|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
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 - Cooper
Pages: [1]
1
« on: February 23, 2009, 07:56 »
Listen Mrs your not going to have your work on other sites.
The whole industry has expanded in the last couple of years and as a result the rewards are spread more.
Sure buyers of our work visit various micro sites but istock by far pays more to it's exclusives.
I would start being less productive and more selective on your work.Your current work will not attract sales IMO.
Have you ever applied to Getty.
[/quote]
Ah yes; I well remember now the type of crap that probably got you banned from the istock forums....
2
« on: February 23, 2009, 00:52 »
really? that is kind of anticlimactic. I thought it would be worse than that. lol.
Yeh, that is a bit anticlimactic. Still he could have deleted his last post... But, back on topic.... I recently got an EL on an image that I particularly dislike (cliched, boring, tacky) that I thought no-one had looked at for well over 18 months. So unless I'm forced to, I won't be deleting any images.
3
« on: February 22, 2009, 20:11 »
I have ugly images that sell and nice-looking ones that don't. 
I leave them all there. It is not in microstock that I want to show my "talent".
Regards,
Adelaide
Couldn't agree more. I'm certainly not putting my best photography on sale for 20 cents an image. As an aside; shank please do tell why you were booted from the istock forums. I gave up reading the forums many moons ago, (I got sick of the usual "whoo hoo, istock rocks" nonsense) but considering some of the posts you used to put up there, whatever got you banned must have been a doozy.
4
« on: September 11, 2008, 20:53 »
Definitely sucks. I really liked the site and the imagery they had. Definite bummer...
5
« on: July 23, 2008, 20:35 »
I thought this was supposed to be an independent "meeting place for microstock photographers" where you could express views and discuss the particular sites.
It is, and the subject of this thread is one of those photographers who quite possibly is a member here. Put yourself in his/her place for a moment, re-read the comments made in this thread (the majority of which are not positive), and see if you can stretch your imagination to understand that it was not istock that I was "protecting".
Seriously Bittersweet, I don't want to get into a debate on forums (hate that) but I would have to disagree that "the majority...are not positive". I've reread the thread and just about every poster has commented that they are great pictures. And never did I complain about iStock rejections. I have a pretty good acceptance rate there.
6
« on: July 23, 2008, 18:44 »
I agree that they're great images but would be interesting to see if any old schmuck could get them accepted.
It has been said over and over and over again by JJRD that the "overfiltered" rejection is not used in the case of artistic images that are very well done. Bruce himself has stated that their inspection philosophy is that for a borderline image, they are to look for a reason to accept. It is really sad that some people are so adamant that any rejection they ever get MUST be because they are not exclusive or because istock sucks or any other thing except the flicker of possibility that it might actually have something to do with the merits of their own images.
In my opinion, it's really rude and disrespectful to have even posted this thread at all. Any beef you may have with istock should not involve singling out and calling into question another artist's abilities on a public forum. It comes across as petty and jealous, and really lends no credence whatsoever to any of your conspiracy theories.
Bittersweet, how does my comment in any way call "into question another artist's abilities on a public forum"? I mean, for god's sake, the part of my post you quoted has me saying, "I agree they're great images". What a stupid response. Seriously this really bugs me. I thought this was supposed to be an independent "meeting place for microstock photographers" where you could express views and discuss the particular sites. I never, ever questioned the ability of the artist in question and the fact that you have turned my comments around to try to portray that in an effort to "protect" iStock is pretty pathetic and transparent. I mean god's sake, it's not like I even attacked iStock in any major way. The whole thing was a bit tongue in cheek. Is iStock that precious that it can't take a bit of a ribbing?
7
« on: July 23, 2008, 03:44 »
yes, it's all very strange. Note that many of the hugely glowing reviews are from istock admins and top sellers.
I agree that they're great images but would be interesting to see if any old schmuck could get them accepted.
Its not that sinister, admins and top sellers (mostly exclusives) would tend to be more active on the site
Oh I know; It's just my cynical, conspiracy theory nature kicking in. Freezingpictures; no one ever said they weren't great images... And yes, his portfolio still has Deniz Saylan as the business website.
8
« on: July 23, 2008, 02:04 »
yes, it's all very strange. Note that many of the hugely glowing reviews are from istock admins and top sellers.
I agree that they're great images but would be interesting to see if any old schmuck could get them accepted.
9
« on: July 02, 2008, 22:41 »
Last time I uploaded there key wording came in through he meta data and is mush easier than IS.
Yeh, I've never had a problem with their keywording. I like the fact that you keyword an image after the image is accepted. I always find it much quicker than IS. (But then I only have 20 images live so...)
10
« on: July 01, 2008, 00:10 »
I really like Photoshelter. I like the vibe of the site and the images they accept. They have some excellent information on the site about stock and photography in general and Shoot The Blog is always worth a read.
Sales would appear to have started picking up but they've really only been selling since the start of the year I think.
To me they are a refreshing change from the (at times) blandness of the major microstock site I submit to.
I've got about 20 images live there but hope to increase that significantly in the next few weeks.
11
« on: June 09, 2008, 19:44 »
I shoot what I like and then if there's anything that's "stockworthy", I upload it. This is why I'm with a couple of different agencies that have quite different portfolios when it comes to "style".
It also might explain why my portfolios are reasonably small. I don't go out to shoot purely for stock. I've tried that a few times and it didn't really click with me. Felt like I was forcing something.
12
« on: May 04, 2008, 20:50 »
I hope they are picking up steam. I've been contributing there for a couple of months, and while I've only got a few online, I really like the style of imagery they seem to focus on.
I see alot of complaints regarding the keywording system. I actually don't mind it. Doesn't seem to bad at all.
13
« on: April 16, 2008, 00:54 »
Sad to see
Best of luck Bryan and all those at LO.
14
« on: March 24, 2008, 19:37 »
Any update on this? I still can't login using IE. It's all a bit half-arsed isn't it...
15
« on: February 27, 2008, 22:00 »
Is the site down? I can't get in over there - haven't been able to for a while....
(sorry, just read the other thread on this. Oh well)
16
« on: February 23, 2008, 10:30 »
The usual suck ass response to this on the forums:
Thanks... thats OK
I still love you!
Oh god, that's sooooo gaggy!
17
« on: February 23, 2008, 00:56 »
Pleasant feedback Seren - really positive and encouraging
18
« on: February 07, 2008, 23:15 »
You have to kiss ass in the forums.
And write "woo yay" or "istock you rock!!!" alot
19
« on: February 07, 2008, 23:10 »
125 here
New total = 18846
20
« on: December 07, 2007, 08:06 »
How are your sales? Mine are horrible - 11 over the year and none in the last two months with about 188 photos. Keep hearing that people are having good success but this seems only to come from those with an interest in the business (instigators, reviewers, forum moderators). Most contriubutors - small ones especially without the priveleges of the Sideshow - don't seem to be doing much better than me. fred
[/quote]
Sales are pretty poor. There was a flurry there for a while when I had about 8 in a two week period (September, I think). Since then I've had 2 in over 2 months. 226 images online but I haven't uploaded in a while. Doesn't really seem worth it at the moment
21
« on: December 07, 2007, 04:28 »
Does anyone know if LO has turned their view counter back on?
I'm kind of hoping they haven't, because if they have, I've only had about 3 views in the last week or so.
I was getting hundreds a day at one stage there
22
« on: November 27, 2007, 08:04 »
I really like LO. It's easy to upload to, the reviews are reasonably quick and the site looks great.
Having said all that though, my sales and views there have taken a nosedive over the past few weeks. Sales were never brilliant but the views were ticking over nicely. This all seems to have stopped in the past few weeks. I'm not sure but it seemed to correspond with their site changes.
I really hope it picks up again.
Pages: [1]
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
