Oh my, aren't they a laughable bunch, those Istock guys?
Shattering diamonds all in fear of the perplexed newbie coming at them with better dirt!
Hahaha, that's both sad and funny
Not to mention that by now, gostwyck is downright nasty.
But then again, nastiness seems to be an important pre-requisite of Istock exclusivity. He fits right in.
The fear of the Newbie shows insecurity.
And some of them are quite right to live in horror.
I've seen plenty of Istock exclusive flames photos that only got to be on fire because they've been online for ages. In reality, those images are ugly shots and deserve no such fame.
Their time has come!
Improve, or live in fear! (of dirt, of blogs, of helpfulness and most of all, of wonderful, beautiful creativity. It is the one, magic ingredient that makes dirt sparkle like stardust.)
Thank you AVAVA for your shooting list, for being kind with us even if we only have 150 images online!
And do not worry! We are never going to be a threat to your sales. You're simply too good.
Thank you Exposurepro for taking the time to write the blog and for your willingness to share! It shows confidence in your work. And I'm sure it's well deserved.
The newbie shouldn't be feared.
It's the lack of one's own imagination and skills that should instead, be questioned.
Best to the best,
Anna

I'm not 'downright nasty' __ I'm just direct and tell it how it is.

Much better that than a wishy-washy, inaccurate diatribe of conspiracy theories followed by painfully large helpings of sugary, oversentimental nonsense. Get over it and get real.

;-)

Exactly my experience as well. I am an engineer too and I am blessed to work in a team where knowledge sharing is understood to be beneficial to all. While we do all work in a same team, unlike stock contributors, as individuals we can still become potential competitors when it comes to benefits at work, including not being laid off. However, I would never keep information from my colleagues and, in turn I also believe they don't keep it from me, at least not in my present team. That level of trust is what keeps me happy at my job.
As Adelaide pointed out, it is very gratifying to see that your colleagues, especially the junior ones, are grateful and happy that they learned something new from you.

With that philosophy I guess Bill Gates must be cursing his decision not to provide MSDOS as freeware. Not.

Trouble is Goldenangel it is easy to be generous when what you have has sod-all monetary value anyway.

I AM ALL FOR POSTING HELPFULL INFO AND HELPING PEOPLE WITH QUESTIONS ETC. ETC. I LOVE PEOPLE HELPING PEOPLE..

Why all the shouting? You sound like some swivel-eyed, green-ink-writing nutcase to me.

You could help all of us by refraining fromsuch hysterical clap-trap.

the image has clearly visible noise, and I have hard time to find where is the focus? there is no sharp focus point. but, you are exclusive, so it was accepted of course...

Strewth __ I see what you mean! I'm staggered that that was accepted, I wouldn't even dream of uploading stuff like that. Seems to me you can upload pretty much anything you like as an exclusive. I've seen much worse examples than that too.

I've noticed one or two people disappearing completely from the charts (not just becoming anonymous) __ now I see Lise has apparently vanished into thin air too.

Shame really as it devalues the overall efficacy of the charts and the info on each individual is publically available anyway.

I've proved my theory to my own satisfaction by simply cloning out the supposed 'artifacts' and resubmitting it __ always passes next time around. I'm convinced that if they see tiny white specks, no matter how obvious it is what they actually are, they will more likely reject it for artifacts. It is something unique to IS too, the same images never get rejected anywhere else for that issue.

My port sort-order by best match still looks the same with minor movements as images sell. I quite like this best match version.

They also reject for artifacts with iso100 with 5dmk II
Full size straight from camera no resaves.

I've had plenty with images straight from a 1Ds MkIII. I get the impression that they use 'artifacts' as a general rejection reason if the reviewer simply doesn't like the image and can't find any other technical reason. You can always find something within every image to interpret as 'artifacts'.

Not that I go either and I know its a bit exaggerated but Istocks forum makes me think of the american tv evangelists? (I think thats what they are called, the preachers on tv) that we see occassionally (generally times like 3am -anyway all clinically clean, getting the audience revved up and shouting hallelujah!   In contrast shutterstocks forum makes me think about a pile of people in my local pub, complete with the bar flies, who barely leave (sometimes they go take some photos and filled with people socialising, wandering from table to table talking to mates, talking politics, the state of society etc etc. 

That's well observed! The SS forum regulars do appear to be a bunch of sad social-inadequates with way too much time on their hands. If I pop in for a look around I invariably leave quickly shuddering with disgust at the inane comments, fawning and ego-massaging which is pretty much all that goes on there.

If you think the IS forums are evangelical now you should have been there 4 years ago __ that was truly disturbing. Somehow getting sold off to 'The Great Satan', as Getty were considered to be at the time, seemed to slowly temper that enthusiasm.

OK lets argue semantics instead of the point in question.

It's not semantics, it is exactly the point on which the entire issue hinges.

You personally are selling nothing. What you are doing is simply choosing the outlet(s) which may offer their licenses on your images. The licenses offered by different agencies are often completely different products having different quality standards, image formats, levels of customer service, guarantees, terms of use, discounts, etc, etc, etc.

Different agencies have different business models, staffing levels, cost structures, commission rates, web facilities, etc. Some of these are, IMHO, outdated by modern, industry-leading standards and offer relatively poor value to the customer.

It is the buying customer's job to understand the terms of the license that they are buying and the value or otherwise that it offers in comparison to competing outlets. If they don't then they really should not be in charge of a company account or credit card.

I can't offer to sell the same photo at one price and then rob someone for 600% more, which is pure, selfish greed.

You're not 'selling the photo' and neither is the agency. Agencies sell licenses to use images and the terms of such licenses vary __ so its not 'the same'.