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 - Karen
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 12
76
« on: January 25, 2016, 11:18 »
723,000 is nothing 825,763 new stock images added this week. 10 million new photos every 12 weeks. Carry on.
Fotolia has published today they just passed the 50 million milestone. Next goal is 100 million!!! The marijuana guy have got a fresh new stuff
77
« on: January 24, 2016, 06:39 »
I don't know how long this feature has been there, but I just noticed that iStock no longer has the zoom in and scroll around previews. They've gone to enlarged watermarked previews similar to DT, SS and 123rf.
iStock's are 1235 on the long edge and don't have any visible iD info (such as image number and the site). They also don't seem to have learned from SS's mistakes about including something other than white in the watermark. Strangely, iStock vectors have a different watermark from photos.
Here are links to the previews for iStock, SS and DT for the same photo as a comparison
http://i.istockimg.com/image-zoom/22795801/3/380/253/stock-photo-22795801-senior-couple-with-camera-on-beach.jpg http://image.shutterstock.com/z/stock-photo-senior-couple-with-camera-on-beach-121062712.jpg http://www.dreamstime.com/comp.php?imageid=27959586&type=1
Here's an iStock vector watermark
http://i.istockimg.com/image-zoom/64184947/3/380/380/stock-illustration-64184947-elderly-couple-at-the-beach.jpg
In terms of size, SS is still the largest at 1500 px on the long edge, then DT and 123rf at 1300 and IS at 1235. AdobeStock brings up the rear at 1,000 px
Perhaps people want to look at their images to see how well the watermark protects them. Not clear if there'd be any response if improvements were asked for, but it's worth a shot for those who have a large portfolio there.
After someone told me the previews had been around a while, I realized that in Classic View (which I almost always use) you have the zoom-and-scroll, but in the new view, it's the large watermarked preview. Didn't someone say classic is going away?
Thanks for the heads up!
78
« on: January 23, 2016, 17:04 »
It's not news that Jonathan Klein is a miserable [delete lots of bad words & thoughts], but this tweet about the Corbis acquisition is just hateful:
https://twitter.com/JonathanDKlein/status/690559911252471808
"Almost 21 years but got it. Lovely to get the milk, the cream, cheese, yoghurt and the meat without buying the cow." .....
What a fantasist. Has he looked at his books lately? Getty doesn't even own Getty anymore.
He was dreaming about it for 21 years? Well...
79
« on: January 23, 2016, 16:51 »
The geniuses at Istock will be flattered to see that SS has followed their example: 1. Make detrimental-to-suppliers announcement on a Friday afternoon. 2. Supply NO notice period. As I recall, SS always gave at least 30 days notice and this comes into effect Monday.
Come on SS! You were my last hope for fare business on microstock market. Don't kill my last hope!!!
80
« on: January 22, 2016, 16:49 »
It's not news that Jonathan Klein is a miserable [delete lots of bad words & thoughts], but this tweet about the Corbis acquisition is just hateful:
https://twitter.com/JonathanDKlein/status/690559911252471808
"Almost 21 years but got it. Lovely to get the milk, the cream, cheese, yoghurt and the meat without buying the cow."
This guy makes me sick Disgusting!
81
« on: January 22, 2016, 16:45 »
Paycut?
82
« on: January 22, 2016, 14:47 »
Is anyone as nervous about this as I am? I'm thinking of deleting my images and my account. I mean China?!?
"China" is the least of my worries. "Getty" is of more concern
The microstock market is heading Getty/SS/Adobe control?
83
« on: January 20, 2016, 15:05 »
84
« on: January 20, 2016, 08:02 »
85
« on: January 20, 2016, 01:55 »
Now I can access it too... Wishful thinking?
86
« on: January 20, 2016, 00:23 »
After years of massive marketing efforts, it looks like Getty finally gave up the idea to make Thinkstock a SS competitor - reference links disappeared, silence on their twitter account and today Thinkstock site is down?
87
« on: January 19, 2016, 14:45 »
Thanks, Thomas, for getting us back on the subject. Let's hope we can stay here.
My SS sales have picked up in the last week but they're lagging way behind FT. I sure do miss the good old days of many SODs and even the occasional EL.
Hard not to notice the drop in SS's rating in the column to the right and the related rise of IS, FT, and P5.
I can see the drop in SS in the column to the right and in my port performance. I can't see any rise of IS, FT or P5.
88
« on: January 19, 2016, 09:46 »
No I don't
89
« on: January 19, 2016, 09:44 »
I am a beginner also and I don't have an advice per se but I have, since started on stock, lost most of my pleasure taking photos. I used to love photography and now I am obsessed with focus, noise, commercial value and sensor spots. I also have lost some of the enjoyment I had looking at pictures, mine included, since all I see are their technical problems.
So I don't know. I have also gained a new appreciation for my real job.
Some agencies has a random review process Even if you are obsessed with focus or noise they will accept or reject regardless
90
« on: January 19, 2016, 09:39 »
Alamy has a huge collection. Eyeem port will be dissolved in that ocean.
91
« on: January 08, 2016, 05:24 »
I think Getty has scored one of the most amazing own goals, and that they are right now left with very few options.
I've had a couple of conversations with analysts over the last couple of years where they've been trying to sanity check Getty's "it's all fixed now" claims. I think Getty has all the credibility of Melissa Meyer saying that Yahoo's on the road back to market dominance. Getty doesn't understand why they've had troubles so they keep "fixing" things that don't address the reasons customers have gone elsewhere. IMO.
There are a couple of notes on your history section. iStock has had two cracks at subscriptions, the second of which was in 2014. The first was in 2008:
http://www.stockphototalk.com/phototalk/2008/04/istockphoto.html
It had many good points but it was too complicated for buyers and never really went anywhere.
Another big issue was Getty not understanding that many iStock buyers were also contributors. They largely destroyed the relationship with small design firms and anyone left probably departed when they effectively jacked up the price of small size images by having one price for everything.
The web site has been in such a bad state of repair for so long - often as various "improvements" were deployed in broken states - that it was much easier to do business almost anywhere else
Another big issue about pricing is that it is impossible to comprehend why some images are three times the price of others. Bog standard stock images (and some of the Getty leftovers pushed to iStock would never have been approved prior to this) are overpriced. I think that leaves buyers feeling it's a hard place to shop for images - and Shutterstock has certainly harped on about a single price for everything (even though their corporate buyers pay different prices).
When Vetta was introduced, the tightly curated collection at a higher price was something almost anyone could grasp. Whether you agreed with the curation decisions or not, it was clear that there was some reasoning behind. After that, things really unraveled, starting with the Agency Collection.
For a while, Getty's message about iStock was effectively "don't shop there". On the iStock site, buyers were referred to Getty for more images. On Getty, they were referred to Thinkstock and vice versa. None of the Getty properties referred buyers back to iStock. There was a story from a contributor who worked at a design firm of a visit from Getty sales reps to his company where they told the company not to buy from iStock because it wasn't legally safe to use their images! Jonathan Klein was frequently snide about user-generated content on iStock.
It's possibly a small thing, but iStock used to be a place where the customers and the contributors could interact in the forums (there was a Request forum; designers could showcase designs which linked to the illustrations or photos used; there were Steel Cage matches and so on). Getty killed that all way before they closed the iStock forums. It's not possible to put a number on how much business that might have cost them, but I think this was part of the process of rendering iStock just one more stock site versus the buyer's first choice place to look.
If you add up the many little things done to drive buyers away over time, I think you see that once buyers moved to somewhere else as their first place to look and they were getting what they needed, you can't get them back by saying "Look! I'm not as bad as I used to be". Why would they switch if they're happy where they are?
Getty's best hope is for Shutterstock to really p*ss off its buyers somehow so they start looking for an alternative. I don't think the odds are good.
This sums up Getty's last 10 years of their self destruction
92
« on: January 07, 2016, 15:04 »
Well done stvagna for exposing this thief!! I look forward to clicking MacroZone and having IS say page not found.
93
« on: January 04, 2016, 05:53 »
So how was it for you? I finished the year just $15 down on last year, despite lots of upoading, but much more erratic in terms of good and bad months.
Doubled my port on SS without any growth in earnings... It's hard to beat 70 million images
94
« on: January 04, 2016, 05:47 »
Not worth to upload. I have a long history of their manipulations with keywords, they actually many times removed essential keywords, leaving mostly not important on. Here are threads about this. This was definitely manual work, for selection of images. They expose my images on Getty, but they are not available for downloads by buyers ("from street"?). They are time wasters. Support never answered my questions except i think 5 years ago they demanded additional proof for one image with metal chain segment. With all this i think they don't report all sales, otherwise it does not make sense to continue accept images.
Same experience here
95
« on: December 29, 2015, 00:23 »
Probably SS just need more marijuana stuff, but does not need more Zoo pics. Less people have access to marijuana than To the Zoo. IMHO
96
« on: December 28, 2015, 09:32 »
Hello, i have about 30k photos on most of stock agencies but on iStock none at this point. I was wondering if it is worth to upload there or not. Hope to get some answers, i wish you happy holidays and a happy new year.
Does not worth the effort IMHO: No views, almost no credit sales, low level subs... iStock is an abandoned ship sailing nowhere
97
« on: December 09, 2015, 16:27 »
99
« on: December 03, 2015, 04:47 »
100
« on: November 26, 2015, 09:27 »
Since the introduction of the 10 images subscriptions my credit sales have gone down the drain.
@everest Are you exclusive with iStock?
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 12
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|