|
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 - Rob Sylvan
26
« on: June 25, 2010, 17:10 »
Congrats!
27
« on: June 15, 2010, 08:51 »
I just had a 5c royalty at Istock. Yes, just five f**king cents. How is this possible? It was pay-as-you go for XS size. Even in the dark, dank days of 2004 the lowest commission I ever got was 10c.
Looks like that one is from the darker, danker days of 2002. You just got a nickel's worth of history (small comfort, I know). Those ancient credits do not have an expiration date, and float up from the depths every now and then.
28
« on: March 10, 2010, 16:30 »
It will be interesting over the next few years to see if the number of people able to make a living at micro grows or shrinks.
It will. Of course 6 years ago virtually nobody was earning 'a living' from microstock.
True, and just a few years before that no one was earning anything at all. It's been quite amazing to watch this evolve over the years, as things changed from simple image sharing to an increasing number of 4-6 figure incomes.
29
« on: March 05, 2010, 22:28 »
I was talking about the design not the logo and thanks for the link, at least this brought him some publicity...
Yes, I realize you were not, but some people keep making that mistake.
30
« on: March 05, 2010, 22:26 »
why in the world a multimillion company should get a logo for perpetual worldwide distribution
for 6 bucks ?
It wasn't ever a logo.
31
« on: March 05, 2010, 12:15 »
It was never used as a logo. It was simply an image used on the old twitter home page. Though it certainly became associated with twitter and the association was certainly good for the continued sales of that original little bird illustration. I do not believe Twitter uses it any longer, but the image continues to get licensed. He's certainly seen more than $6 in earnings from it to date. Here is an interview with Simon you might find interesting. [ETA link]
32
« on: February 17, 2010, 17:13 »
Rob, I think you may be correct. Thanks for pointing this out. Sheesh, why does Istock even put it under our EL tab?
The function to buy an additional option for any given file was simply made possible through the existing EL functionality. So, it registers as an EL despite no additional royalty. Some contributors have expressed that it is nice/interesting to know when this option is purchased, but others would rather not even know. I would prefer it was done differently, but alas that has not come to pass. I do understand why you would be confused. Sorry about that.
33
« on: February 17, 2010, 17:09 »
The OP says the customer bought an EL. So if I understand correctly, they bought whatever regular size image, then added the Legal Guarantee, which is called an EL so it shows up in the EL column, even though it was only an image bought with the Legal Guarantee. Confusing, yes.
Correct.
34
« on: February 17, 2010, 14:35 »
Sounds like that was from a legal guarantee purchase, which only results in a regular royalty.
35
« on: February 09, 2010, 16:29 »
Just FYI, the thread on iStock was just locked, pending some kind of official response sometime today.
Response is posted. Dang, I was sjlocked.
36
« on: January 30, 2010, 17:17 »
Are you 100% sure the EXIF is gone? If you click the view drop-down menu at the top of the Metadata panel and choose EXIF do you see any data at all? http://grab.by/258zThe Beta is an early beta and full of bugs, but I hadn't stumbled on that one. I wouldn't use the Beta for anything more than test driving.
37
« on: January 11, 2010, 23:00 »
What do you mean by "provide applicable evidence"? Do you mean we must notify all other agencies that images will be removed?
I believe you only have to give notice to the companies that put a hold on your images. The others you can remove any time, so no need for 6 months advance notice.
Correct. Thanks!
38
« on: January 08, 2010, 19:19 »
Hey everyone, I have an update on this for anyone in the position of considering going exclusive before the deadline. First, we have moved back the deadline for making the decision to go exclusive from January 11 to January 31, 2010 because there was some confusion around what was required. Second, we wanted to clear up the confusion. You do not need to remove your content from all other sites prior to the (new) January 31 deadline. You only need to agree to a timeline and provide applicable evidence that will result in having all your content removed from all other sites by August 1, 2010 in order to be eligible for being grandfathered into the next canister level. In other words, if your content is obligated to be held by one site for several more months you do not need to remove your content from other sites that do not have that requirement until it gets closer to the date at which time all your content can be removed from all sites so that you will be eligible to go exclusive. Please direct any additional questions to contributor relations ( [email protected]).
39
« on: February 02, 2009, 17:19 »
You should be aware that if you decide to drop your exclusivity with IS, all the images you uploaded as an exclusive will be removed. This is done so that people do not take advantage of the increased upload limits and then switch back to non-exclusive once their portfolio is 'large enough'. (Here's the contract - see Section 12.a.(i))
This interpretation is completely incorrect. Canceling exclusivity does not result in all your content being removed from the site. All that happens is that your content is "removed" from being considered exclusive after 30 days (i.e., removed from exclusive-only searches, promotions, royalties, etc). After 90 days you can apply again to become exclusive if you wish. I would encourage anyone with questions/concerns about the Artist Supply Agreement to contact iStock Contributor Relations directly.
40
« on: April 27, 2008, 08:12 »
The reason sRGB images can look more saturated than Adobe RGB images when viewed with applications that are ICC profile-unaware (like most web browsers in use) is that these applications assume all images are in sRGB, so if they open an image that is in fact Adobe RGB they display them as if they were sRGB, which makes them look less vibrant. It all comes down to numbers. You can replicate this in Photoshop: - open an Adobe RGB image - go to Edit > Assign Profile - choose sRGB The colors will change to a washed out appearance. The actual RGB numbers map to different colors in each space. Since they both contain the same total number of colors the highest values in Adobe RGB are reserved for the most saturated colors while all of the other reproducible colors will have relatively (when compared to sRGB) lower numerical values. So if these lower numbers are assumed to be sRGB they will map to less saturated colors in the sRGB space. The bikini image downloaded from iStock and opened in Photoshop (while honoring the embedded Adobe RGB profile) looks the same as it does in that iStock thumbnail. On iStock the thumbs are converted from the source space to sRGB to maintain visual appearance (XS images are also converted to sRGB) in various browsers, so the thumb matches what you would see if you downloaded the image and opened it in Photoshop. The stockexpert thumb (assuming the same original) shows what happens when you take an Adobe RGB image and simply assign (not convert) an SRGB profile ... it looks desaturated. So, converting all images to sRGB before uploading is a safer course of action in regards to ensuring display consistency if you are providing images to places that don't convert thumbs. The price is that you can lose some of the more saturated colors available in Adobe RGB in the conversion (but only if your photo contained those colors originally), which while they may not be reproducible by your monitor they may be reproducible by some printers. There is always a trade-off. Here is a great article on the difference in those spaces.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
