I kind of have to side with iStock on this one. I thought their push for higher prices in the regular collection was good for the industry in general. I can't really defend the agency collection stuff though.

I understand everyone has a budget and micro is supposed to be cheap, but I think some of the expectation for low cost/high quality images has gotten a little out of control. Especially as quality and contributors have improved. Getting images for a buck or two should probably vanish and make way for a more profitable pricing scheme.

Agree. Compared to years ago the quality has vastly improved. It seems there are now 2 clear paths to choose from. I took the red pill!

My accepted images from last week immediately sunk like lead in best match, so it's moot anyway.

Same here! Most disappointing. Downloads/dollars are just about holding on.

So greed is their "Trojan horse"!

and probably yours too! 

Quote from: jsnover on September 11, 2012, 18:42

There are a number of long term contributors, exclusives, independents plus some like me who've done the indie-exclusive-indie shuffle, who are deeply angry with iStock. In my case it's fury at greed throwing away something really great - and some of that anger can spill over into impatience with newer exclusives who haven't yet had anything bad happen. IS's ongoing software incompetence - bungling every software upgrade (and I do mean every single one) and continuing to pick dreadful times to cripple site operations - is a pretty rational rock to throw at them.

 I think there's also a periodic burst of "exclusive content is better than all that rubbish on the other sites" which certainly doesn't sit well with anyone but a subset of exclusives. Probably not reasonable to assume that all exclusives feel that way about indies, but it has certainly primed the pump for some "full and frank exchanges of views" to become dust ups. There's a ton of ill will towards Getty that rubs off on IS more and more as it's absorbed into the parent company.

This is just me, but although I largely ignore what IS is up to these days, if I think about them too much I can get angry again very easily. Hearing all the positive and optimistic chat from current exclusives (who need to believe they've made a wise choice in picking exclusivity) seems to be very dismissive of those who got hurt by the past lies and about faces on a number of business issues. Probably isn't deliberately planned that way, but for anyone without the history, might take them by surprise.

On another forum (no longer around) I was told I was in need of a mental health evaluation for considering exclusivity Some people feel very strongly about spreading the risk and that's not anti IS, but they're the only agency where even considering exclusivity makes any sense.

Very well put JoAnn.  Sums up the situation perfectly, along with some of the history that got us to this point . 

@Reef, I was not being sarcastic or hostile.  My interpretation of "animosity" is personal attacks.  I do see quite a bit of people extremely upset with Istock, but I have not seen a lot of personal attacks on other members, certainly none that I can point to in this thread.  Which is why I was asking for links.

The Internet is a curse sometimes. I didn't type it the way I meant it. No disrespect to you. None of us are earning as much as we probably deserve. We are all in the same boat really! Mine isn't sinking quite yet

Only if Yuri pays me for doing it, otherwise I've got better things to do with my time, like working out if goldfish will look natural enough when superglued to a glass sheet between two bowls.

Depends if its an African or European goldfish!

Quote from: WarrenPrice on September 11, 2012, 18:23

As a disinterested bystander ... It seems there is a lot of hostility in many of the posts about iS... not just Exclusives but iS in general ... and anything/anyone associated.

but... I don't have a dog in this hunt.   

There are a number of long term contributors, exclusives, independents plus some like me who've done the indie-exclusive-indie shuffle, who are deeply angry with iStock. In my case it's fury at greed throwing away something really great - and some of that anger can spill over into impatience with newer exclusives who haven't yet had anything bad happen. IS's ongoing software incompetence - bungling every software upgrade (and I do mean every single one) and continuing to pick dreadful times to cripple site operations - is a pretty rational rock to throw at them.

 I think there's also a periodic burst of "exclusive content is better than all that rubbish on the other sites" which certainly doesn't sit well with anyone but a subset of exclusives. Probably not reasonable to assume that all exclusives feel that way about indies, but it has certainly primed the pump for some "full and frank exchanges of views" to become dust ups. There's a ton of ill will towards Getty that rubs off on IS more and more as it's absorbed into the parent company.

This is just me, but although I largely ignore what IS is up to these days, if I think about them too much I can get angry again very easily. Hearing all the positive and optimistic chat from current exclusives (who need to believe they've made a wise choice in picking exclusivity) seems to be very dismissive of those who got hurt by the past lies and about faces on a number of business issues. Probably isn't deliberately planned that way, but for anyone without the history, might take them by surprise.

On another forum (no longer around) I was told I was in need of a mental health evaluation for considering exclusivity Some people feel very strongly about spreading the risk and that's not anti IS, but they're the only agency where even considering exclusivity makes any sense.

It's understandable when put like this. I joined IS in 2002 so I'm not a newbie. I've only ever been a part time contributor and have only ever seen an increase in sales (generally speaking). Thus I don't share the 'bad vibe' feeling towards IS.

Quote from: Reef on September 11, 2012, 15:23

I never understand the animosity for those who think being exclusive is dumb.

Risky with potentially less earnings, Yes!

But they are not flooding the market for a short term buck.

But then again independent contributors are helping  to ensure a widespread market for our work. Handing over all the power to one agency (if we all went exclusive) would likely be much worse. Don't forget that Istock never paid anyone more than 20% until SS, CanStockPhoto and DT arrived on the scene and we independent contributors signed up with them.

I understand that. It's a dilemma!

yeah its confusing 

are you using a mac?  If so, then you can get the info by right or control clicking the file's icon. Apparently that gives the version it was saved to and the version it was created in. Can't do it on a PC.

I opened the files in a text editing program and everywhere it says Illustrator 15.1. I don't see 10.0 ANYWHERE!

Try this. Open the eps in a text editor. Search for the actually file name e.g. filename.eps  That should be written twice in the document, once at the top and once near the bottom. The one near the bottom will also state the eps version nearby.

I agree with Sue.

I became exclusive about the time when RC was announced and have since advanced to a higher RC level. I had some good months before the summer slump and thought I had a good chance to advance to an even higher level. But the slow first week of September does not look promising to me, plus E+, V&A have slowed down too. I am not considering to be independent any time soon and hope, wishfully maybe, that IS will pick up.

September is traditionally my slowest month and it seems to be holding true again this year.

Quote from: cmannphoto on September 04, 2012, 20:28

You need to check you browser settings or something because it is fine on my screen

Yup, you are probably right.  This is what I see (or don't see).

if you are using Internet Explorer what do you expect!

back up now anyway

How do you save a file for istock and not have the gradients go all wonky like this:

You can use ovals, I do all the time. Not sure about the aspect ratio suggestion. This issue sometimes happens to me and when it does I redraw the path and fill with a new gradient, which then saves fine. No idea why it happens in the first place. Maybe this link can shed some light. http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=20395