MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Show Posts

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.


Messages - TheSmilingAssassin

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 17
1
General Stock Discussion / Re: Stocking is the new Planking
« on: August 28, 2011, 08:04 »
yeap just like planking completely dumb


but kinda funny  ;D


It is!

They should have called it "micromock"

I like this one:

http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lqk4kfn6TC1r1k6vho1_500.png



What I find interesting is that some of them are better than the originals.

2
I didn't add that sort of category because I figure anyone that's already there selling vectors at the low prices must feel that they're fair... sorry, I don't mean to be rude and this isn't directed at you, but why would anyone sign up with a company if they thought they were not fair?  Lol I would love to add that category but I would have to make it a little condescending like "I think vector prices are low, but I'm there anyway because I'm a doormat".  This was the reason for the poll.  I'm not so interested in changing vector prices at StockFresh anymore because it's clear that Peter's not going to budge after the last thread.  I'm more interested in people's acceptance of the lower price.  I find it very odd but it explains a lot about what's going on in this industry.  I'm also more concerned about vector prices dropping elsewhere.  I appreciate you commenting though.  I know you yourself are not a doormat and if I remember correctly, you realised the prices were low after you uploaded. 

What really baffles me is not so much that the companies push contributors around (because that is expected) but that contributors let them... and let them do it repeatedly.  After IS and then FT dropping commissions twice and watching people stay there, I've sort of lost all hope in this industry surviving longer than five years.  I know the agents will survive but serious contributors will have to find alternative ways to sell their images.  But even if we come up with alternatives, how will we compete with the microstocks? 

I also don't agree about not having rasterised versions of vectors (in my case).  I can see why you would think that having flat cartoons, but when you create more complex vectors with textures, blurs, radial gradients etc, it's impossible to convert to an eps.  Maybe if they accepted svg's it would be okay but even so, in my case, I create a lot of isolated vectors and it would be quite easy for a buyer to buy the vector, change it slightly, use it as an element in their image and claim it as their own.  If they change the colours, shift the paths a little here and there it would be difficult to prove it was mine, especially if it's a small part of a larger image.   But I see what you're saying from your point of view.

3
Wow, a few more have voted that vector prices at Stockfresh are fair.  That's now 5 to 9.  Unless Peter's crew is voting, this means that about a third of the vector illustrators here have just given every other microstock agent permission to reduce their vector prices.  No wonder agents keep screwing with you all... they have your blessing.

Funny stuff!

4
Adobe Stock / Re: Fotolia: New Subscription Commissions
« on: August 25, 2011, 20:46 »
In between, there are 11 other companies I work with, none of whom have cut rates. (Someone correct me if I'm wrong and another well-known company has indeed cut rates).

These are a few bad apples out of the large bunch, and the larger part of the group haven't crossed over to the dark side yet. Will they? Maybe. But I doubt it in most cases.

Eventually they will have to in order to survive.  FT is not IS.  IS is expensive so it's a bit easier to get buyers to switch to another site.  FT is one of the cheapest out there so not only will buyers stay, but more will flock there.  Not many contributors will leave.... most, as shown in this thread will only stop uploading but that won't slow FT down.  Other contributors will see it as an opportunity to move up the ranks and will upload more.  The other companies will lose buyers and will be forced to reduce prices and commissions to stay in the game.

It's a become a virus and we just have to let it run it's course now.  It'll kill off a lot of talent and the only ones who'll remain in the industry are the ones who are immune... the ones that are in it as a hobby and the ones who live in third world countries who can still live off low commissions.

It's unfortunate but that's just the way it is.  
  

5
Not many voters but still... the results so far speak for themselves.

6
you should have an option like "I deleted my vector port due to low pricing"

Done, cheers!

7
Yesterday I deleted my port at StockFresh because of the low and inconsistant vector prices... and because I don't know how much they're priced upfront.  I know of at least another two illustrators here who deleted their ports recently and I know of many that have complained about it.  I'm curious to see how this has effected other illustrators... or more specifically, vector artists overall.  Is it only a few that feel that vectors are worth more than high resolution jpegs, or is the general concensus that high res jpegs are worth more than vectors.

I'm curious because most of my buyers prefer EPS files, AI files, SVG files or transparent PNGs.  Not one of them has ever asked me for JPEGs...  However, perhaps my experience defers from the norm and vectors aren't worth as much as I originally thought? I'll be adding vectors and other formats to my own site, so I'm trying to figure out what they are worth to most buyers.  Should the vector be more expensive or at least equal to the high res Jpeg or have vectors lost their worth over the last year?

I wouldn't mind reading some opinions from other vector artists.  Thanks in advance.

8
New Sites - General / Re: What do you prefer to be called?
« on: August 24, 2011, 09:01 »
Be different and call us something that will put us in our place upfront, like...

- Plebeians;
- Soldiers; or just simply
- Ants




Oh, oh...

PLEBOGRAPHER!

You can use it in the following context as an example:

"To view the plebographer's profile, click HERE".  Then when the buyer clicks on the link they get a pop up screen saying "we are redirecting you back to the homepage because plebographers aren't important"

9
StockFresh / Re: Wow Stockfresh!
« on: August 24, 2011, 06:29 »
For instance, I never understood why a CD or book cover does not require an EL. People do not buy a CD or a book by the cover, but it is a very important selling point, proven by the fact that big recording companies and publishers hire reknowned designers for their more important products.

Try selling a book with no type on the pages, or a cd with no music on it, and see how valuable your image is.  It's a promotional use, like any other.

Try selling a book with a blank white cover placed in rows of books with outstanding images on the cover.

10
StockFresh / Re: Wow Stockfresh!
« on: August 24, 2011, 06:26 »
Some of the vector files are known to be priced wrong so we're doing a review and bump up the ones that are in the wrong category. By default only very simple files should cost $1. If we find that many files can be bumped up we'll even get rid of the $1 category. We obviously want to have fair prices on the site and it is not our intention to rip anyone off. Personally I don't believe in the one price for all solution though that many sites enforce because for example a 64 piece icon set should not cost the same as a single icon.


Ahh Peter, Peter, Peter, it shouldn't be about the number of icons, but about a lot of things... if you're going to class them, the main factor you should take into account is it's commercial value, then originality, then execution, then complexity.... the number of icons shouldn't be a major factor.

Take this set of 25 icons on your site that you've priced at 10 credits:

http://stockfresh.com/image/281721/travel-icons-set

Do they have commercial value?  Sure
Are they orginal?  No way.  I've got so many sets of travel icons that I haven't uploaded anywhere (nicer than these) because there's too many of them.
Are they complex?  A buyer can create his own in a day if he wanted to.
Have they been executed well?  Sure but only because a child can do them.

Now take this one caduceus icon on your site that you've priced at 5 credits:

http://stockfresh.com/image/287495/caduceus-medical-symbol

Does it have commercial value?  Absolutely
Is it original?  Not really
Is it complex?  It's far more complex than all those icons combined.
Has it been executed well.  Yes

You've priced these two icons the wrong way around.  The caduceus is much more likely to sell than the those simple icons.


I'll use some of my images as examples because I know them well.

Again I've got a set of travel icons which you'll probably price at 10 credits as vectors

http://stockfresh.com/image/1015669/hotel-icons---icon-set-vector  (ignore the word "vector", I didn't end up uploading the vector"

Does it have commercial value?  Yes
Is it original?  No
Is it complex?  No.
Have they been executed well.  Yes.. but only because they're so simple.

Has it sold anywhere on any site:  A big fat NO.

Take this 'icon' of mine now that you'll probably price for 5 credits because it's just one icon.

http://stockfresh.com/image/773546/alternative-medicine-symbol

Does it have commercial value?  Yes, very much.
Is it original?  Yes, there's nothing like it out there.
Is it complex?  Pretty much.
Has it been executed well.  Yes.

Has it sold anywhere on any site... Yes every day.  I've made over $1300 from it in just less than a year.  I've pulled it from many sites that was selling it too low.  If it was to be on your site, I would expect it to be priced at 20 credits... not five.


Are you starting to get the picture Peter?  You're not only doing us out of pocket by pricing vectors the way you have been, but you're also doing yourself out of pocket.  I don't see your logic at all by using the number of icons as the deciding factor for 'complexity'.  It shouldn't be just about complexity anyway as I've mentioned above.  

I'm going to drop it here because I've already my point.  I hope you change your mind for your sake, not for mine.  

Cheers

11
StockFresh / Re: Wow Stockfresh!
« on: August 24, 2011, 01:38 »
That's pretty much what iStock does with vectors, so I'm not sure how it wouldn't work. They give you the vector and high res jpeg for one price (regardless of use). They do have a complexity scale, but they could price all their vectors at one price. I could see adding a low res cheap option for web use only (to bring in a certain budget customer), but all the other sizes seem to just undercut the price of vectors and high res files.


Interesting, I didn't know that and skipped over their licence agreement when I was doing my research a few weeks back.  I bet that's why iStock's resolution restriction for web usage is higher than than the rest of them (1200 x 800 px).




On a side note, if anyone's interested, I have a rough spreadsheet where I was comparing licences from four agents... I've just added it to google docs.  The tick marks converted to "Ps" and the crosses converted to "Os" when I uploaded it.  Feel free to grab and update it for yourselves or for a new topic here.  It might come in handy to someone.  I would do it but I'm pressed for time lately.

http://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ai9dhorY3ovxdGR0Y3RZUGc5d1VaTmEwN0VJYVVySnc&hl=en_US#gid=0


@Noodelhap.  I think you acted a bit too soon, although I can't say I blame you.  I just saw on SF's forum (I just noticed they have forums today) that Peter wrote "we'll fix it"  when someone brought up Vector pricing yesteday.  I don't know exactly what that means but maybe they will redo their pricing?

12
StockFresh / Re: Wow Stockfresh!
« on: August 23, 2011, 22:41 »
Actually, I think the exact opposite. It's not a rights managed system, so every license should cost the same. After all, you're not paying for use or size, you're paying for the license. One license, one price. I understand the market doesn't do that in general, but I wouldn't mind the industry moving in more of that direction.

I don't believe that would work because most sites place restrictions on the size that buyers can post on the net... usually 800x600px  If they were to have one licence for all sizes, they would have to lift that restriction and then we have more XXL images floating around the net and that would lead to more IP theft.  Personally I prefer people paying more for a larger image or vector (because it can be made into a large image) than all one price.  I too think that Stockfresh has enormous potential so I hope they do something about their vectors. One thing I like about them is their limited size subscriptions.  I don't like subscriptions in general but the restriction helps me swallow it down a little easier.  I don't know about anyone else but whenever one of my my maximum sized images or vectors are sold under a subs plan, it makes me feel like my heart has been ripped out.

Peter, back to the vector prices... look it this way.  A buyer who "can't be bothered with vector editing software" will most likely end up bothering with it, if it means it will save them up to $19 per image if they buy the vector and not the jpeg.  They will then resize it to the XXL jpeg or whatever format they want.  There's no real incentive for the buyer to purchase the XXL jpeg when the vector is possibly so cheap and thus there's no real incentive for vector artists to upload their vectors to Stockfresh. 

13
StockFresh / Re: Wow Stockfresh!
« on: August 23, 2011, 21:36 »
Because I can?

I've already been through this.

Oh, I must have missed the explanation. Can you point me to the thread?

That's right, you were sunnymars, then pseudonymous. If you are anonymous anyway, why keep changing names? That I don't understand.

1.  mind your own business.

2. if you can't do 1. then look it up yourself.  Nosy AND lazy?  

he/she's back!

So do you have any new thoughts about the issues raised about stockfresh vectors or are you just here to stir the pot?  I'm trying here to discuss the stockfresh issue and hopefully get Peter to rethink his vector prices so that I can then promote this site to fellow illustrators, but I have this nagging little puppy that's distracting me by persistently biting at my shoe lace.  Any chance you can find something else to chew on so I don't have to receive emails only to come back here and find more crap that has nothing to do with the issues raised in this thread?

What's your point anyway?  You don't understand why I'm not using my original name?  Why don't you understand that?  Weren't you one of the people who rallied up against me when I new here and insulted me?  I fired back and then you and your pals rallied up to have me banned so that wiped my original name out and I couldn't use it.  Hence the pseudo name.  I told you that I've already explained this name in another thread but if you're too lazy to look it up, that's your problem.  I'm not typing it all again in this thread.  Obviously I'm not hiding who I am.  If I wanted to do that I would create a new ID.  I've explained myself in the anonymity thread.  If you missed it, BAD LUCK, Miss I-Have-To-Know-Everything.  You're the main reason why I had the anonymous name so if you don't like it, suck it up and move on.  You're just being a child now.



And, you can click the 'ignore' button all you like but unfortunately, it doesn't work for nosy people.  No-one's going to buy it.  We all know you're going to keep clicking the "unignore" button (or whatever it's called - cause I don't use it), each time I post anything :)  I mean you've just come in here solely for the purpose of causing trouble and yet you've ignored me?  LOL  You're weird!  It's me that doesn't want to interact with you so you ignoring me, no no... trying to ignore me, no no no... trying to give the impression that you've ignored me... has no effect on me whatsoever.

14
StockFresh / Re: Wow Stockfresh!
« on: August 23, 2011, 18:32 »
Would be interesting to change to a model where simple photos are cheaper, but to some extent size makes sense too. After all, having a small illustration on a blog shouldn't cost as much as a pic for a billboard campaign. But that's a whole different story.

But then that's why we have different prices for different sizes. It is also a legacy of how microstock started that the regular license is so lenient in its use.

For instance, I never understood why a CD or book cover does not require an EL. People do not buy a CD or a book by the cover, but it is a very important selling point, proven by the fact that big recording companies and publishers hire reknowned designers for their more important products.

I've been saying the same thing about book covers for so long.  I'm glad someone else sees it that way.  In the licence of my site, I've added book covers to extended licences.  Thanks for reminding me about CD covers.

15
StockFresh / Re: Wow Stockfresh!
« on: August 23, 2011, 18:28 »
Dreamstime, Level 1 image:  Maximum (XXL) 10 credits,   EPS 20 credits
Canstock:  XXL  $10,  EPS $10
123RF:  XXL 10 credits,  EPS 10 credits
Bigstock:   XL (max)  $3,  Vector $3
Featurepic:  XXL $10,  EPS $10
DepositPhotos:  XXL 6 credits, EPS 9 credits
Veer:  XXL 20 credits,  EPS 20 credits


I think you are referring to the most expensive files on each site although some of those numbers are wrong.
Anyway, on Stockfresh XXL JPEGs and high complexity EPS files both cost $20 which is fair.


No I'm not comparing the "most expensive" I'm comparing the two formats that are relevant here that happen to be the most expensive on most sites which makes sense.

Some of those numbers are wrong? I just looked them up and copied them from image pages comparing the same jpeg to the same vector, Peter, so they're not wrong.  Want to point out to me which one's are wrong?


Quote
$20 JPEGs might look strange next to a simple $1 vector file, but we are not going to have different JPEG prices for certain images just to make it look less weird for some people. For consistency reasons they are the same for all images, and since this whole argument is about vectors being too cheap in general, it's irrelevant anyway.


To "some" people?  I think you'll find it's weird to "most" people.  This argumenent isn't about vectors being cheap in general, it's about it be being cheap compared it's related JPEG which was created from the vector.  If the vector's cheap, then the jpeg should be cheap.  If the vector is expensive, the jpg shoud be too.... they're the same image in a different format.  If you're going to compare formats alone, vectors are typically more expensive than the jpeg because of their usability.

Before we upload, we want to know what we'll be getting.

I think it's pretty clear. (Except for the occasional pricing mistakes which can always be corrected.)
http://stockfresh.com/info/prices
http://stockfresh.com/info/upload_guide


No it's not clear because it's judgemental.  The price is decided after we upload. And who's to say less complex vectors are less marketable and therefore less worthy?

I want to see stockfresh succeed, but I believe you're not doing yourself any favours by keeping vector artists away with those prices. Vector for $1.


Only about 5% of vectors cost $1 on Stockfresh. Over half of them cost $5 and the rest $10 and $20.
[/quote]

That's 5% too much and plus most of them you deem less worthy than it's corresponding vector.  How many vectors are $20?

16
StockFresh / Re: Wow Stockfresh!
« on: August 23, 2011, 10:33 »
Hi Everyone,

I got a message that I should take a look at this topic.
Looks like there are two main questions about vectors:

1. Why can vectors be cheaper than XXL JPG's?
As I explained earlier, pricing is different for photos and vectors. Photo prices are based on download size and vector prices are based on complexity. Other agencies might not be offering raster versions of vector files so you don't see this "inconsistency" where a simple $1 vector can be downloaded in XXL for $20. We offer these files for convenience, because not everyone wants to bother with vector editing software. This has been our logic since the old days (StockXpert included). Very few people complained about this. Anyway, if you don't like this idea and don't want XXL JPG versions of your vectors to be sold, you can upload smaller files like some people, but you are limiting your own sales potential.

2. Why are vectors priced lower than they are worth?
Vectors are priced by humans and there can be mistakes. If you think your vectors are priced lower than they should be, let us know through the support form and we'll fix it. If you come to MSG to complain instead of telling us, that's not going to do any good because we are not here all the time. Those who emailed us always got their prices fixed. The whole point of the site is to offer a fair deal to contributors, why would we want to sell stuff for prices way below average?

For those who might have deleted their files out of rage: it really didn't make much sense because you never asked about the actual prices themselves (i.e. why are my vectors being sold for $1 when they should be at least $5), you only talked about the fact that there are XXL JPG versions sold for more, hence my reply. I guess it's easier to throw a tantrum on a public forum telling everyone how stupid or evil we are than to ask us the right question... :)

With all due respect Peter, people did contact you but we didn't see the logic in your response.  I still don't see the logic in this response.

1. Why can vectors be cheaper than XXL JPG's?

If the JPG is created from the raw vector, shouldn't the vector be more expensive or at least the same as an XXL image?  A buyer can grab my tiny little vector and blow it up to the size of a truck if they want, in any format.  Further more, they can change the colours and move things around.  You say that other agencies might not be offering raster versions of vectors?  Most do and here's a few I've looked at.  I didn't look at IS because their pricing is all over the place and Fotolia's pricing is horrible for any format:

Dreamstime, Level 1 image:  Maximum (XXL) 10 credits,   EPS 20 credits
Canstock:  XXL  $10,  EPS $10
123RF:  XXL 10 credits,  EPS 10 credits
Bigstock:   XL (max)  $3,  Vector $3
Featurepic:  XXL $10,  EPS $10
DepositPhotos:  XXL 6 credits, EPS 9 credits
Veer:  XXL 20 credits,  EPS 20 credits

You say your pricing of vectors compared to Jpegs is aligned with the market but it's pretty clear that they're not.

You imply that JPEGs are more expensive than vectors "because not everyone wants to bother with vector editing software", but I think it's the other way around.  Most designers don't want to bother with Jpegs, especially for isolated illustrations.  Maybe this statement would be true if we were comparing PNGs to vectors but JPEGs are a real pain to work with.  

2. Why are vectors priced lower than they are worth?

This is the whole problem.  Before we upload, we want to know what we'll be getting.  Who can be bothered going through the upload process only to have to argue on email when you deem a vector cheaper than it's worth, and then delete it.  You should have a standard price for vectors like you do everything else.  

I don't blame people for wiping their vectors and I'm affraid after your explaination, you'll probably get more people deleting them.  

I want to see stockfresh succeed, but I believe you're not doing yourself any favours by keeping vector artists away with those prices.    Vector for $1.  Come on now, that's pretty insulting and it's more insulting when that 'simple' vector is converted to an XXL JPG for 20 credits.  It makes absolutely no sense at all and I'm sorry to say, but it makes StockFresh look a tad like they don't know what they're doing.

17
Microbius, no, it's not even about making a fresh start.  It's more about being left alone over the selling direct project because people were reading a lot of my older posts in various threads about the idea and contacting me.  I don't know what to tell people now if they ask me.  Right now I'm turned off over it and want to put it on the backburner while I focus on a few other things but who knows, maybe in a few months, if there's more interest in selling direct, I may resurrect it.  People were also curious and contacting me over another idea I brought up and I don't want them contacting me over that either... I may need to patent it first.

But back on topic.  I hope people lighten up a bit in here.  No one should be surprised over the increase in rejections, but Slovenian is right, what does a person do in the situation where they suddenly get almost 100% rejections.  Do they quit?  What if it starts happening to you or I in the near future? 

Everyone's getting pissed over lowered commissions and higher rejections and taking it out on each other here.  Instead of supporting each other, we've become each others' punching bags.  No issue can ever be resolved if every comment is purely driven by emotion.   We may all be competitors but we're also the only people that can relate and understand each other and what we do.  Instead of bashing each other, why can't we all put our collective minds together and come up with better ways.  Even if we don't come up with it ourselves, chances are that some entrepreneur will be reading what we're all saying and may come up with something where we all benefit.  But if every thread turns into just bitching, it will never happen.

18
But why do you have to take it there?  Why assume that his images are 'crappy'.  The guy (or girl) has already said they were sitting on 90% AR for the last six months and then it switched to almost 100% rejection.  If you're going to assume anything using the little information you have, shouldn't you assume that his images are not crappy and that there's obviously something off going on with the reviewers there.  What if it suddenly turns around for you and you then get 100% rejections, should we all call your images "crappy" because shutterstock suddenly starting rejecting them?

Some of the people here are just rude and it's constant comments like yours that pop up out of nowhere making people get their backs up and turning every thread into a mess.  What is the point of this forum if grown up contributors can't discuss their experiences without someone snapping at them for no reason.  I'm finding I'm always getting IS exclusives talking rubbish to me for no reason at all other than to get me fired up and then I lose focus on point of the thread.  I'll get fired up then more people jump in and the thread becomes another waste of time.  Likewise you have anonymous posters copping endless crap from others here for no reason other than because they're anonymous.  They have their reasons for being anonymous so why can't people respect that?

If you are anonymous on this forum, get ready for any kind of comments.. I used to be anonymous and used to get lots of a-holes(as you describe it) attacking me without seeing my work.. I don't blame people for doing that.. If you want any sort of credibility you have to show your work..

His work may be awesome but I have no chance of seeing that.. If he complains about rejections, then he should show us examples to prove shutterstock is wrong.. if not than he sounds like one of the newbies who complains on shutterstock forums all the time when they don't get the initial 10 approved.. yes, I am talking about those kids who knows photography better than anybody who runs one of the biggest stockphoto websites that is shutterstock..

Numerous threads regarding FT cutting commissions on were opened (joined into one by Leaf), just like there were tens of thousands of post about IS who started all this. There are only 2 threads about (almost) 100% rejections at SS that, judging by the lack of new posts, don't really interest ppl much. I think in the long run we'll be even worse off at SS, if they don't stop messing around with reviewing. And who's to say, they are not going to cut the commissions on top of that?

I'm not trying to make SS the bad guys, nor am I (really) blowing off steam. I'm just trying to point out to something that could be not only bad for us, but disastrous (rejections staying at 100% most of the time and cutting commissions)

So you would rather have your commissions cut and get your crappy photos accepted...

I like SS, if they reject it, it is for a good reason.. Work harder, instead of complaining..

How can you call his work crappy if you haven't seen it?  I don't blame him for being anonymous.  He's probably too embarrassed being associated with the likes of people like you.  I don't know who's worse, the greedy agents that cut commissions, or the smartarses in here that don't allow anyone to discuss issues and try to come up with solutions.  This forum has become a joke and is full of snotty middle aged kids.  Seriously... grow up!  

This is why I'm now not sure about continuing with my direct selling project... because along with decent contributors that it'd help out, it'd also be helping A-holes like you and VB that do nothing but go around insulting people's work.  I may still go ahead with it, but if I do, it'll be by invitation only... just so I can live with myself.

Microbius, you're right, but I changed it because for the last few weeks I've been mostly discussing the selling direct project which I'm probably going to scrap... I didn't want people to expect it and I didn't want people to continue contacting me about it both here and on my sites.  Also I probably won't be posting as much in here now that I don't intend to go ahead with it... at least for a while anyway.  I really wanted to discuss the Fotolia (and microstock problem in general) but it just seems impossible to discuss anything here most times.  I'm still interested in reading about issues though but even that is a bit of a waste of time because every thread turns out like this one.  It's ruining the forum.

19
Numerous threads regarding FT cutting commissions on were opened (joined into one by Leaf), just like there were tens of thousands of post about IS who started all this. There are only 2 threads about (almost) 100% rejections at SS that, judging by the lack of new posts, don't really interest ppl much. I think in the long run we'll be even worse off at SS, if they don't stop messing around with reviewing. And who's to say, they are not going to cut the commissions on top of that?

I'm not trying to make SS the bad guys, nor am I (really) blowing off steam. I'm just trying to point out to something that could be not only bad for us, but disastrous (rejections staying at 100% most of the time and cutting commissions)

So you would rather have your commissions cut and get your crappy photos accepted...

I like SS, if they reject it, it is for a good reason.. Work harder, instead of complaining..

How can you call his work crappy if you haven't seen it?  I don't blame him for being anonymous.  He's probably too embarrassed being associated with the likes of people like you.  I don't know who's worse, the greedy agents that cut commissions, or the smartarses in here that don't allow anyone to discuss issues and try to come up with solutions.  This forum has become a joke and is full of snotty middle aged kids.  Seriously... grow up!  

This is why I'm now not sure about continuing with my direct selling project... because along with decent contributors that it'd help out, it'd also be helping A-holes like you and VB that do nothing but go around insulting people's work.  I may still go ahead with it, but if I do, it'll be by invitation only... just so I can live with myself.

20
Adobe Stock / Re: Fotolia: New Subscription Commissions
« on: August 19, 2011, 00:51 »
alright... new start for everyone  ;)

Translation:  "Welcome to the IS forum.  Knock yourselves out  ;)"

 ;D

22
Adobe Stock / Re: Fotolia: New Subscription Commissions
« on: August 18, 2011, 13:08 »
.

23
Adobe Stock / Re: Fotolia: New Subscription Commissions
« on: August 18, 2011, 11:28 »
.

24
Adobe Stock / Re: Fotolia: New Subscription Commissions
« on: August 18, 2011, 11:10 »
.

25
Adobe Stock / Re: Fotolia: New Subscription Commissions
« on: August 18, 2011, 11:08 »
.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 17

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle