MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Lots of rants about random stuff (was: More Getty content on iStock)  (Read 37986 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #200 on: June 11, 2011, 22:24 »
0
My logic dictates that if you have superior quality images, and your competition has inferior quality images it is actually a GOOD thing for you.
Am I wrong in my way of thinking ?
Low quality getty content = good for us.

There is a bunch of things to consider:

1. Superior quality images are in the minority and not always easy to find if buyers switch to "Newest first" sort order, hence less chances of good, newly uploaded images.
Sure it may work for long established hot sellers if the "Most popular" or "by Downloads" is selected.

2. Inferior images drag down the overall attractiveness of an agency. IS is pretty tight on technical quality when it comes to isolations for example. The rejections drive me mad too, but at least I know that most approved files will be of top quality which will satisfy any buyer.

Look at some low tier agencies and what they accept just to get their numbers up...

(This may not apply directly to this IS example but to the SS issue).


SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #201 on: June 11, 2011, 23:39 »
0
My logic dictates that if you have superior quality images, and your competition has inferior quality images it is actually a GOOD thing for you.
Am I wrong in my way of thinking ?
Low quality getty content = good for us.

these images are not low-quality editorial. I'm certainly no fan of this ingestion of Getty content. but the images aren't low-quality. shooting editorial isn't like shooting stock. conditions are completely different. editorial is often shot at much higher ISO, low light conditions, from great distances...it's completely unreasonable to evaluate editorial images the way you would stock files.

I'm all for criticizing the structure of the ingestion or the decisions behind it--but some of the images in the ingestion are good editorial. that's part of the issue in fact for me. what's the point of busting my a*s to produce editorial for iStock (especially when they seem to be ignoring iStockphoto contributor attempts to get into Getty Editorial)....AND now they make it impossible for us to be competitive on iStock too in editorial because of Getty files being pumped in? it's discouraging to say the least.

the one positive point I'll suggest is the description link in all the files to the entire editorial collection.
« Last Edit: June 11, 2011, 23:59 by SNP »

« Reply #202 on: June 12, 2011, 00:33 »
0
SNP: I wasn't stating my own opinion, I wouldn't even know how to recognize a good photo from a bad one (except from a composition point of view), I was merely quoting others.

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #203 on: June 12, 2011, 00:48 »
0
comments have been made about the quality of the images well before your post...no worries. I just think it's important to criticize what should be criticized....

1. the haphazard dump of these files into our database (the number is now close to 6K under the Edstock contributor). missing information, keywords, titles/descriptions etc. best match snafu on top of it.
2. the misleading and contradictory 'notification' we were given about these images coming in....and I think we had all of one or two days to digest it in any case
3. the shutting down of any real discussion about this collection on the iStock forum, and once again almost zero communication from HQ. I have no issue with them shutting down abusive and ranting posts....but many contributors are asking legitimate questions and also being shut down
« Last Edit: June 12, 2011, 00:50 by SNP »

Slovenian

« Reply #204 on: June 12, 2011, 03:13 »
0
I guess IS needs to pull just one more stupid stunt like that and it'll sink like Titanic. I'd love that, since I hate the site. I Hate their time consuming UL process, editorial which has been a failure (IMO) before the ingestion of Getty editorial, all the bugs, broken transfer of files to PP and most importantly screwing of contributors with RCs (and don't forget Gettys agency files). And Lobo is of course the cherry on top. Traffic has been redirected to SS (constant BMEs whereas IS is stagnating), which I just love, since it's almost a joy to upload there and they treat their contributors fairly (the only one of the big 4 that didn't cut commissions). And if it sinks, traffic will be redirected to DT and FT, I already have my ports there (although not complete) and I'd have one less agency to upload to. And an edge over the exclusives.

If you really look at it, IS is pathetic. Just living of old glory, otherwise it would be somewhere down, next to Crestock.

ShadySue

« Reply #205 on: June 12, 2011, 04:55 »
0
these images are not low-quality editorial. I'm certainly no fan of this ingestion of Getty content. but the images aren't low-quality. shooting editorial isn't like shooting stock. conditions are completely different. editorial is often shot at much higher ISO, low light conditions, from great distances...it's completely unreasonable to evaluate editorial images the way you would stock files.
As I said earlier in the thread, I've had 'lighting' rejections for editorial submissions, for the same natural, flat, Scottish light that has garnered me so many 'flat light' rejections for the main collection. Note that these editorial lighting rejections come with the same totally useless* tutorial links to the 'right way to use flash in a studio' that you get with main collection lighting rejections.
As always, some inspectors are more picky than others, so some of a group might get in while others don't.
* if you're using natural light.

