Hi all,

I have a question that should we adjust our monitor brightness to the maximum during photoshop post process? or you use the histogram chart rather than eye?

I use 120cd/m�, it's the recommended value with my eye one display calibrator device.

The last update on iStock forums confirmed that they are one foot in the grave already.

We're going a bit off topic here, but isn't the difference between the 25% commission that a bronze exclusive and the 40% that a diamond gets that extra "love", not to mention the higher upload quotas?

I just want to remind everybody here that Alamy pays 60% and there is no upload quotas. Alamy gets my love allright

Just wanted to read and feel how it would sound. What text would you put on their gravestone?

(Sorry about this thread, I'm getting a bit drunk here

The problem is essentially supply and demand.  The supply of images exceeds demand and therefore the agencies are free to reduce commissions.

No, that is only true with physical products. With digital products there is no reason to give smaller comissions even if sales per image decrease: only the amount of sales will be less but the percentage can stay the same. That's because the only cost of the over-supply is just some server space. They can also free some of the space by removing images that doesn't sell, but still no reason to touch the royalty percentages.

All these IS buyers bailing... it's like music to my ears!

Good timing   but will it work?

Where can the info be found?

"Since roughly 2005 we've been aware of a basic problem with how our business works. As the company grows, the overall percentage we pay out to contributing artists increases. In the most basic terms that means that iStock becomes less profitable with increased success. As a business model, it�s simply unsustainable

I haven't seen my 20% increase anywhere in the last five years I have been a member. This is a very invalid argument for us independents.

Do you stop buying cheap things because they are made by cheap labor?

I do, sometimes. What makes this situation special, is that the options where photographers get more are also cheaper. And the creative people buying the images also symphatize with other creatives i. e. photographers.

Someone said this at iStock forum and I like it.

why not to do this:

keep "canister level" payments for all of us who will lose with the new rules
use "redeemed credits" payments for those who will "move up" with them.

After we drive the buyers to the competition and ruin it for IS/Getty, one of the only two good paying agencies, how do you get the customers back? Oh wait, we just drove them away and screwed ourselves. Not everyone has their images on FT, DT and BigStock.

It maybe be a hasty decision to get revenge and drive our own business and customers away!

Away? Where? Hopefully somewhere they pay more than 20% for the photographer.

Not everyone has their images on every site, but if they are not exclusive they should have their images at least on the big 4.
The important part is that we don't feed the clients propaganda, just sincerely tell them how iStock treats their contributors (and maybe in comparison how other sites treats us)

Yeah, recommend those other sites like FT and DT because they have never lowered royalty rates on us... oh wait, they have. The list of companies that haven't seems to be getting smaller and smaller.

Yes, they have lowered their royalty rates. But they at least have a long way to go to 15%

I've also mentioned previously that IS contributors should take turns calling their support hotline either until their system breaks down or until they realize they cannot provide adequate service for their buyers.

That would hurt them in the long run as well.

With today's means like VOIP calling virtually anyone can call for free their support lines both at HQ and the 1-800 numbers.

I think that's just harrassing.