|
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 - loop
Pages: 1 ... 22 23 24 25 26 [27] 28 29 30 31 32 ... 44
651
« on: December 04, 2010, 14:26 »
Not fair at all. Hope you'll be able to work it out.
652
« on: December 03, 2010, 14:35 »
Lisa, I am sure you are not rooting for ISTOCK to fall. However, is it possible that your decreased sales are due to your "Buyers Bailing on Istock"?
My memory could have failed me, did you asked all designers you know and your friends know to buy your images from other sites, and not from ISTOCK in this thread?
And she also said she was stopping uploading, so maybe she's selling this bit less because of that.
653
« on: December 02, 2010, 15:54 »
unfortunately the downside to having a relative lack of moderation here is having to wade through all sorts of petty stuff. bad manners posting someone else's work, but bad manners seem to be the culture over here.
Sorry, but as I mentioned before, I have no problem posting to others portfolios where there is an apparent conflict of interest, and as I mentioned before, i will do so again in the future regardless about how you feel about it. You seem to be applying IStock's forum rules over here. What moderation is needed? I didn't make any judgements about the quality of the work. I made an observation that a "Content Administrator" at IStockphoto has a portfolio with an abnormally large amount of Vetta files that don't seem to fit with the "Vetta" criteria as stated by IStockphoto. If that hurts your feelings, oh well. That's what the IGNORE button is for.
Very brave attitude.
Considering that you don't have any photos at IS, neither buy there, it is difficult to understand how Vetta's supposed issues and the fact that some contributors are selling at really higher prices and getting more net profit, affects you. Unless, of course, we should look at it from a very intricate psychological level.
At least one of us is brave, don't have the courage to reveal your identity yet?...lol!
New Forum Rule From User Loop (Who chooses to hide identity)
- There will be no posting on topics unless you have a vested interest in such topic.
If those are all the arguments you can gather... case ended.
654
« on: December 02, 2010, 15:42 »
When in holidays or travelling I use my camera for taking stock and for taking personal and family shots. I don't see any problem in doing both things.
655
« on: December 02, 2010, 15:25 »
unfortunately the downside to having a relative lack of moderation here is having to wade through all sorts of petty stuff. bad manners posting someone else's work, but bad manners seem to be the culture over here.
Sorry, but as I mentioned before, I have no problem posting to others portfolios where there is an apparent conflict of interest, and as I mentioned before, i will do so again in the future regardless about how you feel about it. You seem to be applying IStock's forum rules over here. What moderation is needed? I didn't make any judgements about the quality of the work. I made an observation that a "Content Administrator" at IStockphoto has a portfolio with an abnormally large amount of Vetta files that don't seem to fit with the "Vetta" criteria as stated by IStockphoto. If that hurts your feelings, oh well. That's what the IGNORE button is for.
Very brave attitude. Considering that you don't have any photos at IS, neither buy there, it is difficult to understand how Vetta's or Agency's supposed issues and the fact that some contributors are selling at really higher prices and getting more net profit, affects you. Unless, of course, we should look at it from a very intricate psychological level.
656
« on: December 02, 2010, 12:13 »
I think it's very poor manners to bring someone else's work into a public forum. anyone who does it deserves it right back as far as I'm concerned. as for the example at hand, regardless of what collection the editors deemed those photos to be in--that is one crazy talented photographer. I've admired his work since well before Vetta. Do I think all those images should be Vetta....actually no. but I have four Vetta images myself that I wouldn't have placed in Vetta, and the ones I wanted in Vetta weren't accepted into the collection.
the bottom line is that buyers are deciding what deserves to be paid for and what doesn't. iStock is a close knit community despite the actual size of the community. realistically, I would expect some visibility for inspectors--especially since they are inspectors because of their talent and ability to begin with.
there's a handful of other contributors who do 'real people' REALLY well and I watch new contributors try to rip it off all the time...poorly, with crap lighting. just because a portrait is perfectly simple doesn't mean it isn't perfect. those portraits are bang on.
Singling out seems to be a new fashion... Not so many days ago, someone felt free to link another's istock contributor Vetta photo, with a vague excuse about another similar photo not being Vetta (photos were absolutely different concepts, hard to understand how a seasoned stock photographer couldn't see that). But well, the thread went on to hundreds of posts, so it seems its ok to post links and references to other peoples work.
657
« on: December 02, 2010, 07:54 »
I think I need to get all my relatives lined up and take mug shots...
I don't get why they're Vetta images, but they're decently done photos of "real" people and they buyers do seem to like them.... although I can't really imagine how they're being used - but I guess that's not the point.
If your click on his profile there is a link to an outside portfolio. In that port he has a "published" section. Some of those shots are shown there.
yes, I've seen them published several tim s... almost always several of them together to suggest a sense of community to wich a product or service is offered. The photos can be simple, but are very well lighted, and the expressions are ok.. Others that have been "inspired" by this concept, and have very similar shots don't sell so much, even if these photos are offered at regular exclusive or not exclusive prices.
658
« on: December 02, 2010, 07:48 »
You are really on the watch to past an copy any customer complain at istock. This one have been already posted at least two times. Such an effort and dedication.
Where? Other topic? Original post was created 2 hours ago at IS.
Yes, and it was re-posted here twice within minutes (if not seconds).
659
« on: December 02, 2010, 06:02 »
You are really on the watch to past an copy any customer complain at istock. This one have been already posted at least two times. Such and effort and dedication.
660
« on: December 01, 2010, 19:31 »
Well, I gotta hand it to you, with zero Vetta's and then seeing an admin with so many Vettas like this, I commend you on not being "bitter":
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_search.php?action=file&userID=709242&order=6
For whatever reason, the editors seem to enjoy those simple headshots. I don't get it, but there you go.
Another fact is that customers seem to enjoy them as well. They sell from consistently to very well.
661
« on: November 29, 2010, 10:34 »
Sales in european "hours" have been growing without pause for me.
662
« on: November 26, 2010, 13:46 »
Just see the "25th"-comment. What is that all about??
Most of us are probably asking the same question. (the 25th comment is your one)
Nope, mine was the 26th comment. I was referring to your 25th December-comment, indicating that I think Yuri is jeepers creepers of Nazareth (probably because of his Arab looks and long beard), not the 25th comment counting from the beginning of the post.
Well I wrote that in reply to your strange statement that I highlighted, I thought the way you went on about how peoples criticism of Yuri was "rooted in envy and lack of faith in God" made him out to be the next messiah.
In my view it seemed that you either didn't understand my philosophical statement or purposefully tried to twist it through the medium of ridicule. Now it seems you misunderstood it. Point is that if someone is busy ridiculing or putting someone else down then that is rooted in envy; ultimately envy of God. God created everything including persons and wealth, so if one is unnecessarily criticizing someone or something then one is indirectly criticizing God. Do you understand this point? So, also if someone is busy claiming others being the cause of their misery (less dollars for them) then that also means that they do not have faith that God will provide them exactly their allotted quota. Simple point. Naturally, that doesn't mean one should not stop injustice on the claim that it is indirectly sanctioned by God. Of course not. But then the situation is vastly different in that the criticisms is used to serve the purposes of God, namely justice. So, my question is if that is what's going on, or if the situation is just good old useless blah blah of unnecessarily criticizing others, in this case someone named Yuri. My post was meant to expose events of gossip about a friend of mine, on philosophical principles. I am not targeting specific individuals, just the tendency for unnecessary criticism. I most cases doing a move like that will create even more criticism, of me. But hey, I'm just an insignificant servant of God. Criticize me all you want.
Kind regards,
Daniel Laflor
Oh, my God. "Those who have personal opinions are sinners, loaded with envy, and will root in hell" Amen.
663
« on: November 23, 2010, 12:29 »
When talking about rejecting "competition" shots... Are you talking of what is done or of what you would o if you were inspector? Because you can't know what is done, and which are the rules and the procedures for inspecting at IS.
664
« on: November 17, 2010, 10:51 »
Adding to the list of iStock epic fails, for the last two hours a search only returns images from the 'Agency collection', expect few sale today folks 
 I'm getting absolutely normal results, now and one hour ago, when I was searching files to buy.
665
« on: November 17, 2010, 10:23 »
My $0.19 EL, when a buyer paid 100 credits for a legal guarantee. How does that benefit me? I would rather not know that istock are making a nice fee from my photo while I receive nothing. All it did was make me more determined not to have a long term future with them.
Istock dosn't make a nice fee: they assume a risk. But I agree that legal garantees shouldn't be named ELs, they should find another term.
666
« on: November 17, 2010, 10:19 »
I think leaf did well. Hate posts and personal attacks shouldn't be allowed. An neither singling out people's works, no matter with wich "excuse".
667
« on: November 16, 2010, 16:38 »
Today in the IS forum I suggested that contributors get together and contract some kind of ombudsman....or advocate. It was deleted by the moderator....which sucks big time. Do any of you photogs with IS know of any conversations or efforts to hire an advocate....someone to watch over our interests? It wouldn't cost much per contributor. Am I crazy or is this a good idea?
An union? Forget it... It's not possible. What could be hoped, when many people who just weeks ago were talking of integrity and were calling for a general upoalidg boycott to IS are now uploading themselves as crazy again? In this kind of work and internet relationship, creating an union is utopia. Market forces are what decide. There's a point (a price /comission point) where for most people exclusiviness or even regular membership is not worth. Should this point be reached, things would happen naturally. "Old" micro agencies would fade, some new with brigther ideas would emerge.
668
« on: November 16, 2010, 16:06 »
I think many of the ludicrous things wich some are saying here tell far fore of themselves than of Lobo.
You're right. I'm sure it's just coincidence that the best candidate for the job happened to be in a band with the CEO.
Te best candidate for the work was Peebert... Bruce is not the Ceo at istockphoto... but, wait a moment, you're talking of something you don't know nothing about. So, why bother.
669
« on: November 16, 2010, 13:03 »
The only photo you won't sell for sure is the one you don't do or upload. That said, I'm not seeing any big downfall in my sales.
670
« on: November 16, 2010, 12:44 »
I think many of the ludicrous things wich some are saying here tell far fore of themselves than of Lobo.
671
« on: November 13, 2010, 08:43 »
672
« on: November 11, 2010, 12:12 »
I think they should remove your forum ban to provide some peace to your soul.
673
« on: November 10, 2010, 14:59 »
To sell the same RF exclusive istock images in alamy as RM is not allowed at istock, and would mean being banned forever.
And the benefit of exclusive images applies if this image is the one wich suits your needs. Te benefit of being able to buy it and use it.
674
« on: November 08, 2010, 19:18 »
Yes, between average, actually quite good (for this and last month standards) here
675
« on: November 08, 2010, 14:39 »
^^ maybe you should keep posting in this thread so that you get more pity downloads from admins running that site! haha just kidding... sort of...
am i the only one that had this thought?
no...
Pages: 1 ... 22 23 24 25 26 [27] 28 29 30 31 32 ... 44
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
