pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Is This The New iStock Standard Of Picture Quality?  (Read 21491 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #50 on: April 10, 2012, 10:39 »
0
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.


« Reply #51 on: April 10, 2012, 10:49 »
0
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.

« Reply #52 on: April 10, 2012, 11:02 »
0
   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.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #53 on: April 10, 2012, 11:03 »
0
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.

WarrenPrice

« Reply #54 on: April 10, 2012, 11:17 »
0
   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!

« Reply #55 on: April 10, 2012, 12:17 »
0
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.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2012, 12:20 by JPSDK »

« Reply #56 on: April 10, 2012, 12:25 »
0
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.

« Reply #57 on: April 10, 2012, 12:29 »
0
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.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2012, 12:33 by JPSDK »

WarrenPrice

« Reply #58 on: April 10, 2012, 12:34 »
0
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?

« Reply #59 on: April 10, 2012, 13:07 »
0
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.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2012, 13:13 by rimglow »

RacePhoto

« Reply #60 on: April 10, 2012, 16:45 »
0
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?

« Reply #61 on: April 10, 2012, 16:50 »
0
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.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2012, 16:53 by stockastic »

« Reply #62 on: April 10, 2012, 17:04 »
0
   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.

« Reply #63 on: April 10, 2012, 17:13 »
0
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.

RacePhoto

« Reply #64 on: April 10, 2012, 17:28 »
0
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  ;)

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #65 on: April 10, 2012, 17:30 »
0
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.

« Reply #66 on: April 10, 2012, 17:53 »
0
AutoTune is a plague.

lisafx

« Reply #67 on: April 10, 2012, 18:29 »
0

« Reply #68 on: April 11, 2012, 02:01 »
0
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 :(

« Reply #69 on: April 11, 2012, 12:55 »
0
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.
« Last Edit: April 11, 2012, 13:02 by DaisyPond »

« Reply #70 on: April 11, 2012, 13:09 »
0
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.

« Reply #71 on: April 11, 2012, 13:27 »
0
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.

lisafx

« Reply #72 on: April 11, 2012, 14:30 »
0
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.

« Reply #73 on: April 11, 2012, 15:39 »
0
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.

wut

« Reply #74 on: April 11, 2012, 15:46 »
0
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 ;)


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
1 Replies
16640 Views
Last post January 18, 2008, 17:48
by takestock
6 Replies
7146 Views
Last post December 08, 2012, 13:03
by mtkang
4 Replies
5688 Views
Last post October 10, 2010, 17:24
by dk
23 Replies
7915 Views
Last post September 06, 2012, 13:38
by JPSDK
11 Replies
5113 Views
Last post June 16, 2016, 17:57
by ShadySue

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors