|
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 - Mantis
5126
« on: August 26, 2011, 18:22 »
I am not nearly as worried about the moderators as I am the future direction of Istock. As an independent it's a hard world over there....so many * layers that it becomes nearly impractical to upload.
5127
« on: August 26, 2011, 18:17 »
For the most part I like 123. They are fair and respond to my emails. I don't make as much there as the big four but it is consistent. So I rely on them when I do my monthly financials.
5128
« on: August 26, 2011, 18:12 »
I am no fan of Lobo and have been vocal about his rude forum moderation. But I think, being fair, that this was an appropriate 'lock' given the way they run their forums at IS. He'd certainly done WAY WORSE in terms of locking threads and making snide comments.
5129
« on: August 26, 2011, 17:53 »
Because people start boozing already on friday lunchtime, so when they get back to work they dont give a toss about business and when finishing they go to the nearest wine-bar and get even more zozzled. 
^^Took the words right out of my mouth!! 
5130
« on: August 21, 2011, 18:35 »
... avoid the stereo-type cliche type of shots, boats, cars, supermarkets, behind counters, you know, commercial everyday life.
You mean the stuff that sells? : )
You seem to "think" you know all God regarding micro...and rarely can you debate nothing more than your own weakness.
I see you think you are the local yoda : ))
Well at least I am fair and open to opinions.
5131
« on: August 20, 2011, 19:27 »
... avoid the stereo-type cliche type of shots, boats, cars, supermarkets, behind counters, you know, commercial everyday life.
You mean the stuff that sells? : )
You seem to "think" you know all God regarding micro...and rarely can you debate nothing more than your own weakness.
5132
« on: August 20, 2011, 17:05 »
The only thing I don't like about DT is their "too similar" policy. I get it. I understand it. They posted examples of what they mean. But their inspectors seem to have not viewed that post. For some of us this has gone too far. We know it has for Yuri. When you're shooting in a studio with a model you tend to manage him/her to provide multiple looks. Just because the model is wearing the same clothing is no reason to deny acceptance into a collection. As a buyer (yes I am also a contributor) I need choices. DT's decision to limit similars hurts my choies so I am now with a couple of other agencies.
5133
« on: August 20, 2011, 16:51 »
A union has been discussed countless times in this and other forums. For many reasons, a union isn't realistic in this business and wouldn't accomplish anything.
The most significant reason being that agencies would be under no obligation to listen to a union any more than to individual contributors.
That and a union would never gain the kind of membership you'd expect. Most microstock contributors are not active in the forums, don't really care about the politics of the business, and are largely solitary in their microstock activities.
The reality is that we're already SCABS. So we form a union. We strike. Who provides content? Someone else. Scabs. Problem with unions with online busiunesses is that they aren't effectve. They can't walk out, march with picket signs, and shut a business down. Businesses ALWAYS have the option to seek help elsewhere. That "elsewhere" will be the thousands of contributors just like us; it is us.
5134
« on: August 20, 2011, 08:22 »
I have a very hard time believing that someone of this stature, quality and creativity...
You must be joking.
I don't joke, mostly 
5135
« on: August 19, 2011, 20:12 »
Well, in this case I am going to do the opposite of being accused of pointing out a substandard portfolio and point out a superior portfolio, the artist of whom had a 100 percent rejection rate from a recent submission. Now, these rejections are not available for us to see, but from his/her port I'd venture to say that we can infer that the submissions were of similar quality and composition. The reason I am making this post is that there has been a lot of, "well your port must suck then" comments over several threads. Here's the guy's port at Shutterstock: http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-urolffimages.htmlHere is the thread about his 100 percent rejection submission. http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=110311I have a very hard time believing that someone of this stature, quality and creativity would have 100 percent of his images rejected. My conclusion is simply that there is no rhyme or reason behind the LCV rejections. I just had 40 accepted (100 percent) while this guy had zero accepted with a lot more graphic talent.
5136
« on: August 17, 2011, 19:41 »
I joined this company in 2007,never sent any images (10) and posted my first comment on the forum last week (alistair666).I must say i'm slightly taken aback with the lack of fun on the forum.Has someone got a humour block on this forum??
What's you definition of fun? Pimping? They already do lots of that....so that's probably no your definition of fun. Show me?? They already do a lot of that over there....so that's probably not your definition of fun. POLITICS?? They already do a lot of that over there....so that's probably not your definition of fun. VOTE FOR ME?? They already do a lot of that over there....so that's probably not your definition of fun. LCV REJECTION discussions??? They already do a lot of that over there....so that's probably not your definition of fun. So what's your definition of fun?
5137
« on: August 15, 2011, 18:42 »
To put the thing in some sort of context, I will argue for the sake of the argument. Having said that, and, even though I don't actually know very much compared to most of you guys about producing stock imagery or about the industry, I do believe I understand the acceptance policies of the big 4 supported by my own experience and the evidence of comments in the various fora (already outlined and won't bore you again). The argument that certain folks are favoured is not supported by any evidence:
a. We don't know if the person concerned is also getting a lot of rejections on current submissions or whether much of the existing port would pass if submitted now
b. I have virtually no rejections on SS - I'm not arrogant enough to believe I'm producing anything special so there must be tens of thousands of bit players in the same position, none of whom are significant enough to warrent any special favour.
Fair enough.
5138
« on: August 15, 2011, 18:39 »
Mat,
These are very nice. Great job.
5139
« on: August 15, 2011, 18:23 »
Don't forget preferential review time, as well. VIP status gets you faster image inspections.
Pretty ballsy for a new company to be trying to push down people they see as part-timers or hobbyists. Especially when there are so many great pros in this business with what DP would probably consider small portfolios.
Interesting that they promised the same thing in terms of placement to many of "us small people" 4-6 months ago. It is nothing more than lip service in my opinion. They are making promises that have a foundation of sand.
5140
« on: August 15, 2011, 16:28 »
There is one guy on Shutterstock who claims to be the king of stock and he is the worst photographer in general I can think of, yet Shutterstock continues to reject good images and accept his junk. There is, in my opinion, a double standard over there. Not a variance in inspectors for him, but favoritism for him. When I look at the crap he gets accepted and the excellent images that get rejected I can only conclude that there is a different set of rules for some photographers. This isn't just one or two images I disagree with. It's been that way for years, that's why he has 10,000 images on line THERE. He can't get accepted anywhere else. If I have 10,000 GOOD images I would certainly take the time to upload on all sites I could. He doesn't.
I don't personally know the guy nor do I blame him. I blame Shutterstock for creating that unfair rift and showing clear favoritism.
Is it acceptable to pick on an identifiable individual (hell, even I know who you're talking about) like this using a cloak of anomynity?
Get over it. I never mentioned anyone's name. Just because you think you know who he/she is doesn't mean my comment was finger pointing. And this thread is about SS rejections and it is an appropriate observation relevant to this conversation.
I know EXACTLY who you were talking about and, if I do, ANYONE with an account at SS will too. How is this NOT finger pointing? I simply happen to think that criticising an identifiable individual in a public forum, who is not a participant and whose work in not particularly relevant to the conversation, is unacceptable. To do so from within a cloak of anonymity is just plain cowardly.
Similarly, your opinions about your excellent images vs someone elses crap and a sub sale at SS will earn me $0.25.
The idea that acceptance / rejection depends on who you are rather than what you submit is just silly. More likely you are either submitting technically good stuff but not what they feel they need at the moment (IS is a good home for these) or the images are just not as excellent as you think they are. In any case, Im not the one who needs to get over it.
Sorry, Woody, I disagree with you flat out. But that's fine. This is why forums like this add value...varying opinions. But the truth seems to hurt. There is a clear double standard at SS and I brought up an example. Because you think that example finger points means in your eyes I am wrong for bringing it up because I choose to be anonymous here. That doesn't mean I don't make valid posts on MSG. I merely pointed out a clear example of why some contributors get frustrated submitting to SS and you spun it into being a personal poke at an individual. So, as I said, we simply disagree. By the way, I had three people PM me asking who I was talking about. So your argument is without merit. I am also close to MANY high end contributors who are refraining from uploading because of the mess they've created. My post was based on my personal and anecdotal experience with other submitters.
