Quote from: Snufkin on September 19, 2011, 12:27

Indeed, I am not very popular in Japan either. Surprisingly enough, my European content gets downloaded in South-East Asia quite frequently.
What puzzles me more is one spot in Western Africa, which looks like it could be Senegal or Gambia. For some reason my stuff is quite popular there, most of my African downloads come from there, even ODs from time to time... My sales in other parts of Africa are negligible.

When this map thing first came out I looked at it every now and then out of curiosity, I was amazed just how many of my images were downloaded from Accession Island - well I was until I found out that there's a telecommunications relay thing there, mentioning it to a friend who's in the know about these things he explained that someone in the UK could download an image from a site who's offices are in the US but have back up servers in Australia and according to the SS map the download could show up as having come from Russia. i.e. it's a pointless worthless widget. I haven't taken any notice of it since except for when I read this thread, having just checked it appears I'm still the worlds most popular photographer on a tiny little island in the middle of the Atlantic !!

That's funny:) I agree the data is quite meaningless - I would, too, rather have a simple table based on country of registration to see which part of my sales come from North America and which part from Europe, stuff like that. It's a cute-looking gadget but I really wish they didn't spend money developing that sort of stuff but brought more buyers to the site instead. I produce images - agencies sell them, that's all, it should be as simple as that. Some basic stats can be delivered in a very cheap way in simple format, if needed.

I guess the prevailing opinion that he would need a deal at all tells you something about how the place is run. Unless, not setting up a ton of roadblocks is considered a deal now.  

Yup - just allowing a best-selling contributor to upload his work without ridiculous limits would be a "special deal" on Istock... This is not how you run business if you're just after money (which you should be, business is kinda about that) - it looks there are a lot of personal feelings and agendas involved, not rational calculations. Of course, they could be justifying it as keeping their collection "special" and different from other agencies, but is it really better with very limited representation of best-selling independents?

That's about the one and only fair thing that iStock has done. The rules should be the same for all of us. I really cannot understand why someone would thing that it would be a good thing if an agency would give some members unfair advantages and benefits.

I have to disagree. It's more of a reverse situation - How is it *fair* to Yuri or other independents when they can't upload most of what they produce? If an average Istock contributor is happy uploading 30 files a week, let them do that. For someone who is producing 250 a week, and has a proven sales record, such low upload limit is extremely unfair. People may produce different amount of images and of different quality, and that's what fair competition is about. Some work more than others, and some invest more in business, the best man wins, I don't see a problem with that. Most of people here praise Shutterstock and earnings there, well last time I looked Yuri has 51,380 files with that agency, and that somehow doesn't prevent us earning good money there...  

Ok some thoughts:

1. The best match at Istock has been changing over the last month or so, either intentionally or unintentionally. That is going to have an effect on sales. There were a few days where we had some really unusual results coming up - that's going to have an impact, and was probably especially prominent for the high volume searches.

+1

Quote from: Elenathewise on September 14, 2011, 09:31

Move to Canada... It's cheaper here

Don't think we haven't thought of it.  Although I can do microstock anywhere, my hubby's teaching job is local. 

But the big reason is that we are cowards.  Been enjoying Florida sunshine and warm weather for too many decades to try and adjust to Canadian winters....Brrrrr!!

Toronto is not bad, just a couple of months of snowy weather, all you need is a good parka:) I lived in Edmonton for 4 years, now that was something - eyelashes freezing together, and you need to plug in your car in the winter or it won't start. Vancouver is even milder than Toronto - and scenic, too, mountains and ocean... I don't think it snows there often...  And we have free basic medical! 

Yup seen these ads with my own images in them... So if they serve me my own images based on the cookies, what do they serve Istock buyers who often have small ports on Istock - also their own images? (that's be silly...) How would it work if I don't have a portfolio on Istock?

Actually, way better than average sales in August on Istock is very unusual - I wonder if another "clawback" is coming... things are just back to normal for me in September.

thanks for such detailed response! Weight is what concerns me most... I can shoot handheld with 70-200 mm mounted on D3X for a couple of hours (with some breaks) before my arms fall off, but this one is double the weight - it looks like a monopod is a must.

Have you checked out Fred Miranda reviews?

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=359&sort=7&cat=12&page=2

Thanks for the link - lots of wows there... some sample images are just stunning. If it only came with a donkey to carry it around... oh wait... there is my husband...

Anyone has 300mm f2.8 G AFS ED VR II Lens? Am thinking of getting it, wondering if anyone had any experience with it. It seems quite heavy (about 3 kg) and bulky, but they claim you can shoot hand-held with it. Anyone tried? I would like to use it hand-held, for some action shots...

I don't see a point in leaving. If they decide at some point they want exclusive content only (and that is probably coming soon enough), I won't be uploading of course, but meanwhile why not make some money. If they remove my entire portfolio from Istock and move it to their subscription sites, and I am not happy with the results I'll leave then. Although I don't see how it would be a good business decision for them - my port alone makes them 20K+ a month, and some top non-exclusives like Yuri earn them way more. Why would they want to lose that profit.
And by the way now it's clear that Photo+ collection was introduced in anticipation of this decision - they wanted us to lock in our files so we won't be able to delete them when they make changes to the agreement. Like I said back then, there is always a "catch", at least with Istock.

Went to her website and looked at "art". Ew.

I should have posted this over here.  Sorry.

How do you folks afford to do this.

Camera 1000+
Any lens 500+ (with a coupld of exceptions)
A stupid Flash 400+
Tripod 200+
Monopod 100+

I can't keep up, is there something I'm missing or is this just about right?  Is this really this cost prohibitive or am I just not finding the bargains that allow me to get started?
 

Well, you asked! Here is how: you start in 2005 with a Canon Powershot G2 and eventually (in a year or so) earn enough money to buy Nikon D200 with a 18-200 mm lens, then you don't like the quality of images with that lens and you sell it and you buy (in a year or so) a 17-55 mm one, 105 mm macro and 70-200mm one, then your D200 starts showing burnt out pixes from abuse and you sell it and get D300, and meanwhile you're replacing your homemade cardboard-and-foil reflectors with nice Lastolite ones and buying Nikon flashguns with softboxes for them, and then you realize you need a bigger resolution camera and you fork out on D3X and then you realize you don't have a proper space to shoot and you buy a loft just to use for your studio.... Easy!