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.
Quote from: traveler1116 on July 17, 2011, 08:16Theres a novel idea....
Maybe you should take your issues up in IS forums instead.
Quote from: madelaide on July 17, 2011, 00:42Nope the instruction manual were in lots of different languages and i'm not bisexual so easily confused.Quote from: shank_ali on July 16, 2011, 07:29You think? Didn't you notice that when you bought it?
I think my camera can do video !
.Quote from: pseudonymous on July 16, 2011, 13:57Eh rubbish of me...NeverQuote from: shank_ali on July 15, 2011, 15:49Quote from: velossaraptor on July 14, 2011, 22:50You have to be a photographer first and a bloody good one at that.
so how would someone become a reviewer? they ever post on craigslist or anything? It sounds like a pretty interesting job to me
Sorry, but that's a load of rubbish. Being a good photographer isn't necessary. In fact, you don't even need to be a photographer at all to be a good reviewer. I've been dealing with composition, lighting, contrast, colour temperature etc. practically all my life as an artist and can easily pick a good photograph. But ask me to produce a good photograph and I wouldn't have a clue. The requirements for a decent microstock reviewer are 1) a good set of eyes, 2) attention to detail, 3) a good understanding of the market. Really, that's about it.
A microstock reviewer doesn't need to be a photographer to pick out a good photo just as much as a food critic doesn't need to be a chef, a music critic doesn't need to be a musician, a book critic doesn't need to be an author etc. If photographic skills were needed to be able to review an image, then buyers, who aren't photographers, will be buying as many crappy images as the good ones.
Quote from: sjlocke on July 16, 2011, 12:24Read ALL my post and you will find your answer.You will get the same answer on the Istock forum in due course.Quote from: shank_ali on July 14, 2011, 22:20Quote from: gclk on July 14, 2011, 21:59As the event is a joint venture between Getty/Istock, all Milan content uploaded by the attendees, will go to the PP.
I've been away, but just to check - this time there hasn't yet been any official mention of forcing paying 'lypse attendees to make their work available via the PP, has there?
BTW, that has not been stated. But I've asked, so you won't have to make up imaginary answers.
Quote from: lthn on July 16, 2011, 09:31When i look at other people's photographs i always notice the good points.It's a posative approach that encourages my belief in creating beauty from my own camera ...If you do get the time please have a look at my lightbox via my istock account..:Inspectors Delight ".Not a piss poor shot in sight IMO.Quote from: shank_ali on July 15, 2011, 15:49Quote from: velossaraptor on July 14, 2011, 22:50You have to be a photographer first and a bloody good one at that.
so how would someone become a reviewer? they ever post on craigslist or anything? It sounds like a pretty interesting job to me
Contrary to that, inspectors' galleries I'v seen were lined with piss poor shots. The funny part is that most of them were even technically piss poor too!
Quote from: nruboc on July 16, 2011, 04:44.
It was truly a sad day at IStock HQ the day Yuri flew by their poster girl and Exclusive contributor Lise, I wonder if they have a day of mourning every year to commemorate that sad occasion, with a fraction of Yuri's portfolio no less... LOL
Quote from: lthn on July 16, 2011, 09:25The model release needs to be right to protect yourself/ model/agent.Thanks for your amusing comment though !
what a bunch of dilettants istock is. btw they should just pay to licence shutterstock's submission applet, these braindead loosers will never-ever get it right on their own.
Quote from: shank_ali on July 11, 2011, 22:28Just been confirmed by adam .They will be completed next weekend...Hopely i can beat 434 sales from last month or match it !
Hopely June payments will start to get added to our accounts this weekend.Hoping !
Quote from: luissantos84 on July 15, 2011, 18:55I was specifically talking about Istock and i also no they train there new inspectors.They usually let them view non exclusives sub standard workQuote from: shank_ali on July 15, 2011, 15:49Quote from: velossaraptor on July 14, 2011, 22:50You have to be a photographer first and a bloody good one at that.
so how would someone become a reviewer? they ever post on craigslist or anything? It sounds like a pretty interesting job to me
sorry but that might not be true.. there must be smaller agencies having "stock friends" as reviewers, of course they aren´t paying very well but you might not be a very good photographer (actually it is well payed??), you do need to know all the technical side, which after a few months/years as stock photographer you will get to it..
before viewing my creme de la creme !
Quote from: ShadySue on July 15, 2011, 22:11He's not that bad but i aint getting a new personality and character to fit into what Istockphoto deems to be fitting !Quote from: shank_ali on July 15, 2011, 16:45And iStock love their exclusives so much that they kick us off the forums at the random whim of a moderator.
Let's be honest, non exclusives don't give a dam about Istockphoto for the most part, so they use an outside forum to belittle the company at every opportunity.
Quote from: luissantos84 on July 15, 2011, 20:31The bald ones are more loyalQuote from: shank_ali on July 15, 2011, 19:37Quote from: luissantos84 on July 15, 2011, 19:31I used that theory before picking the wifeQuote from: shank_ali on July 15, 2011, 19:21Quote from: luissantos84 on July 15, 2011, 19:07Well scotty has not beamed me up just yet....
shank are you from this world?? how can you talk like that saying we dont care about IS? thats a joy to hear, lot of folks here have commited a lot of work into pulling portfolios up there WHICH is a MESS overall with the slots, the keywords, the rejections that don´t match pictures (not a lot but some for sure).. and then the WORST paying a low 15%..
I guess you should think first before protecting IS when they were the only ONES screwing our earnings and buyers too.. I don´t make much there or anywhere else but the 15% is a thing to be ashamed and I am sure IS on the first days was too but money TALKS!
I'm just in the minority in my thinking as i believe that microstock companys provide a resource for selling my photographs and without it i would be screwed.Some are of the opposite opinion..if it wasent for our work there would be no microstock companies.
What came first,the chicken or the egg.
Istock are still the premier microstock agent and no non exclusive will persuade me otherwise.
RC's were a bitter pill to swallow for most but in the long run people will see the benefit.
I believe every contributor must try all agencies and feel what works best, then you can go exclusive or quit or other
exactly.. please help me out there too.. brunettes or blondes?? I have found that brunettes seem more insatiable
something on their nose right?
Quote from: cobalt on July 15, 2011, 19:35Just a titbit from the Istock Lypse in London.Like most things on Istock though, regarding change, they take awhile .
"The good news is that Istockphoto are planning an overhaul of the upload system.The present one is too slow."
Really? I use DeepMeta and uploading is a breeze. (Deepmeta is a free program that helps you keyword and upload files).
What are they going to change? Do you have a link?
Quote from: luissantos84 on July 15, 2011, 19:31I used that theory before picking the wifeQuote from: shank_ali on July 15, 2011, 19:21Quote from: luissantos84 on July 15, 2011, 19:07Well scotty has not beamed me up just yet....
shank are you from this world?? how can you talk like that saying we dont care about IS? thats a joy to hear, lot of folks here have commited a lot of work into pulling portfolios up there WHICH is a MESS overall with the slots, the keywords, the rejections that don´t match pictures (not a lot but some for sure).. and then the WORST paying a low 15%..
I guess you should think first before protecting IS when they were the only ONES screwing our earnings and buyers too.. I don´t make much there or anywhere else but the 15% is a thing to be ashamed and I am sure IS on the first days was too but money TALKS!
I'm just in the minority in my thinking as i believe that microstock companys provide a resource for selling my photographs and without it i would be screwed.Some are of the opposite opinion..if it wasent for our work there would be no microstock companies.
What came first,the chicken or the egg.
Istock are still the premier microstock agent and no non exclusive will persuade me otherwise.
RC's were a bitter pill to swallow for most but in the long run people will see the benefit.
I believe every contributor must try all agencies and feel what works best, then you can go exclusive or quit or other
Quote from: sjlocke on July 15, 2011, 16:11Excuse me but it was hardly random.It was item 4 on the list and as we have entered the 3rd week of July....
Thanks for today's random "IMO" post.
Quote from: luissantos84 on July 15, 2011, 19:07Well scotty has not beamed me up just yet....
shank are you from this world?? how can you talk like that saying we dont care about IS? thats a joy to hear, lot of folks here have commited a lot of work into pulling portfolios up there WHICH is a MESS overall with the slots, the keywords, the rejections that don´t match pictures (not a lot but some for sure).. and then the WORST paying a low 15%..
I guess you should think first before protecting IS when they were the only ONES screwing our earnings and buyers too.. I don´t make much there or anywhere else but the 15% is a thing to be ashamed and I am sure IS on the first days was too but money TALKS!
Quote from: cthoman on July 15, 2011, 16:09Let's be honest, non exclusives don't give a dam about Istockphoto for the most part, so they use an outside forum to belittle the company at every opportunity.Quote from: shank_ali on July 15, 2011, 15:56
To many contributors only viewed the Redeemable Credits from there own perspective/sales/portfolios.
When they try to see the bigger picture they wrongly assumed it was greed by Istockphoto that fueled the change.
The money the company now saves, with this new payment method,will be used to bring longevity to the company which in turn serves all our purposes.
I can't say I really care all that much about the longevity of a company that only wants to pay me 17% of the pie. There doesn't seem to be much of a future there, so I've focused my attention elsewhere.
Quote from: velossaraptor on July 14, 2011, 22:50You have to be a photographer first and a bloody good one at that.
so how would someone become a reviewer? they ever post on craigslist or anything? It sounds like a pretty interesting job to me
Quote from: luissantos84 on July 15, 2011, 13:19Do you live in china by any chance?Quote from: shank_ali on July 15, 2011, 07:26
TIP:If your thinking about uploading to Microstock sites for the first time..Join Istockphoto first and keep at it until your accepted.Build a portfolio there and if the sales come, you will need no reason to venture outside IMO
this is not tip no nothing, it just BAD but you may do that and non-exclusives will appreciate this for sure!
what is the point of just sticking with IS and then if things don´t go well go with all other?? thats just ridiculous.. you should go with all.. I don´t think you would "try" to make it on stock with 15% comission and low sales if your port don´t attract massive sales/buyers!