Quote from: rjmiz on May 23, 2008, 23:32
.....and one more rule:

From now on, no one is allowed to pick on the MIZ anymore.
Just nice things about me are allowed....

Ahhhh now Miz, I'm sorry but that's asking just a little too much.

The whole purpose of CanStockPhoto is simply to serve as a warning to others.

Rule No.1: Do not accept every crappy shot you can get your hands on.

Rule No.2: Do not sell 'em at bargain bucket prices.

Rule No.3: Do not raise the bar to obscene levels.

Rule No.4: Do not tell everyone what you've done.

Rule No.5: Do pull the plug. The brand was destroyed months ago.

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on May 21, 2008, 23:05
So Editorial, er I mean Contackt, what are you going to choose for your next member name?

Ahhhh paulielittlenuts, I was wondering where you'd got to. You know, you remind me of one of those football hooligans; wherever there's a bit of action you just can't resist being hosed out of it by the police.

And as for whatever name I do happen to choose you can be absolutely sure it'll be a little bit more intelligent sounding than yours.

NEXT!! 

Quote from: pieman on May 21, 2008, 19:39


It's almost beyond hilarious to read your commentary on the matter.

LOL, what I find more hilarious is the IQ of some of you tulips on this forum. It's like dealing with dolly the sheep but then again why I am sounding so surprised? It's all there in the content.

Quote from: Microbius on May 21, 2008, 11:35
lol, do I know you? Have I ever posted a post like this before to make me part of a fraternity? In case you thought that my post had anything to do with your pathetic bitter whining I was referring to Helix's original well thought out post about IS exclusivity.

My apologies, I stand corrected. But as for your disparaging comments, let me be absolutely clear about something here, I don't particularly like unsupported accusations of plagiarism. And I don't take kindly to being called names either when I have an issue with that.

What I'm dealing with here is one or two of the usual suspects who at the first opportunity will be in on a post like a bunch of cackling hyenas. Bittersweet and sjlocke are typical of the breed and at first glance it appears I mistakenly added you to the list. Or did I?

Quote from: sharpshot on May 21, 2008, 10:29
The word "micro" restricts the site to low prices. 

That's not something I would have given consideration to but yes, I agree with you, micro does define the brand. Whether that was intentional or not remains to be seen.

Quote from: Microbius on May 21, 2008, 10:33
Helix 7, your original post as usual was spot on!

Ha haaaa, the microarse licking fraternity are coming out hot and heavy now.   . C'mon now Microbius, you're going to have to get all that brown stuff off your nose now.

Quote from: Bateleur on May 21, 2008, 08:48
Who cares about the name?

Well, it's 50% of the business making sure you get the name right. Get it wrong and you'll pay heavily and that's well documented.

Quote from: helix7 on May 21, 2008, 04:46

I could see that wise men image getting rejected. It's not as good as the one you compared it to, Contakt. Seems sloppy, has a nasty lens flare for a star, and an unnecessary brown foreground (in a backlit scene). Is it bad? Of course not. But it also does have some flaws that istock is becoming known for rejecting.

I don't think most people would have given that image more than a 50/50 shot of getting approved.

Yep, I think I see what you mean now. Mine is extremely sloppy, the blue one below belonging to Generic's is a much more detailed including his Llama's or Camel's should I say, I can't work out what they are? But you've got a great eye for detail Helix, no doubt about that 

it's unlikely to be a firewall issue as that's only protecting ports etc.
Your pop / smtp settings are not being logged and are getting dumped similar to your cache on shutdown. Run your IE wizard and see if that sorts it out.

Quote from: sjlocke on May 20, 2008, 22:14
http://www.istockphoto.com/kim258

I swear she had one just like that, but the silhouettes I remember there aren't there now.  Sorry.

It does look a lot like generic's though.

Mr Locke, not only do I have enormous difficulty with the fact that you've attempted to character assassinate me without checking your facts first, I don't know which is more infuriating; your original accusation or your beleagured attempts to prove that this image did actually exist but by some extraordinary coincidence has now miraculously disappeared??

The fact that this image I've allegedly copied now only exists in your imagination doesn't strike you as the slightest bit odd does it?
I quote; "the silhouettes I remember there aren't there now", some might see as little more than a thinly disguised face saving exercise on your part but far be it for me to have to point that out to a man of your talent.

But just to be absolutely sure you're not the type of Walt Disney fantasist that I think you are, we had better contact Kim258 first just to be sure. What do you think?

Meantime, there are words for artist's like you Mr. Locke but I'm not going to print them on this forum. I might PM you instead and you're more than welcome to share those thoughts if you so choose.

Quote from: sjlocke on May 20, 2008, 21:33
re: 3 wise men

That looks exactly like kim58(?)'s work.  I feel no pity.  Sorry.

Oh yeah, would you like to post a link and tell me who you're referring to because I have huge difficulty with anyone accusing me of plagiarism?

Quote from: sjlocke on May 20, 2008, 17:45

Quote from: Contakt on May 20, 2008, 16:15
That's not so important, what is important ...

Man, that question was deflected so quickly I almost couldn't get out of the way.

Okay, I'll deal with that. The duplicate in question was not a facsimile copy and here is the example that I'm talking about. This image was rejected as having no commercial value whatsoever which is complete and utter bollocks and needless to say is in my top 30 elsewhere.



Do a search on IS for "3 wise men" and you'll find this from ULTRA_GENERIC among others, who just so happens to be exclusive...

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup/object/4641446_quiet_night.php?id=4641446

It's that type of unreasonable crap that just pisses me off sometimes including the fact that they'll reject for one reason and then find another completely different one following a resubmit.

Quote from: lisafx link=topic=4430.msg47570#msg47570


Was it a duplicate of one of YOUR blue flaming images, or someone else's? 

That's not so important, what is important is the fact that there are a growing number of reviewers on IS who are more interested in protecting their own portfolios than adding to the stocklist on IS. Add to that fact that you're not exclusive and you'll be struggling even harder to get past these agendas.

Quote from: lisafx on May 20, 2008, 14:10
After defending istock's reviewers as the best in the business, I just had an entire series rejected for poor isolation. 

I have many hundreds of isolations in my portfolio and quite a few of them accepted in the last couple of months.  Nothing at all different about the current batch that should have caused them to be rejected.

There is just no way I could consider going exclusive anywhere when there are such inconsistent reviews resulting in wholesale rejections of entire series.

Looks like Atilla the Reviewer does visit istock after all.   

K, let me give you a clue as to what's going on there. I did a sample test some months back and did it again recently with some vectors which were all rejected for the most outrageous reasons including one which was deemed "not suitable as stock."

Oh yeah says I? This was a duplicate of an existing image on IS that had blue flames sprouting off it, but I just laughed!

Mother o' God, what are you doing, opening a bank? www.revion.com

Don't you just love people who are so proactive like that 

Quote from: leaf on May 20, 2008, 09:56

Quote from: Contakt on May 20, 2008, 09:55

Quote from: nicemonkey on May 20, 2008, 07:44
I think it is to the advantage of contributers to support well run new sites that emerge. Especially if they take the place of badly run estabilished sites. Yay Micro is a good example of getting things right from the start.

We'll see how it pans out but I think it's no coincidence that the best selling sites all have proper sounding brand names that relate in some way to what they're selling.

And while I also agree that the general look and feel of the site is very good, I'm not overly impressed with the content I've seen thus far.

like dreamstime for example ??

not sure how 'stocky' that is
or corbis, or alamy for that matter.

Yes, you're absolutely right, but what would you expect from some ponytailed idealist?
And as for Corbis, we're talking about a guy who has so much money he couldn't give a hoot if it was called shitestock. So, no surprises there!

Quote from: nicemonkey on May 20, 2008, 07:44
I think it is to the advantage of contributers to support well run new sites that emerge. Especially if they take the place of badly run estabilished sites. Yay Micro is a good example of getting things right from the start.

We'll see how it pans out but I think it's no coincidence that the best selling sites all have proper sounding brand names that relate in some way to what they're selling.

And while I also agree that the general look and feel of the site is very good, I'm not overly impressed with the content I've seen thus far.

Who the friggin' hell thought of that name is what I want to know.

It's like something you'd call a bag of microwave popcorn.

I mean for the love'o'God could they not have come up with something a little bit more intelligent.

We've had a spate of silly sounding MS sites over the last 12 months...

Slapvillage
Albummer
Unluckyoliver
*
Crapstock
Lizardstock
Nutcaster

aND now Naymicro

Jazzuzzzz!!


As a footnote, here's what you get when you ask for a password reminder:

We found your email and we've sent you a mail with instructions on how to set a new password. Yay!


Ooooh yippee doo dah day is all I can say. F*****g hell somebody's on drugs in that cockpit.

Quote from: RT on May 19, 2008, 19:32

Quote from: Contakt on May 19, 2008, 10:59
We have two 400's with 2x converters in the office and although I'm getting a bit old for all the drama, I could quite happily bob about on a motor boat off St. Tropez watching the tourists all day.

I thought you were the subject of an ASBO in St.Tropez 

Cheeky bugger 

But coming back to that behemoth, I think RT is right about deciding what you're going to do with that piece of glass or more to the point what you're going to earn with it.

To illustrate my point, I left this business and came back to it after many years absence. I make no bones about the fact that I was a pap and having a long lens in the trunk of the car was standard kit.  You had no business going after anyone without a minimum 70-200 and the 400 only came out on statics or outside courtrooms.

Anyhow, you've got the picture, but if you're going to do sports arenas, you'll need accreditation and if you're a lancer you're going to find it very difficult to sell the content on. No1 because you're going to get a crappy patch if you do manage to blag your way into the big arena and No2, the existing press corp will cotton on to your 30D and start laughing you so get that sorted out fairly quickly including a wireless rig that will allow you to rip those shots down the line and meet 4pm deadlines when a game has finished at 3:30.

My advice, go shoot the birdies and learn how to use that drainpipe at speed. It took me about 6 months to get comfortable with the 400 and nearly every decent shot I thought I'd got was off until I learned to spin that thing like a ballet dancer.

I hope I'm not coming across too cynical but whenever I hear somebody spending the price of a family car on a piece of glass, the 1st question I always ask is: "what are you going to do now?"

Have fun and as for the cost for it, fugehhdaaboudit!

Quote from: anonymous on May 19, 2008, 12:55
his reply , if no one else received it:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The site has been taken down.

Many of the images that were on the site were not mine and had been placed
there by an overenthusiastic web designer without my knowledge.

I can assure you, and others, that none of these images were used while the
site was up and when it does reappear again you are very welcome to look at
it carefully. The only images I sell are mine.

Apologies for this.

Regards,
Mark Anderson

What a complete crock of shite that is! I don't believe a single word of it.

Over-enthusiastic thief more like it.

He would have us believe that he DID NOT proof read the wording of his own website claiming the images were part of his own portfolio?!?

First in his family born without a tail if you ask me and now that he's learned to walk upright it looks like he's just registered on here as well.

Quote from: ichiro17 on May 19, 2008, 00:03
Sorry, there is IS.  Its brand spanking new.  Hasn't arrived yet.  Should be here in a week.  Making me a very anxious fellow.

Unfortunately I only have a 30D to play with right now.  The idea is to have the new 5D II to work on it when it comes out so that hopefully I can get 16 million pixels on a subject instead of just 8 cropped (but its 16 million better pixels).

Contakt, I will definitely be looking after that beauty.  I just hope that I can get some stock shots from it so that it can earn its elite status

Hopefully some outdoor sports (baseball) will result in some good sales...maybe not 6000 dollars worth, but its a start.

Well, I don't want to tell you your business, but if you're looking to get a return on investment the last place you want to be using that weapon is for microstock.

We have two 400's with 2x converters in the office and although I'm getting a bit old for all the drama, I could quite happily bob about on a motor boat off St. Tropez watching the tourists all day.

The next thing you need is to get your machine gun rate up a tad. The 30d simply won't cut it and if Angelina Jolie happens to be licking the face off Brad on the back of some super-yacht you need to be much faster than that.

Quote from: ichiro17 on May 18, 2008, 17:39
Canon EF 500mm f/4L

WOW.  I feel so empty (monetarily)

But I can't wait to put that bad boy on a 1.4x and go birding

I am still in disbelief

My D2X + 105mm cost that. Nice piece of kit. Look after that beauty.

Quote from: vikavalter on May 18, 2008, 07:18
ok, finnish evening and british evening are over now for already more than 10 hrs, my mug is still there! I really don't want to belive that that person lied to me

Unfortunately your photo is still sitting on the server. All this neanderthal did was delete the index.html page after you lot nuked him with emails.

Talk about solidarity with one of our own at its best.

Anywhooo, I've gone one further than that, I've got a UK journalist picking up on this story and if the little creep is passing off stuff as his own down the local market, she'll find him.

Right now this thieving little wretch is about as comfortable as a lame Turkey sat on a packet of paxo listening to Christmas carols.