Yes, mine's gone too, and the date is not displaying correctly in Firefox - it's broken up on separate lines.

At least I know it just isn't me. I thought maybe it just wasn't displaying, but when I went to post a message to Leaf I realized the option wasn't even available under his profile.

My personal message link is gone. Even when I click on someone's name it doesn't show the option to send personal message. Is it just me or is anyone else having this problem?

I don't believe the first two would make it through. The one with the stairs has very harsh shadows which would probably never make it through. The composition isn't the best either. I'd forget about it. The second one with googles isn't bad but you have to remember your horizon line. That shot should have been done horizontally not vertical. If you look at it you see the line right in the center which is where you never want it. Way to much lost space. I'd throw that one out too.

As for the other two. The one with the couch wouldn't be so bad, they might accept it. The waterfall one will probably get kicked for harsh lighting again. I feel it should have been taken horizontally also. The leaves in the top front of the shot really detract from the shot. It would have worked better if more of the rocks at the bottom of the falls were visible and the focus was on the falls. The best time of day to shoot waterfalls is a couple of hours after sun up or a couple of hours before sunset and with a tripod. That way you don't have the problem with the blown out highlights on the water. Looking at it blown up I can't find where the focus is on the falls, which is where it should be.

I'm no reviewer, but the only one that "might" make it through would be the couch and that depends on rather you get a reviewer that doesn't consider it a composition problem. The other three have lighting and composition problems. I doubt they would get through. Good luck and keep trying. Sorry I couldn't be more helpful.

Leaf I think there have been a lot who haven't polled..I think there are a couple of only buyers on here from what has been said in some of the threads.

I have no trouble with the captcha on my desktop, but I find it close to impossible to make out on my laptop, usually takes at least 2 tries.

Me too. Sometimes the captcha is unreadable on my laptop. It gets very irritating having to try to guess after a couple of reloads. I hate it.

I'll take your word for it Eireann....lol

I just checked Dreamstime and I'm enrolled in their partner accounts....but I find none of the ones I searched for on Pixmac.

Concerning the quality of the files, here is a composite cropped from part of a file as it appears on DT Pixmax and Fotolia (I can't help wondering if it was remade for DT). Anyway, the Pixmac version (middle) is the feed from Fotolia (bottom).  Look at how muddy the details are in the Pixmac one.



It may be useful to degrade comps to prevent them just being used as they are, but doesn't the degradation here go too far? Such heavy blurring seems likely to deter customers and raise doubts about the quality of the files in the agency/by that photographer.

I agree with him....some of the thumbnails really are bad. You might want to fix that if you expect more sales. I know if I was a buyer I would hesitate if the thumb was that far off. How would I know what it really looked like as a buyer?

Nope.......

Hi,
Does the image position in the search engine changes when people rate your image?
What is the benefit of getting ratings?

No and none. I haven't noticed it anyway so I don't think it really makes a lot of difference other than that someone liked you picture but didn't buy it.

Everyone keeps talking about Shutterstock and how they need to change. Right now it is my top earner. The commissions may be less, but they sale more, therefore earn more. The way I look at it...if it's not broke...don't fix it. Maybe there is some other reason for iStock's abrupt drop in sales...but if it is from change, I don't think I would want Shutterstock to do the same. That's just my opinion.

I posted as a buyer a few times giving some suggestions based on images I'm always looking for.. and I was asked by one member 'why don't I go and take the image myself' if I felt there was a gap in the stock library Now THAT'S counter-intuitive.. now I just lurk..

I will say this though, Istock is overpriced at the moment compared to other libraries, and we have moved elsewhere to source images at 'old' istock prices.. I'm pay as you go rather than a subs buyer.. dunno if that helps but, that's why I don't buy so many credits anymore on is, they just don't stretch far enough, especially given the economy, is prices have gone up regardless of the recession, meanwhile clients have no stock budget whatsoever, so it has to be price first for now.. a travel client of mine is even just sourcing images from their suppliers, which they have the correct licence for to use commercially etc, but they are provided for free and given the economy, this is what the client is going to use, even if the quality is awful in a lot of the images, they don't seem to care when it's bad quality vs having to pay..

Thanks for posting that. It's pretty much what I suspected. I don't think there is an easy answer to any of it and it just seems things keep getting worse and worse.

It�s the best time in the industry � if you are a buyer that is.  Great imagery is now as �cheap as chips� as they say in England,� Simon notes. �And Pixmac leads the picture pack.�

Quote

With a statement like that, it really makes us question rather you have our best interests at heart...

Quote from: sc on August 11, 2010, 15:24

His example was that if they needed a picture of "Joe's Inn" in Sonoma and they didn't have one, they would look on Flickr first and negotiate directly with the photographer. His statement was anybody can take "one good picture" and that was all they needed. NG wouldn't care what the rest of your portfolio looked like if they found the image that worked for them.

The problem is you can't find that kind of pictures on stock since it will be rejected for lack of PR or LCV. Even as Editorial it won't be accepted since it's not newsworthy.

Maybe we all need to travel all over the world photographing every "Joe's Inn" out there and put them up for sale on Flickr. The rate microstock is going it couldn't be any worse..