|
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 - ichiro17
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... 33
176
« on: August 24, 2009, 14:28 »
I was hoping for some oil for that would fix that squeak. What I didn't want but expected was the first few responses.
177
« on: August 24, 2009, 13:13 »
UPDATE: Somehow this issue got to the attention of the proper people over at SS and finally someone has acknowledged the issue and it apparently is being taken care of.
I'm interested and hoping it gets resolved quickly
178
« on: August 24, 2009, 12:56 »
Thanks Sean
I believe SS sued the buyer, who therefore agreed to settle and payout for ELs for all the downloaded images. So given that extraordinary event, why be so anal about policy?
179
« on: August 24, 2009, 11:02 »
not worth my time and typing
nruboc and disorderly - go away
gostwyck - why do you post in my threads? also go away
lisa - thanks for posting, obviously this community sucks, so any time a thread comes up where it isn't about not getting accepted or how we are getting rid of our images for pennies or ridiculous rejections, it attracts the riff raff of the site. Your post was helpful and its one reason why I'm removing mine. Thanks for actually being helpful.
180
« on: August 23, 2009, 19:31 »
.
181
« on: August 20, 2009, 12:43 »
Awesome thoughts, I've been contemplating how my cropping affects my sales and I've been trying to keep these things in mind
182
« on: August 20, 2009, 12:29 »
Personally, I had a 50% success rate of photos uploaded when I was non-exclusive, and now its up to about 80% but this doesn't have to be directly linked to being exclusive. Other issues have been that I'm taking much better photos (when I compare to the stuff I used to upload) and I'm taking more time to make sure that the photos meet the standards of iStock. However, if I do submit a crappy photo, it still gets rejected for being crappy - that hasn't changed.
One thing I have noticed is that my rejections for artifacting, which have always bothered me, have gone down a bit...but I do still get them
183
« on: August 20, 2009, 12:07 »
the OP has never been very credible when you take his posts over a longer period of time given the contradictions
184
« on: August 19, 2009, 17:41 »
Hi All,
I also agree that I don't think Istock is as tough as people make them out to be between on how they treat their non exclusives vs. their exclusives. They offer some perks to exclusives like larger uploads and they can get an editor they like to work with but I don't believe higher acceptance rate is part of that package. I have been seeing my acceptance rate at Istock increase more and more as we have added files and learned what to do on our back end to meet their technical needs. All these agencies have different standards that others, some tighter than others. The trick is listening to them and finding a way to fix what isn't working. My last istock upload was 100% accepted and when I started it was down at 65% or something of that nature. The more you listen to your agencies requests I think you will find higher acceptance rates. My 2 cents.
Best,
Jonathan
I agree 100%
185
« on: August 19, 2009, 13:46 »
I think there's room for a full frame cheapo, but I don't care. My 5D2 is phenomenal and I love it
186
« on: August 19, 2009, 13:44 »
Oh well, this topic seems to come up in many ways. This new way though, I'm glad it was a bone-headed move by someone who is always at the centre of speculation and most likely a publicity stunt (no one can be that ridiculous to think they can post to a public, very popular forum and there would be no backlash) and that there is talk about it and how dumb of a move it was (outside of the SS forums because most of them are brainwashed).
Bottom line is this. The man talks and talks, and he's been asked and asked repeatedly to produce certain evidence (there was a very popular thread here a while back) but he has never pulled through on any of those requests to validate his claims. At first, I can see how newbies can be blinded by his impeccable grammar, I know that in the beginning I did seem to read more of his posts. However, over time, you come to realize that while he does have very nice photographs within his microstock portfolio, he also types a hell of a lot and gets under the skin of a lot more people - in the end, it always revolves around his 'classes' - as he claims he's never for "them" and he's "for us" on the SS forums - and I wouldn't be surprised if this was another attempt at that.
187
« on: August 19, 2009, 10:32 »
I am confused with it too.
Not quite sure what I can get accepted
188
« on: August 19, 2009, 07:43 »
The SS forums are full of crap, and many of them drink whatever poison is put in front of them. I cannot stand looking at the posts anymore.
189
« on: August 18, 2009, 22:07 »
of course he got himself suspended. you try to show up the site, they are going to nail you in some way.
I don't blame the site for doing it, and I hope they set a precedent because you can't have non-exclusives and exclusives doing that sort of stuff to completely tarnish whatever image remains to the buyers.
190
« on: August 18, 2009, 13:57 »
It hurts to read his posts. The complete lack of grammar and Random capitalization and run on sentences and the 'classes' and tricks and 40+ years. Thats all 
191
« on: August 18, 2009, 12:24 »
Oh well, iStock will probably have something to say about it at some point, we may never hear about it though. Regardless, I would take anything Rinder says with a grain of salt (or a cube, or a kilo) - but the proof for that kind of stuff is in previous threads
Have a good one
192
« on: August 18, 2009, 11:06 »
However, if he submitted them to iStock, they stay in the rejected items area - and if they were resubmitted by an exclusive, then they would be linked to two users. Wouldn't that scream for penalty?
193
« on: August 18, 2009, 10:06 »
I wonder how long its going to take the folks over at IS HQ to get wind of Rinder's publicly posted 'experiment' that, though I'm not 100% sure and its not worth me going through, is probably in violation of a bunch of rules that you agree to.
As for the completely off-topic rant by some unknown weirdo, well, I got nothing to contribute to that.
194
« on: August 12, 2009, 13:00 »
this happens over and over
high commissions up front to attact those with lots of time to waste to upload there, cut down later to increase the bottom line. that never changes. not much fun in the end
195
« on: August 12, 2009, 12:00 »
I wonder if anyone outside of the SS forums goes to any of these? I'm sure they are awesome fun, but the interest must be pretty low
196
« on: August 12, 2009, 11:57 »
I'm not complaining...because I'm exclusive sorry to hear another agency is trying to cut into that already nicely cut up pie
197
« on: August 01, 2009, 15:48 »
ooops, just noticed that my post went wrong.
Just to clarify, my part was only this:
Ok, but what if by then other sites have closed their doors to new members or have introduced upload limits? If you had to rebuild your port on other sites uploading 10 or 20 a week, you'd be in trouble.
Sorry.
Thats fine. Its a valid concern and I can't say that its not a problem, but given the 80-20 rule of everything is pretty obvious (where 80% of the business is concentrated in 20% of the total number of businesses) I can't see that being a problem too soon. If some freak chance however it does happen, there would be a lot of great photographers available that other sites would be foolish to not want to lock up as assets for their collections. If you are good enough, the doors will open for you
198
« on: July 31, 2009, 11:10 »
Perseus, If you decide to go exclusive with any site ...... what if they go belly up and close the doors. Images gone, site gone.
What do you do now?
Think twice before going exclusive in this unstable market and each site trying to under sell the other until somebody goes broke. Soon!
In another post (soon) I will tell all what I found out from a big buyer about stock photo sites in general. An eye opener!!
My two cents my friend!
-Larry
If they go belly up, then you just re-upload to other sites. If not, then all is well.
199
« on: July 30, 2009, 21:38 »
... I must say I cracked up with the tube of lube comment.
I was tempted to answer this with my own take - I may need one tube, but it's infinitely preferable to the prior need for multiple tubes. I find the occasional urge to return to independence regularly banished by the anti-contributor (lube-requiring) antics of other sites.
But of course I wouldn't indulge in such crude analogies, so I didn't reply
I, on the other hand, expected such crap from that member. He's obviously anti-iStock exclusivity. But note, when I took him to math school in another post after he incorrectly computed what I said, he shut up and did not post again in that thread for whatever reason. Perhaps that member should use that lube to get that pickle out of his ass Back to the thread, I just think you need to make sure you have a style that suits iStock and you can get downloads. If you don't have that style, then no matter what you do, exclusivity won't work for you.
200
« on: July 29, 2009, 08:39 »
They did not pay for StockXpert, they paid formost, if not all, of Jupiter. I do not remember the deal entirely, however, StockXpert is only a part of that family and I think that photos.com was the big reason for the acquisition - and if you had sub sales there, you would see that photos.com would make a large portion of your downloads on StockXpert too.
I don't think StockXpert generated loads of profit, but I do however think they were on the right track when I was there.
That being said, I still think its a good plan from what I've seen so far
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... 33
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
