I think its very telling that istock is quick to answer tweets and offer discounts to customers yet when I ask how what they're going to do for contributors, I'm met with silence. That's exactly how important we are to them folks...

Quote from: lagereek on November 19, 2011, 06:14
Yes but you cant just add, just like that to the house-collection, the house-collection is Gettys flagship, ( mainly Stones and Image-Bank ) has always been and its all RM and you have to get in there by merit. Then you can add.

Yeah, as a house collection contributor, I'm well aware of that.

Quote from: lagereek on November 18, 2011, 21:16
If youre invited to the actual house-collection. Go for it !  if its photographers-choice: I would think twice about it.

Quote from: qwerty on November 18, 2011, 21:50
Photographers choice you pay money (i think its like $50) for each image you submit. There have been threads about it before here on msg. Previously If you sell a photo you get another free slot. Some people report making some money but its a large investment.

Photographer's Choice contributors now get 40 FREE uploads per quarter, so I can't possibly see the downside of contributing if invited.  I'm sure using all those free submits in addition to adding to the House collections.

Yep... LOVE my x100. The 5D mark II pretty much is just gathering dust since I've gotten the Fuji. And Getty has taken all the upsized (from RAWs) photos that I've sent in, so I'm fully confident in what the camera can do. Very happy with my investment.

Quote from: caspixel on August 07, 2011, 14:28

Peebert was edgy, but funny. And he didn't belittle people's concerns like Lobo does.

Very true.

Quote from: madelaide on August 07, 2011, 16:01
Do you even know if Lobo is a real person, or just a pseudonym for IS staff? Like Scout, I believe that is a group, not a person, although I have been told otherwise.

Chris McBurney is Lobo. Pete Rockwell is/was Peebert. Its a shame Pete got the boot from iStock.

Quote from: jamirae on April 05, 2011, 16:28If one person looked up and posted on this website how many others got a charge that did NOT bother to search online and post about it? 

Yep, that was basically my point in posting.  I haven't followed it quite as closely as some have I guess, but I figure two fraud issues reported to that site alone in the past couple weeks is significant - if nothing else, it tells us iStock hasn't been able to plug the hole that's allowing them in.

Maybe others have already pointed this out, but I just noticed a couple more recent posts about CC fraud involving iStock here: http://800notes.com/Phone.aspx/1-403-265-3062/5   I imagine only a very small percentage of CC fraud victims would post over there so it seems to me that there's probably still a fair amount going on....

Quote from: nico_blue on March 14, 2011, 01:18
No disrespect meant but the people that keep pushing to nominate stacey_newman or even pink_cotton_candy need to get their heads checked... this will turn this pointless conference call into something even more counter productive.

IS PCC even eligible? - I thought it was "no admin/inspectors/moderators" or maybe I was just wishing it to be that way. In any case, you're totally right.

Aside from the fact that I think this is a less than transparent, strategic move by iStock - I can't imagine anyone thinking this through and being willing to take it on. They'd be tied to whatever the NDA says, held responsible by the iStock community, likely unable to share much of anything (good or bad) and forever tied to the iStock admin in that "remember - we did you a favor..." kind of way. Nothing good will come of this and its just further manipulation by Bruce's band buddies who've graduated to running iStock. What a huge mess that's become. I'm embarrassed to have ever endorsed iStock on any level.

Quote from: ichiro17 on January 17, 2011, 13:35
I guess you can sell things at these prices when you are the best selling microstock photographer of all time

There's a sucker born every minute, so I'm sure there's a market for this thing.

[/quote]
Regarding price: Custom Brackets makes top notch gear. It's for the professional.
[/quote]

Being a professional and the price of gear are two separate, unrelated things. That price for a monopod is simply ridiculous.

Is this really a $600 monopod?  That's absurd.

That's kind of an old link. I'm looking forward to the camera but I'll wait for the dpreview assessment before buying. In the meantime signing up here will get you updates - they just sent one out yesterday: http://www.finepix-x100.com/

Quote from: sjlocke on December 31, 2010, 13:12

I will bet you a dollar that they won't be happening tomorrow.  I would say the 17th at the earliest.

