Incredible, still no thread on the IS forum...unless there has been and it's been squashed like a bug so as not to ruin the big, exciting F5 news!

There are two, but not much activity in either - here and here.

Gostwyck's always blunt, but if you bowdlerize the language, the content's generally solid.

I have a very hard time dealing with the multitude of "thank you's" when long overdue bugs get fixed. And at this point, any mention of news for contributors on Monday has me clenching every muscle in anticipation of another round of bad news. They thought the partner program was good news. Then they pitched September 7th as good news for most contributors. Their ideas about good news and mine don't line up.

I honestly feel that my exclusive status is in the intensive care unit on life support and I just read that the gang that put me there is coming for a friendly visit on Monday

And I like having a place it's OK to say that without being told I'm a ball buster and having my posts deleted (both of which happened on IS forums).

I just had a series of photos rejected with the following message...

* PENTAX K100D native resolution = 3008 x 2008. Your file is 2704 x 2801. As part of iStock standards, we only accept files at their native resolution. *

This was an isolation photo.  All I did was crop off the excessive white space on the left and right edges.

If you use the crop tool, vs. just drag a selection rectangle around the wanted area and select Image>Crop, you can end up enlarging the image inadvertently, depending on your settings. Given the dimensions you gave, that may be what you did.

I have ISO 3200 images accepted - there's no automatic rejection because of ISO. Perhaps they mentioned noise?

To play devil's advocate for a second, how hard is it to switch your search to downloads instead of best match? That eliminates a lot or all of the Agency and Vetta. The best match has rarely lived up to its name, and I've always assumed many buyers (at least mine) don't use it.

I'm sure some don't use best match, but enough do that regardless of how easy it is to sort by downloads, best match changes are a very real assist/threat to us.

I'll give you an example of an old file - uploaded in November 2005 - that sold quite well elsewhere, but never much at IS. 14 sales in its first year, 10 in its second and 3 in its third.

In June 2009 something shifted (possibly best match 2.0, but I don't know) and the image started selling - 67 in 2009 and 121 so far this year.

I'm obviously happy when an oldie that was overlooked gets a new lease on life, but it underlines for me that it isn't just about the quality of my images.

Quote from: lisafx on December 07, 2010, 18:17

Quote from: jbarber873 on December 07, 2010, 18:15

  I've had a site on Photoshelter for a few months now, and I have to say they make it pretty easy to do sales, although there is still the problem of getting people to the website. When you set up the site, they have certain things they try to guide you on for SEO. I suppose it might help, but who knows? If you want, check out the site , and drive up my traffic numbers!    [url=http://www.expresspix.com]http://www.expresspix.com] [url=http://www.expresspix.com]http://www.expresspix.com]http://www.expresspix.com] [url]http://www.expresspix.com]http://www.expresspix.com]http://www.expresspix.com]http://www.expresspix.com] [url]http://www.expresspix.com[/url]

Good to know.  Are you making enough sales there to justify the effort in uploading and getting setup?

In a word, no. But hope springs eternal...

I don't think Photoshelter will be it, but my guess/hope is that someone offers a bundle of merchant services along the lines of amazon's for third party merchants who have "stores" at amazon.com. I don't think there'd be much chance of getting every photographer to become an expert in building a web site themselves. That scenario would require paying them something for the service, but possibly less than the large cut currently going to the microstock agencies.

And if it were Google doing it, at least we'd have a working search engine

Of course it could also be an out-of-the-frying-pan-into-the-fire situation, where it's a change of distributor but still very little control.

I guess it depends on how you look at. I upload my butt off. I work at producing better content everyday. I'm serious about my business. I guess that comment will ruffle feathers, but it's not meant to...

I don't have as large a portfolio as you do, but I work hard at producing high quality work. I became exclusive with a set of royalty schedules in place that made financial sense. Within weeks of making the 40% royalty rate I've been working towards I lose it because they've changed the rules.

I worked my effing butt off, made it, and had it taken away. I'm pi@#ed, demotivated and deeply, deeply distrustful of just about anything that HQ says.

 It was last December I was overjoyed that they grandfathered the next cannister level only to have them play weasel word games with that promise. They did keep the canister level, but they uncoupled the royalty rate that had always been tied to it (and which they knew no one would ever think would be uncoupled when contributors parsed the sentence promising grandfathering). The joy then makes the anger now even more profound.

The fact that there's some utter hogwash about earning back our trust in the September announcements and then KT goes into hiding around IS just pours fuel on the fire. Yes, he'd get yelled at if he came to the forums, but he just chickened out and abandoned contributors to lick their wounds.

We have recent evidence that just because they say something doesn't mean it'll still be true a short time later. That's not being conspiratorial, it's just being sentient given all the data in front of us.

The whole situation is just so ugly and grasping and greedy. And to think that when they said they were given the target of growing the business by 50% this year, I naively thought they'd actually grow the business, vs. grow their profits by squeezing contributors.

So I really don't appreciate comments about how you work your butt off and it'll all be all right. I did, and it isn't.

Quote from: jsnover on December 06, 2010, 23:24

It is a blatantly unfair thing to stack the dice (double the RC for Vetta sales until the end of the year) to benefit a small clique of favored admins get to their end of year targets.

You're arguing that the admins only select vetta files from their friends and coworkers?

I didn't say that and that's not what I mean. You getting extra RCs for your Vetta files is collateral damage - that's not why they're doing it, but you get the benefit of extra RCs anyway. The problem is that Vetta isn't selling the way it did before the prices went up. Next year's royalties for diamonds will be cut if they don't make 150K RCs before year end. This move (doubling the RCs) is trying to help them make it, IMO.

If you see the replies in the IS thread, there's a lot of very negative reaction to this nonsense.

My guess is there are many in the "in crowd" who aren't making their targets and this is a way to smooth the way for them.

The sale prices are silly - 6% off on a small size? Who will be motivated by that who wouldn't otherwise have purchased the Vetta image? There's a 20% discount on XXXL sizes, but again, if you wouldn't spend 150 credits I doubt you'd spend 120.

Nothing for illustrators, audio or video artists in terms of an RC bonus. Reminds me of some of those EU rules that member countries have to meet with their economies - when the big economies break the rules they're given a waiver, but nothing like that for the little guys.

This is a total crock (and I've nothing personal in it as I've no Vetta images any more and met my 40K redeemed credit target already).

Thanks for posting this Sean - very interesting read.

My pick for the quote to note is this one "My only conjecture is that once a search engine gets involved in licensing images, many of the current distributor channels will be challenged to offer a compelling reason for customers to visit their web site."

I can understand Ron's issues with being unable to make the numbers work with higher cost shoots, but even for those of us with very low costs would experience a little speed bump if there's a huge shift in who's the big dog in the microstock end of the market. I guess we all need to keep our eyes on new entrants - Google being the big dog in the search engine business - to see when it's time to jump.

Fortunately (I say with reluctance) there's no issues of loyalty to many of the existing micros given how poorly they've been treating contributors in cutting the portion of the income we receive. Being treated like a disposable Kleenex is pretty dispiriting, but it does simplify decisions if and when something new arises

thanks everyone.

A large obvious note sounds like the best way

Based on various advice in the forums over the years, what works for me (and when I use this I've never had an upsizing rejection, even from before I was exclusive):

Up front in the description field (not at the end)
Mark the note clearly to separate it - I do something like this:

++ Inspector note: This is stitched from several images ++
Boston harbor on a summer morning

I do the same with composites, noting that all components are my own images.

Some of my best friends are exclusives

Just as some of my best friends are independents

Most of the really nasty stuff hasn't happened yet - January will bring the rest of that. I continue to think that those who are soothed by higher prices and Getty as an outlet for Agency/Vetta (at lower royalty percentages even than the reduced ones on IS) aren't thinking through the long term. They'll all end up on 20% - which might be good news for independents if everyone's on 20% by then.

I don't understand why the attitude towards buyers is so inattentive. They don't keep them informed up front and the closest thing to a helping hand is posting that they should Contact Support. I know when I'm not treated well by a business and I have a choice, I vote with my wallet and hope that in time they come to their senses. Doesn't work with banks and cell phone companies as they're all just about equally awful Even if a business screws up, if they are attentive, contrite and helpful in trying to put things right, I find that a huge positive (unless they keep on doing it). So if I were just an iStock customer, I might overlook how they're treating contributors, but not how they were treating me. I think there's a ton of room for improvement there.

Quote from: spike on December 02, 2010, 07:20

Quote from: aeonf on December 01, 2010, 13:09

Is sharing real monthly $$$ income considerd rude ?

my question also.

Well I dont mind sharing this piece of info. We made 580$ in Nov.
Exclusives at IS with a port of ~1.5K
Would love to hear other people figures.

If you want to share, I don't think anyone will chastise you, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for others to do the same.

When I was salaried, I didn't routinely go around telling people what I made and certainly wouldn't have posted it in a public forum. It's information I would share in some circumstances, but it'd be a case by case basis. Don't feel there's any difference with my stock income.