|
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 - SNP
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 ... 54
376
« on: October 14, 2011, 12:17 »
I believe real identities should be required. it prevents bashing behind anonymity and allows for qualification of comments and experience. I would also support Tyler requiring verification upon registration, even if a user chooses to be anonymous in the forum to avoid agency backlash.
another thing Tyler, is that bringing back the ignore stats has fueled the sophomoric attitude that pervades here. I realize the quickest accusation at me will be that with 31 members ignoring me I'm biased. I'm not making the suggestion for that reason. I can be very blunt and people react, and I realize my tone is not conveyed well in a forum. it is what it is. not to mention as an iStock exclusive, I'm a relative minority here. but I am not anonymous and I stand behind my comments or I readily apologize for any if appropriate. the point being that allowing people to count ignore stats is entirely childish and it is a game that add fuels to the fire in already negative threads here. keep the function, lose the public rating visibility. keep reputations, that function seems to be used well.
allowing anonymous users to post freely also allows for multiple accounts and trolling running amuck. as it does here frequently.
377
« on: October 14, 2011, 11:17 »
As one of my CN pointed out, why did iStock not get all the relevant skinny from Getty before they started?
What's the point of being in the Getty 'family' without that sort of support.
EdStock has a few statues - will they be purged? If so, will they be restored to RM at Getty.
I don't think anything will be purged that comes from Getty. There are two sets of rules: The Getty rules for their wholly-owned content trucked in to fill our collection. And the rules for iStock contributors, which may as well be shackles. what applies to us doesn't apply to their content. simple as that.
378
« on: October 13, 2011, 23:51 »
So does that mean those isolated iPhone shots will have to go?
I assume that this only applies to future uploads. iPhone shots can still be licensed, which makes this announcement a joke.
For some strange reason, new, up-to-date legal requirements always only apply to future submission and not to existing IS content, no idea how that would play out in court though...
I'm frustrated like crazy over iStock "editorial"...but they are removing existing content when it doesn't submit to current editorial policy. they've said it a number of times. TPTB have stated that currently iPhone and iPad etc., images are acceptable. if in future this were to change, they would pull offending content AFAIK. that being said, there are so many files under Edstock that shouldn't be accepted, period...that I don't blame anyone for lacking confidence in what we're being told
379
« on: October 13, 2011, 18:51 »
iStock has made it very clear that they don't know what to do about editorial. Getty has made it very clear that iStock's editorial kahunas are in a jar on a shelf...if you'll pardon the crass expression. I don't feel remotely motivated to sell my editorial through iStock. except maybe the 'editorial' snapshots I grab while traveling. and since I'm a nobody when it comes to editorial, Getty couldn't care less about my work either.
so I'll be submitting my best editorial only to agencies that continue to show interest in my work. the biggest obstacle there is my exclusivity at iStock, and currently that's not under consideration. it prevents us from allowing editorial work to be sold RF....but it doesn't matter, I'll still put the work into those agencies that value my editorial images and who have come to me, rather than knocking on Getty doors as quickly as they're slammed in my face.
380
« on: October 11, 2011, 16:42 »
I shoot seasonal stuff, all year every year. it makes a significant difference in terms of getting sales during periods where other contributors are reporting downturns. at least that's my experience.
381
« on: October 08, 2011, 12:53 »
fun thread. depends on the mood, but I listen to a lot of Matthew Good while editing:
383
« on: October 03, 2011, 13:01 »
sorry, I don't think it is worthy. I'd say no chance, but that's just me
384
« on: October 03, 2011, 12:46 »
lol, Sean beat me to it. but you get the point, good luck ;-)
385
« on: October 03, 2011, 12:46 »
nice composition, but not sharp enough. you have some chromatic abberation (just a little, blue fringing). and it is a little boring and flat. I wouldn't use it for an application photo. would also be helpful if you were to show us the other application photos you plan on uploading, since they like to see a variety.
386
« on: October 01, 2011, 17:05 »
does seems that way...I hope they're not so silly to absorb, then break apart such a successful brand (iStock)
387
« on: October 01, 2011, 17:04 »
I'm disappointed to see that you've deleted your posts Goldmund. I think the points you raised were/are important. I understood you weren't pimping with the examples you provided.
388
« on: September 30, 2011, 10:51 »
My decision to resign is not the subject of this topic so let's not go into that. I am raising here a valid concern and any half decent person to just look at these and many other examples will see no reason to punish me for criticizing the obvious double standard policy. Istock's success is in my best interest and I am doing what is in my power to point to flaws of the system that have potential to affect this success. And we are not in middle ages, there are written agreements that define obligations of contracted parties. I have not nor do I intend to breach any of my obligations so I don't see what "punishment" could possibly await me.
