|
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 - dgilder
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12
151
« on: September 15, 2010, 21:46 »
Yeah, if this is some of the best of the best of traditional RF stock, wow, we really have been giving away the kitchen sink selling through microstock agencies.
152
« on: September 15, 2010, 21:28 »
Oh WOW. If you want to exclude these Agency files from your search, the only option is to exclude both Agency AND Vetta.
153
« on: September 15, 2010, 21:25 »
154
« on: September 15, 2010, 21:22 »
155
« on: September 15, 2010, 21:17 »
Whoops, you are right, that one was my bad, it was in between two others and I must have missed the color.
Is it me? Or are those logos in the blurry photo of the kid with the toy trucks?
156
« on: September 15, 2010, 20:06 »
157
« on: September 15, 2010, 20:05 »
158
« on: September 15, 2010, 20:03 »
WOW, the Agency collection is already hitting iStock. Remember how it wasn't supposed to have things on par with iStock's current collection? Check this one out, and note the prices: http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14241845-woman-reading-airplane-ticket-outside-of-airport.phpA bunch of images from this photographer just moved through the queue, and I haven't seen much that I would think would qualify for Vetta, let alone a higher price point. Note the new Vetta pricing tops out at 150, this one is 200 just for XXL. The new 'The Agency' contributor's portfolio link doesn't work yet because the images haven't been indexed. Guess we will find out tomorrow or the day after just how they will fall into the search rankings. Poor, poor buyers. These are the 'top images' that will be bumped even higher than Vetta in the search results.
159
« on: September 15, 2010, 17:08 »
I don't see why they would refer someone either. But actively canvassing for istock buyers to leave is a whole other thing. And based onisinformation. I hope buyers see through it.
No its not, its actually pretty much the same, think it through, you'll get this eventually and understand, I have faith in your cognition.
160
« on: September 15, 2010, 17:04 »
Probably most offensive to me is the bit about grandfathering and how the new structure is a 'fresh start and a level playing field',
announced a week after the deadline iStock gave non-exclusives to become exclusive in order to lock in their next royalty level.
Shameful, rude, and downright dishonest.
161
« on: September 15, 2010, 16:26 »
162
« on: September 15, 2010, 13:40 »
You presume to know a lot, hawk_eye. Your fear is getting the best of you, and you are starting to sound a bit panicked. Relax, it will all be ok.
If I were using iStock income primarily to buy food and a roof for my family, obviously it would have been a harder decision, as many here understand. There are some things though, that I am perfectly willing to do without, if it means I am not supporting exploitative enterprises.
I will be just fine, thank you for your concern.
163
« on: September 14, 2010, 19:28 »
This of course can ONLY make sense if you can sustain (I hate that word by now) your lifestyle without your exclusivity-income. Now the question is, how many exclusives can afford that...?
Oh, I have no guarantee of being able to sustain my lifestyle. Its going to take awhile to work back up to the income level I have right now from iStock. In the meantime I will have to make some cutbacks, canceling internet at the studio, possibly moving to a cheaper studio or doing only on-location shoots for awhile. Its just that I won't be ruined financially by not having income from iStock.
164
« on: September 14, 2010, 17:03 »
Oh, and thank you to everyone else, I do appreciate the kind words.
165
« on: September 14, 2010, 17:00 »
Fwiw David, enjoy the pats on the back, because I think you've made a big error in judgment. Sorry to see you go.
Ditto.
You're actions aren't monumental, but your overreaction is.
Personally, I would hesitate before calling a carefully weighed decision, discussed with a wide variety of individuals, and ultimately decided on ethical grounds, an "overreaction". Honestly, you two should be ecstatic, I just increased your chances of meeting your quotas for 2010 by some unfathomable amount. Why come here to be boisterous over someone else's decision that ultimately benefits you?
166
« on: September 14, 2010, 16:36 »
Thomas' post is missing quite a few from the most recent thread, I would dig them out, but I'm a bit busy deleting images at the moment 
167
« on: September 14, 2010, 15:22 »
I don't know how long this will last on iStock's forums, so I figured I would post here. It has been a week since Kelly's announcement regarding iStock's future royalty structure. In the past week there has been much (sometimes heated) discussion in the various announcement threads about the reasoning timing behind these changes, the financial impacts to various contributors, and calls for iStock to reconsider its position. Kelly's has made it very clear that iStock will not be reconsidering any of this, and that the changes are required to shift iStock's position in the marketplace in order to make it's continued growth sustainable.
Many contributors (and even customers) were upset, and there have been many pleas to set aside our feelings and look at everything from a pure business perspective. Kelly has said that iStock will do its best to make up the difference through increased sales. From a money standpoint, if sales go up, and the money is the same even at the lower commission, then impacts are minimized.
I have been struggling with this. I have looked at everything from the money perspective, and I do believe that iStock will be able to make up the money difference.
However, I do not make many decisions in life based solely on money, and given that I can survive financially without exclusive income from iStock, I have an easier decision to make than most contributors. Not only have I have decided to remove money from the picture entirely, I am removing my own personal situation from my decision.
iStock is treating its independents, illustrators, videographers, and audio contributors unfairly. If the exclusive's higher percentages were unsustainable, then they should be the only ones impacted and given targets to hit. Cutting independents pay by 10-25% is wrong, and paying less than 20% royalties for something you are only re-marketing is reprehensible. Morally, ethically, I can no longer continue to do business with iStockphoto.
I have just canceled my exclusivity, and will be removing my entire portfolio of images over the next 30 days. To my fellow contributors, good luck on your future endeavors, Farewell.
For any buyers who might need some of my photos after the 30 day period, you will be able to find them at Shutterstock, Dreamstime, and Fotolia.
168
« on: September 14, 2010, 11:29 »
Heh, I just realized how much the lyrics to NIN's Terrible Lies relate to how I feel about iStock at the moment.
169
« on: September 14, 2010, 11:02 »
3 months seems a bit excessive heh  Maybe they don't have the capacity yet to take in a flood of images, so they are approving new members as their server capacity increases to handle the load.
170
« on: September 14, 2010, 10:48 »
Well, any exclusive would have a 30 day period before they would be able to upload anyways, so they wouldn't need to prioritize them *too* much.
171
« on: September 13, 2010, 13:51 »
Sorry, I must have misinterpreted the reported claim from the photographer that it was not photoshopped to mean that it was straight from the camera.
172
« on: September 13, 2010, 13:05 »
I suspect that buyers are starting to look elsewhere for product.
That would make sense, but it seems like many would still have credits on iStock, so you can't really expect to see an immediate drop like that unless buyers are abandoning the money they paid for credits. I really doubt that is happening.
173
« on: September 13, 2010, 11:54 »
I think there is a lot of buzzing going on around all this still, and some people may be distracted from their projects. Aside from that, Tuesday the 7th was well above average, Wed, Thus below average, Friday above average, Sat/Sun a few D/L, but that is actually better than most of last month, and then I haven't had a single sale today, though I typically see a decent jump overnight/early morning.
Too soon to tell really, Ebb, Flow, best match and all that.
174
« on: September 13, 2010, 11:33 »
I agree this one looks pretty shopped, at a minimum the burned in the bottom right corner, either that or had a lens with vignetting in three corners but not the other.
Regarding the sky however, you can use a neutral density gradient filter on the lens to keep the sky from blowing out. Usually that results in a fairly straight line at the horizon though, and this one looks a bit wobbly.
175
« on: September 13, 2010, 10:31 »
Thomas, use this: http://davidgilder.com/misc/iStockfulator/noindex.cgiJust plug in the the thread id, it will read the entire thread and compile it into a single page. Once it loads right-click and view source, you should be able to search there pretty easily. Some of the quotes still get picked up multiple times but it should be pretty easy to figure it out when you see it.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