5141
« on: August 13, 2011, 06:01 »
I scanned a few thousands with ScanCafe.com. $.22 each (3000 dpi) if you do 600 at a time. I have a Nikon 4000 scanner, but sending them off is so much easier.
Do you get stock quality?^^ Just curious.
5142
« on: August 12, 2011, 17:01 »
What is it about film, especially transparencies, that makes elderly men go all misty-eyed? I don't get it at all.
I hated film. I hated buying it, getting it processed, storing the bloody negatives, trying to get the dust off, being disappointed with the results when the machine tried to adjust for any filters you might have used, sending off for additional prints, etc, etc, etc. It was all such a pain that I could hardly be bothered to do photography in those days. I only actually got into photography properly when finally you didn't have to use film. Good riddance to it.
+1^. I shot so much that I rolled my own film. I have thousands of slides and I have never been able to get a good scan other than a drum scan, which was expensive. I really don't miss the film days at all. I still have requests to present at expositions but I no longer have any of my projectors and the slides are not in order anymore. Scanning them to keep doing shows is simply too expensive.
5143
« on: August 11, 2011, 21:06 »
There is one guy on Shutterstock who claims to be the king of stock and he is the worst photographer in general I can think of, yet Shutterstock continues to reject good images and accept his junk. There is, in my opinion, a double standard over there. Not a variance in inspectors for him, but favoritism for him. When I look at the crap he gets accepted and the excellent images that get rejected I can only conclude that there is a different set of rules for some photographers. This isn't just one or two images I disagree with. It's been that way for years, that's why he has 10,000 images on line THERE. He can't get accepted anywhere else. If I have 10,000 GOOD images I would certainly take the time to upload on all sites I could. He doesn't.
I don't personally know the guy nor do I blame him. I blame Shutterstock for creating that unfair rift and showing clear favoritism.
Is it acceptable to pick on an identifiable individual (hell, even I know who you're talking about) like this using a cloak of anomynity?
Get over it. I never mentioned anyone's name. Just because you think you know who he/she is doesn't mean my comment was finger pointing. And this thread is about SS rejections and it is an appropriate observation relevant to this conversation.
5144
« on: August 06, 2011, 18:38 »
so i hope that rebecca brings the customers back. after all that is the service that the contributors are paying for.
At what cost to you though? What if they say they need to cut commissions again in order to advertise more or fix the site and need more money from the contributors to do it?
/or There will never be a reversal of "value" ..giving back to the contributor. That would only happen if contributors either slowed or stopped uploading and nobody else signed up. New supply drying up.
5145
« on: August 06, 2011, 18:21 »
There is a group of istockers who like to belittle MSG as a place for the whining "beermoney crowd" and obviously they think that only people on istock are "real photographers". I find it so sad every time I hear it. I love istock and will remain exclusive, but IMO a little humbleness is a sign of professionalism in doing business. After all, you never know who you might be making the next deal with.
However, if istock wanted to work on their reputation over here, they could easily appoint a staff member to be helpful and answer questions, just like other agencies do. My colleague MichaelJay used to do this very patiently and bravely on an outside German forum. I think he was quite successful at reaching out to those who were genuinely interested in istock.
But the best thing is to have the reputation of being the site that brings in the most money.
Preferably double or triple to any competitor.
Those group's you speak of are here, have been here and will always be here:)
5146
« on: August 06, 2011, 18:04 »
As long as his manager allows it, then forums will be as they are at IS. However, many have found him to be an a-hole, unfair, and a bully who intentionally creates conflict. I agree with all of these. Grass isn't always greener on the other side once he is canned.
5147
« on: August 04, 2011, 19:02 »
He is merely asking for feedback from non exclusives in his OP. You've spun it. And so has Sean.
I didn't spin anything. By the phrasing, it was what it was.
Institutionalized: To make part of a structured and usually well-established system.
You DO know that that are multiple definitions of institutionalized, correct?
The point I am making is that a lot of people posting in this particular thread have taken a pragmatically inferred question and made it their own. Now, I cannot speak for the OP on his particular definition but, using common sense, Websters #1 definition of this word is: "to incorporate into a structured and often highly formalized system"....need I say ISTOCK. At least this was my personal interpretation of the OP.
5148
« on: August 04, 2011, 18:37 »
'1. If someone is only with one agency it's difficult to be balanced because you don't have a basis for comparison,
2. If you're an exclusive and can't be positive then why would you be an exclusive?'
You didn't ask for 'balanced'. You asked for positive.
And if you're looking for 'positive' and you believe #2, then you would want to hear from exclusives, definitely.
A better title might be 'Are any independents having any positive thoughts about IS'.
"Rarely see anything positive posted - wondering what folks think. Really aimed at non-exclusives as less likely to be institutionalised...."
I think he was pretty clear in his initial statement that he was more interested in the non exclusive opinion. "Institutionalized" simply implies that he understands that exclusives will have a more emotional, defensive response. Both you and SNP have emphasized the reasoning as to why he used this term by your very responses.
It takes a fair degree of spin to characterise the OP as anything other than giving a negative connotation to IS exclusivity.
Funnily enough I'm far less emotional than when it seemed like I was getting regular cuts in commissions or there was some other bad news that applied to me whenever I opened this forum. Sadly the days where SS gave regular increases are a distant memory, as are things like upload incentives from FT (remember those!).
Since then we've had:
- Dreamstime rate cut round 1 (50-30% for base images)
- Dreamstime rate cut round 2 (30-25% for "level 0")
- Dreamstime image culls for "similars"
- Crestock.
- Fotolia V2 (not intentional but what a disaster that was for many)
- Fotolia rate cut round 1
- Fotlia increase to goalposts round 1
- Fotolia (the never-ever subs site) introducing subscriptions
- Fotolias rate constant rate cuts by stealth as the value of the US$ diminishes
- Fotolia rate cut round 2
- iStock rate cut & RC introduction
- SS starts requiring withholding tax being paid
- Lucky Oliver closing
- StockXpert being sold to Jupiter & introducing commissions
- StockXpert being closed
- Jupiter being sold to Getty @ a fire sale
- Snapvillage being closed
- Zymetrical being closed
- Albumo.com being closed
(I'm sure I'm missing some of the low-lights reel of course)
Throw in the experience of images going through a gauntlet of 10+ sets of different reviewers mostly with varying degrees of competence or standards that they apply, and with the sum total I'm surprised not more of us are institutionalised.
Through that time the only 2 sites where I personally saw a consistent increase in both income and $ per download were IS and SS. The problem with both was that downloads were dropping at a rate that meant income was only barely rising. With IS I couldn't add enough images due to upload restrictions, with SS, the influx is so great that its a constant job of "feeding the beast".
That wasn't his question. It was simply "is there anyone non-exclusive that has anything good to say about Istock". The point I am making is that a lot of people posting in this particular thread have taken a pragmatically inferred question and made it their own. Op didn't ask about any other site...just IS. Now, I cannot speak for the OP on his particular definition. Websters #1 definition of this word is: "to incorporate into a structured and often highly formalized system"....need I say ISTOCK. At least this was my personal interpretation of the OP...maybe I am * nuts. 
5149
« on: August 04, 2011, 18:29 »
Institutionalized: To make part of a structured and usually well-established system.
You DO know that that are multiple definitions of institutionalized, correct?
Lol, you can try to spin it that way, but obviously that was not the intended meaning of the OP:
' Rarely see anything positive posted - wondering what folks think. Really aimed at non-exclusives as less likely to be institutionalised....'
Well, Let's ask the OP...That's fair enough I suspect.
5150
« on: August 04, 2011, 18:16 »
BigStock tanked for me by 50 percent in July. They haven't amounted to whole lot in revenue for me so they are at the lowest when uploads are done. ...down there with 123, Canstock and Stockfresh. I never uploaded to Deposit Photos even though they promised me the world, and many of you also!!!!
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
