pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Show Posts

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 - donding

Pages: 1 ... 21 22 23 24 25 [26] 27 28 29 30 31 ... 70
626
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Predictions about iStockphoto!?
« on: September 11, 2010, 15:23 »
I posted this in another thread but this is what I personally I think is going on is they are getting ready to set up iStock as a mid stock company. iStock is a brand name and a lot of buyers now it. With them implementing the increase in cost for the Vetta and bringing in the Agency stuff for higher prices and inviting exclusives to particpate it looks to me like this is where they are going. I then believe they will basically say....if you're not exclusive then you are being moved to ThinkStock which is our subscription site. There is a reason they started up Thinkstock and this may very well be why.

Donna, this makes a lot of sense.  Ever since Getty bought IS I guessed they might try to make it into a midstock, and when they opened thinkstock I worried that eventually all non-exclusives would be herded there.

What has totally taken my by surprise, though, is lowering non-exclusive commissions below 20%.  Who would have guessed that paying the lowest commission in the industry would not be low enough for them?   :P

 Maybe their plan was to geared towards getting those independents to go exclusive to get the better % or leave, but it kinda backfired. If they do go with a midstock company they would want exclusive content to make it more desirable for the buyers, therefore the buyer would be willing to pay more just because it's exclusive. They already have Thinkstock as their dump site and that may very well be where the non exclusives end up at. I don't know what their motives are but I really think it won't be to long before we find out.

627
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Predictions about iStockphoto!?
« on: September 11, 2010, 13:41 »
I posted this in another thread but this is what I personally I think is going on is they are getting ready to set up iStock as a mid stock company. iStock is a brand name and a lot of buyers now it. With them implementing the increase in cost for the Vetta and bringing in the Agency stuff for higher prices and inviting exclusives to particpate it looks to me like this is where they are going. I then believe they will basically say....if you're not exclusive then you are being moved to ThinkStock which is our subscription site. There is a reason they started up Thinkstock and this may very well be why. I think the slow price increase in their "special collections" is kinda like going to the grocery store and paying a little extra, then the next week a little more. It's not as noticeable to your pocket book as a buyer. Why else would they introduce the Agency collection if not for this reason? Many agencies have tried mixing mid stock and microstock and haven't been to successful at it and that's why I believe they created Thinkstock.

628
iStockPhoto.com / Re: You aint seen nothin yet
« on: September 11, 2010, 12:36 »
Personally I think what is going on is they are getting ready to set up iStock as a mid stock company. iStock is a brand name and a lot of buyers now it. With them implementing the increase in cost for the Vetta and bringing in the Agency stuff for higher prices and inviting exclusives to particpate it looks to me like this is where they are going. I then believe they will basically say....if you're not exclusive then you are being moved to ThinkStock which is our subscription site. There is a reason they started up Thinkstock and this may very well be why. I think the slow price increase in their "special collections" is kinda like going to the grocery store and paying a little extra, then the next week a little more. It's not as noticeable to your pocket book as a buyer. Why else would they introduce the Agency collection if not for this reason? Many agencies have tried mixing mid stock and microstock and haven't been to successful at it and that's why I believe they created Thinkstock.

629
Photo Critique / Re: Submitting to iStock - Nikon dSLR
« on: September 11, 2010, 10:43 »
I really think you need to realize that iStock is the lowest paying stock site and the hardest to get into. It's you're decision but I really think you need to learn a little more.
The floorboard has no commercial value. What would it be used for? The harsh dark shadow along the edge won't fly with iStock.

The girl with phone is fair but there really isn't much expression of emotion in the shot. Plus the lighting is not the greatest. There are way to many shots on-line that are much better to even consider submitting it. You got to realize that if it's already a well covered subject and great pictures already covering it then it won't get the light of day.

The thai sausages won't work either. There are way to many distractions in that shot. Your eye goes to the blue basket and wanders around the shot looking at all the other things that are unrelated to the focus of the shot...the saugages.

I like this one the best, but as luissantos84 said there are copyrights involved and there are again to many distractions.

I doubt the cemetery would make it either. It really has very little commercial value and there is the possibility they would reject it on copyright also because of the design on the headstones.

You need to make your shots simpler. You want your eye to go to the subject of the photo and not wander all over the place. Before you ever hit the shutter release you need to look for those distractions and remove them. Just pay attention to where your eye goes first and if it isn't on the main subject, it would never sell for that very reason. You need to learn the rule of thirds. Rather than me trying to explain it to you, google it. I'm sure there is a site out there that would explain it.

630
iStockPhoto.com / Re: iStock changing royalty structure
« on: September 10, 2010, 19:15 »
Not sure if this already was posted...

The end of iStockphoto at Ember Studio: :(
http://www.emberstudio.com/blog/?p=193


This is nice. Too bad I can't leave a comment thanking them - getting an error.

That's Helix 7 site. He's a member here

631
iStockPhoto.com / Re: iStock changing royalty structure
« on: September 10, 2010, 16:57 »
Hmmmm I wonder when they get to quit and go home???   Hasn't it  been about 6 hours since they said they would post a response. 

632
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Buyers Bailing on Istock
« on: September 10, 2010, 16:17 »
Another one : http://www.emberstudio.com/blog/?p=193


Sorry to disappoint, but that's my blog. :)

I keep a separate website and blog for my design business. But in light of this week's news, I figured a little overlap was needed. ;)

Glad everyone likes the post. Feel free to link to it wherever.


I thought that was yours....great post by the way. It describes what was going on exactly how it is.

633
iStockPhoto.com / Re: iStock changing royalty structure
« on: September 10, 2010, 15:36 »
I get the feeling that there isn't going to be any movement on their side at all.
The second statement didn't have any give in it, and I doubt the next one will.
It would be nice if they would just say something rather than leaving everyone blowing in the wind. I'm with you, I doubt what they have to say is going to be any better.

634
iStockPhoto.com / Re: iStock changing royalty structure
« on: September 10, 2010, 15:23 »
Expect update announcement  from IS later today:

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=253252&page=1


What a bunch of drama. And I am willing to bet there are a lot of people anxiously awaiting to hear what the news will be. It doesn't even matter to me what they announce. Trust is gone, their words mean NOTH-ING!


They probably just said that to quiet down the masses, which it looks like it did a little bit, while they plot their next move!!

635
iStockPhoto.com / Re: iStock changing royalty structure
« on: September 10, 2010, 14:36 »
Some one earlier was asking about where to find this. I don't know if anyone posted it yet or not, but if they didn't here it is.  Its the contributor charts at iStock. It will tell you how many of what canister level there is.
http://istockcharts.multimedia.de/

636
I voted for Dreamstime. I think their pay scale is much better than most. I make more money with Shutterstock but if the volume was the same at Dreamstime then the income there would be greater. I would never recommend Fotolia. I dropped them after their "little" pay cut. Dare say they'll also do it again.

637
Newbie Discussion / Re: With fear & trepidation ... hello
« on: September 09, 2010, 16:21 »
You also must realize that what sales at one site won't even get the lite of day at another. Different sites have their own type of buyers. What one site may consider a "snap shot" and rejects it on those grounds, another site approves and you can sell a ton of them. Again it all depends on the site and their reviewers. I personally drew my port out of Fotolia because the rejects were always my big sellers at other sites and what they accepted were many times rejected at the others. I had hardly any sales there and when they decided to give all the contributors a "pay cut" I got out. You gotta take it with a grain of salt. As time goes on you learn this. Microstock standards are high and getting higher every day. It's really a lot harder to get into these sites than it use to be.

638
Software - General / Re: ProStockMaster issues with Windows 7
« on: September 09, 2010, 15:07 »
I was getting a (Access denied) error with Win 7. This fixes it.

http://prostockmaster.com/faq-2/


Heh thanks njnightsky....that's the problem I was having and I haven't had the time to figure it out. Just saved me the trouble of looking. Thanks

639
Newbie Discussion / Re: With fear & trepidation ... hello
« on: September 09, 2010, 14:52 »
Lisa,
You can look at the websites and see their "most downloaded" shots, but you also have to take into account the length of time those most popular shots have been there. As many search engines on these sites do, they will pull up the most popular images and rather than dig through the pile, the buyers will continue to download them just because. Things do change and what was popular last year may not be this year. The key is to get a niche, that category that is not well covered by all the millions on top of it. That is difficult as well. A lot of buyers don't want those "plastic looking images" anymore. They want more realistic shots. You must remember you must have model releases and property releases. Anything that is copyrighted will have to be cloned out if you don't have property releases. Even the design on the models clothes. Just because an image is popular, unless you have one that can better it, there is really no reason to upload a shot based on that. Chances are everyone else has already tried to master it and it would be buried in the bottom and never see the light of day. You need to look at the areas that are not well covered to get an idea what would be the best subject to shoot.
Good luck

640
iStockPhoto.com / Re: iStock changing royalty structure
« on: September 09, 2010, 14:04 »
Sean already stated that neither he, DNY59, nor even LISE can meet the 1.4 million credit threshold to be in the highest tier.  That's NOBODY.  Same for independents.  It's a total red herring.  

In fairness though, DNY59 disagreed with Sean on this issue and felt the 1.4m threshold was attainable.  It's buried somewhere in the first thread.  FWIW I agree with Sean that it is unattainable, but DNY59 is amazingly talented and if he thinks he can do it, then I am not going to doubt him.

Well if they can do it that is great, but as far as the majority of iStockers that is not at all possible. I'm a small fry and maybe this won't effect me that much, but in the future this will go on and on if someone...rather it be a small fry or a big fish....doesn't stand up to them, then everyone loses in the end. If this mass exodus that everyone is threatening to do and the threat to run off all the buyers, actually happens....then those big fish more than likely won't get to that level.

