Then why they reject the stock photographer noisy but well composed outdoor pics and then choose the noisy outdoor Flickr users pictures?
Because they have Inspectors that Inspect the images, now they are looking at quality and content and ticking the boxes, one bad mark means a rejection, this takes away any subjective and artistic licence and you end up with a lot of the same, look at the critique forums and read the "you have a bit of fringing or noise in the top left hand corner about 10 pixels down", and not comments like "well there is a tiny bit of noise but it is a fantastic image, I would use it", we have all likely had perfect usable images subjectivly rejected.
Alamy on the other hand do not look at content but quality only, and we see comments like 70% dross, Photoshelter look at quality and subjectivly at the content and claim to be in touch with the buyers needs, time will tell on that one.
What is needed are inspectors that can look at an image tick the boxes, if some boxes are not ticked then be able to make a call on if the image should be allowed.
PhotoShelter had a poll of buyers that said stock was dated and dull and sites did not have what they really wanted, now with Getty they are looking for fresh conceptual images and photographers, but if the images hit the same inspectors will they get through, what is required is a new set of checkboxes for the inspectors and a good mix of conceptal and standard stock as they both have a place, one conceptual for grabbing attention and making you think for new markets, the other standard stock for the comfort of established businesses and markets.
For all the "Conceptual Hype" the only thing that counts is servicing the buyers requirements, they alone will drive the market in the direction they want it to move and not Getty or Istock, and they will talk with thier feet if they do not get what they want.
David
