|
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 - ShadySue
13851
« on: April 12, 2011, 10:00 »
That was a particularly peculiar thing to say wasn't it? I've never had to replace a lens cap, and never had any desire for a different kind of lens cap. If I did have such a desire, why would I go through an entrance test, spend money on equipment and software and go through all the hoops and process involved in microstock, just to buy something that would cost less then 10.00?
Truly strange.
Of course, if there's something I'm missing here, and there's a reason to work this hard for a lens cap, perhaps someone could enlighten me?
If you don't have a supa dupa iStock lenscap all your photos get rejected as 'not suitable for stock'. 
13852
« on: April 12, 2011, 07:53 »
I took out my third support ticket on this very issue in early Feb and am waiting for a reply. The previous two said they were having problems getting them to me (that my email address was wrong). BUT their replies found my inbox, as do auto replies, payment notifications etc. After my second email, I did get some; three of everything for a couple of months then nada.
I looked at the site map and 'couldn't look for seeing' (probably) where the newsletters are, as I remember you can view them online. Can someone point me in the right direction, please? Tx
They are searchable under Participate > Articles and select Newsletter, but that's only any use if you know what the latest newsletter is about !
Thanks - yes: you'd think they'd make it easier to find it.
13853
« on: April 12, 2011, 03:37 »
Oh, and what still annoys me?? Seems no matter what I do, I cannot get an email or newsletter from iStock, on any topic other than payouts. The simplest things . . .
I'm always grateful when someone posts about a new Contributor newsletter; if you didn't, I'd never know there was one.
that's bizarre. are you certain the newsletters aren't going to junk mail/spam folder or something? crumby.
I took out my third support ticket on this very issue in early Feb and am waiting for a reply. The previous two said they were having problems getting them to me (that my email address was wrong). BUT their replies found my inbox, as do auto replies, payment notifications etc. After my second email, I did get some; three of everything for a couple of months then nada. I looked at the site map and 'couldn't look for seeing' (probably) where the newsletters are, as I remember you can view them online. Can someone point me in the right direction, please? Tx
13854
« on: April 11, 2011, 19:45 »
Getty has no idea who their customers are at iStock. And when they do figure it out, I'm afraid it'll be too late. The horse is already out of the barn. Just my 2 cents.
Talking about 'horse': the best match search for horse is back again to Vetty with agency sprinkled through. However, a photos only search on 'young adult' is totally different, clearly favouring high-selling images (which is how 'horse' was at the weekend only). I'm still not sure they would be doing all these best match things if the bottom line wasn't higher. They're bound to be able to judge that over a few hours of a normal workday.
13855
« on: April 11, 2011, 14:38 »
The car keys and remote that are mention here have been sold by a few stock companies thus do I need to contact them asap and have the sales returned with the photos taken offsite? Kind of sucks since they have been my best sellers - go figure! I will have to keep up with all the trademark stuff to keep of the most wanted list...
Depneds on the terms of the companies. You seem to be submitting to many companies without being clear on the terms, conditions and modus operandi of each site. As stated above, read all the small print on all the sites you submit to. Write down the significant points and differences between them. Some sites state clearly that the onus is on you (the supplier of images). Other sites you just have to say whether you have a model release and/or a property release and the t&c clearly state that the end use is the responsibility of the buyer. As others have said, don't try to run before you can crawl - you could fall over and get badly hurt.
13856
« on: April 10, 2011, 08:01 »
JJRD just confirmed that Vetta/Agency files are not going to Thinkstock. They are mirrored on Getty, but wont go elsewhere.
It's not that long ago that he confirmed that Disney would be sellable as editorial (can anyone find the thread?)
True. That was a fail. I'd say that was more a result of poor planning due to rushing the thing out than something insidious.
You could be write, but 'poor planning' doesn't inspire confidence in the leadership, and even if not quiet as 'morally reprehensible' has the same net outcome.
13857
« on: April 10, 2011, 07:35 »
There was a huge best match shift last weekend, and a huge shift again yesterday.
The best match constantly changes, to avoid 'gaming', and even if you figure out what it's doing right now, that could totally change at any time.
Also, what terms a buyer uses to buy an image 'weights' your keywords, in many best match iterations. So for example if two people bought your raspberry image on a search for red and fruit, they'd go up on that search but wouldn't rise for raspberry. Other have suggested that your ranking would even go down on raspberry, which though totally illogical, I have also observed from time to time.
If you had a big port and tried to change the keywords when you'd sussed out a best match algorithm, it would probably have changed by the time you'd changed all your keywords.
The main thing is to keep your keywords clean and relevant: don't brainstorm to try to find 50 keywords, but if you need 50 for a detailed file, use your 50.
13858
« on: April 10, 2011, 06:42 »
It's not about accepted photos, though 'getting' acceptance standards is an early hurdle.
It's finding images that aren't already oversupplied already (check before planning a shoot) and which buyers actually want. Many low-supply subjects are in very low demand and more suitable for RM, which is the best lesson you can learn from this particular old dog.
