Did a Test at IStock

SNP

« Reply #150 on: August 20, 2009, 10:58 »

#link

I think Lisa is right. the thing is, it would be impossible to remove subjectivity from the inspection process. and I'm sure they must have policies that favour exclusives in some regards. but I have seen no evidence of this personally and I was non-exclusive for over one year and now exclusive for two. my acceptance rate has improved gradually as my skills improved, but there was no obvious jump.

I believe it really is the borderline images that MIGHT receive slightly more leniency if submitted by exclusive rather than non-exclusive. then again, knowing that inspectors basically get paid a certain amount per image and review thousands and thousands of images a week, all of this speculation is probably just that.

I'd guess they use an assembly line approach to what they are doing, and to suggest they worry about who the contributor is most of the time seems unlikely as they plod through thousands of images, many of which are probably utterly terrible.


« Last Edit: August 20, 2009, 11:27 by hawk_eye »	Ignore \| Logged

michealo

« Reply #151 on: August 20, 2009, 11:24 »

#link

I'm sorry but I don't find that the OP is particular credible.

Initially he said the test was 10 images then 3.

What's to say it even happened at all?

And even if it did its highly unlikely it was the same inspector so one inspector rejected and another approved - thats not a big deal. This is a subjective process.

And bear in mind that non exclusives starting off sometimes get an easier inspection process so as to encourage them. But that is rarely mentioned.


	Ignore \| Logged

ichiro17

« Reply #152 on: August 20, 2009, 12:07 »

#link

the OP has never been very credible when you take his posts over a longer period of time given the contradictions


	Ignore \| Logged

Gannet77

« Reply #153 on: August 20, 2009, 12:13 »

#link

Quote from: hawk_eye on August 20, 2009, 10:58

So that makes three posts, from exclusives or ex-exclusives, saying they personally see no evidence of inspectors favouring exclusives - and one who has.

Yet still it's stated as a known fact. Maybe we should have a poll!


	Ignore \| Logged

ichiro17

« Reply #154 on: August 20, 2009, 12:29 »

#link

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


	Ignore \| Logged

gbalex

« Reply #155 on: August 20, 2009, 12:32 »

#link

Quote from: michealo on August 20, 2009, 11:24

I'm sorry but I don't find that the OP is particular credible.

Initially he said the test was 10 images then 3.

What's to say it even happened at all?

And even if it did its highly unlikely it was the same inspector so one inspector rejected and another approved - thats not a big deal. This is a subjective process.

And bear in mind that non exclusives starting off sometimes get an easier inspection process so as to encourage them. But that is rarely mentioned.

His statement on SS says it all. He feels entitled to lie to us if it facilitates his agenda for that day. Just one in a long line of misleading stories.

"I had a friend who is exclusive upload 3 of my images that were done in a way as to cause a rejection [ I said 10 in the post] so what!!."


	Ignore \| Logged

Xalanx

« Reply #156 on: August 20, 2009, 13:43 »

#link

I for one got the proof that istock editors are looking at the images at 200% zoom.

It goes like this: when I get a rejection from them (not very often I must say) it's usually related to keywords. They're right about this, almost every time. However, I got a rejection recently to a photo with my son reading a book while lying in a grassfield which said: "Readable words".

What the...

It's a full body portrait and yea I have a 5D and the shot was taken with a very sharp 100mm f/2.8 macro, but still... a full body shot?

When I looked at the photo, the words were not readable at 100%. However.... they were at 200%.
The photo is this: http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-34501825.html

And I got these days again a rejection of some diggers and construction machinery because one of them had a note (big as a palm) sticked in the corner of the windshield. They wanted me to clone that writing out. The photo is this: http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-34427362.html - Indeed, some text is visible at 200%.


	Ignore \| Logged

cascoly

« Reply #157 on: August 20, 2009, 13:57 »

#link

what you've 'proved' is that some editors might use 200% to check for copyright/logo concerns, and that's legit. still doesnt address the question whether they're using 200% to judge sharpness, etc

s


	Ignore \| Logged

ShadySue

Premium Member

« Reply #158 on: August 20, 2009, 13:58 »

#link

Quote from: Xalanx on August 20, 2009, 13:43

I don't think that proves that they always check at 200%, but that if there's even the slightest hint of an IP/copyright issue, they will zoom in to see if it can be distinguished at any zoom (sometimes if you zoom in to writing, it becomes more unreadable). This is the same as if there's even a tiny person in silhouette, they'll crank up the exposure to see if the person could remotely be identified with a +4 exposure, or whatever.


	Ignore \| Logged

sjlocke

« Reply #159 on: August 20, 2009, 14:14 »

#link

Agree that going past %100 makes things more unreadable, not more legible. This isn't CSI Wink


	Ignore \| Logged

SNP

« Reply #160 on: August 20, 2009, 14:18 »

#link

rofl...... Cheesy


	Ignore \| Logged

Xalanx

« Reply #161 on: August 20, 2009, 14:31 »

#link

well I would have felt much better if they hired a translator for Romanian - English so he'd tell them there's no copyright infringement Tongue

For zooming at 200% I would have expected to make it more unreadable, but it was the contrary. Also, there are some software who can make a very good quality zoom in. I'm sure the editors don't use irfanview.


	Ignore \| Logged

tempura

« Reply #162 on: August 20, 2009, 14:37 »

#link

Jonathan is right that through trial and error, paying attention to rejection reasons, and a lot of work anyone can improve their acceptance rate at any agency.

And for the most part istock's reviews are still among the most consistent and logical in the business.
[/quote]
once I figured the next equations:
istock, artifcats
fotolia, zip landscapes
shutter, sharp or oversharppened

my acceptance rates have risen considerably, so in this three, if I avoid swiming against current, reviews seems to be very consitent. Can't imgagine how being and exclusive to any of them would improve things regarding inspection.


	Ignore \| Logged

Xalanx

« Reply #163 on: August 20, 2009, 14:51 »

#link

VERY offtopic and I'm sorry, but... are the buyers reading MSG? I just sold this http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=10243720

weird.


	Ignore \| Logged

SNP

« Reply #164 on: August 20, 2009, 15:13 »

#link

I'm sure it has nothing to do with it, but in that vein I'm sure anyone heavily involved in micrstock, including, and most importantly, admins from the various sites haunt these threads quite regularly.

as for the topic at hand, I think we've all but agreed that the test was not much of a test, assuming it happened at all.


	Ignore \| Logged

krimi

New Member

« Reply #165 on: August 22, 2009, 13:33 »

#link

...producing a .25 cent work of art is getting increasingly difficult.


	Ignore \| Logged

sharpshot

« Reply #166 on: August 22, 2009, 15:58 »

#link

Quote from: krimi on August 22, 2009, 13:33

...producing a .25 cent work of art is getting increasingly difficult.

Don't do it then.


	Ignore \| Logged

Sign up with Shutterstock

Suljo

« Reply #167 on: September 12, 2009, 21:06 »

#link

Quote from: sjlocke on August 20, 2009, 14:14

Agree that going past %100 makes things more unreadable, not more legible. This isn't CSI Wink

Maybe IS revievers use this kind of observations Grin


Red Dwarf - Back To Earth - Picture Zoom Sketch


	Ignore \| Logged

Noodles

« Reply #168 on: September 13, 2009, 07:08 »

#link

Quote from: Suljo on September 12, 2009, 21:06

Maybe IS revievers use this kind of observations Grin


	Logged

kaycee

« Reply #169 on: September 13, 2009, 07:36 »

#link

Quote from: Sergey on August 18, 2009, 03:28

IStock is right.

i've never seen so many overphotoshopped images like on micros.
you'll hardly find anything "normal", even a simply postcard style
picture with a sky and a mountain will need to have purple layers
in the clouds and oversharpened rocks and ice on the mountain
with more sh-it layered here and there to add more fakeness to
whole composition.

and colors .. gosh .. you'll hardly find a picture on micros with normal
colors .. everything must be oversaturated by default .. grass is always
supergreen, sky is as blue as a diving pool, flowers are booming in a lysergic
raimbow ...

what ?

From My own experience with Istock my images plain convert from RAW to JPG got rejected for over filtered while other images got accepted wich one I did indeed use some filters on it......
In Istocks point of view if your image looks over filtered it got rejected if you desaturate the colors or using filters as long as they looks natural they will accept
these images


	Ignore \| Logged

Magnum

« Reply #170 on: September 13, 2009, 08:38 »

#link

Quote from: kaycee on September 13, 2009, 07:36

Quote from: Sergey on August 18, 2009, 03:28

From My own experience with Istock my images plain convert from RAW to JPG got rejected for over filtered while other images got accepted wich one I did indeed use some filters on it......
In Istocks point of view if your image looks over filtered it got rejected if you desaturate the colors or using filters as long as they looks natural they will accept
these images

Raw software adds sharpening as default if you didn´t know. Not much, but it´s Istock...


	Ignore \| Logged

kaycee

« Reply #171 on: September 13, 2009, 09:19 »

#link

Quote from: Magnum on September 13, 2009, 08:38

Quote from: kaycee on September 13, 2009, 07:36

Quote from: Sergey on August 18, 2009, 03:28

Raw software adds sharpening as default if you didn´t know. Not much, but it´s Istock...

Convert from RAW to JPG I did do it as long as I know.
Never had problems with it also most of my images got accepted with I stock.
I treat every image the same.
That was not the point.....

But if I stock thinks it's over filtered you know color wise they will reject it.
You can use filters,saturation,color etc as long as I stock beliefs they look natural.

for example: I can't help it if a red rock is indeed bright red ------->rejected for over filtered (converted RAW straight to JPG)
The same image and desaturate the bright red ------->accepted (import RAW file desaturate and make some minor
adjustments than convert the RAW straight to JPG)

That was what I mean.


« Last Edit: September 13, 2009, 09:21 by kaycee »	Ignore \| Logged

granitepeaker

New Member

« Reply #172 on: February 03, 2010, 13:57 »

#link

Quote from: photoshow on August 19, 2009, 02:23

No I don't think MicroStock is the bad guy but I do believe that the agencies have lost sight of the reality of an Agent / Client relationship. Somehow they have gotten it twisted and believe that we are employees but we should all remember that without OUR CONTENT they have nothing but empty servers and Databases with no data. Their livelihood is 100% dependent on our intellectual property.

Agreed


	Ignore \| Logged

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7]

« previous next »

MicrostockGroup

Microstockgroup Sponsors

Topic: Did a Test at IStock

Microstockgroup Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results