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #206 on: June 12, 2011, 12:20 »
0
I guess IS needs to pull just one more stupid stunt like that and it'll sink like Titanic. I'd love that, since I hate the site. I Hate their time consuming UL process, editorial which has been a failure (IMO) before the ingestion of Getty editorial, all the bugs, broken transfer of files to PP and most importantly screwing of contributors with RCs (and don't forget Gettys agency files). And Lobo is of course the cherry on top. Traffic has been redirected to Shutterstock (constant BMEs whereas IS is stagnating), which I just love, since it's almost a joy to upload there and they treat their contributors fairly (the only one of the big 4 that didn't cut commissions). And if it sinks, traffic will be redirected to Dreamstime and Fotolia, I already have my ports there (although not complete) and I'd have one less agency to upload to. And an edge over the exclusives.

If you really look at it, IS is pathetic. Just living of old glory, otherwise it would be somewhere down, next to Crestock.

I don't see how you can state that editorial has failed. I think editorial is going to eventually be fairly successful on iStock.....for iStock. for iStock editorial contributors, it may prove to be fruitless and that's what I'm worried about. if they don't want iStock contributors feeling marginalized and competitive with Getty, than they need to stop marginallizing us and pitting us against our Getty counterparts. or for those of us who are making the effort to contribute to the community and to Getty in addition to iStock.....facilitate access to contributing to Getty editorial without making us jump through arbitrary hoops.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2011, 12:25 by SNP »

Slovenian

« Reply #207 on: June 12, 2011, 12:56 »
0
I guess IS needs to pull just one more stupid stunt like that and it'll sink like Titanic. I'd love that, since I hate the site. I Hate their time consuming UL process, editorial which has been a failure (IMO) before the ingestion of Getty editorial, all the bugs, broken transfer of files to PP and most importantly screwing of contributors with RCs (and don't forget Gettys agency files). And Lobo is of course the cherry on top. Traffic has been redirected to Shutterstock (constant BMEs whereas IS is stagnating), which I just love, since it's almost a joy to upload there and they treat their contributors fairly (the only one of the big 4 that didn't cut commissions). And if it sinks, traffic will be redirected to Dreamstime and Fotolia, I already have my ports there (although not complete) and I'd have one less agency to upload to. And an edge over the exclusives.

If you really look at it, IS is pathetic. Just living of old glory, otherwise it would be somewhere down, next to Crestock.

I don't see how you can state that editorial has failed. I think editorial is going to eventually be fairly successful on iStock.....for iStock. for iStock editorial contributors, it may prove to be fruitless and that's what I'm worried about. if they don't want iStock contributors feeling marginalized and competitive with Getty, than they need to stop marginallizing us and pitting us against our Getty counterparts. or for those of us who are making the effort to contribute to the community and to Getty in addition to iStock.....facilitate access to contributing to Getty editorial without making us jump through arbitrary hoops.

How can it not be a failure even for IS, if there are virtually no sales? Their concept of editorial was flawed from the beginning, that's why they brought in Getty content, to improve the situation and indeed make it editorial. But of course that's not going to help us, on the contrary, it's going to make a very bad situation unbearable or at least unsustainable (editorial I mean).

« Reply #208 on: June 12, 2011, 13:07 »
0
^^^ Speak for yourself. Editorial has been a success for us so far.

Slovenian

« Reply #209 on: June 12, 2011, 13:23 »
0
^^^ Speak for yourself. Editorial has been a success for us so far.

Look at the big picture, your personal success doesn't make it a success for the community or IS. That was the point of my posts. But I'm glad you can brag again about how awesome you're doing ;)

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #210 on: June 12, 2011, 15:33 »
0
@ Slovenian - Editorial is no different than commercial stock. Some categories of things sell well and some don't. It's probably been a failure for you because you're submitting stuff where there's little or no demand.

« Reply #211 on: June 12, 2011, 15:35 »
0
oh I forgot people are only allowed to rant about IS, let me join the crowd so I can also be one of the cool kids:
I hate IS, IS sucks. long live SS.

Slovenian

« Reply #212 on: June 12, 2011, 16:29 »
0
@ Slovenian - Editorial is no different than commercial stock. Some categories of things sell well and some don't. It's probably been a failure for you because you're submitting stuff where there's little or no demand.

I wish ppl would read my posts, before they're accusing me of accusing IS for MY BAD SALES. Which of course was never the case and I'll just quote my yesterdays's post:
" Reply #167 on: Yesterday at 05:35
   
Reply with quote Modify message
I didn't read most of the posts, but I do have a question. Is editorial even worth the time you put in? I can't judge from my sales, since I don't have many editorial photos in my port and virtually all of them were rejected anyway (just the opposite from the normal collection), but I did some research and besides ipad/iphone/social network screenshots they don't sell well and mostly they don't sell at all. I know it's easier if you're doing a lot of people shots, no retouching, no MRs needed, just some work with captions and rejections because of them. But what's the sales potential anyway, when you can't post anything time sensitive, anything the news agencies, papers and blogs would mostly be interested in? They can find similar people shots in the main collection, which are usually better anyway. Besides products shots, there probably is nothing really worth uploading and also all those cans of beer, sneakers, electronics don't really sell.

I see IS editorial as one big failure and disappointment."

OK, everything clear now aeonf, Paulie? ;)

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #213 on: June 12, 2011, 17:14 »
0
Oh yes I totally see now. You can't judge from your sales because you can't get any accepted. Thank you for highlighting that with font size 20 something. Totally clear. Thank you. Carry on.

Whether or not editorial is a success for you or even Istock it has been good for me. Success is what you make of it.

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #214 on: June 12, 2011, 17:20 »
0
Slovenian - the problem is you come in here guns blazing making such absolute statements about a program you're barely participating in. which sadly seems to be the norm here. in any case, I think you're unable to make any meaningful statement about the future of editorial at iStock.

PaulieWalnuts -  :D. funny post.

Slovenian

« Reply #215 on: June 12, 2011, 17:23 »
0
Paulie you're behaving like we're on the school yard :-\. OK you like it because it works for you, so enjoy;) (while it lasts)

Slovenian

« Reply #216 on: June 12, 2011, 17:24 »
0
Slovenian - the problem is you come in here guns blazing making such absolute statements about a program you're barely participating in. which sadly seems to be the norm here. in any case, I think you're unable to make any meaningful statement about the future of editorial at iStock.

Based on my "research". But I admit I put too much passion in it :P

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #217 on: June 12, 2011, 17:39 »
0
Paulie you're behaving like we're on the school yard :-\. OK you like it because it works for you, so enjoy;) (while it lasts)

@Slovenian, again... I didn't go back and read all nine pages of this trainwreck so I could try to figure out what you're trying to say. I read a couple posts and only got out of it what you wrote and responded accordingly. I think we entered the playground when you stuffed your size 20+ font fist in my face. I again responded accordingly.

Maybe if more people focused on success around here instead of fighting and trying to find things to point out as failures there would be more success. Carry on with another 9 pages of bickering. I'm done. 

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #218 on: June 12, 2011, 18:13 »
0

Maybe if more people focused on success around here instead of fighting and trying to find things to point out as failures there would be more success.

I agree with this and your reason for saying it. but I think it's important to recognize that times are tough for us, and when discussing the direction of the business, the looming aspects of the industry outside our control tend to inspire a lot of in-fighting, especially when people start reacting to speculative comments.

I think, regardless of where we're at, it's important for contributors to attempt some kind of cohesion. even if we disagree with individual decisions and even if there is the occasional reactive or emotional post. it's pretty tough not to get emotional about your livelihood. speaking of which, looks like the Edstock portfolio is filling up....now at 7K +
« Last Edit: June 12, 2011, 18:31 by SNP »

« Reply #219 on: June 13, 2011, 00:42 »
0
Maybe if more people focused on success around here instead of fighting and trying to find things to point out as failures there would be more success. Carry on with another 9 pages of bickering. I'm done. 

Amen to that!

nruboc

« Reply #220 on: June 13, 2011, 00:52 »
0

Maybe if IStock got something right, there may be more for it's contributers to be positive about. LOL... even the grown admin over there acknowledges that:

"There are clearly some bones to pick about the following:

1. Keywords
2. Titles
3. Apparent quality
4. Placement in search
5. Content flowing quicker to iStock than it's flowing to the Partner Program sites and Getty
"

Was there anything else even involved in this rollout? Not that I can see... they literally managed to F everything up. Maybe that's why all the negativity. Just a theory.