13859
« on: April 10, 2011, 04:45 »
JJRD just confirmed that Vetta/Agency files are not going to Thinkstock.
I think that sentence is missing something. It should probably read:
JJRD just confirmed that Vetta/Agency files are not going to Thinkstock today
Wasn't it JJRD who affirmed that the Exc+ files would get a best match boost. That never happened, even for one day. 
13860
« on: April 09, 2011, 15:54 »
Seems to have been a huge change since this morning. I've been regularly searching disinterestedly on 'horse'. This a.m. BST the first page was still more or less all Vetta with a few Agency sprinkled in.
Now it seems to be flamers, mostly not Vetta files.
Iin a search I am involved in, where there is only one Vetta file in the search, this a.m. I had 15+ new files in the top 200, now only 1 and 3 in the second 200. New files knocked well back now.
PLUS there is very little, if any, discernable 'boost' to exclusive files.
13861
« on: April 09, 2011, 14:59 »
JJRD just confirmed that Vetta/Agency files are not going to Thinkstock. They are mirrored on Getty, but wont go elsewhere.
It's not that long ago that he confirmed that Disney would be sellable as editorial (can anyone find the thread?)
13862
« on: April 09, 2011, 14:37 »
About a year ago, give or take, I posted a message in the IS forum that was mildly critical of how bulky and time-consuming the upload and keywording process is there (I only have video clips on that particular site). Shortly afterward, I received a message telling me that they will no longer accept submissions from me. Something about they didn't think my work was progressing / developing like they thought it should..., blah, blah, blah. The material that was already in my catalog is still available and continues to sell, and I still have access to my account. I thought about trying to get in as a still photographer, but subsequent events such as restructuring and commission reductions have led me to believe that it would be a waste of time. I find it rather amazing that a critical post in the forum would result in being banned from uploading. I recommend that current contributors avoid it, and post complaints here on MSG instead.
I've never heard of anyone getting that message before. I and several others here are LOBOtomised from the forums, but not from uploading there. Loads of people have complained here and there about the video upload process, and about the time taken for inspections. Weird.
13863
« on: April 09, 2011, 04:08 »
I apply the formula: don`t buy at istock, don`t sell at istock.
Istock is an abusive system.
If you buy at istock, you support an abusive system.
If you upload to istock, you support a abusive system.
If you are an exclusive artist at istock you give your name and all your creativity to an abusive system. Nothing to be proud of, buth rather ashamed.
Simple and clear.
At the same time I started at iStock, I also submitted pics RM to a small, independent agency which gave contributors 60%. Made one sale in four years and last week pulled my images. 60% of (almost) nothing is (almost) nothing. Agree also with what others have said, e.g. about other agencies having a history of treating their contributors badly in different ways, iStock is topping them all now, but that could change. Also, nothing great about getting 30c for sub images, agree totally. It's never as simple and clear as you imply.
13864
« on: April 09, 2011, 03:47 »
Just ignore the angry parrot, so much vitriol from such a beautiful bird... Or is that a parakeet??
It's a cuckoo. 
I was going to be pedantic and say it was a budgie, but your answer is funnier and more relevant.
13865
« on: April 09, 2011, 03:33 »
controlled vocabulary makes no sense - they should at least consider suggestions for new words to improve vocabulary, but they don't
On the contrary, new terms do keep popping up quite unexpectedly. I think a large number were added a short while ago. Of course, that leaves older files high and dry as they can't have new, more accurate keywords. [/quote] You can ask for a term to be added to the CV via the keywording forum. Often these additions are very fast, especially if they are necessary because there is another use of your keyword. If you want to add 'spingleplonk', that probably won't be prioritised, as there is no other meaning, therefore a search would find it anyway. You can ask via the keywords forum, e.g. http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=321262&page=1.If, like me, you're LOBOtomised, you can SM ducksandwich directly. Sometimes for semantic reasons things take a while. The locked sticky second top of the keywords forum lists recent additions, which since Editorial has arrived has been monthly, the most recent being Monday 4th April. And you can always go back to your older files and add the new keywords. Even with editorial files it's only the captions that are locked, not the keywords.
13866
« on: April 09, 2011, 03:19 »
IMO the CV is the best thing about iStock except when contributors abuse it, or when sometimes it takes a while for words to be added. ('riverbank' has been in the UK English version at least since early 2007, but maybe it wasn't in the US English version).
Unfortunately, they seem to be downplaying it now, so that like Alamy (dreadful search) they are picking up any words and combining them. The other day I did a search for Purple Martin and though I'd found a misidentification, in fact the pic was labelled as 'Martin' (dodgy family assignment and wrong CV mapping, but that's irrelevant to my point) and had a 'purple' background, so the search had thrown up both words and put them together.
This is a slippery slope: why devalue your best feature?
13867
« on: April 08, 2011, 16:13 »
I don't understand why a conference call was thought to be a way of resolving this. The fraud clawback was one thing, where I'm prepared to believe there were things going on that couldn't be told on open forums.
But this one is bizarre. What could be said more in the conference call than could be said, or indeed has already been said in the forums?
"Here's the deal. We know how excited we are about it ($$$) and hope you'll all sign up".
"Bum steer. No way."
13868
« on: April 07, 2011, 16:45 »
Thanks for the feedback. iStock categorically say they won't take graffiti (though there's plenty in the collection). An admin categorically said if some vandal graffitied my property and I signed a PR, they wouldn't accept the image unless I had done the graffiti or had a PR from the vandal.
I've had a rejection for a very small area in an image that they thought was writing. I cloned it out and resubmitted and out of interest, I went back for a look - it was actually natural erosion!
iStock is very, very conservative about handwriting: there have been many examples of rejections even when someone has added writing, or even printed text, of their own (and maybe the inspector didn't read the note they had put to that effect in the description field.
I would expect the people in the yacht pic to be rejected. They are small, but my past experience and especially that of others (e.g. in the critique forum), would indicate a rejection for 'recognisability by context and clothing' - even when no 'reasonable person' would be able to attest that a photo was definitely one particular person.
Maybe that 'put it into the main collection' button is right next to the 'lighting' button and someone hit it three times in a row.
Maybe I'll just forget about these images. Scout is taking eight weeks and counting, and, having scouted very few images since starting iStock, I've got a backlog on editorials.
13869
« on: April 07, 2011, 11:27 »
I've had nothing since an overnight (UK time) XSm.
best match strangeness: one of my 'usual' searches, the top is Vetta with 3Ds (very large file size) and a lot of Vectors thrown in, and my flamer is about position 60.
Another search, where there are only 2 Vettas, it's all new or seldom-downloaded files at the top and my flamer is around position 150.
I still haven't voted, and will do so tomorrow night when I see how the full week has gone. Last week was dreadful, this week, until today, was looking at least a bit better.
13870
« on: April 07, 2011, 11:25 »
[Double post]
13871
« on: April 07, 2011, 10:38 »
Within the space of a minute, I had these three rejections for Editorial at iStock, asking me to resubmit them for the main collection. I realise that, as always, they could have been rejected for 'lighting', but please stick to the actual rejection and see if you can help me to understand them. I think I'm seeing the red mist, and I'm just not 'getting it'. First one:  Isn't the yacht subject to IP? Also there are people on the yacht and around 30 people at the base of Liberty who can be seen at full size. Do they really think I can chase them all up and get releases? Second one:  IMO, if I took the graffiti and sign away, there is no photo. IMO it's the juxtaposition that's the message: the solid still in use Victorian church and the long gone 'Adult fun' establishment. I can just see it in a church newletter illustrating '...fading is the worldling's pleasure, all his boasted pomp and show - solid joys lasting treasure, none but Zion's children know." (If you weren't brought up a Scottish Presbyterian, that will mean nothing to you, but sung to the tune of Deutschland Deutschland uber alles, you never forget it.) Third one:  Again, IMO there is no picture/message/point without the writing in marker pen which helps the shop refitters to know where all the different bits go. The (only?) use I can think of this is in a textbook or OHP/smartboard for students/apprentices on day release etc in the building trade. Again, please stick to the actual rejection. I already had one similar rejection which I scouted on Feb 13th and haven't heard back about yet.
13872
« on: April 07, 2011, 05:35 »
One more thing to further hinder a group action is that the high-end contributors are almost always pleased when it comes to royalty cuts. Little to no changes in the top level royalties, and that's clever. That way the contributors with the most power are kept happy.
I think there's only been the one actual royalty cut, unless I have somehow expunged the pain of previous cuts. I wonder if all/most of the top contributors who submit over multiple media kept their percentage rate over all media. That was a really low move, IMO.
13873
« on: April 07, 2011, 04:40 »
FWIW, I really like your Purple Martin pic and the good news is that there are very few PMs on iStock, and some that turn up on the search aren't PMs. However, iStock is very weird about natural light, and they might not like the dark chin and belly of the bird (but you can never tell, it depends which inspector you get). If you were going to submit it, I'd try to lighten these areas if you can do it without introducing artifacts. Go back to your original out-of-the-camera image, of course.
I agree with what the others say about a DSLR though: make like much easier on yourself.
You're right about Alamy. I accidentally sent up an image taken on a non-approved camera and it was instantly 'partally rejected', meaning it was auto-rejected (presumably) but the rest went through OK.
13874
« on: April 06, 2011, 19:01 »
They charge disgraceful fees in England too, The trick is to move to Scotland for a couple of years - they pay for your childs University fees, even back in England. Once they've finished the couse move back south over the border, and you have a debt free child with a degree.
Oldhand
Yeah, but it's constantly on TV wondering how long we can keep up with other unis if we don't charge (for the subjects that need constantly changing technology).
13875
« on: April 06, 2011, 12:21 »
(Grand Cental Station)
Follow-up: the problems was confirmed and I was advised to take out a Support ticket and have done so.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
