MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Is This The New iStock Standard Of Picture Quality?  (Read 21488 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: April 07, 2012, 03:02 »
0
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.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2012, 16:34 by leaf »


lagereek

« Reply #1 on: April 07, 2012, 03:44 »
0
Well,  its embarrasing the least, dustbin material at best. I am not surprised.

« Reply #2 on: April 07, 2012, 04:41 »
0
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.

lagereek

« Reply #3 on: April 07, 2012, 05:01 »
0
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.

« Reply #4 on: April 07, 2012, 05:10 »
0
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.

« Reply #5 on: April 07, 2012, 06:44 »
0
I think it's a cell phone camera.  Maximum size is medium.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #6 on: April 07, 2012, 06:57 »
0
iPhones are allowable:
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.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2012, 07:42 by ShadySue »

« Reply #7 on: April 07, 2012, 06:58 »
0
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

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #8 on: April 07, 2012, 07:19 »
0
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.

« Reply #9 on: April 07, 2012, 07:33 »
0
One of the problems in applying a demonstrable double standard (however rare)  is that it tends to affect the credibility of the whole process...

lisafx

« Reply #10 on: April 07, 2012, 08:48 »
0
iPhones are allowable:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=342251&page=1



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.)

gg1

« Reply #11 on: April 07, 2012, 08:52 »
0
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.

WarrenPrice

« Reply #12 on: April 07, 2012, 09:09 »
0
I'm not the best one to evaluate but -- there are even worse images in that portfolio. 
Are you sure this is an inspector?

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #13 on: April 07, 2012, 09:12 »
0
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.

WarrenPrice

« Reply #14 on: April 07, 2012, 09:15 »
0
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?

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #15 on: April 07, 2012, 09:17 »
0
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.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2012, 09:19 by ShadySue »

« Reply #16 on: April 07, 2012, 12:03 »
0
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

« Reply #17 on: April 07, 2012, 12:10 »
0
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

« Reply #18 on: April 07, 2012, 12:36 »
0
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.

« Reply #19 on: April 07, 2012, 13:32 »
0
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.

« Reply #20 on: April 07, 2012, 13:37 »
0
I'm going to throw my laptop.... :'(

« Reply #21 on: April 07, 2012, 14:10 »
0
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????

« Reply #22 on: April 07, 2012, 15:09 »
0
The "style" doesnt have many downloads.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #23 on: April 07, 2012, 15:23 »
0
The "style" doesnt have many downloads.
Most seem to have been uploaded in the past couple of weeks.

helix7

« Reply #24 on: April 07, 2012, 15:39 »
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.

 ::)


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
1 Replies
16639 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
5112 Views
Last post June 16, 2016, 17:57
by ShadySue

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors