MicrostockGroup

Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: HappySnappy on April 07, 2012, 03:02

Title: Is This The New iStock Standard Of Picture Quality?
Post by: HappySnappy on April 07, 2012, 03:02
I came across this photo that was just added to the iStock collection last month and I was wondering if this is the new standard of quality that we can expect going forward on iStock as photo buyers?

[*Image Removed*]

I noticed that this photo appears to have uninteresting composition, dull and hazy lighting, flat colors, and no contrast.  

I can also easily identify the brand of the bottle of orange colored hot sauce appearing in the photo and have serious doubts this image could safely be used commercially.

Isn't iStock still applying strict and discriminating standards of quality to their inspection process as they once were?

As a buyer who purchases all of my photos from iStock, I am truly amazed to see this kind of image being offered on iStock.  

I would appreciate feedback opinions on this matter from other members of the Microstock community.

--
admin edit
* Not sure what's the best to do here, it is an interesting discussion on the changing acceptable quality on iStock but picking on a single photographer and criticizing his photos isn't acceptable on the forum.  Not that the first post was so very critical or nasty but the thread moved in that direction as it often does.
Title: Re: Is This The New iStock Standard Of Picture Quality?
Post by: lagereek on April 07, 2012, 03:44
Well,  its embarrasing the least, dustbin material at best. I am not surprised.
Title: Re: Is This The New iStock Standard Of Picture Quality?
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on April 07, 2012, 04:41
I was going to say that it is incredibly bad taste to call out a picture/photographer like this.

But since I see it is an Inspector with more than 150,000 sales, maybe it isn't just a rogue oversight so I think I'll bite my tongue on this one.
Title: Re: Is This The New iStock Standard Of Picture Quality?
Post by: lagereek on April 07, 2012, 05:01
I was going to say that it is incredibly bad taste to call out a picture/photographer like this.

But since I see it is an Inspector with more than 150,000 sales, maybe it isn't just a rogue oversight so I think I'll bite my tongue on this one.

Yep! its bad taste alright! then again its an inspector and as you say, make an exeption on this one.
Title: Re: Is This The New iStock Standard Of Picture Quality?
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on April 07, 2012, 05:10
I am kinda curious, though, about how he managed to hang his camera above the restaurant table like that. Assuming he didn't have a ladder he could put up in that situation, do you think it was taken with a P&S or phone camera?

It would be really handy if it was, because with my broken digital bodies all I have at the moment is a range of very fine medium format film cameras and an old Nokia phone. If Nokia  is OK for iS, then I can at least do some uploading without waiting for the 120 film to come back from Peak Imaging in England.
Title: Re: Is This The New iStock Standard Of Picture Quality?
Post by: Beach Bum on April 07, 2012, 06:44
I think it's a cell phone camera.  Maximum size is medium.
Title: Re: Is This The New iStock Standard Of Picture Quality?
Post by: ShadySue on April 07, 2012, 06:57
iPhones are allowable:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=342251&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=342251&page=1)
I know it's wrong unacceptable to call out other people's photos, and I know people who live in glass houses etc ... but it seems that that contributor has a deteriorating vision problem, if you compare his most recent 200 files with his earlier work. And I guess he could be one of the high flyers whose work doesn't get cross-inspected. And I guess he's going to the more 'natural' 'unposed/unset-up' look with his compositions.
Title: Re: Is This The New iStock Standard Of Picture Quality?
Post by: noodle on April 07, 2012, 06:58
Now this is very discouraging!!
I just failed my 3rd attemt to pass the istock entry test - I am by no means on a professional level as are many stock photographers, but after submitting a variety of images , all of which I think are technically sound, and getting a fail, and seeing something like this is totally disheartening.
Is the approval process more stringent and once your accepted, are they more lenient? Is that the case with istock? Many have said that recently the approval process is much more strict than in years past - maybe a photographer of my skill has missed the boat to agencies like this?

frustrated, but not giving up
Title: Re: Is This The New iStock Standard Of Picture Quality?
Post by: ShadySue on April 07, 2012, 07:19
Is the approval process more stringent and once your accepted, are they more lenient? Is that the case with istock? Many have said that recently the approval process is much more strict than in years past - maybe a photographer of my skill has missed the boat to agencies like this?
I hear the approval process is more stringent than it used to be, but also getting files accepted is more stringent. The above mentioned portfolio notwithstanding.
Title: Re: Is This The New iStock Standard Of Picture Quality?
Post by: heywoody on April 07, 2012, 07:33
One of the problems in applying a demonstrable double standard (however rare)  is that it tends to affect the credibility of the whole process...
Title: Re: Is This The New iStock Standard Of Picture Quality?
Post by: lisafx on April 07, 2012, 08:48
iPhones are allowable:
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=342251&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=342251&page=1[/url])



Oh my God.  They are accepting cellphone pics?!  Can we please have some commentary on this by the folks who keep going on about how Istock is raising standards? 

(Out of respect for the policy of not calling out other people's work, I'll keep my opinion of that particular photo to myself.)
Title: Re: Is This The New iStock Standard Of Picture Quality?
Post by: gg1 on April 07, 2012, 08:52
The photographer is a big piece at IS, he does what he wants and they do what he needs. If you are big on IS, you get bigger, and you don't have to produce good stuff. He has been there since 2004, he gets the views.
Title: Re: Is This The New iStock Standard Of Picture Quality?
Post by: WarrenPrice on April 07, 2012, 09:09
I'm not the best one to evaluate but -- there are even worse images in that portfolio. 
Are you sure this is an inspector?
Title: Re: Is This The New iStock Standard Of Picture Quality?
Post by: ShadySue on April 07, 2012, 09:12
I'm not the best one to evaluate but -- there are even worse images in that portfolio. 
Are you sure this is an inspector?
Says so on his profile.
Title: Re: Is This The New iStock Standard Of Picture Quality?
Post by: WarrenPrice on April 07, 2012, 09:15
I'm not the best one to evaluate but -- there are even worse images in that portfolio. 
Are you sure this is an inspector?
Says so on his profile.

Thanks, I didn't get that far.  Saw the cat paws on piano keyboard and couldn't continue. 
How can that person judge anyone's images?
Title: Re: Is This The New iStock Standard Of Picture Quality?
Post by: ShadySue on April 07, 2012, 09:17
I'm not the best one to evaluate but -- there are even worse images in that portfolio.  
Are you sure this is an inspector?
Says so on his profile.

Thanks, I didn't get that far.  Saw the cat paws on piano keyboard and couldn't continue.  
How can that person judge anyone's images?

Scary, innit?
The only spin I can put on it is that maybe he's been, for whavever reason, asked to produce this sort of photo.
Title: Re: Is This The New iStock Standard Of Picture Quality?
Post by: cascoly on April 07, 2012, 12:03
I was going to say that it is incredibly bad taste to call out a picture/photographer like this.

But since I see it is an Inspector with more than 150,000 sales, maybe it isn't just a rogue oversight so I think I'll bite my tongue on this one.

Yep! its bad taste alright! then again its an inspector and as you say, make an exeption on this one.

that's why the hot sauce is available - to hide the bad taste
Title: Re: Is This The New iStock Standard Of Picture Quality?
Post by: cascoly on April 07, 2012, 12:10
I am kinda curious, though, about how he managed to hang his camera above the restaurant table like that. Assuming he didn't have a ladder he could put up in that situation, do you think it was taken with a P&S or phone camera?

 
if your camera has a tiltable display, just stand on a chair, hold the camera at arm's length,  and compose - if no tilt screen, skip the composition step
Title: Re: Is This The New iStock Standard Of Picture Quality?
Post by: stockastic on April 07, 2012, 12:36
After years of rejecting perfectly usable 12MP, ISO 200, level 10 JPGs from quality DSLRs for "artifacts" I think they decided they had to accept iPhone photos because the iPhone is just, like, so totally cool.
Title: Re: Is This The New iStock Standard Of Picture Quality?
Post by: Freedom on April 07, 2012, 13:32
By looking at his port, I think this is one of his styles. It's nothing wrong with being edgy.