I really applaud your attitude and your willingness to discuss problems reasonably. legitimate success is in all of our best interest, and we're all invested to varying degrees...to expect us to sit back and look the other way on these issues is unfair and disrespectful of our labours. I'm not going to post any of my rejections, though lately I seem to have royally ticked off some Vetta Gods...not to mention Agency. But one examples of a file that should not be Agency: http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14626236-businessman-playing-the-cup-game.php?st=2bc2ca0
389
« on: September 29, 2011, 13:32 »
speaking of which, I'm reading Onward by Howard Schultz right now. My sister gave it to me. I like Starbucks coffee as much as anyone else, but Schultz is about as egomaniacal as it gets. talk about taking yourself way too seriously. has kind of turned me off Starbucks, lol.
390
« on: September 29, 2011, 13:05 »
it still seems to be how they like to announce changes. some contributors seem to enjoy it. I don't. I don't like surprises.
391
« on: September 29, 2011, 12:46 »
he may be required to release information in bits and pieces, a function of his role and part of the culture at iStock--the whole F5 business. but IMO he is as genuine as it gets. French is his first language, which seems to affect his communication in English. I'm not defending the dramatic style of communication, it's a personal choice and I'd definitely prefer a factual, concise communication style. but I do not for a moment question his sincerity. that was solidified meeting him in person.
392
« on: September 29, 2011, 11:09 »
sales are consistent and surging here. I know that's not the case for everyone, but within my contributor friends group, we all seem to be reporting similar surges. in test searches, I'm seeing a good best match right now. including independent files, a mix of exclusive, E+, vectors, video, audio and a peppering of Vetta and Agency. not sure what I would do to improve on that. what are the specific problems people are seeing? I do see some weighting on newer files....
some of the test terms I use are:
business
family
woman
man
holiday
children
businessman
beach
393
« on: September 29, 2011, 11:03 »
I think all this fuss is once again over the evasive communication and not the real issue. I don't believe JJ is maliciously being evasive. he is a very sincere person and is another of the HQ people who is truly behind the community. saying that, I wish they would just scrap this type of announcement and stick to facts. I would gladly take point form lists of changes we'll be seeing, without any drama.
394
« on: September 28, 2011, 14:48 »
I'm looking at it from the point of view of exclusives who might see this as an opportunity, compared to exclusive royalties at iStock, it would still be a big hit to go non-exclusive....not comparing to independent.
395
« on: September 28, 2011, 14:36 »
interesting, fairly low royalties though
396
« on: September 28, 2011, 12:31 »
clearly the revenge gene is strong in that one.
397
« on: September 28, 2011, 11:59 »
I'd have put money on Andrew not coming back *surprised face*
he's an accomplished writer. I read his first book, loved it. I wasn't surprised he came back, he had mentioned he was working on a new book. he is one of the "truly committed to istock" personalities. a really nice guy.
398
« on: September 28, 2011, 11:57 »
I'm guessing it's time to bring Getty's other collections into IStock. First, let's bring in a seemingly harless collection, like editorial, to test the induction process, then bring over the others.
you're not even an istock contributor, you never have been. I appreciate that they try to keep things warm and fuzzy, but I think it would be received a lot better if they just put things out there, clearly. no drama, no f5, no carrot dangling. I'd guess that most of us just want to know how this is going to affect our sales and evasive announcements make it seem that there is something to hide, even if there isn't.
399
« on: September 27, 2011, 21:02 »
I dont know how files are weighted, but I've always wondered if size affects best match placement, at least sometimes. if true, 3D files could get ahead of photos since most renders are really large. I usually create xxx large files when I render 3D files. I know other contributors do this too. just a theory.
400
« on: September 27, 2011, 20:31 »
If this best match is truly a result of what the customers want and if it will bring in more buyers and increase our sales, so be it.
But if proven sellers get killed every year, than we will all be forced to endlessly duplicate our content, otherwise downloads will go to those who copy us. I would prefer to shoot new concepts or at least try a new twist on an old theme. But if things stay like this, we wont have a choice.
But the search is so similar to the newest file search, that I wonder what is the purpose of a best match, if this is the result?
Anyway, it will change unexpectedly, guess that is the only thing that is certain.
this sums it up well. I'm seeing the normal September surge here, but I have new files. I know it can and will change just as quickly.
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 ... 54
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
