|
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 - caspixel
Pages: 1 ... 19 20 21 22 23 [24] 25 26 27 28 29 ... 41
576
« on: February 19, 2011, 13:09 »
Quite right! thats what I said earlier, threads like these are down out damaging, especially when everybody can read them. It doesnt help the slightest, it backfires with bad side-effects.
How so? I thought the buyers didn't care about things like rate cuts to the contributors? Or forums or things like that?
577
« on: February 19, 2011, 13:08 »
why do I come here? because there is some information that gets passed around. but that's rarer and rarer these days.
Except you seem to gravitate towards the threads where you know what you say is going to provoke people. Why is that? Is it deliberate? If you were just looking for information, why would you join in on the threads that are clearly negative towards iStock?
578
« on: February 19, 2011, 13:03 »
Sent a message to support asking how to fix it but all I got was the auto "Thanks for emailing us".
OMG.
579
« on: February 19, 2011, 10:57 »
Here's another fail on the part of iStock...the Designer Spotlight. No longer do they seem to be updating it, but the current DOTW is three years old. And if you click on the link for the design, the website that the design is supposedly made for doesn't even exist anymore.
They really should just get rid of that part of the site anyway. It's a mere specter of what it once was. Just another indication of how little iStock cares about its buyers.
580
« on: February 17, 2011, 19:26 »
I miss the old Kelvin. He had some of the best zingers I've ever read on those forums.
581
« on: February 17, 2011, 15:16 »
I'm with you. the PTOTW is for photographers to pimp their work. do buyers really go in there? I mean buyers other than the contributors who like to join in on the PTOTW? I have gone in there a few times in the past but never got any sales from it. it's a fun place to socialize and show off your work to other contributors but I am not so sure how advantageous it is for sales.
I've never looked at the pimping threads. I find the new rules difficult follow? Has it turned into a once a month thing? How can it be weekly if the themes are posted on the first Friday of the month and the pimping thread is on the last Friday of the month?
582
« on: February 17, 2011, 13:37 »
I think we should add PTOTW epic fail...
In the forums they ask to brainstorm along about a new way of doing it; the massive consensus is 'leave it as it is; istock controls too much already as it is", the opinions didnt matter, they're going to do how they feel it should be done anyways.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=304702&page=1
Yes, I think it's an epic fail too. I also like how they were initially asking buyers to design something for free. Eff that. They aren't happy with how much they are already taking form buyers? And the designer gets credit and a link to their website. Oooo. Sign me up. Not. Offering free credits in the form of payment would have been at least a little more appealing. I don't know why they bother to ask anyone for ideas though, if they were just going to implement something regardless of the consensus. :/
583
« on: February 17, 2011, 10:17 »
If this person iStock a buyer, that's great! If this person loves iStock, that's great! But there are still buyers leaving iStock, and there iStock still garbage on iStock, too. His post iStock very transparent.
He probably works for iStock. Remember that blog post that had a bunch of "users" leaving comments, only they all came from the same IP address, and that IP address was one of iStock's computers. Someone check his IP address, quick. 
Edit: Apparently he doesn't work for iStock, but he iStock a contributor who iStock planning on going exclusive ASAP. So it seems he iStock an iStock "exclusive/cheerleader". So yup. Post iStock very transparent.
Put yourself in my situation. If you worked for an ad agency, and the agency buys a large credit package from iStock for their designers, would you care if the photo has a "little crown" or not when buying a photo? Honestly, I don't care if the photographer has that exclusive icon or not, if the shot is what I need then I just buy it. I'm not going to search other sites to find it cheaper. The cost gets rolled into the client's bill anyway.
If I worked for a big ad agency in SoCal I'd probably buy from wherever they told me too and not care about the cost either  . But since I'm just one little old freelancer with small budget clients, I have to go with the least expensive options. It doesn't really take any longer to find photos at other agencies. Many contributors use the same name across the board. And there's always TinEye.
584
« on: February 16, 2011, 18:22 »
585
« on: February 16, 2011, 13:29 »
I think we are saying the same thing. It's a mixed picture.
That it is.