Unfortunately, for most nobodies, we can not afford this luxury.
Title: Re: Is This The New iStock Standard Of Picture Quality?
Post by: noodle on April 07, 2012, 13:37
I'm going to throw my laptop.... :'(
Title: Re: Is This The New iStock Standard Of Picture Quality?
Post by: heywoody on April 07, 2012, 14:10
By looking at his port, I think this is one of his styles. It's nothing wrong with being edgy.

Unfortunately, for most nobodies, we can not afford this luxury.

Edgy????  That????
Title: Re: Is This The New iStock Standard Of Picture Quality?
Post by: JPSDK on April 07, 2012, 15:09
The "style" doesnt have many downloads.
Title: Re: Is This The New iStock Standard Of Picture Quality?
Post by: ShadySue on April 07, 2012, 15:23
The "style" doesnt have many downloads.
Most seem to have been uploaded in the past couple of weeks.
Title: Re: Is This The New iStock Standard Of Picture Quality?
Post by: helix7 on April 07, 2012, 15:39
The most horrendous thing about that image is that it'll cost you around $15 to get the medium size. Don't forget, just because it has that crown icon next to it, that image must be more valuable somehow.

 ::)
Title: Re: Is This The New iStock Standard Of Picture Quality?
Post by: Freedom on April 07, 2012, 21:45
Edge, yes, I stand by what I said.

Personally, that image didn't make me feel comfortable.

But if you look at his port, apparently he knows what he is doing. I think he is experimenting.

Don't forget, in the history of art, impressionists used to exhibit as "Salon des Refusés". Marcel Duchamp was not allowed to exhibit his Bicycle Wheel even at the exhibition where he was himself a juror.

Whether or not his image is successful is another story, I applaud iStock for allowing the experiment. Art is meant to explore and expand new boundaries, its standards are evolving, unless you or we only want to settle to be a photo technician forever.


By looking at his port, I think this is one of his styles. It's nothing wrong with being edgy.

Unfortunately, for most nobodies, we can not afford this luxury.

Edgy????  That????
Title: Re: Is This The New iStock Standard Of Picture Quality?
Post by: gillian vann on April 08, 2012, 01:59
just came along and read this, now you've removed the image I'm super curious.
Title: Re: Is This The New iStock Standard Of Picture Quality?
Post by: HappySnappy on April 08, 2012, 05:24
Many thanks for all the useful feedback and opinions. I didn't realize either that iStock is now selling low technical quality images shot with cell phone cams. That is a shame. I will need to be more mindful now on quality when purchasing photos from iStock.
Title: Re: Is This The New iStock Standard Of Picture Quality?
Post by: gg1 on April 08, 2012, 07:05
You have to be careful when buying from IS. Anything produced from "friends and family" is at your own risk, because they are allowed to upload anything, and inspect their work themselves.
Title: Re: Is This The New iStock Standard Of Picture Quality?
Post by: ShadySue on April 08, 2012, 07:14
You have to be careful when buying from IS. Anything produced from "friends and family" is at your own risk, because they are allowed to upload anything, and inspect their work themselves.
Care to elaborate, with evidence?
Title: Re: Is This The New iStock Standard Of Picture Quality?
Post by: ShadySue on April 08, 2012, 07:14
Double post, sorry.
Title: Re: Is This The New iStock Standard Of Picture Quality?
Post by: B8 on April 08, 2012, 07:43
just came along and read this, now you've removed the image I'm super curious.

Do a search using the keywords "Teriyaki Chicken". Sort by best match and it should be pretty easy to figure which image was being referred to.
Title: Re: Is This The New iStock Standard Of Picture Quality?
Post by: cathyslife on April 08, 2012, 08:31
You have to be careful when buying from IS. Anything produced from "friends and family" is at your own risk, because they are allowed to upload anything, and inspect their work themselves.
Care to elaborate, with evidence?

Wouldn't the evidence be the photo from the OP? In an inspector's portfolio, having been accepted? The only thing I would quibble with in gg1's statement is that they inspect the work themselves. If they don't inspect their own work, I'll bet inspectors are happy to approve each other's work.
Title: Re: Is This The New iStock Standard Of Picture Quality?
Post by: gg1 on April 08, 2012, 08:46
You have to be careful when buying from IS. Anything produced from "friends and family" is at your own risk, because they are allowed to upload anything, and inspect their work themselves.
Care to elaborate, with evidence?

Wouldn't the evidence be the photo from the OP? In an inspector's portfolio, having been accepted? The only thing I would quibble with in gg1's statement is that they inspect the work themselves. If they don't inspect their own work, I'll bet inspectors are happy to approve each other's work.

I obviously have no evidence, and no, I don't think they literally inspect their work by themselves. But I also suspect that they enjoy more tolerance with friends and family.
Title: Re: Is This The New iStock Standard Of Picture Quality?
Post by: ShadySue on April 08, 2012, 08:55
You have to be careful when buying from IS. Anything produced from "friends and family" is at your own risk, because they are allowed to upload anything, and inspect their work themselves.
Care to elaborate, with evidence?

Wouldn't the evidence be the photo from the OP? In an inspector's portfolio, having been accepted? The only thing I would quibble with in gg1's statement is that they inspect the work themselves. If they don't inspect their own work, I'll bet inspectors are happy to approve each other's work.

According to JJRD, there is a 'small number' of contributors whose work isn't inspected. The only time I had issue with this before was when a particular inspector/admin was one of the worst keyword spammers on the site.

The case which started this thread is an odd one.
On the one hand, I'm mad that I've had lots of 'flat light' rejections where, even if it were possible, artificial light isn't allowed (e.g. certain rainforest national parks) and these with much flatter light and a bizarre cyan colour cast are accepted. Also the composition in many cases is appalling sub-optimal (one would have to assume, based on the rest of the port, deliberately so).

On the other hand, these photos are just soooo outwith what's normally acceptable that I can only imagine, as I said above, that he has been asked to submit these photos as an experiment, perhaps in reponse to customer request, to see if they will sell.

On the third hand, most of that set don't really make sense in that context, as what customers might want (and who am I to second guess what customers want? LOL) would be that sort of photos but with model releases. Otherwise, they could shoot themselves or easily find CC content in many places. A lot of these pics don't have models or property that would need released. It will indeed be interesting to see if these images sell. One has sold at E+ pricing (scroll down the relevant port sorted by age) - that one would need an MR.
Title: Re: Is This The New iStock Standard Of Picture Quality?
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on April 08, 2012, 12:14

I obviously have no evidence, and no, I don't think they literally inspect their work by themselves. But I also suspect that they enjoy more tolerance with friends and family.

Well, if you want some evidence from long ago, there was a time when a 12-year-old was an inspector because his parents thought he was an artistic genius. I expect that was stopped when Getty bought the site. However, all the signs are that the in-crowd have continued to let friendships trump professionalism - which isn't a big deal in terms of what the buyers see among millions of images but if things are as they appear it is a form of corruption designed to push money to the favoured few. I don't suppose Getty care, because they still get their cut of the sale, regardless.
Title: Re: Is This The New iStock Standard Of Picture Quality?
Post by: ShadySue on April 08, 2012, 12:25
I knew a child was a contributor, but never heard about him being an inspector.

I guess in the case of the images previously referenced in this thread, if they have a market, we'll all be doing it soon. Well, not me, as I don't have an iPhone.
Title: Re: Is This The New iStock Standard Of Picture Quality?
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on April 08, 2012, 12:29
I knew a child was a contributor, but never heard about him being an inspector.

I guess in the case of the images previously referenced in this thread, if they have a market, we'll all be doing it soon. Well, not me, as I don't have an iPhone.

Yeah, he was an inspector. I had quite a go about it and got PM'd and told if I wanted to raise any further concerns on the topic they had to be done privately to Bruce. I dropped it at that stage.
Title: Re: Is This The New iStock Standard Of Picture Quality?
Post by: oxman on April 08, 2012, 15:17
*. I miss all the good stuff. Anyone wanna send me a link?  :P
Title: Re: Is This The New iStock Standard Of Picture Quality?
Post by: RapidEye on April 08, 2012, 15:43
I knew a child was a contributor, but never heard about him being an inspector.

I guess in the case of the images previously referenced in this thread, if they have a market, we'll all be doing it soon. Well, not me, as I don't have an iPhone.

Yeah, he was an inspector. I had quite a go about it and got PM'd and told if I wanted to raise any further concerns on the topic they had to be done privately to Bruce. I dropped it at that stage.

What an unusual sideshow. I got curious, googled and discovered the boy was axed in 2005 for semi-stated reasons -- partly, apparently, because inspectors need to be grown-up so they can look at people's naughty bits. Anyway, it seems he carried on uploading as a contributor until 2007, when he ceased abruptly, leaving only 23 pics, some of them not bad when judged according to the standards of the period. Wonder what that was all about.
Title: Re: Is This The New iStock Standard Of Picture Quality?
Post by: Artemis on April 08, 2012, 15:51
Edge, yes, I stand by what I said.

Personally, that image didn't make me feel comfortable.

But if you look at his port, apparently he knows what he is doing. I think he is experimenting.

Don't forget, in the history of art, impressionists used to exhibit as "Salon des Refusés". Marcel Duchamp was not allowed to exhibit his Bicycle Wheel even at the exhibition where he was himself a juror.

Whether or not his image is successful is another story, I applaud iStock for allowing the experiment. Art is meant to explore and expand new boundaries, its standards are evolving, unless you or we only want to settle to be a photo technician forever.


By looking at his port, I think this is one of his styles. It's nothing wrong with being edgy.

Unfortunately, for most nobodies, we can not afford this luxury.

Edgy????  That????
I'm with you here Freedom. I'm not saying i think the image is a masterpiece, far from, (although i probably like it more than the typical plastic toothpaste smile retinaburning cheeziness), but when looking at his port (which is a pretty darn great port imho) it blends in and fits the mood. Taken out of the context of the port the image is awkard, which just might cause it to sell once in a while. I also think most of us submitting it would get it rejected in no time. Unless we had a great (experimental) portfolio to back it up.
Title: Re: Is This The New iStock Standard Of Picture Quality?
Post by: heywoody on April 08, 2012, 16:26
Edge, yes, I stand by what I said.

Personally, that image didn't make me feel comfortable.

But if you look at his port, apparently he knows what he is doing. I think he is experimenting.

Don't forget, in the history of art, impressionists used to exhibit as "Salon des Refusés". Marcel Duchamp was not allowed to exhibit his Bicycle Wheel even at the exhibition where he was himself a juror.

Whether or not his image is successful is another story, I applaud iStock for allowing the experiment. Art is meant to explore and expand new boundaries, its standards are evolving, unless you or we only want to settle to be a photo technician forever.


By looking at his port, I think this is one of his styles. It's nothing wrong with being edgy.

Unfortunately, for most nobodies, we can not afford this luxury.

Edgy????  That????
I'm with you here Freedom. I'm not saying i think the image is a masterpiece, far from, (although i probably like it more than the typical plastic toothpaste smile retinaburning cheeziness), but when looking at his port (which is a pretty darn great port imho) it blends in and fits the mood. Taken out of the context of the port the image is awkard, which just might cause it to sell once in a while. I also think most of us submitting it would get it rejected in no time. Unless we had a great (experimental) portfolio to back it up.

In general I’d agree with what you are both saying.  However, a bad photo by a bad photographer is a bad photo; a bad photo by a good or even great photographer is still a bad photo.  The fact that to have a “great experimental portfolio” means being an inspector doesn’t exactly help on the credibility front so I have to say “but the emperor isn’t wearing any clothes”.
Title: Re: Is This The New iStock Standard Of Picture Quality?
Post by: loop on April 08, 2012, 16:28
He has great images in his port. He has more than 11.000 images. Maybe he could select a little more, but that's all. On the other hand, what is the problem accepting images made with a cellphone? If they make the technical, artistic and commercial standards, why not? Certainy, with a cellphone you will get only 1 out of 50 or one out of 100, to meet the tecnichals (and that just shooting in ideal light conditions and problaby reducing to small sizes), while with a DSLR you gan get 80 out of 100. But that's the protographer's, not the client's problem.
Title: Re: Is This The New iStock Standard Of Picture Quality?
Post by: ShadySue on April 08, 2012, 16:41
Just came upon this saying of the Viennese Secessionists:
"To the age, its Art; to the Art, its Freedom."
Could be relevant.
Title: Re: Is This The New iStock Standard Of Picture Quality?
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on April 09, 2012, 05:22
He has great images in his port. He has more than 11.000 images. Maybe he could select a little more, but that's all. On the other hand, what is the problem accepting images made with a cellphone? If they make the technical, artistic and commercial standards, why not? Certainy, with a cellphone you will get only 1 out of 50 or one out of 100, to meet the tecnichals (and that just shooting in ideal light conditions and problaby reducing to small sizes), while with a DSLR you gan get 80 out of 100. But that's the protographer's, not the client's problem.

11,000 images and only 150,000 sales since 04, and with the placement benefits of an exclusive inspector? Hmmm that almost makes my 3,000+ images and 50k+ istock sales as an inde look respectable. Perhaps my cellphone photos would make the cut......

The problem, Loop, is in the question of whether they met the "technical, artistic and commercial standards" applied to the hoi poloi, such as you and I. With the secondary problem being the question of, if the answer to question 1 is Yes, has iStock lost its marbles?
Title: Re: Is This The New iStock Standard Of Picture Quality?
Post by: mtkang on April 09, 2012, 20:48
the image seems have been removed, I am curious to see his portfolio..
Title: Re: Is This The New iStock Standard Of Picture Quality?
Post by: DaisyPond on April 10, 2012, 07:21
the image seems have been removed, I am curious to see his portfolio..

Try this port, keywords: Portland - Oregon, Collard Greens, Coleslaw, French Fries, Rustic. Then sort by file age.
Title: Re: Is This The New iStock Standard Of Picture Quality?
Post by: rimglow on April 10, 2012, 07:41
The correct route is to do a search for "Teriyaki Chicken".  Sort by file age.  Although the thumbnail appears, when you click on it, you get an error message saying the page doesn't exist.

Looks like we have some power here at Microstock Group.
Title: Re: Is This The New iStock Standard Of Picture Quality?
Post by: lisafx on April 10, 2012, 09:54
Many thanks for all the useful feedback and opinions. I didn't realize either that iStock is now selling low technical quality images shot with cell phone cams. That is a shame. I will need to be more mindful now on quality when purchasing photos from iStock.

This little comment seems to have been passed over, but I think it's the most important one in the thread. 

Buyers have, up to now, been able to trust that images they get at Istock will meet certain quality standards, so they have been able to focus on the content, composition, etc. when selecting images.  Now, they are going to have to spend a lot more time going over each image with the zoom feature before purchase to make sure it meets their technical needs.

Or they can go to another site, of course.  If I were DT, FT and any other site that isn't accepting snaps from cellphones I would work up an advertising campaign around it. 

A real world consequence of Istock relaxing their previous high IQ standards. 
Title: Re: Is This The New iStock Standard Of Picture Quality?
Post by: ShadySue on April 10, 2012, 10:17
Many thanks for all the useful feedback and opinions. I didn't realize either that iStock is now selling low technical quality images shot with cell phone cams. That is a shame. I will need to be more mindful now on quality when purchasing photos from iStock.

This little comment seems to have been passed over, but I think it's the most important one in the thread. 

Buyers have, up to now, been able to trust that images they get at Istock will meet certain quality standards, so they have been able to focus on the content, composition, etc. when selecting images.  Now, they are going to have to spend a lot more time going over each image with the zoom feature before purchase to make sure it meets their technical needs.

Or they can go to another site, of course.  If I were DT, FT and any other site that isn't accepting snaps from cellphones I would work up an advertising campaign around it. 

A real world consequence of Istock relaxing their previous high IQ standards. 

- I don't think anyone would have to zoom far to see that series was 'unusual'.
- Most real world uses don't need the pixel perfection that iStock traditionally demanded.
- I wonder how long it will be before other agencies are accepting phone pics. Maybe they already are After all, iStock was accepting them at least in early November (that was when I read about, and saw JJRD's iPhone acceptance, and I am led to believe there were others accepted before that), but some here didn't seem to know that until this thread was started.
Title: Re: Is This The New iStock Standard Of Picture Quality?
Post by: dreamstock on April 10, 2012, 10:39
Many thanks for all the useful feedback and opinions. I didn't realize either that iStock is now selling low technical quality images shot with cell phone cams. That is a shame. I will need to be more mindful now on quality when purchasing photos from iStock.

This little comment seems to have been passed over, but I think it's the most important one in the thread. 

Buyers have, up to now, been able to trust that images they get at Istock will meet certain quality standards, so they have been able to focus on the content, composition, etc. when selecting images.  Now, they are going to have to spend a lot more time going over each image with the zoom feature before purchase to make sure it meets their technical needs.

Or they can go to another site, of course.  If I were DT, FT and any other site that isn't accepting snaps from cellphones I would work up an advertising campaign around it. 

A real world consequence of Istock relaxing their previous high IQ standards. 

I found one photo taken with Iphone on DT, today.

i'm not totally opposite accepting photos from cellphone camera, as long as they are putting under proper collection so that buyer can choose from main collection and cellphone collection.
Title: Re: Is This The New iStock Standard Of Picture Quality?
Post by: cathyslife on April 10, 2012, 10:49
i'm not totally opposite accepting photos from cellphone camera, as long as they are putting under proper collection so that buyer can choose from main collection and cellphone collection.

Very good point. They need to be labeled as such, so that buyers can have the heads up on the possible lower quality of the image. Otherwise, we are going to see more and more image returns.
Title: Re: Is This The New iStock Standard Of Picture Quality?
Post by: rimglow on April 10, 2012, 11:02
   Wait a minute. Cell phones are perfectly capable of taking stock worthy photos. Take a look at the sample photos on Apple's web site taken with the iPhone 4s. They would pass inspection on iStock. Just not as high a resolution as Nikon's top of the line.

  The problem with the photo in question is that it is crooked, washed out, a terrible composition, and was submitted by an inspector. Not the camera. You can achieve bad photos with any camera.
Title: Re: Is This The New iStock Standard Of Picture Quality?
Post by: ShadySue on April 10, 2012, 11:03
i'm not totally opposite accepting photos from cellphone camera, as long as they are putting under proper collection so that buyer can choose from main collection and cellphone collection.

Very good point. They need to be labeled as such, so that buyers can have the heads up on the possible lower quality of the image. Otherwise, we are going to see more and more image returns.
Playing devil's advocate, lots of older files wouldn't be accepted now. I have some film scans that wouldn't get in now, but still get the odd sale and no returns - though one apparent buyer put a low rating on it saying it wasn't high enough resolution for his needs. It is M maximum size, so if he wanted XL, he was out of luck. If technology advances, phones might be a major image source in a couple of years.
Also the earlier examples of phone pics I saw weren't like the images in question at all: they just looked like medium sized stock photos, even when zoomed in. The series referenced has been made to look like that.
Title: Re: Is This The New iStock Standard Of Picture Quality?
Post by: WarrenPrice on April 10, 2012, 11:17
   Wait a minute. Cell phones are perfectly capable of taking stock worthy photos. Take a look at the sample photos on Apple's web site taken with the iPhone 4s. They would pass inspection on iStock. Just not as high a resolution as Nikon's top of the line.

  The problem with the photo in question is that it is crooked, washed out, a terrible composition, and was submitted by an inspector. Not the camera. You can achieve bad photos with any camera.

eggzactly!
Title: Re: Is This The New iStock Standard Of Picture Quality?
Post by: JPSDK on April 10, 2012, 12:17
Now. We have all been crowdsoursed with our dlsr and "empty your harddisk".
... and we have put a lot of photographers out of business.
not because of our talent, but because of technology.

Boys and girls... you might be put out of business now.

Its called globalisation and we are being eaten.
Title: Re: Is This The New iStock Standard Of Picture Quality?
Post by: rimglow on April 10, 2012, 12:25
Now. We have all been crowdsoursed with our dlsr and "empty your harddisk".
... and we have put a lot of photographers out of business.
not because of our talent, but because of technology.

Boys and girls... you might be put out of business now.

Its called globalisation and we are being eaten.

Nope. Real talent always rises to the top.
Title: Re: Is This The New iStock Standard Of Picture Quality?
Post by: JPSDK on April 10, 2012, 12:29
Are you sure?
There is such a thing as "good enough" and lowest common denominator.

Evt turn you TV on, then its obvious.
And yes, there are super good artists, but they might not be wanted or ever seen.
"Full many a flower of purest ray serene is born to blosom an waste its sweetnes in the desert air".

Microstock is pop, we have to provide pop.
There are super good artists. But are pictures bought because of artistic content?

Do you wonder?
Well then compare mozart to beach boys.
Title: Re: Is This The New iStock Standard Of Picture Quality?
Post by: WarrenPrice on April 10, 2012, 12:34
I do agree that globalization is the source of many evils but not so sure how it applies to photography.  Isn't the global market place a good thing for us?
Title: Re: Is This The New iStock Standard Of Picture Quality?
Post by: rimglow on April 10, 2012, 13:07
I love the Beach Boys!  I grew up with their music and my band toured with them several times in the 60's and the 90's. Great memories.

Mozart did some good stuff too.
Title: Re: Is This The New iStock Standard Of Picture Quality?
Post by: RacePhoto on April 10, 2012, 16:45
just came along and read this, now you've removed the image I'm super curious.

Do a search using the keywords "Teriyaki Chicken". Sort by best match and it should be pretty easy to figure which image was being referred to.

The faded, fuzzy one with a haze over it, something about natural window light? "File not available" How did it get four reviews of 2 1/2? Holy Cow. That's edgy?
Title: Re: Is This The New iStock Standard Of Picture Quality?
Post by: stockastic on April 10, 2012, 16:50
Any of you old enough to remember the pop music of the 70s, right after synthesizers became available?  For a while they were on everything.  Countless shlocky tunes and albums featured synthesizer tracks, always over-mixed so they'd stand out.  Because synthesizers were just so totally cool, so "now", and everyone wanted more of them.  And the name of that coolness was "Moog".  

It faded pretty quick and those tracks are mostly an embarrassment today - that whole generation of electronics now sounds painfully simplistic - lacking texture, overtones and dynamics.   There's a lesson in there somewhere.
Title: Re: Is This The New iStock Standard Of Picture Quality?
Post by: MarcvsTvllivs on April 10, 2012, 17:04
   Wait a minute. Cell phones are perfectly capable of taking stock worthy photos. Take a look at the sample photos on Apple's web site taken with the iPhone 4s. They would pass inspection on iStock. Just not as high a resolution as Nikon's top of the line.

  The problem with the photo in question is that it is crooked, washed out, a terrible composition, and was submitted by an inspector. Not the camera. You can achieve bad photos with any camera.

Very true. The threads here made me curious so I took a decent iPhone shot of mine last week and uploaded it. Many agencies accepted it with metadata stripped. Canstock even with metadata.
Title: Re: Is This The New iStock Standard Of Picture Quality?
Post by: heywoody on April 10, 2012, 17:13
The real problem isn't the technology used to create the image it's that the image itself is sh1te.  The camera and photographer should not even be considered if the end product is suitable.
Title: Re: Is This The New iStock Standard Of Picture Quality?
Post by: RacePhoto on April 10, 2012, 17:28
Any of you old enough to remember the pop music of the 70s, right after synthesizers became available?  For a while they were on everything.  Countless shlocky tunes and albums featured synthesizer tracks, always over-mixed so they'd stand out.  Because synthesizers were just so totally cool, so "now", and everyone wanted more of them.  And the name of that coolness was "Moog".  

It faded pretty quick and those tracks are mostly an embarrassment today - that whole generation of electronics now sounds painfully simplistic - lacking texture, overtones and dynamics.   There's a lesson in there somewhere.

What? Theremin's are even older and worse. Synthesizers are used all over, just nit with those edgy electronic sounds. Want something disgusting that Vocorder robot sound that every pop tune for about three years had to have. You know the pitch machine that corrects for bad notes, and then they cranked it up. Oh that hurts, it's so bad.

Walter Carlos, Well Tempered Synthesizer still plays well. Bach. I have Django Reinhardt in the car, it's nice highway music. Want to be sick of something? The Beatles! And I know this is for really "old folks" but ping pong stereo, starting in the 60s with really divided unnatural tracks, was popular. Beatles have some with vocals on one side, music on the other. How soon we forget those psychedelic days. I think things are more natural now, but I can't be sure. I'm still listening to Chester and Lester, Zappa and Paul Butterfield Blues Band (and the like).

Time magazine included Auto-Tune in their list of "The 50 Worst Inventions". It's an audio processor used to disguise off-key inaccuracies, allowing vocal tracks to be perfectly tuned despite originally being slightly off-key. (in the world of some vocal artists, cheating)  :o You get your pitch moved to the next closest perfect semi-tone. It's used on nearly everything now as a fix and often used in live concerts. So your fabulous vocal artists are now, electronically modified.

And you complain about the Moog? LOL  ;)
Title: Re: Is This The New iStock Standard Of Picture Quality?
Post by: ShadySue on April 10, 2012, 17:30
Any of you old enough to remember the pop music of the 70s, right after synthesizers became available?  For a while they were on everything.  Countless shlocky tunes and albums featured synthesizer tracks, always over-mixed so they'd stand out.  Because synthesizers were just so totally cool, so "now", and everyone wanted more of them.  And the name of that coolness was "Moog".  

It faded pretty quick and those tracks are mostly an embarrassment today - that whole generation of electronics now sounds painfully simplistic - lacking texture, overtones and dynamics.   There's a lesson in there somewhere.

Yup. There's money to be made in quick fads if you get in quickly enough, and out quickly enough.

Microstock, in general, isn't classic, timeless Art.
Title: Re: Is This The New iStock Standard Of Picture Quality?
Post by: stockastic on April 10, 2012, 17:53
AutoTune is a plague.
Title: Re: Is This The New iStock Standard Of Picture Quality?
Post by: lisafx on April 10, 2012, 18:29
AutoTune is a plague.

+1
Title: Re: Is This The New iStock Standard Of Picture Quality?
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on April 11, 2012, 02:01
AutoTune is a plague.

Sadly, it would be useless for me unless it can look at eight semi-tones either side of my note and work out for itself which one I needed :(
Title: Re: Is This The New iStock Standard Of Picture Quality?
Post by: DaisyPond on April 11, 2012, 12:55
There are 4 major concerns that have arisen from this thread:

1 - The technical standards on iStock seem to have dropped as a result of some substandard imagery that has recently been accepted by iStock as evidenced by this thread.
2 - There needs to be one set of guidelines on technical standards of acceptance applied equally to both inspectors and regular contributors alike. No double standards. In fact, portfolios of inspectors should be leading examples and raising the bar of quality, not lowering it.
3 - The recently permitted use of cell phone cameras to capture imagery for iStock now means buyers will have to pay greater attention to the technical integrity of images they are purchasing from the site which could ultimately have a negative long term impact on broad range iStock sales unless these images are placed into a defining separate category.
4 - iStock is not a place to explore ones inner level of artistic expression. The proactive removal of the image of questionable quality from the iStock archive provides us with a clear message of that. Buyers are looking for commercial creativity with a comensurate level of technical quality. Images which trade off quality to allow mobility for artistic exploration should not be made available for sale on iStock.
Title: Re: Is This The New iStock Standard Of Picture Quality?
Post by: bunhill on April 11, 2012, 13:09
4 - iStock is not a place to explore ones inner level of artistic expression

Because you say so ?

There are some fantastically creative successful portfolios on iStockphoto - not just artsy but also conceptual and experimental. As well as all of the fantastically executed more conventional portfolios. And pretty much everything in between. It's a broad church from that perspective. Something for everyone, how it should be.

Personally I really like some of the more indy - styled portfolios.
Title: Re: Is This The New iStock Standard Of Picture Quality?
Post by: loop on April 11, 2012, 13:27
Now. We have all been crowdsoursed with our dlsr and "empty your harddisk".
... and we have put a lot of photographers out of business.
not because of our talent, but because of technology.

Boys and girls... you might be put out of business now.

Its called globalisation and we are being eaten.

Maybe you. Not me, certainly, until the moment.
Title: Re: Is This The New iStock Standard Of Picture Quality?
Post by: lisafx on April 11, 2012, 14:30
4 - iStock is not a place to explore ones inner level of artistic expression

Because you say so ?

There are some fantastically creative successful portfolios on iStockphoto - not just artsy but also conceptual and experimental. As well as all of the fantastically executed more conventional portfolios. And pretty much everything in between. It's a broad church from that perspective. Something for everyone, how it should be.

Personally I really like some of the more indy - styled portfolios.

Good point about creativity.  I love some of the creative imagery on Istock and see no reason that creative work not be accepted. 

But I do agree with Daisy's points 1-3.  Quality standards should be high and consistently enforced.  Nothing about technical quality precludes creativity.  It's not either or.
Title: Re: Is This The New iStock Standard Of Picture Quality?
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on April 11, 2012, 15:39
4 - iStock is not a place to explore ones inner level of artistic expression

Because you say so ?

There are some fantastically creative successful portfolios on iStockphoto - not just artsy but also conceptual and experimental. As well as all of the fantastically executed more conventional portfolios. And pretty much everything in between. It's a broad church from that perspective. Something for everyone, how it should be.

Personally I really like some of the more indy - styled portfolios.

Good point about creativity.  I love some of the creative imagery on Istock and see no reason that creative work not be accepted. 

But I do agree with Daisy's points 1-3.  Quality standards should be high and consistently enforced.  Nothing about technical quality precludes creativity.  It's not either or.

I think on point 4 Daisy probably means that there are certain artistic channels that aren't suited for stock - the current fad for pinhole photography, for example, which creates exceedingly soft images that can look sharp in a thumbnail and could, therefore, confuse buyers. Then again, if there were a pinhole collection it wouldn't be misleading.
Title: Re: Is This The New iStock Standard Of Picture Quality?
Post by: wut on April 11, 2012, 15:46
The most horrendous thing about that image is that it'll cost you around $15 to get the medium size. Don't forget, just because it has that crown icon next to it, that image must be more valuable somehow.

 ::)

Indeed, you can't get crap like that anywhere else ;)
Title: Re: Is This The New iStock Standard Of Picture Quality?
Post by: stockanon on April 12, 2012, 02:59
4 - iStock is not a place to explore ones inner level of artistic expression

Because you say so ?

