I subscribe to a UK science magazine. In this week's issue there is an article about building a railway tunnel underwater and it's illustrated (in part) with an awful photograph.

I can't post a scan because I'd probably run into libel problems, but it's a picture, under-exposed, of some pretty much featureless water (sea? lake? river?) with some land in the far, far background. The horizon is crooked, and there's a balding man's head, side on and totally out of focus, taking up about a quarter of the image at the bottom right.

Looks like it was snapped (that word used intentionally) from the deck of a ferry and is the sort of thing you'd get if you pressed the shutter release by mistake.

Of course, I checked the credits to see where it was from.

Getty!

Now I'm gonna sit me down and cry.   

I haven't been involved in the business side of photography for very long, only a few months.  But I've been taking 35mm pix for 45 years.  It has been a passionate hobby of mine. I've taken multiple thousands of pictures all over the world. And, I know a good photo when I see one...
    I've seen a lot of mediocre(or less) pix on the macros and I've seen some FANTASTIC pix on the micros {many belonging to folks on this forum}.  Getting a macro's approval does not make you a superior photographer. Some of the most impressive pictures, the most touching pictures, I've seen in my life,  came out of a shoebox stored in someone's closet and shot with a disposable or $25 camera.
  The macros have managed to market/advertise  their inventories as the source of the best photography on the planet.  That just isn't so.
   
 
   
   

Getty just reported their earnings.  I hvaen't read but no one commented that they are in trouble.  Still earning $800m per year and iStock is only about 5% of business.

They might have come in under estimates but it is still up on prior year:

After the closing bell Tuesday, Getty reported revenue improved 7 percent to $198.1 million from $184.5 million a year ago, but missed expectations for $206.3 million in revenue, according to a Thomson Financial poll.

The share market is its own best and in some cases doesn't reflect relatity.  In this case, Getty has improved but not fast enough for the markets liking. 

[note: this is my take based on reading this one paragraph quoted above]

It wasn't a bad print of a good photo, that's for sure. Crooked horizon? Under-exposure? Out of focus, blurry, disembodied head that has nothing whatever to do with the rest of the picture???

Unless, of course, standards of good photos changed while I wasn't looking   

The magazine was New Scientist and, I've just noticed, it wasn't this week's. I live in Switzerland and the magazine often arrives late. It was one that arrived this week, but was an issue from a few weeks ago.

here is a "great" getty image