You see how thick it is? What are they using, a CRT?

Quote from: michaeldb on September 17, 2010, 01:32

Interesting link, I had not seen this. I have read about many possible 'fountains of youth' but most have too many problems. However, this might work.

After all, our bodies know how to repair and replace cells, so it is not clear why we should get old at all. The problems seems to be that damage is done faster than it can be repaired, and a lot of the damage is from oxygen radicals. So the 'cure' described in this video might work, at least to some extent. I will almost certainly be dead long dead by the time the FDA approves it here in the US though.

I thought the problem with cells replacing themselves was the cloning issue. Each copy is more imperfect than the one it replaces.

I think you are right. However if you can cut down on the oxidative stress you can decrease aging "systems" for a longer period of time. Quality of life should be better maybe not longer.

Quote from: hawk_eye on September 15, 2010, 16:31

I don't see why they would refer someone either. But actively canvassing for istock buyers to leave is a whole other thing. And based onisinformation. I hope buyers see through it.

From all your comments I see only fear of leaving Istock. This kind of fear I often see in people who live in a horrible marriage, but are still afraid to break it. The "marriage" between Istock and it's exclusives right now I see only as a weird, little bit sick relationship, where Istock is a sadistic partner, and exclusives are the partner who suffers.
Go out people, branch to other agencies, you can't lose. If you could just look at the situation from outside..... I really don't understand what more do you expect from a business partner like this? Do you expect that you will somehow prosper if you stay exclusive there??
I see only the next "good" change coming next year, and then you will realize that you lost one more year in trusting to someone who doesn't appreciate your talent, your work, and you as a person.
I'm seeing this every day. Istock did something that I see in my country all the time, and that's what scared . out of me.

Well put. That about sums it up. Sometimes you need to back up yo get ahead.

Quote from: Zeus on September 16, 2010, 17:22

So belittle  all you want to but at your peril or maybe at least loss of opportunity.

This is ironically enough the exact advice that macros needed to heed before micros started destroying them.

Touche, What goes around, comes around.

The micro seems to have higher quality.

You'll find plenty of exceptions but I think in general this isn't true. Micro probably has better technical quality but as I have often argued, who really cares?


On the other subject, micro prices would not go up significantly until all micro agencies stop competing on price which may happen when there is fewer of them and no other type of competition (like macro, midstock) exists.  It may never happen and something else will be invented.
But haven't they in fact gone up lots already over the past few years? Why not more?  An an agency that can supply great images is far more valuable to most buyers than saving 50 cents on a download.

So maybe that's why macro agencies are falling. They have lots of old and overpriced stuff and they think they are superior to micros :-)

Based on your own personal experience? This is what drives me nuts. Why wouldn't you try and pull micro prices up rather than complain macro is overpriced?

Quote from: Zeus on September 16, 2010, 10:45

This is one area where I actually agree with the direction Getty is taking. I would think that the collection needs to be different than that of what is on iStock already. Micro has really narrowed the perception of what a good stock image is for a lot of photographers who participate in it. With it's never ending technical requirements. It's like making rules for writing that only allow for certain phrases or word combinations. Pretty soon everything reads the same. The same can be said for music. Think of music where only certain beats and chord combinations could be used. If you hear enough of it, that's all that sounds good to you. Then you hear something different and call it garbage. That's what micro has done for photographic style.  I don't mean to offend anyone here, it's just a general observation. The other thing that micro has really narrowed is photographer's perception of what a client is willing to pay for an image. There are lots of clients paying lots of money still. Let them pay. Quite trying to drag high paying clients down.

A new idea...

Kitsch 'n' Sink Collection

Is it the collection you don't like or the fact that the photographer gets way more money?

This is one area where I actually agree with the direction Getty is taking. I would think that the collection needs to be different than that of what is on iStock already. Micro has really narrowed the perception of what a good stock image is for a lot of photographers who participate in it. With it's never ending technical requirements. It's like making rules for writing that only allow for certain phrases or word combinations. Pretty soon everything reads the same. The same can be said for music. Think of music where only certain beats and chord combinations could be used. If you hear enough of it, that's all that sounds good to you. Then you hear something different and call it garbage. That's what micro has done for photographic style.  I don't mean to offend anyone here, it's just a general observation. The other thing that micro has really narrowed is photographer's perception of what a client is willing to pay for an image. There are lots of clients paying lots of money still. Let them pay. Quite trying to drag high paying clients down.

I have not paid close attention to them but from what I have taken in they are in the Not-With-A-10-Foot-Pole category.

Is there any way an exclusive can get an increase in percentage (immediate jump) once this lunacy is enacted?

I still think you guys have this whole thing completely wrong. Trying to send buyers elsewhere will have little or no effect. The right to change the way business is done is not in your hands. Jump up and down scream all you want nothing will change. This is hardly Getty's first time through this. The expertise is there. They sell stuff. Remove the stuff and there is nothing to sell. Then you say we'd like X for our stuff, then you can negotiate. Ain't no other way. This is of course impossible so nothing will change, except of course the length of time between payouts.

My number of Alamy sales is not far off from the number of iS DLs for the month.