There are some fantastically creative successful portfolios on iStockphoto - not just artsy but also conceptual and experimental. As well as all of the fantastically executed more conventional portfolios. And pretty much everything in between. It's a broad church from that perspective. Something for everyone, how it should be.

Personally I really like some of the more indy - styled portfolios.

Good point about creativity.  I love some of the creative imagery on Istock and see no reason that creative work not be accepted. 

But I do agree with Daisy's points 1-3.  Quality standards should be high and consistently enforced.  Nothing about technical quality precludes creativity.  It's not either or.

I think on point 4 Daisy probably means that there are certain artistic channels that aren't suited for stock - the current fad for pinhole photography, for example, which creates exceedingly soft images that can look sharp in a thumbnail and could, therefore, confuse buyers. Then again, if there were a pinhole collection it wouldn't be misleading.

Wow. Ok, so now I´ve read most of this thread and finally got to the bottom of which contributor was being discussed. I am by no way an inspector or insider at istock although I have been a contributor there for many years. I have admired this contributor's work from afar since I started here at iStock. It is obvious that he knows what he's doing and is fully capable of producing what many of you consider "suitable stock" images. He also obviously has his own style and in this case is working towards a newer trend which is currently becoming more popular in the artsier side of photography and advertising (yes, I'm talking commercially).

While I can´t see the original image being discussed as it has been removed from istock, I can see the type of image in his portfolio and so my comments are based on those. I think it´s pretty telling that many of you think this genre isn´t "suited for stock" as was expressed in the above quote. If any of you have been selling stock for long, one thing you must know is that it's all about what the current trends and styles are. Yes, there are certain types of stock images that may never go out of style, but there are also many trends that come and go. Currently there is a very popular trend towards the supposed "real" looking faded, cross-processed style that has been made popular in part by, yes, instagram. Whether you like it or not, there is no set "standard" when it comes to trends or styles. In this case there is a certain segment of the market that are looking for this type of image so they should most definitely be included in stock collections. Buyers aren't stupid, so this talk about "confusing" buyers is funny to me. The buyers are the ones who decide what sells, so let them decide!

Having said this, should we have quality standards at iStock? Certainly, but not at the expense of providing images that meet a given market demand. Is it fair that certain proven contributors should be given more leeway than beginners? Yes, why not. While I may or may not enjoy this leeway myself, I don't have a problem with someone who is a proven artist/contributor having more freedom. I think it comes with the territory and is fair. Does it mean there won't be some mistakes? No, but I see many newbie images that I think should never have been accepted either, but they somehow get in the collection because they barely met a certain technical standard. Heck, there are plenty of images in my own portfolio that make me sick as an artist (bright lights, fake, plastic smiles) but for some reason sell. Who decides? The buyers.
Title: Re: Is This The New iStock Standard Of Picture Quality?
Post by: heywoody on April 12, 2012, 03:38
Give me a break – when has IS taken anything other than technical quality into account?  Sure there must be tons of really excellent images (by any criteria) on the site done by folks on top of their game that meet the pixel peeping standards.  There are, however, hundreds of thousands more on the other sites that may have some insignificant technical flaw that wouldn’t pass the IS inspectors but that these sites recognise will enhance their collections.  There are literally millions on flickr that are really creative, original and say something that would never get past the door on any MS site.  It is a hell of a lot easier to do a simple technically perfect image than it is to do a complex one.  The image posted is devoid of any merit – just a technically bad version of the technically good boring images that are spread across the Internet.  You have standards or you don’t have standards and when acceptance is based on who produced the image or the equipment used instead of the work itself, you don’t have standards.
Title: Re: Is This The New iStock Standard Of Picture Quality?
Post by: stockanon on April 12, 2012, 04:12
Give me a break – when has IS taken anything other than technical quality into account?  Sure there must be tons of really excellent images (by any criteria) on the site done by folks on top of their game that meet the pixel peeping standards.  There are, however, hundreds of thousands more on the other sites that may have some insignificant technical flaw that wouldn’t pass the IS inspectors but that these sites recognise will enhance their collections.  There are literally millions on flickr that are really creative, original and say something that would never get past the door on any MS site.  It is a hell of a lot easier to do a simple technically perfect image than it is to do a complex one.  The image posted is devoid of any merit – just a technically bad version of the technically good boring images that are spread across the Internet.  You have standards or you don’t have standards and when acceptance is based on who produced the image or the equipment used instead of the work itself, you don’t have standards.

I have no problem with questioning or calling out iStock on it's practices or policies. I for one have been negatively affected by many things iStock/Getty have done, especially recently. However, I do think that skewering this contributor and this genre is short-sighted.
Title: Re: Is This The New iStock Standard Of Picture Quality?
Post by: heywoody on April 12, 2012, 04:47
I have no problem with questioning or calling out iStock on it's practices or policies. I for one have been negatively affected by many things iStock/Getty have done, especially recently. However, I do think that skewering this contributor and this genre is short-sighted.

Here's the the thing - I'm not skewering the contributor, just the image that was posted  :)  (which is the point I'm trying to make).  There have been a lot of posts to say this guy produces outstanding work - I haven't looked but I have absolutely not reason to suppose he doesn't.
Title: Re: Is This The New iStock Standard Of Picture Quality?
Post by: stockanon on April 12, 2012, 05:00
^ Ok, I see. Since I never got to see the original image being discussed, I was referring to the more general discussion about whether this genre has value as stock and should be allowed in the regular stock collections.
Title: Re: Is This The New iStock Standard Of Picture Quality?
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on April 12, 2012, 05:03
The problem with the argument that there is some demand somewhere for faded, cross-processed images, or pinhole images, or Holgaesque images is that in the end it boils down to an argument that every image ever shot should be accepted because sometime, somewhere it might be exactly what someone wants. Which makes inspectors redundant.

To some extent Getty has already embraced that idea by tying up with Flickr - and you can always contact Getty to see if they can persuade someone to sell you a flickr shot, even if it isn't in the Getty Flickr collection.
Title: Re: Is This The New iStock Standard Of Picture Quality?
Post by: stockanon on April 12, 2012, 05:34
The problem with the argument that there is some demand somewhere for faded, cross-processed images, or pinhole images, or Holgaesque images is that in the end it boils down to an argument that every image ever shot should be accepted because sometime, somewhere it might be exactly what someone wants. Which makes inspectors redundant.

To some extent Getty has already embraced that idea by tying up with Flickr - and you can always contact Getty to see if they can persuade someone to sell you a flickr shot, even if it isn't in the Getty Flickr collection.

I think there's currently as much market for these type of images than for the standard plasticy, fake smile, fake lighting, fake people stock images that crowd the stock libraries. Just open any of the higher end magazines and look at the ads. We're not talking about a couple people come out from under a rock looking for these type of images. It's a wider trend which should be noticed and responded to by stock agencies as if they have any business sense. Just because you or others don't like the style doesn't mean it doesn't exist or have value. I can't tell you how many people I talk to that can't stand and even make fun of the fake look of the standard white background, brightly lit, fake smile images that fill stock libraries. Does it mean those images shouldn't exist or be sold on stock sites? No. It just means there are many styles and tastes and if something becomes big enough and in demand than why wouldn't you want to offer it in a stock library?
Title: Re: Is This The New iStock Standard Of Picture Quality?
Post by: loop on April 12, 2012, 05:41
The problem is that deprived of fake smiles, lighting, setting etc, some are completely lost and void of ideas.
Title: Re: Is This The New iStock Standard Of Picture Quality?
Post by: bunhill on April 12, 2012, 05:44
I don't have a problem with someone who is a proven artist/contributor having more freedom.

I agree.

++ I also happen to think it's fun and interesting for a collection to contain a distribution of potentially W-T-F images for people to find and discuss - to get people talking about how pictures work in different contexts and why. Pictures which get discussed are good IMO.  Personally I am very interested in and (I think) best understand a sort of photography which seems to many people like boring pictures. I'm much less interested in much 'good' photography. Some of the photographers' books I bought in the 80s are now quite valuable. Retrospectively people don't see them as boring but at the time they seemed difficult to understand and were even derided. But sometimes it takes a while for people to see what the photographer is saying. And I can think of various ad campaigns which have been built around that.
Title: Re: Is This The New iStock Standard Of Picture Quality?
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on April 12, 2012, 06:07
The problem with the argument that there is some demand somewhere for faded, cross-processed images, or pinhole images, or Holgaesque images is that in the end it boils down to an argument that every image ever shot should be accepted because sometime, somewhere it might be exactly what someone wants. Which makes inspectors redundant.

To some extent Getty has already embraced that idea by tying up with Flickr - and you can always contact Getty to see if they can persuade someone to sell you a flickr shot, even if it isn't in the Getty Flickr collection.

I think there's currently as much market for these type of images than for the standard plasticy, fake smile, fake lighting, fake people stock images that crowd the stock libraries.

I don't shoot people, anyway, so I don't have a vested interest in this but I think you are wrong. There certainly is a good market for people who look real and who aren't pretty, especially if they are in a proper working environment - and there always has been that demand. The reason the micros aren't full of those is that they are harder to arrange than studio shots.

But if you are saying that there is as big a market for really badly lit, badly composed food shots. or for heavily degraded shots with strange NIK filter effects, as there is for plastic people with toothpaste grins and white backgrounds I think you are wildly wide of the mark. There is a niche market for overfiltered or badly-lit images, though why a good designer would do the processing themselves I don't know, but it certainly doesn't compete with the market Arcurs feeds.

I've just looked through one newspaper and one magazine for the images you describe and in all the adverts the only one that fits the description is from Olympus cameras (and that just uses a retro style filter, the composition and lighting are excellent)  The rest all use traditional "good" images.
Title: Re: Is This The New iStock Standard Of Picture Quality?
Post by: heywoody on April 12, 2012, 06:52
The real problem here is what is meant by “good”.  Instead of looking at the whole image and making a holistic quality judgement based on the aesthetics and marketability of an image, most agencies (others far less so than IS) look at pieces of the image for an insignificant jagged line or bit of noise and accept or reject on that basis.  The thing is that you can probably train monkeys to do that kind of review and, as some quality control is needed, the industry just equates quality to technical quality, and it’s a matter of just holding up a ruler to the work being judged.  The mere idea that something is good because it’s produced  by someone who can do good work is as bad and, again, requires no actual judgement.
Title: Re: Is This The New iStock Standard Of Picture Quality?
Post by: MarcvsTvllivs on April 12, 2012, 10:07
  Wait a minute. Cell phones are perfectly capable of taking stock worthy photos. Take a look at the sample photos on Apple's web site taken with the iPhone 4s. They would pass inspection on iStock. Just not as high a resolution as Nikon's top of the line.

  The problem with the photo in question is that it is crooked, washed out, a terrible composition, and was submitted by an inspector. Not the camera. You can achieve bad photos with any camera.

Very true. The threads here made me curious so I took a decent iPhone shot of mine last week and uploaded it. Many agencies accepted it with metadata stripped. Canstock even with metadata.

Oh lord. Now my iPhone-experiment has sold three times within a few hours of being online at Shutterstock. This is embarrassing.
Title: Re: Is This The New iStock Standard Of Picture Quality?
Post by: cathyslife on April 12, 2012, 10:22
I don't have a problem with someone who is a proven artist/contributor having more freedom.

I do. An image that has good composition, taken with a phone, can be produced by ANYBODY, regardless of whether they are PROVEN contributor or not. If these images are not going to be judged on technical quality, the only things left are saleability and composition. If it's composed properly, why should it be rejected because the contributor doesn't have a crown next to their name or only has uploaded 10 other shots? Do you think that only PROVEN artists have original and creative ideas?

It all goes back to the whole elitist attitude present at istock.  ::)
Title: Re: Is This The New iStock Standard Of Picture Quality?
Post by: Caz on April 12, 2012, 11:22


I don't shoot people, anyway, so I don't have a vested interest in this but I think you are wrong. There certainly is a good market for people who look real and who aren't pretty, especially if they are in a proper working environment - and there always has been that demand. The reason the micros aren't full of those is that they are harder to arrange than studio shots.

But if you are saying that there is as big a market for really badly lit, badly composed food shots. or for heavily degraded shots with strange NIK filter effects, as there is for plastic people with toothpaste grins and white backgrounds I think you are wildly wide of the mark. There is a niche market for overfiltered or badly-lit images, though why a good designer would do the processing themselves I don't know, but it certainly doesn't compete with the market Arcurs feeds.

I've just looked through one newspaper and one magazine for the images you describe and in all the adverts the only one that fits the description is from Olympus cameras (and that just uses a retro style filter, the composition and lighting are excellent)  The rest all use traditional "good" images.

I think that this new design trend is for a specific (mostly young) target audience. I've seen a big shift towards this style for products like mobile phones, travel, food & beverages etc where I live. But understandably, the advertisements are placed with their audience in mind. You're unlikely to find them in the Times or Woman's Weekly  :) I see buses, bus-stops, billboards and music magazines carrying this style of image in their advertising every day. Advertisers know that their audience needs to identify with the images in an advert in order to buy into the brand. The fact that these images look like their life as shot through their iPhone is what makes them work for these brands. To the audience, it looks genuine, looks like their life and that's what builds brand loyalty (currently. I'm sure this too, as a phase, will pass). Of course it's not "replacing" the traditional (if there is such a thing) stock image for some brands, some products. This is a new thing, for the iPhone generation of consumers that advertisers need to reach.
Title: Re: Is This The New iStock Standard Of Picture Quality?
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on April 12, 2012, 16:55
I think that this new design trend is for a specific (mostly young) target audience. I've seen a big shift towards this style for products like mobile phones, travel, food & beverages etc where I live. But understandably, the advertisements are placed with their audience in mind. You're unlikely to find them in the Times or Woman's Weekly  :) I see buses, bus-stops, billboards and music magazines carrying this style of image in their advertising every day. Advertisers know that their audience needs to identify with the images in an advert in order to buy into the brand. The fact that these images look like their life as shot through their iPhone is what makes them work for these brands. To the audience, it looks genuine, looks like their life and that's what builds brand loyalty (currently. I'm sure this too, as a phase, will pass). Of course it's not "replacing" the traditional (if there is such a thing) stock image for some brands, some products. This is a new thing, for the iPhone generation of consumers that advertisers need to reach.

Yes, I get that, but I still question how large the market for such images is compared with the traditional stock style.
Remember when Vetta came in - lots of very strange stuff in there but from what I saw most of it never sold. Did it fail to sell because of the price, or was it priced high because the market was too limited to justify producing it for ordinary sales?
One problem with the "wow! It looks just like something from my phone" idea is if that is the prime connection point for the advert then there is an enormous number of sorts of images that would meet the bill. How, then, are you going to construct an image that has a reasonable prospect of selling?
1) It must look like a mobile image
2) It quite likely needs young people in it
3) It probably needs something else that makes a connection (e.g. holiday background - famous building etc).

If you use a generic beach background it might sell but you are likely to find a million distorted wide angle faces in front of beaches hit the sites in short order. If you have if you have a very specific background - say Big Ben - then you will have very severely restricted the potential sales as few people are likely to look for that particular combination of factors. In my opinion, images which have limited sales potential are better suited to Alamy or other higher-priced sites than to the micros (unless they go into Vetta, of course).

So, for the moment I remain deeply sceptical about the idea of micros trying to feed into this area and risking annoying their traditional client base (brochures, web sites, pamphlets etc) by doing so.
Title: Re: Is This The New iStock Standard Of Picture Quality?
Post by: DaisyPond on April 13, 2012, 04:35

4 - iStock is not a place to explore ones inner level of artistic expression. The proactive removal of the image of questionable quality from the iStock archive provides us with a clear message of that. Buyers are looking for commercial creativity with a commensurate level of technical quality. Images which trade off quality to allow mobility for artistic exploration should not be made available for sale on iStock.

Point #4 in my previous post was broadly misunderstood. iStock is a place for creativity and creativity is definitely needed in commercial stock photography. But it must coincide with producing images that meet a certain level of technical standards in order for the images to be viable for commercial use.

The subject picture of this thread was not acceptable as commercial stock on a technical level. That is widely agreed. It had many technical faults as already pointed out by other posts in this thread. In fact, the composition was rather flawed, lacked creativity, and it wasn't a commercially viable image in any way. Thus it was eventually removed from the iStock collection.

In addition, the description provided for the photo was not complete, as it stated nothing about the subject or contents of the image the way a description/caption should do.

It is an image however that might fit into a photo exhibition if it is a photo that makes up part of a story being told through an essay of editorial photos. It would also have a place if it is a particular artistic style, process, or finish applied to a series of images being exhibited.

So what was meant by "iStock is not a place to explore ones inner level of artistic expression" is that images like this might be viewed as artistic under certain conditions and in certain instances, but it was not suitable as a commercial stock photo or even usable as a simple illustrative stock image for the type of food it portrayed.   

If you don't adhere to the principle of the point made here then you end up with a collection of images unsuitable for commercial use. This needs to be avoided at all cost and images like the subject image need not continue to pass inspection in the future or the standards of what is deemed as viable commercial stock photography on iStock will be lost.
Title: Re: Is This The New iStock Standard Of Picture Quality?
Post by: ShadySue on April 13, 2012, 05:27

4 - iStock is not a place to explore ones inner level of artistic expression. The proactive removal of the image of questionable quality from the iStock archive provides us with a clear message of that. Buyers are looking for commercial creativity with a commensurate level of technical quality. Images which trade off quality to allow mobility for artistic exploration should not be made available for sale on iStock.
Point #4 in my previous post was broadly misunderstood. iStock is a place for creativity and creativity is definitely needed in commercial stock photography. But it must coincide with producing images that meet a certain level of technical standards in order for the images to be viable for commercial use.
NOT referring to the photo referenced in this thread, the technical standards normally set by iStock are well above the standards required for virtually all commerical uses.
Title: Re: Is This The New iStock Standard Of Picture Quality?
Post by: DaisyPond on April 13, 2012, 05:35
By the way, it seems the Microstock Forum site may contain some Malware on the site. The anti-malware program Malwarebytes running on my computer puts up a Malware warning each time I try to enter the site. I must override the program to access the site. Not a good sign.
Title: Re: Is This The New iStock Standard Of Picture Quality?
Post by: cathyslife on April 13, 2012, 07:02

4 - iStock is not a place to explore ones inner level of artistic expression. The proactive removal of the image of questionable quality from the iStock archive provides us with a clear message of that. Buyers are looking for commercial creativity with a commensurate level of technical quality. Images which trade off quality to allow mobility for artistic exploration should not be made available for sale on iStock.

Point #4 in my previous post was broadly misunderstood. iStock is a place for creativity and creativity is definitely needed in commercial stock photography. But it must coincide with producing images that meet a certain level of technical standards in order for the images to be viable for commercial use.

The subject picture of this thread was not acceptable as commercial stock on a technical level. That is widely agreed. It had many technical faults as already pointed out by other posts in this thread. In fact, the composition was rather flawed, lacked creativity, and it wasn't a commercially viable image in any way. Thus it was eventually removed from the iStock collection.

In addition, the description provided for the photo was not complete, as it stated nothing about the subject or contents of the image the way a description/caption should do.

It is an image however that might fit into a photo exhibition if it is a photo that makes up part of a story being told through an essay of editorial photos. It would also have a place if it is a particular artistic style, process, or finish applied to a series of images being exhibited.

So what was meant by "iStock is not a place to explore ones inner level of artistic expression" is that images like this might be viewed as artistic under certain conditions and in certain instances, but it was not suitable as a commercial stock photo or even usable as a simple illustrative stock image for the type of food it portrayed.   

If you don't adhere to the principle of the point made here then you end up with a collection of images unsuitable for commercial use. This needs to be avoided at all cost and images like the subject image need not continue to pass inspection in the future or the standards of what is deemed as viable commercial stock photography on iStock will be lost.

Then how did it get approved in the first place? If someone here hadn't "outed" it, it would still be up, for sale.
Title: Re: Is This The New iStock Standard Of Picture Quality?
Post by: loop on April 13, 2012, 08:58
With tens of thousands of images inspected weekly it's normal than now and then one fells in the wrong side (approved, accepted). A 100% accuracy would be anormal, in these circumstances.
Title: Re: Is This The New iStock Standard Of Picture Quality?
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on April 13, 2012, 09:11
With tens of thousands of images inspected weekly it's normal than now and then one fells in the wrong side (approved, accepted). A 100% accuracy would be anormal, in these circumstances.

Oh, come on, that's fair comment if Fred Bloggs has a duffer approved - but we all know that this was not a Fred Bloggs image. It's pretty obvious that it was one that got a free pass for one reason or another.
Title: Re: Is This The New iStock Standard Of Picture Quality?
Post by: bunhill on April 13, 2012, 09:14
If someone here hadn't "outed" it, it would still be up, for sale.

" Yes, this world would be a pretty easy and pleasant place to live in if everybody could just mind his own business and let others do the same .... most of the trouble in this world has been caused by folks who can't mind their own business "  :D
Title: Re: Is This The New iStock Standard Of Picture Quality?
Post by: ShadySue on April 13, 2012, 09:24
(Re photo first referred to)
Then how did it get approved in the first place? If someone here hadn't "outed" it, it would still be up, for sale.

I still suspect it was a sanctioned experiment.
I remember a couple of years ago seeing some very strange photos appearing in the port of a very, very high iStock contributor. In some ways, they were that tog's usual: 'perfect' models with shiny white teeth in a studio, but the setting was really 'naff': whole series of them. The technical side was presumably perfect, but the compostion and setting were not up to that person's usual standard. I wondered if it was a trend in the US or something, but in fact only tiny numbers sold from the whole series, from a person who normally gets well into double or triple figures from most of their submissions.
Now I'm wondering if that tog was asked to create and upload this very specific series, as an experiment.
Title: Re: Is This The New iStock Standard Of Picture Quality?
Post by: B8 on April 13, 2012, 09:48
@DaisyPond, your right. I tested it too. This site does seem to be infected with malware.
Title: Re: Is This The New iStock Standard Of Picture Quality?
Post by: cathyslife on April 13, 2012, 14:50
(Re photo first referred to)
Then how did it get approved in the first place? If someone here hadn't "outed" it, it would still be up, for sale.

I still suspect it was a sanctioned experiment.
I remember a couple of years ago seeing some very strange photos appearing in the port of a very, very high iStock contributor. In some ways, they were that tog's usual: 'perfect' models with shiny white teeth in a studio, but the setting was really 'naff': whole series of them. The technical side was presumably perfect, but the compostion and setting were not up to that person's usual standard. I wondered if it was a trend in the US or something, but in fact only tiny numbers sold from the whole series, from a person who normally gets well into double or triple figures from most of their submissions.
Now I'm wondering if that tog was asked to create and upload this very specific series, as an experiment.

You could be right. Guess the experiment failed if the photo has been pulled. Now that I think about it, I've read of other instances where companies try "experiments" by passing off lesser quality product than their customers are used to. If no one notices, boy can they save money!