« Reply #221 on: June 13, 2011, 04:46 »
0

Maybe if IStock got something right, there may be more for it's contributers to be positive about. LOL... even the grown admin over there acknowledges that:

"There are clearly some bones to pick about the following:

1. Keywords
2. Titles
3. Apparent quality
4. Placement in search
5. Content flowing quicker to iStock than it's flowing to the Partner Program sites and Getty
"

Was there anything else even involved in this rollout? Not that I can see... they literally managed to F everything up. Maybe that's why all the negativity. Just a theory.


I think there is a little bit of an obsession on focusing on the negative things that happen at iStock and the views expressed here are far from balanced at the moment. I don't think the overall trend at iStock is as bad as its being made out to be here. For me the overwhelming positive at iStock is that they're having success at pushing a greater variety of pricepoints - obviously this is more evident as an exclusive.

As far as the content of the edstock portfolio goes, there are more product and location type shots that don't require any special sort of permission than I'd like, but there is also some great content that adds value to the collection and wouldn't really be available through regular contributors. Try this image for example: http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-16844219-king-bhumibol-adulyadej-of-thailand-celebrates-82nd-birthday.php?st=6ec82ef

Not sure if anyone has tried to get access to the King of Thailand for a photo shoot lately, but its not something that is easy. While I was there, he did a trip in public along the river in a boat. They basically lined the river with police to make sure you A. couldn't get a vantage point on bridges etc at a higher elevation than the king, B. couldn't take photos while he was actually passing.

To me there is a pretty decent set of political figures and celebrities including some notable examples that aren't in other collections.

« Reply #222 on: June 13, 2011, 04:54 »
0
To me there is a pretty decent set of political figures and celebrities including some notable examples that aren't in other collections.

But in fact I cannot send all my images with celebrities/famous people which 'aren't in other collections.'

« Reply #223 on: June 13, 2011, 05:11 »
0
To me there is a pretty decent set of political figures and celebrities including some notable examples that aren't in other collections.

But in fact I cannot send all my images with celebrities/famous people which 'aren't in other collections.'

Nobody is stopping from selling them on SS or DT you if you're not exclusive, or if you are there's always RM options such as Alamy.

ShadySue

« Reply #224 on: June 13, 2011, 05:49 »
0
As far as the content of the edstock portfolio goes, there are more product and location type shots that don't require any special sort of permission than I'd like, but there is also some great content that adds value to the collection and wouldn't really be available through regular contributors. Try this image for example: http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-16844219-king-bhumibol-adulyadej-of-thailand-celebrates-82nd-birthday.php?st=6ec82ef

Not sure if anyone has tried to get access to the King of Thailand for a photo shoot lately, but its not something that is easy. While I was there, he did a trip in public along the river in a boat. They basically lined the river with police to make sure you A. couldn't get a vantage point on bridges etc at a higher elevation than the king, B. couldn't take photos while he was actually passing.
Noted that apparently the transfer from Getty - iStock won't be made for 18 months, when the maximum 'timely' sales of the pic will have been realised (wonder for how long that restriction will apply?).
However, there could be another time for the pic to be topical, when the King dies, so the 'tog should be able to benefit then too.

Therefore if I was the lucky person to be granted access, I wouldn't be happy about the photo going for micro prices, especially as the number of sales of the photo is likely to be low. It's a 'niche' photo and should be sold for a 'niche' price.
Noted that apparently the transfer from Getty - iStock won't be made for 18 months, when the maximum 'timely' sales of the pic will have been realised (wonder for how long that restriction will apply?).
However, there could be another time for the pic to be topical, when the King dies, so the 'tog should be able to benefit then too.
UNLESS: Getty paid the tog to take these pics and arranged the permits etc (do they do that? I think I read once that they do) in which case they'll no doubt have it in their contract that they can do what the like with the photos.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2011, 06:26 by ShadySue »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
6586 Views
Last post June 03, 2010, 11:32
by Opla
5 Replies
4030 Views
Last post March 17, 2011, 07:50
by ProArtwork
7 Replies
2678 Views
Last post August 14, 2013, 17:34
by KB
7 Replies
1722 Views
Last post March 30, 2017, 17:37
by Sean Locke Photography
46 Replies
8097 Views
Last post November 07, 2018, 12:32
by Microstock Man

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors