pancakes

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 - SnowDog

Pages: [1] 2
1
iStockPhoto.com / Re: ESP
« on: February 08, 2017, 17:24 »
I heard the they had banned the migration, and then then ban was put on hold, but nobody knows for how long...

2
iStockPhoto.com / Re: ESP
« on: February 07, 2017, 19:19 »
I never did receive an email. I tried the "Can't Remember Password" feature on the ESP login but got nothing. Then I tried the can't remember my user name, and it emailed me that my user name was my email. Using that user name, I was able to use the forgot password function again and I can now login. (but there's really no useful information available.)

I did download the new version of DeepMeta and uploaded successfully, but no DL history or $ viewable there either, so really, a whole lotta nothing.

Typical iStock. Roll out a half-baked version, fail to even do that properly, and once again somehow figure out how to make it even less useful. Sure, it may get better, but why not wait until a proper version can be release before proving once again that they are incompetent. Augh!         

3
Photography Equipment / Re: D750 for microstocks
« on: February 21, 2016, 18:22 »
There might be a new Pentax K1 with your name on it if you want a small robust weather sealed FF at a very reasonable price.
 

4
iStockPhoto.com / Re: new istock forums
« on: August 16, 2015, 20:55 »
I miss the old forums. (ie pre-2010) And call me lazy, but with the new forums not embedded into the iStock site, they just aren't as easy to "pop into" to see what's being discussed. Of course, the "community" has changed so much in the last 5 years that I guess I have to accept that it will never be the same.

5
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Is Imagebrief ok for Exclusives?
« on: June 27, 2015, 18:08 »
Looking at the Imagebriefs postings, there doesn't seem to be a consistent way of posting. They all reference "Permitted Uses" which is how they intend to use the image, and then under Exclusivity almost all say "not exclusive". Am I ok to submit for ones that don't indicate Royalty Free under permitted uses? In other words, if they say the permitted use is "Broadcast", or "Book Cover" or "Print Editorial" (essentially not including the words Royalty Free) is that just a more specific way of saying Rights Managed?

6
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Is Imagebrief ok for Exclusives?
« on: June 21, 2015, 20:19 »
Thank you. I had done some searching on this site but for some reason, didn't land on the threads you quoted. Very helpful feedback. (which is what I knew I would get if I posed the question)

7
iStockPhoto.com / Is Imagebrief ok for Exclusives?
« on: June 21, 2015, 19:57 »
While my iStock revenue isn't what it used to be, it is still more than I am prepared to walk away from as an Exclusive. This leads me to explore other options that would not put my Exclusivity at risk. I believe Imagebrief would be one option as long as all the images I would submit are new and not already on (or similar to) my iStock portfolio.

I'd be interested in knowing what the experience of others here has been with Imagebrief.

8
I find the notification from iStock always lags a little. I use PayPal and my deposit was there before I got the email from iStock. Actually received it on the 24th and into my bank account yesterday.

9
iStockPhoto.com / What forum thread will you miss?
« on: April 26, 2015, 16:23 »
Sounds like the existing public forums are going to disappear into the ether with a new (to be announced but obviously much better  ;) ) structure to be set up. While the forums aren't what they used to be, I still go there from time-to-time and either contribute or lurk. If it hadn't been for the forums, I would likely never have heard of DeepMeta which revolutionized uploading compared to using iStock's upload process.

This got me wondering, which forums will you miss the most? Do you still lurk even if you don't contribute?

10
iStockPhoto.com / Re: iStock PP for March as started
« on: April 09, 2015, 19:44 »
Partner Program has always been a joke for me. I do ok on Subs, but if PP disappeared, I wouldn't even notice. Kinda like GI Connect. Anyone ever see any money from that?

11
Interesting. It has a gear mechanism that will cause the spring loaded fingers on the arms to move back-and-forth. The lever on the left (looking at the image) allows you to set the height of the arms. The tines (fingers) don't look strong enough to dig anything, so I'm assuming it's a very early prototype version of a rake. As someone who grew up on a farm, it's a crappy design. I can see why it was never a commercial success. Might be the only one ever made.  ;)

12
iStockPhoto.com / Re: About site's future
« on: March 27, 2015, 22:48 »


Regarding iStock, who knows?? My income has dropped but (as an Exclusive) not to the point where I can yet justify jumping ship. I certainly appreciate why others have, but overall it would be extremely difficult to start over again. From what others have posted over the last few years, the grass isn't always greener. iStock isn't what it used to be and likely never will be again. The overall leadership is lacking, poor site, declining revenues, etc etc etc BUT let's fair for just a moment, it still brings in pretty decent revenue for many Exclusives beyond what they could get from most if not all other agencies for minimal ongoing work.

There are plenty of reasons to hate iStock and how the way they have thrown away their market dominance, and how that has cost many of us real money. I can't afford to leave on principle, and the money I continue to make would have been a dream when I started. I'm not here to be a big iStock defender or promoter, but there are some good reasons why some Exclusives have remained. I miss the "community" that used to epitomize iStock, but at the end of the day, I'm only involved in stock photography for money, and at this point there isn't enough of a reason yet to risk the (smaller) bird in my hand for birds on multiple sites in the bush.


13
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Check your Redeemed Credits
« on: March 24, 2015, 19:23 »
I don't even pay attention any longer. The RC system is broken. The only redeeming grace is that for this year (at least) we are still grandfathered.

Not sure what a better (and more fair) solution would be for next year. Can't base it on DL's any longer, and Canister's are so "pre-2010". I'm content with grandfathering, but I can certainly understand why others would not be.

14
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Istock balance
« on: March 11, 2015, 20:50 »
My Account just got lowered by the balance that was shown as of Feb. 28th.

15
iStockPhoto.com / Re: SEO - how did you fare?
« on: March 05, 2015, 18:53 »
But SS doesnt talk about a minimum of 50 words. A good clear and simple description could be Green apple isolated on a white background. Thats 7 words and should be enough. I am sure good SEO helps, but creating long novel descriptions cost a lot of time and I'm certain it wont be worth the time spent on it.

Well, iS isn't talking about a minimum of 50 words, it's saying 50 words is optimal.

Presumably deliberately disingenuously, Lobo posted "I guess if all your files are only white eggs on white backgrounds you probably would do okay with 1 word. Egg."
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=365797&messageid=7088349
Whereas the better description would be something like "white hen's egg on a plain white background".
Like with your apple, that's perfectly adequate, but putting the type of apple wouldn't do any harm and might help a few buyers - e.g. a Golden Delicious looks very different to a Bramley.


A single white egg on a plain white background. The background used is seamless paper. There is a slight shadow showing on the paper to the left of the egg. The egg has no chips and was laid by a happy organic free range hen of the White Leghorn variety.    :P

16
iStockPhoto.com / Re: How Are Your iStock Sales?
« on: March 01, 2015, 16:16 »
My Feb Regular sales were up considerably from January, and down considerably from Feb. 2014. I feel like a frog in a pot of water on a stove top.

18

And who would want to buy Getty? Can anyone think of a good new owner?

Bruce?  ;)

I'm ambivalent.
He sold to Getty. I don't blame him for selling, that's business.
But Getty had such a bad reputation among photographers, and he surely knew that.

I was just kidding.

But the real problem is that it's not just a business that's being bought, sold, traded, and reported on. It's not anyone's passion, which has resulted in buyers and contributors losing their passion. It really is too bad.

19

And who would want to buy Getty? Can anyone think of a good new owner?

Bruce?  ;)

20
iStockPhoto.com / Re: No more ugly lightboxes! Thank goodness.
« on: February 25, 2015, 07:59 »
Mine are still working but I know the end is near. I've stopped adding any links to new UL's. (yes, I'm still uploading....)

21
iStockPhoto.com / Re: No more ugly lightboxes! Thank goodness.
« on: February 18, 2015, 15:26 »
No mention of Light Boxes (as far as I could see) The carousel will show similar images from my portfolio based on keywords. That's ok to a point but the carousel only shows six images at a time. In a light box, I could "guide" the buyer experience and also display many more images on the screen at once for them to scan. In a niche LB with a couple hundred images, I can't see them sticking with the carousel that long.

Also, if I understand correctly, the carousel is looking for similar images based on keywords AND upload date. This means it is unlikely for them to find two great shots of a similar concept taken five years apart. In a LB, they could sort by DL's and easily find the most popular images in my portfolio based on a similar theme. I know they can still do that now by going to my portfolio, applying whatever filters and sorts they want, but that is more work. I thought the idea was to improve the buyer experience.

Having said that, I do like the cleaner look and larger image size.

22
That seems to be it ok - not an EL, not even a sale.  Why . then, is it reported as such?

It might just be remotely possible that there is somehow, somewhere, a tiny bug in iStock's generally bullet-proof code.  8)

23
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Any point uploading to Istock?
« on: February 12, 2015, 17:12 »
Just sold an image I uploaded last Monday so new images are still being found. I had a similar from the same shoot about 3 years ago so I think there are some good reasons to have a constant supply of images that you may think are too similar to other's in your portfolio, but the best match may never find.

OTOH, I've only sold three of the 100 I've UL'd since the beginning of January. A large portion of those were niche similar's so I will actually be surprised if I sell more than a handful of them (ever) but they weren't doing any good on my hard-drive.

And I've learned how to listen to nice music and enjoy a glass of wine while uploading so it's not a total waste of time.  ;)

24
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Any point uploading to Istock?
« on: February 11, 2015, 21:55 »
I continue to upload. Not that my recent uploads sell enough to make it worth my time, (although they do sell occasionally) I want to make sure I have enough images with different time-stamps that if the best match suddenly swings to new images, or images that at 2 years and 5 months old, I will have something in my portfolio to take advantage of that shift.

I also have a lingering sneaking unfounded suspicion that new UL's somehow improve the best match placement of older images. I can't prove this, and it makes no sense since if they wanted to encourage new UL's they would simply improve the best match for them. My suspicion is that this was likely hard coded into the best match algorithm years ago, and they simply don't know about it or don't know how to fix it. I love a good conspiracy theory. 

25
I just went through my inbox, deleted, and junk folders. Could not find an email.

I did read the thread but thanks for including the link. iStock is a lot of promises about communication and "trust us" but their inability to follow through on these commitments has worn thin. This is not the sort of news a contributor should just stumble across. And how very nice of them to ask for input before launching another wholesale change.

They state that only a few contributors actually included UBB links. So in other words, they are penalizing the contributors who actually have invested more than just the minimum time to try and self promote within their site. When they took away the ability to have banner links on the contributor profile page, embedding them in the image description was the only tool we had left. We have no choice now but to wait and see, but their track record is not exactly stellar when it comes to rolling out changes that will enhance the buyer experience.

Pages: [1] 2

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle