MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Show Posts

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 - wds

Pages: 1 ... 17 18 19 20 21 [22]
526
It would be interesting to see BCG's report.

527
iStockPhoto.com / Re: sjlocke was just booted from iStock
« on: March 12, 2013, 19:10 »
Just to play devil's advocate here...
Sean would have never left IS on his own accord, and Sean is not IS. The industry does not care about Saint Sean. Getty/IS (love them or hate them) knows the game well and we are all expendable. The market is way over saturated with really great and amazing images and it's truly a buyer's market. Very few of us (including myself) are bringing anything new to the table of the stock industry, and Getty knows this, and for that matter so does every other agency out there. Stock photography has always been a numbers game with total ebb and flow. With the advent of digital photography, the internet, and microstock - which were total game changers in the industry, the game is now totally beneficial to all the successful agency owners and becoming less so to the demise of the photographers who produce the work and carry the burden of expense to do so. I am saying this from having 25+ years experience as a successful full time stock photographer. that's my two cents.

All makes sense, but you could have said the same thing two years ago and it would have made as much sense then also. However, for a bunch of exclusives at iStock, there is a world of difference between 2 years ago and now.

I have been saying this, or most of this for more than two years (delete the Sean part), just not here on this forum.
My point was there is something going on in a negative way beyond the general industry trend at iStock.

528
iStockPhoto.com / Re: No downloads in two working days!!!
« on: March 12, 2013, 19:00 »
These last couple of days have been abysmal.

529
iStockPhoto.com / Re: sjlocke was just booted from iStock
« on: March 12, 2013, 12:24 »
Just to play devil's advocate here...
Sean would have never left IS on his own accord, and Sean is not IS. The industry does not care about Saint Sean. Getty/IS (love them or hate them) knows the game well and we are all expendable. The market is way over saturated with really great and amazing images and it's truly a buyer's market. Very few of us (including myself) are bringing anything new to the table of the stock industry, and Getty knows this, and for that matter so does every other agency out there. Stock photography has always been a numbers game with total ebb and flow. With the advent of digital photography, the internet, and microstock - which were total game changers in the industry, the game is now totally beneficial to all the successful agency owners and becoming less so to the demise of the photographers who produce the work and carry the burden of expense to do so. I am saying this from having 25+ years experience as a successful full time stock photographer. that's my two cents.

All makes sense, but you could have said the same thing two years ago and it would have made as much sense then also. However, for a bunch of exclusives at iStock, there is a world of difference between 2 years ago and now.

530
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Banned from Istock club
« on: March 11, 2013, 21:37 »
Urrgghh. Am I alone or did anyone else feel positively nauseous when reading that thread? After all that has gone on how can they possibly be so gushingly enthusiastic?

Maybe they are still making a good living from Istock income?  Wanna see some nauseating woo yaying look here instead http://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/mailbox-imae-has-sold-and-sold/msg303343/?topicseen#new Just kidding, good for him selling a couple files every month.


Yea, I'm guessing those are mostly people who are still "doing okay".

531
Collections? What if you made a collection for each agency?

532
Disappointing newsletter. Not much substance.

533
iStockPhoto.com / Re: sjlocke was just booted from iStock
« on: February 11, 2013, 16:40 »
I am truly shocked by this. Good luck to Sean, I'm sure you'll do very well whatever your next steps may be. This makes no sense to me. Not even a forum ban first if iStock felt he was saying things they didn't want to hear in the forums? Again, shocked and dismayed be this move.

534
General Stock Discussion / Re: Image Source
« on: December 13, 2012, 11:33 »
The reason I asked, is because I received a message in my inbox from ASMP saying that Alamy is cutting royalties by 10% and that Image Source has announced that they will be offering a royalty rate of 60% for all imagery produced in North America, through Dec 31st 2013.


535
General Stock Discussion / Image Source
« on: December 13, 2012, 10:40 »
What does anyone know about these folks?: http://www.imagesource.com/

536
Canon / Re: Canon 24-70 F2.8 L USM II vs Tamron 24-70 F2.8 DI VC
« on: November 26, 2012, 22:29 »
I'm waiting to see what the image quality is like on the 24-70L f/4 IS. If it's excellent, I may sell my 24-70 2.8L and buy the f/4L for the IS and better image quality.

Lisa, I have heard that the 24-105 has heavy distortion on the wide end. Do you have any issue with that?

537
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Is your September down?
« on: September 18, 2012, 15:20 »
Way down from August, clearly site related, market conditions simply don't change drastically overnight.

On a related note, regarding the broken zoom on iS, does SS even allow you to zoom?

538

I wonder if it's likely the reason they haven't set the targets yet is because they are about to shaft us again with some other, major change (such as a flat 15% for non-exclusives and 25% for exclusives)? I know I'm not the first to suggest this, but the longer we go without targets, the higher the probability seems to be that something's cooking.  >:(

I would not be a bit surprised.  That would pretty much kill Istock for me.  Sales are down, down, down anyway.  If I make much less there, it won't be worth continuing to upload. 

I don't think they'd do anything that drastic, but I wouldn't be surprised if they start to slowly erode down all royalty percentages.

539
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Layoffs at istock
« on: January 24, 2012, 11:58 »
Have you compared your projected downloads at Istock for this month with Jan 2010 yet? I was staggered to find that my own downloads are likely to be down about 50%, possibly worse __ in just one year.

I know we independent contributors are not helped by the current best match but even so that's an astonishing decline in sales. If that's how things are going at Istock then the latest redundancies are unlikely to be the last.

I'm an exclusive on iStock and January is shaping up to be a horrid month.

540
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Layoffs at istock
« on: January 19, 2012, 12:53 »
JJRD is leaving iStock. We are in the midst of MAJOR changes!

541
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Layoffs at istock
« on: January 19, 2012, 10:13 »
Are folks aware of this: http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/2140045/jobs-shed-getty-images-absorbs-istockphoto

Apparently in addition to the layoffs, KT is leaving Getty.
Very scary and uncertain times indeed.

------- Oops!, see this was already posted.

542
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Layoffs at istock
« on: January 18, 2012, 14:01 »
This seems like an extremely scary time. If there are layoffs, I would expect some major change/announcement soon.

Pages: 1 ... 17 18 19 20 21 [22]

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle