|
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 - Caz
51
« on: November 10, 2010, 07:01 »
I haven't noticed a change. Here's a list of the sizes on my last 20 downloads :
xs,xs,m,s,s,m,l,l,m,xl,s,xs,xxxl,s,m,l,m,l,s,m
It's a mixture of all the sizes, although to be honest I don't get many XXXL so that one is a slight anomaly, but other than that it's about the same as ever.
52
« on: November 03, 2010, 04:57 »
You should be especially careful not to purchase Preiser figures if you're intending to use them for RF image. Preiser (often sold by model railway suppliers) enjoy rights protection and are not accepted at iStock (I don't know about the other sites, but even if other places accepted them I wouldn't upload them without expecting to get a deactivation somewhere down the line.)
53
« on: October 20, 2010, 09:27 »
There's a known bug that sometimes flushes model releases on resubmissions. I couldn't find the thread that acknowledged it in the help forum, but there was one. It's been a while since the issue started so it doesn't seem to be high on the fix list unfortunately.
54
« on: September 22, 2010, 02:25 »
Sorry but this does not make any sense. How is it possible that downloads have dropped, commission rates have dropped and you've earned more?
Prices have gone up.
And Vetta & E+ were introduced.
55
« on: September 21, 2010, 05:19 »
I use Model Mayhem, but it's a bit hit & miss. I have to spend ages trawling through the mobile phone cam shots of pouting naked teens in their bedrooms to get to the serious models. I don't mind new models who haven't yet got a portfolio, but I won't employ anyone who has text speak on their profile page. KthanxBai.  It's been my experience that if they're not professional enough to write a few simple lines about themselves properly, then they're not professional enough to turn up/be on time. I have found some very good make up artists on Model Mayhem though. I often use Model Mayhem's casting call facility, and have had better success that way. I ask that they send me an email via MM rather than just registering their interest on the casting call. That weeds out lots of time wasters.
56
« on: September 20, 2010, 12:05 »
I can't agree with you there Caz. I'd say David has proven he is a man of both action and integrity. I certainly didn't see any celebrity-seeking. I just saw a bloke standing up strongly for what he believed in. A few more of him and a few less of the spineless do-nothingers (or worse the apologists) and we wouldn't be in the mess we are.
He did, indeed. But posts like the one I referenced don't fit with that integrity, in my book.
57
« on: September 20, 2010, 11:51 »
You sound a bit nervous, you must have something significant to hide.
[quote author=dgilder link=topic=11331.msg162806#msg162806 date=1284998874 I think I might take it upon myself to do some statistical language analysis on your posts both here and in the iStock forums to find out who you really are. [/quote] Oh pulheese If the post September 7th fall out has shown me anything, it's that there are more people than I thought who love celebrity status. We get it, we got it, really we did. You're leaving iStock and you don't like the changes. Just like many other, less adulation seeking contributors who stated their postiion and then were done. Your new found moral highground cult status surely doesn't bestow you the right to threaten other contributors here?? Many people are annoymous for very good reason, it allows them to speak their mind without repercussion for other parts of their lives.
58
« on: September 17, 2010, 03:50 »
Next you guys are going to tell me you guys didn't know that inspectors can self-inspect their images (or at least they used to be able to).
Completely untrue
59
« on: September 17, 2010, 03:47 »
60
« on: August 26, 2010, 02:35 »
Anyone have a clue for me?
Hard to say as we can't see your release. The model release requirements changed in September 2009, so perhaps the shots you already have online were taken before then? Here's a link to the article & discussion about the new release requirements back in September. http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=648 It's impossible to guess why your release isn't compliant with current requirements without seeing it. And if you want a definitive answer, rather than our speculation, open a ticket with contributor relations, or phone them, and they will be able to give you the official answer.
61
« on: August 18, 2010, 02:29 »
Then, it's good to know not all inspectors take advantage of such privileges... There are still fair people in the world 
I'm not sure how your statement follows Sean's. There's a logical step missing between statement A and statement B which makes statement B a non-sequitur. I think you must have missed out some 'insider information' about how some inspectors don't take advantage? Is there some button they can press which says 'don't fast-track me'? Questing minds need to know. [/quote] Not all inspectors and admins get same day inspection, just a very small number. You can see this yourself by checking latest uploads as they come through. The vast majority of inspectors go through the exclusvies queue just like any other contributor. JJ has posted about the very few who earned the priviledge of a different "workflow" in the exclusive forum several times when the issue has been raised there. You'll find the threads by searching "faster" in the exclusive forum.
62
« on: August 11, 2010, 12:35 »
How did you find your dollar bin files Cathy? I don't even know if I have images in there, other than the ones I got notices about years ago.
Go to your Uploads Page, at the top change the "currently viewing" selection from Active/Pending files to Active Dollar files (in the drop down box)
63
« on: August 11, 2010, 03:25 »
Is there a similar topic like this , on their forum?
Yes, once a month there's a thread to discuss the previous month's sales trends. Here's the current one http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=238492&page=1 It's restricted to one thread every month because otherwise ten people would start ten new threads every day wondering whether their lack of sales for the last ten minutes is indicative of the end of the microstock world. 
64
« on: June 16, 2010, 04:04 »
Ok, here's one:
Hmmm, why didn't you use Leaf as a model? 
65
« on: May 28, 2010, 03:45 »
One of my files named "Coins" was rejected because "Finance" keyword... 
You're seriously saying that was the only reason? One wrong keyword? No other rejection reasons further down the email? No other words listed? Seems unlikely, and if it is true you should post it in the keywords forum at iStock because it's an error.
66
« on: May 28, 2010, 03:43 »
I think some inspectors don't bother checking the description for notes. It would be awfully handy if iStock provided a message box for including notes instead of us having to resort to using the description.
Inspectors are supposed to read the description, it's part of the inspection process because images can be rejected for problems with the description. I know it's frustrating, but as it's a human process occasionally things are missed and mistakes happen. It's better if you put whatever you want the inspector to see at the beginning of your description, less chance for it to be missed that way.
67
« on: May 23, 2010, 14:49 »
I've got a silly amount of lenses, and most of them stay in the lens drawer. I mostly use the Canon 100mm macro, it's great for food, portraits, products, everything. If, on a rare occasion I find that's not working the angles I need I use my Canon 24-70 (but I do hate the CA I get with that). I also have a Canon 90mm tilt shift that rarely sees the light of day, and a 15mm Sigma wide angle that's been out less than teenager with halitosis. I also had the Canon 70-200 for a while & then realised it wasn't much help for my kind of shooting & I sold it on Ebay. So, of all my lenses, the cheapest (100mm) is my most used by far.
68
« on: May 13, 2010, 08:29 »
Hi Ralf, I had the same rejection few times at IS. Maybe it's just your first time.
Like I said, there isn't a rejection at istock that just says Flat/Dull lighting. The rejection wording for poor lighting is : We found the overall composition of this file's lighting could be improved. Some of the technical aspects that can all limit the usefulness of a file are: -Flat/dull colors -Direct on-camera flash and/or flash fall-off (bright subject, dark background) -Harsh lighting with blown-out highlights that lack details and/or distracting shadows - Distracting lens flares -Incorrect white balance This rejection wording for poor lighting has been in place for a while now, so unless the inspector has specifically marked the flat dull bit for you, any or all of the list might apply. It doesn't necessarily mean all of them.
69
« on: May 13, 2010, 06:04 »
Flat dull colours is the first line of a long list of possible problems with your image that you're given with iStock's standard poor lighting rejection. Unless it's been specifically marked as being the reason by the inspector, then any one, or more, of the list can apply.
Perhaps you could post the image for critique? The reason might be simpler than a consipracy.
70
« on: April 30, 2010, 06:17 »
If you're non exclusive it depends how many irrelevant keywords you have on a submission. If it's only a few, then the inspector will remove them for you and accept the image (assuming there are no technical issues with the image). The words that were removed are detailed on your acceptance email.
If there are lots of bad keywords then they won't do it for you and will reject your image with a note to advise which keywords you should remove for your re-submission.
71
« on: April 06, 2010, 11:12 »
carefully check your home insurance if you go down this route, many exclude 'professional use' which can be whatever they define it as.
(I asked one last year and all was good, can up the premium to cover $15000 of camera gear, when I asked about professional use though the supervisor said it wasnt covered and that amount of gear and even individually my sony a900 would likely be classed as a 'professional use' camera whether I was professional or not.)
Definately. I used to have my equipment on my home insurance, until I asked them if they covered professionals (they didn't) and what their definition of professional was (anyone making money by selling their images). So a two second Google search of my name would have invalidated the insurance. I also feel more protected having public liability insurance, so if I drop a light stand on a model's head I won't lose my house. And, some locations I've hired required me to have public liability insurance.
72
« on: April 06, 2010, 09:51 »
Legally there is no reason to need the shoot description or shoot date on a release. In fact it can limit the release because if you take images of a 2 year old in a green dress and then the same child in a red dress you technically need 2 releases for that shoot. The same would be true if you have 3 people in a shoot. One release for when you have all 3 in a shot, one for when only 2 are in the image and one for when the person is alone.
I use a variation of the PPA's release and modified it to add the photographer information and a witness signature, as most RF sites have a requirement for this information.
I understand what you mean, but whether or not they are "legally" required doesn't matter. iStock has said that they require them, so in order to avoid having your release rejected by iStock, you need them. You don't fill out different releases for different dresses in the same shoot. That's the point, your one release for the shoot should describe the images that the model has agreed to release for stock. So your description on the one release should describe it all - eg : child outdoors in various outfits playing sport/eating lunch/swimming/feeding ducks - whatever describes the shoot.
73
« on: April 06, 2010, 03:13 »
My release doesn't include a space to describe the shoot. It's never been an issue before but last week 14 out of 15 images were rejected for "no description on the release." The 15th image was accepted. It really is just a lottery system when it comes to what they require on a release.
The new requirement for a description (and date) of the shoot was announced back in August 2009. It applies to all images taken after 1st September 2009. It shouldn't be a lottery, if your images are taken after that date and your model releae doesn't include a meaningful description then you ought to be getting a request for a new model release instead of an acceptance. Here's a link to the article announcing the new standards, and there is also a forum discussion linked in the article http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=648
74
« on: April 02, 2010, 09:57 »
I started in 2005. Before I went exclusive I didn't do that well with Shutterstock. They accepted the same things as iStock did and I sold about the same volume per month with them as I did with iStock, but of course the money was much less at Shutterstock. I don't think it has anything to do with when you started.
75
« on: March 19, 2010, 04:39 »
You have to answer the application questions yourself. If you don't know the answers then you need to learn a little more before you apply to iStock. Having someone else answer the questions for you is just going to result in more frustration for you because you have to understand the basics of what iStock wants and accepts yourself otherwise you'll be faced with lots of rejections.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
