|
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 - jamirae
Pages: 1 ... 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 21 22 23 24 ... 33
451
« on: March 08, 2011, 10:38 »
What a mortifying experience for the OP!
Glad Istock dealt with it. They should really be more careful about what is displayed in promotional areas of the site.
Also, the inspectors drop the ball often on letting graphic nudity, etc. through the content filter. I have the content filter set and I see nudes etc. there on a fairly regular basis.
It really does make the site seem unprofessional. I have models that I am certain would not want to be displayed on a search page with nude people performing sex acts.
Istock has this sort of problem a lot and AFAIK it doesn't seem to happen elsewhere. Content filters on the other sites that accept nudity seem to be working fine.
But it was an external .jpg that the contributor created to link to a lightbox in the description area. Content filters don't work on those. The contributor could have added the banner after it became the FIOTW.
I think it would be a good idea to not have any free images from contributors who have a lot of NWS images in their portfolio though :\
I don't know what the final resolution was to this issue (don't have time or inclination to go read thru the posts at iStock) but I would hope that if it was some JPG that the user posted on the page after getting FIOTW that iStock held them accountable in some way. Like a temporary ban or something like that. sadly, I doubt they make a public stand about the repercussions but if they did it would certainly make people think twice before doing this sort of thing.
453
« on: March 07, 2011, 11:49 »
I might be a iStock "new" site for their vetta images?
I don't think they are associated with istock -- if they were they would use better grammar like "we're" for "we are" instead of "were." bad grammar just looks so amateurish to me. If you want something to come across as professional, at least use the proper spelling and punctuation. another tweet from them says that they are also using bellaimages.co -- I saw that and immediately thought of Todd and Renee Keith who have BellaOra Studios http://www.bellaora.com -- but i guess there are already a lot of photographers and studios using the word "bella" out there besides them.
454
« on: March 07, 2011, 11:00 »
saw this on the twitter last nite: "shutterstock, fotolio, istock and others have a huge competitor coming in vettaimages.com. were [sic] launching mobile and internet national adds [sic]" anyone hear about this? I wonder how well iStock will take this use of the term "vetta" -- do you think they have that copyrighted? also.. I hope they use better grammar (spelling) when they do run their advertisements (or "adds"). 
455
« on: March 06, 2011, 17:57 »
worth noting in the stats that shutterstock has a different site for contributors. Every time contributors check in at Istock it would be adding to the stats.
excellent point.
456
« on: March 03, 2011, 14:44 »
That was my point, not showing your port because someone might "knock off" your image while saying that the second photo was ok seemed a little funny to me.
I say it's ok legally, maybe not morally or ethically. And it also could be just a coincidence, I have at least once "copied" a concept unintentionally. Only afterwards I saw an older, similar image with similar angle, similar concept and similar background. I couldn't remember seeing the image before, but I still made a very similar image (luckily, my was much better 
(Okay I'm wiser now, I didn't see that also the keywords were copied)
I have also "copied" some concepts, but I have always tried to make them better or different. I think copying (both intentional and unintentional) happens all the time. The most important thing is to make your images 1) first 2) hard to copy 3) better
Isn't the concept "healthy eating", "dieting", or "apples are great for weightloss"? The similarities seem to go beyond a concept to me.
I see pretty young blond women carrying a scale around all the time while they eat their apple. it's a common scene, isn't it? 
457
« on: March 03, 2011, 14:36 »
When I try to order them by last DL the dates are all screwed up?!
make sure you aren't reading them wrong as they are now no-American. DAY/MONTH/YEAR rather than MONTH/DAY/Year
458
« on: March 02, 2011, 18:32 »
Update from Roger M. on the state of the search. It really doesn't sound as if significant gains are expected to be made any time soon;
"The work on search has been focused on two big projects. There hasn't been a lot of news lately while we chew through those tasks but we are getting closer here so I'll let everybody know where we are.
First of all is parsing multiple term searches - how and when we make phrases, how we incorporate boolean operators, etc.
Second is an optimization of the search engine itself and how the back end and front end interact. This is mainly looking at performance - speed and all of that.
They've made a lot of progress in both areas and we're getting closer. I don't have a time frame right now for release dates, or we'll see these projects released together.
Once we've these two pieces of work are completed, we'll be able to add to the filter functionality. We'll see the color and copyspace and other search filters come back in at that point.
Independent of this, there is also another team doing a CSS overhaul for search. We will see some successive weeks with minor tweaks to the front end layout of the facets. That isn't directly functionality related, but it will include things like mouseover time on that info tooltip and things like that."
Oh boy. Prepare for another round of f*ckups. 
*heavy sigh*
459
« on: March 02, 2011, 18:27 »
some good pointers here. I also started with a canon digital rebel (way back -- I think it was the first digital rebel version). I would have to say the two biggest things in terms of equipment would your lighting and your glass (lenses). When I went from the Rebel to the 20d I noticed difference in quality of the images (slightly better sensor), but when I acquired better lenses, ditching the "kit lens" and getting high-rated lenses I noticed a definite quality improvement. Maybe the kit lenses are getting better these days, but I would highly recommend making sure you have good glass. Check out dpreview.com or other online places for detailed reviews and you can always rent good lenses if money is an issue or if you want to "try before you buy" (I use borrowlenses.com or prophotorental.com but there are others). Also, when I switched to the fullframe 5D there was a very noticeable improvement in the technical quality of my images. (that's what I'm using now - it's not the Mark II version -- saving up for that one still). Lighting. If you're going to do indoor shots you need to have some good lights. You can get some great lights from Paul C BUff ( www.alienbees.com) - I would recommend getting at least a b800. You can also do quite a bit with a few flashes - I often use two Canon 580EX flashes for fill-light outdoors and even for smaller subjects/objects indoors/studio. Also already mentioned -- check out some photography books. there are some great books on stock photography as well as working with models/people. I have a bunch of photography books on everything from composition, lighting, models, landscapes, monochrome, art, etc.. pretty much every subject related to photography. "never stop learning" is my motto!
460
« on: March 01, 2011, 16:22 »
Can I just say how nauseating it is to read all the "thank you Kelly" posts on the Istock thread about this?!
Note to the fawning sycophants confused and misguided - Kelly/Istock/Getty, aren't responsible for getting you this "raise". Nobody at HQ "fought" for you - least of all Kelly "money isn't going to be what makes you happy" Thompson.
They are only doing this in response to the majority, who opted out of their insulting, cheapo PP royalties in the first place. Believe me, if they could get away with keeping your royalties low and just sweetening the pot for the holdouts, they would do it.
Lisa, why don't you just tell it as it is, instead of beating around the bush? I just want to say thank you Kelly for this raise, I know we have helped line your pockets beyond belief, but it is a small price to pay for enriching our lives. I would not be half the person I am today without iStock, thank you Kelly and may God bless you and all your children and all your children's children, you have truly touched the lives of so many and indeed you are a truly noble and gracious person. Thank you Kelly, thank you!!!
You guys are awesome! 
Money doesn't make me happy? BS. I'd love to read Kelly's post where he says that.
What doesn't make me happy is watching my monthly income decrease month after month after month and increasingly worrying whether I'll be able to pay the electric bill or rent, all because of Getty's cannibalistic decisions. I used to routinely earn $500 per month at IS. Now I'm lucky if I break $100. TS earnings through StockXpert and IS combined are less than half of what my StockXpert earnings alone were before Getty bought Jupiter. None of the other agencies...not one of them!...has been losing money for me. Only Getty...and now they have the audacity to preach how money doesn't make people happy? F* 'em. Getty isn't profiting me one bit and I'll be ending my relationship with them in the next few months once I have my new revenue streams up and running.
Kelly's post where he says "But money isnt going to be what makes you all happy." is here: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=253522&page=1 it is in the 3rd to the last paragraph of the first post in the thread.
461
« on: March 01, 2011, 16:17 »
it can vary depending on the amount of applicants. I would say anywhere from a week to 6 weeks.
good luck!
WOW that long? oh well, applying to other sites meanwhile, I'm new to microstock.
Thanks for the the wishes.
maybe someone who has gone through the process recently can add their experience. I think it took about 2 weeks for me, but that was in 2004 -- so no telling now! Recently I joined several other sites and the longest one to get approved was at Veer which took about 3 weeks, I believe.
462
« on: March 01, 2011, 13:42 »
it can vary depending on the amount of applicants. I would say anywhere from a week to 6 weeks.
good luck!
463
« on: February 28, 2011, 17:37 »
I doubt it's any "we hate you" thing. they have been known to have people on "special assignment" who go through the collection to check old files to see if they match with today's standards. I would guess it's something like that and nothing personal. Although I would really think they have better things to do with their time, but apparently this is one of those priorities they seem to think is more worthy of checking than other things.
464
« on: February 28, 2011, 10:19 »
I've never been to an iStockalypse but I have been to several minilypses. the Red Rock events in Utah - I attended the first two, paid for themselves within a year (just looking at sales from photos taken at that event only). Other minilypses I've been less fortunate and have not recouped what I spent. However.. the friendships I made and the many different things I learned were well worth the price. It just all depends on how you look at it.
465
« on: February 27, 2011, 18:22 »
Rob, you're not exclusive any more. Am I just spacing something I already knew or is this a recent change?
Will you be uploading elsewhere? And you can't be a geezer or that'd make me even more ancient
darn it.. more competition!
466
« on: February 25, 2011, 10:39 »
is there still an issue with getting files on or off the PP? last I remember if you opted out, after having previously been in, your files remained there for sale due to some feature.. er.. I mean bug in the system. is that still the case or has that bug been squashed?
467
« on: February 24, 2011, 16:47 »
again, it wasn't me who initially coined the term. I just re-used it, so I don't have any individuals in mind Marisa. just the general tone of discussions and the railroading that occurs here frequently can be thuggish. and I know many contributors are far too intimidated to post here for that reason. it's often a topic for discussion at minilypses and other contributor events. sorry you felt I was referring to you specifically.
For what it is worth, i have often felt that way on the istock forums -- being treated like a second class citizen or "thuggish railroading" -- and thus was when i was exclusive. There are somw tought cliques there as there are pretty much anywhere. This place just has more on both sides.
468
« on: February 24, 2011, 13:17 »
It amazes me that they still say "trust us" after all the crap they have done the past months to totally screw contrubutors. Trust is something that is earned. They have done little to earn trust these days.
469
« on: February 23, 2011, 21:32 »
wow.. boy.. all the exclusives will be jumping right in now!
I'll keep my opt-out on that thing. not enough to get my heart started.
470
« on: February 23, 2011, 18:56 »
Lots and lots of woo-yays from admins and inspectors though.
Seems that folks on the payroll are the only ones who can muster much enthusiasm for anything over there these days.
I predict the "buyers bailing on istock" thread will have a growth spurt once this goes into effect.
471
« on: February 23, 2011, 11:57 »
wait... did someone just call me a thug?
473
« on: February 21, 2011, 11:48 »
awesome!
474
« on: February 17, 2011, 18:39 »
Maybe if they actually launched it and it was a success, more people would bother contributing!
too true!
475
« on: February 17, 2011, 18:38 »
another one.. http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=305092&page=1Hi,
I think it is a rather unfortunate exercise in corporatism that StockXpert was shut down and when the credits were migrated (we didn't have a choice of a refund), they were not honoured 1:1. Add to that images that are much more expensive. And now, we are receiving notices that our credits are due to expire on iStock, due to the 1-year limit.
I am thoroughly dissatisfied with this model, and after reluctantly spending my remaining credits, I assure you I will not be returning to iStock.
Pages: 1 ... 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 21 22 23 24 ... 33
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
