I meant JJRD and rogermexico. I've never met KK, so I can't say anything about him.

Quote from: & then... on September 27, 2010, 21:23

of course there's a bias towards Vetta. that isn't new, nor is it the point. you know what, you guys have your little club for the disgruntled over here. enjoy throwing sand in each others' faces and peeing in the pool.

It's not a little club, it's just that the balance of power and logic is shifting.  Prior to all of this you had a bunch of arrogant istock exclusives who were so loyal to istock that no matter what they did, who they effected, this group would defend their decisions... and their opinions domanited this forum.  istock always got by because of this loyalty but their contributors, even a lot of the exclusives have seen them for what they really are.  You and a few others are just slow waking up, that's all.

Arrogant? ... that's clearly subjective, probably more in your mind than in reality. Loyal? Yes, why not, but nor without reason. Until Photos.com and TS, all what did istock was good for contributors, exclusive or not, and for the business... particularly rescuing the infra microstock prices and making them more logical and fair. And, even now, they have the fairest suscription system everywhere.
Yes, things have changed (not much for me, to be true), but I will concede a 100 days proof period from January to see how the new situation works.
I've read and this forum that some exlusives "feel trapped". And maybe it's true, but not for the reasons stated. If I feel trapped is just because there's nowhere to go without having to swallow the miser 30-35 cents-every- size subscriptions. That makes any alternative less atractive.

Rob Sylvan has been always a gentleman and a very fair person. He will do well wherever he goes, as he deserves.

Related: Although I don't know if that was Rob's case, this illustrates a bit the downfalls of letting the business part gain weight over the comunity part. When you have a real community, there are a lot of members willing to make things for free (from Critique Forum, to attending fairs, organizing lypses, programming utilities, etc.) When it's just a business, this part disappears and the business has to pay for anything. I repeat, I supposse this wasn't Rob's case, because he was an Administrator, but I know of a lot of people that willingly did many things for free.

Quote from: JamesGdesign on September 24, 2010, 21:06

Well I'm banned from the forums & sitemail haha! Called a trolls response pathetic & responded to Lobo saying I wouldn't be intimidated by his bullish behaviour and thinly veiled threats to me on sitemail.

It would appear somone is a tad insecure in their authority... go figure.

How many others have felt the light touch of the wiffle hammer?

Anyhoo - had to register somewhere and voice my displeasure at censorship. Carry on all! (and hello all on these forums!)

I think it's too funny that they ban you from sitemail too. What is the point of that? The whole banning thing seems rather childish and vindictive anyway, especially considering the random nature of the whole thing. I see people on there who have posted much more than my 10 or so posts and have been way more critical and insulting and they apparently still have their posting privileges.

As a buyer who is taking my business elsewhere now, I still get the last laugh though.

Well, if I remember well, you have been taking your business elsewhere sice the times where istock raised prices to 1-2-3 credits.

Exactly.  It's all starting to look nonsensical.  The blogger is remarkably quiet when asked for any details.

Exactly. His silence speaks volumes.

haha... passionate for his work... For other passions you should ask Brianna....

I think "never put all your eggs in one basket" sums it up more succinctly for me.  I would never feel comfortable only being able to sell RF with one site, as they have too much power and then they get greedy.

The sentence is right, but maybe your interpretation isn't. The question is: what is the basket? My answer: the basket is not istock, or FT or DT... The basket is microstock as a whole. Not tomorrow, but I think what has been done by Getty/Istock will be done for other in the short mid-term. In some way, with less margin, it would be more difficult for them to compete... at least that's what probably will be said. At it will be raining everywhere.
So, my advice would be: diversify, look for income from photography, but not just from microstock or stock. It is the safer way.

One or two forum bans after about 10,000 posts in three threads, some of them let's say "overenthusiastic" in their criticisms and showing a variety of adjectives it's no as much... At another sites that would had last about ten minutes...

sure, but we're talking about apples and oranges anyways, since the point of highlighting this example is the incorrect assumption that this contributor is an admin/inspector/employee. she is none of those things. she is a contributor only, which negates the whole theory behind this thread.

Se has a lot of very good, very styled and very well pothographed stock work. Simplicity is a tricky word, in this context. All she has just can be reached with cpmpetence and hard work.

Why am I getting the sense that getting a straight rejection explanation is going to be difficult with istock... :-)

Both of your points so far have not actually dealt with anything technical, which is their stated reason for rejection.

Are you saying that a photo can be technically correct, but they will reject it for subject matter, but state that it is for technical reasons.

If that is the case, then that is a dishonest culture at the company...?
  
 


No. Being not considered not useful for stock (no stock worthy) is one of the rejection causes stated on their tutorial.

It's obvious macro shooters are some steps behind.

IS moves have always lead the way for other agencies. We have seen that, for example, in prices. If IS increases prices, they leave space to others doing it as well. If IS decreases contributor margins... here there's another space that maybe will be followed and filled. What would you do then?

Quote from: loop on September 13, 2010, 01:58

Well, but Getty results, with this formula, aren't and haven't been for years good at all. Maybe the should stick with the formula that really works.

What do you mean their results haven't been good for years?

Well I think they have faced financial trouble and operating at loss, the same as Corbis and others. Actually it would be better Getty copying the formula of istock, than viceversa (what they tend to do now).