I'm sure they'll probably get around to it on or about the 17th, but it wouldn't surprise me the slightest little bit if they went back and adjusted everyone's royalties to reflect it having started on the 1st.

Quote from: donding on December 30, 2010, 03:04

Quote from: caspixel on December 30, 2010, 02:42
Ah Getty, you little hypcrites:

Kreindler & Kreindler LLP has filed a class action lawsuit against Getty Images in the Eastern District of New York on behalf of dozens of professional photographers whose images were incorporated without their permission into Getty's new product "Premium Access."

http://www.kriendler.com/kreindler_news/news_current/2008-10-class-action-against-getty-images.html

Do as I say, not as I do.

I saw that also but couldn't find a date on it. Did you happen to see one? That could have been from years ago.

Its from October 2008 - the URL is a clue and a google search confirms.

Quote from: sjlocke on December 01, 2010, 23:47

Quote from: nruboc on December 01, 2010, 23:07
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.

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.

The blog post was blah, blah, blah - nothing new, generalizations and some inaccuracies - mixed with "hire me instead".   I think his biggest contribution is his white seamless tutorial (that I direct many people to) but it starts and ends there.

Quote from: klsbear on October 14, 2010, 03:53
True, but I lived in Manhattan for 7 years and even on the 22nd floor of a third avenue highrise, that wasn't too old, we had cockroaches, so it's really stretching the imagination to think food could be left out that long, and remain untouched.  Sounds like a challenge for Mythbusters!

Never saw a single bug in my building on 1st ave but maybe we're just lucky!

Quote from: klsbear on October 13, 2010, 02:25
It's harder to believe that any food left out for 180 days wasn't overtaken by roaches or mice in a NYC apartment! 

New York isn't quite as bad as you seem to think it is.... although the current bed bug problem probably doesn't help the public perception of how people in NYC live.

Quote from: caspixel on September 29, 2010, 02:34
Anyone remember iStock Pro?

I think I sold one photo at 'Pro. Other than that, there's not much to remember....

Quote from: FD-regular on August 27, 2010, 23:25

Quote from: blaneyphoto on August 27, 2010, 16:42Well.... the L lenses only go up in weight from the 24-70. That's about the lightest one I own.

The 24-105 is lighter and many people claim they don't see any difference. Ask Lisa: she has both.

It might be a bit lighter, but its an f/4.... too slow to be much use to me - I'll stick with the 24-70.

Quote from: FD-regular on August 27, 2010, 12:23

Quote from: blaneyphoto on August 27, 2010, 01:53I used the 5D mk II as well, and the 24-70mm was on that most of the time. Used both for both wildlife and landscape - sometimes the wildlife was right in my face and othertimes the 400mm made for great landscape shots.

Well the real reason I asked is that I have a 5DII with a 24-70 which is great (but heavy) for general work and landscapes, but a little bit short even for portraits. I couldn't imagine using a 24-70 for wildlife on a full frame, and I was thinking of a 70-200. The problem is they are around 1000 euro.

Well.... the L lenses only go up in weight from the 24-70. That's about the lightest one I own.  70-200 is a useful range, but really the longer the better.

Quote from: FD-regular on August 27, 2010, 01:46

Quote from: blaneyphoto on August 27, 2010, 01:42A few photos here if anyone's interested.... http://www.flickr.com/photos/blaneyphoto/sets/72157624629212839/

Great stuff! Wat lens did you use for the wildlife shots?

I bought a Canon 7D and 100-400mm for this trip. Worked pretty well, but f/5.6 is SO limiting. I used the 5D mk II as well, and the 24-70mm was on that most of the time. Used both for both wildlife and landscape - sometimes the wildlife was right in my face and othertimes the 400mm made for great landscape shots.

I just returned yesterday from a month in the Tetons and Yellowstone. No signs of imminent disaster as far as I could tell....

A few photos here if anyone's interested.... http://www.flickr.com/photos/blaneyphoto/sets/72157624629212839/

They approached me for a photo some time ago. I sent them the link to the image on iStock and told them if they couldn't afford a web size version, then they could forget it. Never heard from them again.