641
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Istock Second "Explanation" to Contributors
« on: September 09, 2010, 11:53 »
So, what they're saying is that they are the most mismanaged business in the industry because they can't maintain the same royalty rates in the rest of the industry despite having higher prices.  ???

I also like how they don't even really mention non-exclusives.

That's because we aren't all that important. It is the exclusives where they make a lot of the top dollars. I was just thinking about what they said in that statement which may pound that nail deeper into their coffin. Was it a smart thing to say their profits were going down from a business point of view?

642
Photo Critique / Re: Submitting to iStock - Nikon dSLR
« on: September 09, 2010, 10:33 »
I think you need to read the tread " iStock changing royalty structure " in this forum before you invest to much time on this.

643
iStockPhoto.com / Re: iStock changing royalty structure
« on: September 08, 2010, 17:06 »
This is a sad day indeed...time hasn't allowed me to work much on my portfolio for several months now, but after all this I ask myself the question.....is it even worth the hassle and aggravation any more? Microstock is getting cheaper and cheaper at the contributor end and those of you who are making a living at this will defiantly feel the effects more than most of us. I'm glad I don't rely on microstock for a living because if I did, I'd probably end up applying for food stamps in the near future with everything headed the way it is now, because frankly if your self employed you can't draw unemployment and good luck trying to find a job these days.

644
iStockPhoto.com / Re: iStock changing royalty structure
« on: September 08, 2010, 11:45 »
I checked his port after reading his post, his images were still there when I looked.

Wow someone just posted on the iStock forum that their portfolio was being deleted just for speaking up on the forum

Here's the post with a copy and paste

"cr8tivguy
cr8tivguy
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo, Flash and Illustration downloads in the past 0 months Exclusive
Posted 7 mins ago

Quote
   
WOW ISTOCK IS REMOVING MY IMAGES FOR SPEAKING UP HERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Guess he was being sarcastic with the statement

645
iStockPhoto.com / Re: iStock changing royalty structure
« on: September 08, 2010, 11:13 »
Wow someone just posted on the iStock forum that their portfolio was being deleted just for speaking up on the forum

Here's the post with a copy and paste

"cr8tivguy
cr8tivguy
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo, Flash and Illustration downloads in the past 0 months Exclusive
Posted 7 mins ago

Quote
   
WOW ISTOCK IS REMOVING MY IMAGES FOR SPEAKING UP HERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

646
iStockPhoto.com / Re: iStock changing royalty structure
« on: September 08, 2010, 10:23 »
The key to all this is the BUYERS. There are millions of contributors who probably don't even know what is going on or don't even care and continue to upload. The target should be the BUYERS. That is the only way to burn a hole in the pocket of Getty and will also send a message to other sites that the photograph's won't put up with all this abuse any more.

647
I agree 100%....the buyers are the pockets of iStock and that is the only way to get the message across. There are millions of contributors that probably don't even know what is going on or they don't care. They will continue to upload. The BUYERS have to be the targets, that is the only way Getty will get the message.

648
iStockPhoto.com / Re: iStock changing royalty structure
« on: September 07, 2010, 22:35 »
They will come in and butter it up and then everyone will be relieved and happy, The point is they are STILL giving us a PAY CUT. This sounds so much like Fotolia....remember them? Everyone was going to pull their ports or stop uploading. The question is how many actual did it?? Don't make idol threats....those have been made over and over at other sites as well as iStock, but it always turns out the same and they know it. Everything dies down and everyone forgets about it until it happens again and again and then the threats start again but how many actually do what they say they are going to do?

649
iStockPhoto.com / Re: iStock changing royalty structure
« on: September 07, 2010, 17:59 »
You need to take into consideration that the Jan 2011 pay structure is going to be set from the 2010 earnings.....just remember how slow it's been this year....not a good beginning to the 2011 pay structure for many of us.

650
Computer Hardware / Re: Looking for a monitor
« on: September 05, 2010, 21:58 »

My philosophy is.. why spend 1000 or more dollars on a screen when you can have a screen with same specs for half the price.
When i did some research beforehand for a good monitor a came across http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/samsung_245t.htm , it was on my wish list.. however, no longer available in belgium, so i went for the HP LP2475w.

Patrick.


But you can't always go by specs only, for example, the number of megapixels in cameras. Two cameras can have the same number of megapixels, yet there can be a huge difference in image quality. Is it possible for two monitors to have the same specs, and still have a big difference in quality? If it's safe to go by specs only, maybe the HP is the best deal, but then again, I've heard bad things about HP's computers, so I have doubts.


I was searching for a new monitor recentlly. I ended up going with the HP LP2475w also and have not had any problems with it.

Pages: 1 ... 21 22 23 24 25 [26] 27 28 29 30 31 ... 70

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors