33 »
They look like the kind of people you can buy for miniature train sets at a hobby store! I think you can buy some that you can paint yourself which might be good enough for copyright purposes but you'd probably want to check with individual agencies.
I would look up model railroad hobby supply websites like these: http://www.oakridgehobbies.com/index.php/arttista-o-scale-miniature-another-painted-lady-figure.html http://www.sceneryunlimited.net/arttista.php 284
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Unannounced (accidental?) vector price hike!?!« on: November 01, 2010, 21:04 »
Posted by Joyze: "We test a variety of features on the site for usability and performance. Remember when we tested the color change of the download button?
Some of these changes (like this particular one) may be temporary and others may become permanent. This kind of testing will help us ensure we balance the needs of the contributors, the customers and the business." Since when are unannounced price fluctuations considered testing a "site feature"? To compare that to changing the color of a button is downright ridiculous. So it's completely okay to them that buyers for that week paid more than would normally, hoping they wouldn't notice? Was that the test? And don't we have a contract that we sign as contributors and rely on the posted prices to know at what price point our work is being sold? They really love to play with that "may change at any time" CYA clause these days it seems. And why for the love all that is holy did it take 10 days to get that answer, despite pleas by the vector community. Really? Does this mean Jenn (Bortonia) tried to look in to it over a week ago and they kept her and ostensibly all other admins with access to the help forum in the dark? Or were we just not worthy of an answer. Because it feels more like the latter. I think I'll go delete my last five illustrations. I have enough confidence in my work and in the many other avenues for licensing it that I don't need to stick around and be treated with such blatant disrespect. 285
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Unannounced (accidental?) vector price hike!?!« on: October 26, 2010, 21:02 »
Edited while you were posting In my case I could see right away I wasn't going to make that target, but if it looked like I would have and if there had been a more fair set of vector targets and a little better handling of communication I'm sure I would have waited until at least January to decide. Sorry for being WAY off topic now! lol
286
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Unannounced (accidental?) vector price hike!?!« on: October 26, 2010, 20:40 »
Well I did day "what I perceived" as pretend confusion and to be clear I was referring to the company line not the person who delivered it. Maybe that's too harsh but it's absolutely the impression I got. In my opinion, this thread speaks for itself: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=252412&page=1
I personally felt the "answers" that were given insulted the intelligence of contributors. I fully believe that no one was authorized to say anything else but what was said, and at the end of the day that's a reflection of company policy not the employees. I also understand that bill collectors and mortgage holders don't care about your moral high ground. Personally that wouldn't stop me from getting out of there as soon as possible if I felt very strongly that what was going on was wrong. Everyone has different circumstances in life and I very much empathize with anyone who's personal situation forces them to work for an employer who's policies they no longer agree with. It should be noted however, that we don't actually know that any current employees do object to what's going on at iStock. It's all speculation at this point. Just wanted to add (because tone gets lost in writing) that I wasn't arguing with Retrorocket, or even disagreeing really. Just explaining how it looks from where I sit, and trying hard to keep a balanced perspective. Not easy these days! 287
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Unannounced (accidental?) vector price hike!?!« on: October 26, 2010, 19:15 »
I've certainly never seen it that blatant. I'm more used to the "it's this way because we said so." shut downs than this extraordinary level of obfuscation. Believe me I'm as frustrated as I can be with the whole company, but I'm not trying to launch personal attacks on specific people I've interacted with through the years either, which is all I was trying to say at the end there.
288
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Unannounced (accidental?) vector price hike!?!« on: October 26, 2010, 17:45 »
I couldn't do it personally. But then I've always been allergic to BS and corporate red tape. I suppose this is just my last few shreds of loyalty that have yet to fall away. Old habits die hard. But really the non response and what I perceived as pretend confusion in "answering" why vector contributors targets are double photogs was the last straw. Had I not already metaphorically jumped ship, that is
289
TheArtofBusinessCards.com / Re: My portfolio at the Art of Business Cards« on: October 26, 2010, 17:13 »
Nice! You know I had totally forgotten about this site. I only have 15 designs up form several years ago but I still get a sale here and there. May be time to go back and freshen up the designs there. I remember the people who run this site being quite nice to work with.
290
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Unannounced (accidental?) vector price hike!?!« on: October 26, 2010, 15:12 »
Sure, it's not a huge change but at this point it's a respect issue. To not even clarify for the people that did ask whether this is a bug or planned price hike (and I can't for the life of me figure out how this could be a bug,) is downright ridiculous. To hear from the admin that's supposed to be in charge of the vector community "we are looking into it." as if it's news to the admins and to still not have an answer three days later is crazy.
Does this mean we are supposed to believe no one was able to tell Bortonia whether it's a "bug"? Because the only other option there is that they either a) raised prices and didn't even tell essential staff or b) we are being given the run around. (Again.) I should add here that I like Jenn and this isn't in any way an attack on her, more directed at the brutal lack of communication apparently going on not only to contributors but within the company as well. 291
iStockPhoto.com / Re: iStock's Agency Collection Pricing« on: October 25, 2010, 17:59 »oh.. and just if any besides me cares, - today is my last day as an iStock exclusive. My 30 days are up today - so tomorrow my other ports start going live! I'm going to document this new excursion in case anyone cares to see how this new journey/chapter from exclusive to independent is faring for me. working on setting up a blog but for now just have it documented in a private journal. Mine expired just a couple of weeks ago too. I was considering doing a few of articles on my adventures with learning new sites especially as the vector process is different for each. It's been quite the learning experience! lol Congrats on the big decision and good luck! 292
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Unannounced (accidental?) vector price hike!?!« on: October 22, 2010, 14:35 »
The thread on this was moved to the help forum. That seems odd. I would think less people would see it there if they have the same question.
293
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Unannounced (accidental?) vector price hike!?!« on: October 22, 2010, 13:52 »
This would be an interesting "bug" since the prices were updated on the pricing page as well. Very odd that Jenn didn't know about it. It really does seem that there is something new going on all the time there now.
294
PicNiche Toolbar / Re: picNiche problems« on: October 19, 2010, 22:23 »
Thanks Bob!
I will try that out, the rest of the sites work perfectly and I really love the toolbar. As a newly non-exclusive contributor your tools are super helpful and I've recommended them to a few other who are just coming out of contract lockdown. 295
PicNiche Toolbar / Re: picNiche problems« on: October 19, 2010, 18:30 »
Hmm I can't even click it to get to my earnings page the problem for is that it won't pick up my username and password no matter what I do, so I always get the "No user name match" notification popping up.
296
iStockPhoto.com / Re: iStock changing royalty structure« on: October 07, 2010, 16:53 »I'm going to bet they had the keyword "setting" maybe outdoor setting or something of that nature that got "disambiguated" to setting the table within iStock's lovely keywording system. And perhaps since they all got dumped in so fast and have other special privileges the keywords are not being reviewed at time of upload. I looked at a few of the images keywords and setting the table is the only really funky one in there and its there for a ton of them. The one that irritates me more is "business" on an image of a young guy in a t-shirt with no business props clothing or backgrounds, mentioned earlier. I'm quite sure under normal circumstances that wouldn't fly. Totally agree. I have given up on anything making sense there anymore, there are just too many crap things over the last month to list. If this wasn't affecting every aspect of my business and to some extent my sanity it might be comical how many errors are being made on the part of iStock/Getty management. It's like a course in how not to run a business. 297
iStockPhoto.com / Re: iStock changing royalty structure« on: October 07, 2010, 14:47 »
I'm going to bet they had the keyword "setting" maybe outdoor setting or something of that nature that got "disambiguated" to setting the table within iStock's lovely keywording system. And perhaps since they all got dumped in so fast and have other special privileges the keywords are not being reviewed at time of upload. I looked at a few of the images keywords and setting the table is the only really funky one in there and its there for a ton of them. The one that irritates me more is "business" on an image of a young guy in a t-shirt with no business props clothing or backgrounds, mentioned earlier. I'm quite sure under normal circumstances that wouldn't fly.
298
Illustration - General / Re: Submitting Non-EPS8 compatible files?« on: October 05, 2010, 13:51 »
That's true, I forgot to add if you are going to mess with expanding things start simple and I highly recommend having a plugin to check for open paths too, it can get messy
299
Illustration - General / Re: Submitting Non-EPS8 compatible files?« on: October 05, 2010, 13:29 »
Info on SS http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=74817
As for getting some effects that look like the image above in an eps 8 I'm not 100% sure but I know you can achieve a lot of transparency-like effects as long as you expand things out before saving. Also may be worth it mess around with blends and mesh fill which is actually eps 8 compatible. (iStock accepts this as long as it's noted in the description not sure if any other sites reject for it yet.) 300
StockFresh / Re: StockFresh - from Peter Hamza and Andras Pfaff« on: October 04, 2010, 14:05 »Hi Peter! There a few pretty small agencies approving and reviewing photos pretty soon with 3 or 4 persons.. I just don't understand why you aren't? Are the reviews like IS, more than 1 week? I dont get it sorry..! I am talking about GLO GLO seems to be a different sort of site all together. Also when an agency is being run by someone with this much experience I don't think it's necessary to keep trying to tell them how to do their job. (Or at least that's how it seems to be coming across.) I think it's really great that Peter comes in here to update us on things and I'd hate to discourage that direct communication with continuous bashing on the point. |
|