586
« on: February 16, 2011, 12:58 »
Caspixel says she uses the site for various reasons - one being that it has the content she wants at lower prices. That's useful buyer info. There is someone who is quite definitely not an iStockphoto cheerleader saying something which seems to very much contradict the idea that people would be 'bailing' because it is too expensive etc.
The problem with this is that you are making it look like it is the only place I shop because the prices are lower, and that's only the case in very rare circumstances. The only time iStock content is cheaper is if it is NON-EXCLUSIVE and available at other sites at a higher price point. Otherwise, it is generally more expensive across the board. Credits are more expensive and the images cost more credits. I want to make it very clear, that iStock is my LAST resort now when shopping (and an option that I don't even consider, really). In general, I can find all the content I want at lower prices at other sites.EDIT: Oh, I see jamierae has also tried to clear up the misunderstanding. I would again like to make it clear that I do not think iStock is the less expensive option, lest it keep being misquoted. The part about less expensive had more to do with the non-exclusive content being cheaper than exclusive content (and in rare cases, where Dreamstime photos are Levels 3 and up). But then I look on StockFresh first.
587
« on: February 16, 2011, 10:29 »
He has a green tie.
That occurred to me! Along with the thought that they probably changed the color in Photoshop. All that post-processing MUST account for the premium price tag. Not to mention the expensive shooting location.
588
« on: February 16, 2011, 10:13 »
BTW, I did a search for "laptop man" on DT and I did not see the photos that he linked to on any of the first three pages of my search with the search results set to 200. So I have to wonder what other filters he was using or how far back he went in his search. Most of the results on DT looked very similar to the results that came up on iStock...except none of them cost $100+. I'd like to see the justification for the price of this Agency photo: http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-13873914-laptop.php
589
« on: February 16, 2011, 09:54 »
If this person is a buyer, that's great! If this person loves IS, that's great! But there are still buyers leaving IS, and there is still garbage on IS, too. His post is very transparent.
He probably works for iStock. Remember that blog post that had a bunch of "users" leaving comments, only they all came from the same IP address, and that IP address was one of iStock's computers. Someone check his IP address, quick. Edit: Apparently he doesn't work for iStock, but he is a contributor who is planning on going exclusive ASAP. So it seems he is an iStock "exclusive/cheerleader". So yup. Post is very transparent.
590
« on: February 15, 2011, 13:34 »
So people saying that iStockphoto is too expensive but actually you're shopping there because it's less expensive.
No, I'm not saying they are less expensive than other agencies. In general they aren't, because the credits are across the board more expensive than at other agencies. What I am saying is that the non-exclusive files are less expensive than the exclusive one. See my previous post that clarifies how I might purchase an image. BTW, one of the main reasons I also don't want to pay a lot for stock is because I don't really buy images that require big studio set-ups and models. Mostly I buy a lot of textures and things like that. I don't see a need to plunk down a hundred bucks for stuff like that. When things were really tight last year (and iStock's prices kept rising) I actually just started making my own background textures.
591
« on: February 15, 2011, 13:30 »
Now I buy primarily from Dreamstime. On the rare occasion that I might happen to purchase from iStock, I would only buy from non-exclusives at this point.
So what makes you buy non exclusive content from iStockphoto rather than from somewhere else ? Is it less expensive ?
Here's an example: If I find an image that I like at Dreamstime, but it's a level 3 or 4 image, I'll check out Stock Fresh to see if it's on there. If it's not, I might check to see if it's on iStock (since it's non-exclusive, I know it will be at the lowest price point). I'm probably the kind of buyer you all hate the most because my clients all have small budgets. If I had clients with bigger budgets I wouldn't mind buying more expensive photos, but right now, it is what it is. Sorry. Though even if I had bigger budgets, I can't say I'd ever shop at iStock exclusively again. Too much of a bad taste in my mouth with that company now.
592
« on: February 15, 2011, 13:21 »
On the rare occasion that I might happen to purchase from iStock, I would only buy from non-exclusives at this point. I'm glad there are still other people who buy from exclusives, because I don't have anything against them, I just don't care for the greedy corporate attitude and constant price hikes coming out of HQ.
Yeah, that'll show 'em. Buy the images where they get to keep the most, instead of supporting the people who get to keep a higher percentage. Good thought process!
It is a good thought process. The images are less expensive.
593
« on: February 15, 2011, 12:56 »
@caspixel - IIRC from the iStockphoto forum you used to be someone who as a buyer was quite (something like ... ) critical of iStockphoto. I hope that's fair analysis. What brought you back to iStockphoto ?
Haha. Yes, I have been (and still am) critical of iStock. I wouldn't say that I'm "back" at iStock. Now I buy primarily from Dreamstime. On the rare occasion that I might happen to purchase from iStock, I would only buy from non-exclusives at this point. I'm glad there are still other people who buy from exclusives, because I don't have anything against them, I just don't care for the greedy corporate attitude and constant price hikes coming out of HQ. I do still read the forums every now and then though. It's like an afternoon soap. You know it sucks and it's not worth the time to watch, but you can't seem to keep yourself from tuning in.
594
« on: February 15, 2011, 11:07 »
Maybe someone finally talked to Lobo about his etiquette.
I think this does seem to be the case. It does seem like his posts have an entirely different "tone" now. Much more constrained and professional, with a lot less of the "Dude it's all for lolz, the internets isn't real life so I can act like a total inconsiderate ass 'cause I's so funny" schtick.
595
« on: February 14, 2011, 12:56 »
Well, whatever that was, it is now the homepage at iStock.
596
« on: February 14, 2011, 12:52 »
Maybe someone finally talked to Lobo about his etiquette.
Although, I'm still waiting for a "YOU ARE A CONTRIBUTOR TOO, AREN'T YOU!? WHAT IS YOUR REAL NAME?"
597
« on: February 14, 2011, 10:36 »
Another unhappy buyer - http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=303462&page=1
"I've been using istock for 5 or 6 years now, spending about 100 a month. I like the superior images and the fact that I've always been able to find what I want.
But I've finally had it with the prices. I started using this site back in the days when I could charge my clients 1-3 for a high res quality image. Now the same quality image is 10-50. Not to mention having to wade through images costing much more than this to find ones which are just affordable. Enough, I'm gone.
istock, if you sort out the insane inflation and reduce prices to a level my clients (mostly charities) can afford then I'll be back. Until then I'm trying the competition.
Thanks for the help and inspiration you've given me over the years."
Wow, I don't think I've ever seen a more diplomatic reply from Lobo. Is a sea change coming?
598
« on: February 13, 2011, 10:58 »
Not really an epic fail here or anything, more of an annoyance, but I don't want to start a new thread on it. Pink Cotton Candy has started a thread on revamping PTOTW and, I know she means well and it's essentially her idea, but it always sticks in my craw when multi-million dollar companies ask for free design work. The relevant part:
In an effort to get the buying public involved: what about asking them to design the headers for each week? I can totally provide a credit + a link to their website. I would set specific guidelines (size, etc.). I realize it might take a while for it to catch on and I will create the headers in the meantime. Buyers, what do you think of this? Is this work for free? yes, of course it is...but maybe it's fun if you know the parameters?
They should at least offer people some free credits for it or something. "Credit and a link to their website"? I'll get right on it. LOL
Stuff it, iStock.
599
« on: February 12, 2011, 10:59 »
Still $0 royalties on all of my downloads in the last month. Anyone with the same experience?
WOW!  That is just ridicuolous. How can anyone trust that site or iStock's accounting? Even if/when they correct it, how are you even going to know the new amounts are correct?
600
« on: February 11, 2011, 21:37 »
This whole fraud thing was bad enough but to me what makes it worse is after trying to voice your opinion on the forum, they sic their bulldog after you and ban you from the forums and sitemail. It's been over a week and every email I send to contributor relations goes unanswered. It's almost as if they want contributors to leave. I know for me my decision has been made already.
It boggles the mind how stupid they are.
Pages: 1 ... 19 20 21 22 23 [24] 25 26 27 28 29 ... 41
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
