MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Is This The New iStock Standard Of Picture Quality?  (Read 7969 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: April 07, 2012, 21:45 »
0
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 Refuss". 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????


gillian

  • *Gillian*

« Reply #26 on: April 08, 2012, 01:59 »
0
just came along and read this, now you've removed the image I'm super curious.

« Reply #27 on: April 08, 2012, 05:24 »
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.

gg1

« Reply #28 on: April 08, 2012, 07:05 »
0
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.

ShadySue

« Reply #29 on: April 08, 2012, 07:14 »
0
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?
« Last Edit: April 08, 2012, 07:57 by ShadySue »

ShadySue

« Reply #30 on: April 08, 2012, 07:14 »
0
Double post, sorry.
« Last Edit: April 08, 2012, 07:57 by ShadySue »

B8

« Reply #31 on: April 08, 2012, 07:43 »
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.

« Reply #32 on: April 08, 2012, 08:31 »
0
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.

gg1

« Reply #33 on: April 08, 2012, 08:46 »
0
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.

ShadySue

« Reply #34 on: April 08, 2012, 08:55 »
0
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.

« Reply #35 on: April 08, 2012, 12:14 »
0

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.

ShadySue

« Reply #36 on: April 08, 2012, 12:25 »
0
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.

« Reply #37 on: April 08, 2012, 12:29 »
0
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.

« Reply #38 on: April 08, 2012, 15:17 »
0
*. I miss all the good stuff. Anyone wanna send me a link?  :P

« Reply #39 on: April 08, 2012, 15:43 »
0
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.

« Reply #40 on: April 08, 2012, 15:51 »
0
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 Refuss". 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.

« Reply #41 on: April 08, 2012, 16:26 »
0
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 Refuss". 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 Id 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 doesnt exactly help on the credibility front so I have to say but the emperor isnt wearing any clothes.

« Reply #42 on: April 08, 2012, 16:28 »
0
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.

ShadySue

« Reply #43 on: April 08, 2012, 16:41 »
0
Just came upon this saying of the Viennese Secessionists:
"To the age, its Art; to the Art, its Freedom."
Could be relevant.

« Reply #44 on: April 09, 2012, 05:22 »
0
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?

« Reply #45 on: April 09, 2012, 20:48 »
0
the image seems have been removed, I am curious to see his portfolio..

« Reply #46 on: April 10, 2012, 07:21 »
0
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.

« Reply #47 on: April 10, 2012, 07:41 »
0
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.

lisafx

« Reply #48 on: April 10, 2012, 09:54 »
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. 

ShadySue

« Reply #49 on: April 10, 2012, 10:17 »
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 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.

PhotoDuneMicrostock Insider

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
1 Replies
2136 Views
Last post January 18, 2008, 17:48
by takestock
6 Replies
2715 Views
Last post December 08, 2012, 13:03
by mtkang
4 Replies
1260 Views
Last post June 02, 2010, 15:54
by Sean Locke Photography
4 Replies
1722 Views
Last post October 10, 2010, 17:24
by dk
23 Replies
2509 Views
Last post September 06, 2012, 13:38
by JPSDK

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors