pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Lots of rants about random stuff (was: More Getty content on iStock)  (Read 37701 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #225 on: June 13, 2011, 06:36 »
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.

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.


Presumably the photo was sold for its niche value initially, now 2 years later they want to revive its earnings potential that the volumes from iStock may or may not bring. If I had one of the only images like this for sale online at the iStock E+ price-point of $5-30, I don't think I'd be overly upset. I don't think the image has such a low sales potential - assuming they add the keyword "King" I'd be very surprised if it doesn't get lots of sales.


RT


« Reply #226 on: June 13, 2011, 06:37 »
0
I have no doubt that were only seeing stage 2 in what I think is iStock/Getty's plan:

Stage 1 - Launch the editorial section, only allow non news/celebrity images

Result: They get hundreds of isolated iPhone/pod/pad images, a few sell and the Getty editorial shooters are happy because it doesn't appear to be a threat.

Stage 2 - Introduce some real editorial shots from Getty but exclude the regular iStock contributors from submitting

Result: They hoodwink the main Getty guys telling them they're just testing the waters to see if proper editorial stuff would sell, Getty still get their editorial submissions from the full timers.

Stage 3 - If things take off allow iStock contributors to submit local news and events shots

Result: The Getty guys start to wise up, but they're told it's so they can concentrate on the main news events, baffle them with some marketing speak.

Stage 4 - The editorial collection is a hit with the publishing industry around the world, iStock allows anybody to submit editorial shots

Result: The old adage of 'F8 and be there' still exists except now Getty no longer have to pay for the 'be there' element, the whole world is a crowd sourced editorial team of free photographers, Getty get their editorial shots, it's cost them nothing, all they can do is profit.

Without any disrespect to any editorial photographers the whole basis about editorial photography is not technical quality, it's about someone being at an event with a camera (hence the F8 and be there saying), nowadays half the worlds population has a camera suitable for editorial publications and an internet connection to upload them to the agency, there'll still be a requirement for the 'instant news/sports events' photographer but for everything else I'm guessing Getty are going to approach editorial along the same lines that microstock attacked the commercial world of photography.

ShadySue

« Reply #227 on: June 13, 2011, 07:20 »
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.

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.


Presumably the photo was sold for its niche value initially, now 2 years later they want to revive its earnings potential that the volumes from iStock may or may not bring. If I had one of the only images like this for sale online at the iStock E+ price-point of $5-30, I don't think I'd be overly upset. I don't think the image has such a low sales potential - assuming they add the keyword "King" I'd be very surprised if it doesn't get lots of sales.

I suppose it might (?) be better to have the only image on iStock compared to being one of a few on Getty. H*ck the Getty Search/keywording system seems to be about as bad as Alamy's. Half of the images which come up on a search for "King Bhumibol" don't feature the King at all, but are in some way connected with him. How annoying.
If iStock's keywording system wasn't spammed, and even more importantly, if the best match worked properly with keyword relevancy, iStock could really crush the oppostion. Whether that would be a Good Thing is open to debate.

lisafx

« Reply #228 on: June 13, 2011, 08:27 »
0
I have no doubt that were only seeing stage 2 in what I think is iStock/Getty's plan:

Stage 1 - Launch the editorial section, only allow non news/celebrity images

Result: They get hundreds of isolated iPhone/pod/pad images, a few sell and the Getty editorial shooters are happy because it doesn't appear to be a threat.

Stage 2 - Introduce some real editorial shots from Getty but exclude the regular iStock contributors from submitting

Result: They hoodwink the main Getty guys telling them they're just testing the waters to see if proper editorial stuff would sell, Getty still get their editorial submissions from the full timers.

Stage 3 - If things take off allow iStock contributors to submit local news and events shots

Result: The Getty guys start to wise up, but they're told it's so they can concentrate on the main news events, baffle them with some marketing speak.

Stage 4 - The editorial collection is a hit with the publishing industry around the world, iStock allows anybody to submit editorial shots

Result: The old adage of 'F8 and be there' still exists except now Getty no longer have to pay for the 'be there' element, the whole world is a crowd sourced editorial team of free photographers, Getty get their editorial shots, it's cost them nothing, all they can do is profit.

Without any disrespect to any editorial photographers the whole basis about editorial photography is not technical quality, it's about someone being at an event with a camera (hence the F8 and be there saying), nowadays half the worlds population has a camera suitable for editorial publications and an internet connection to upload them to the agency, there'll still be a requirement for the 'instant news/sports events' photographer but for everything else I'm guessing Getty are going to approach editorial along the same lines that microstock attacked the commercial world of photography.

This makes a lot of sense.  It could be argued this is a good think for Istock contributors ITLR.  Although if I were a Getty editorial contributor, I would be worried about my livelihood.  Especially if/when stage 4 kicks in. 

« Reply #229 on: June 13, 2011, 08:35 »
0
Also, will iStock kill Alamy's RM?

ShadySue

« Reply #230 on: June 13, 2011, 09:29 »
0
Also, will iStock kill Alamy's RM?
Only to some extent. iStock will be no great shakes for selling quirky, local things which Alamy is better for, especially in the UK.

« Reply #231 on: June 13, 2011, 11:32 »
0
And alamy RM might be cheaper than istock editorial by the time all this goes through.

lagereek

« Reply #232 on: June 13, 2011, 15:03 »
0
Honestly,  I dont know why any buyer would consult a commercial stock-agency for editorials? 

« Reply #233 on: June 13, 2011, 16:01 »
0
Honestly,  I dont know why any buyer would consult a commercial stock-agency for editorials?  

but the market for editorial has completely changed. For example almost nobody publishes whole picture stories today - apart from gossip and celebrity magazines (and coincidentally Hello launched about the time that the Sunday supplements started to stop doing picture stories).  I would bet that the greatest majority of editorial images are published by bloggers now.

Am I wrong ? Does anyone with a significant circulation publish picture stories today ? Most of the great editorial pictures of the past came out of longer projects which would have been published as picture stories.

« Reply #234 on: June 13, 2011, 16:34 »
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. 

OK, here's my positive thoughts on istock...everything is great! Contributors have gotten raises, buyers aren't leaving anymore and in fact they are coming in droves to purchase images on istock, the search is working magnificently, editorial images are being accepted from all contributors equally and are selling like hotcakes, and the Photos+ program has tripled everyone's sales.

Maybe if I say it enough times and try to convince other contributors on this forum to be more positive like that, it will actually come true!  ;)

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #235 on: June 13, 2011, 17:38 »
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. 

OK, here's my positive thoughts on istock...everything is great! Contributors have gotten raises, buyers aren't leaving anymore and in fact they are coming in droves to purchase images on istock, the search is working magnificently, editorial images are being accepted from all contributors equally and are selling like hotcakes, and the Photos+ program has tripled everyone's sales.

Maybe if I say it enough times and try to convince other contributors on this forum to be more positive like that, it will actually come true!  ;)

Okay, I lied. I'm back to this thread. Someone really needs to come up with an ignore/block entire websites or posts function for browsers. I need it.

First, I'm not just talking Istock here. It's negativity in general toward stock overall. Old sites, new sites, macro sites, macro contributors, new contracts, old contracts, you-name-it. This place is like grumpystockgroup.com.

I'm glad you posted because I think your response really highlights my point. If I remember correctly you pulled all of your files from Istock, and yet you still spend time to write about everything that's wrong with them. ??? Why do you even care? You're done. Free of their dastardly grip and shenanigans. You've moved on to stock paradise with other sites. You've beat the evil empire.

Okay so Istock is a mess and doesn't deserve you breaking out the pom-pons. Is there something good out there?

« Reply #236 on: June 13, 2011, 17:46 »
0
Thank you MR PaulieWalnuts for expressing my exact thoughts and saving me a lot of time and trouble articulating them.

ShadySue

« Reply #237 on: June 13, 2011, 17:50 »
0
Honestly,  I dont know why any buyer would consult a commercial stock-agency for editorials? 
Maybe they can't always get what they want under creative commons at e.g. Flikr?

« Reply #238 on: June 13, 2011, 18:56 »
0
I have no doubt that were only seeing stage 2 in what I think is iStock/Getty's plan:

Stage 1 - Launch the editorial section, only allow non news/celebrity images

Result: They get hundreds of isolated iPhone/pod/pad images, a few sell and the Getty editorial shooters are happy because it doesn't appear to be a threat.

Stage 2 - Introduce some real editorial shots from Getty but exclude the regular iStock contributors from submitting

Result: They hoodwink the main Getty guys telling them they're just testing the waters to see if proper editorial stuff would sell, Getty still get their editorial submissions from the full timers.

Stage 3 - If things take off allow iStock contributors to submit local news and events shots

Result: The Getty guys start to wise up, but they're told it's so they can concentrate on the main news events, baffle them with some marketing speak.

Stage 4 - The editorial collection is a hit with the publishing industry around the world, iStock allows anybody to submit editorial shots

Result: The old adage of 'F8 and be there' still exists except now Getty no longer have to pay for the 'be there' element, the whole world is a crowd sourced editorial team of free photographers, Getty get their editorial shots, it's cost them nothing, all they can do is profit.

Without any disrespect to any editorial photographers the whole basis about editorial photography is not technical quality, it's about someone being at an event with a camera (hence the F8 and be there saying), nowadays half the worlds population has a camera suitable for editorial publications and an internet connection to upload them to the agency, there'll still be a requirement for the 'instant news/sports events' photographer but for everything else I'm guessing Getty are going to approach editorial along the same lines that microstock attacked the commercial world of photography.

This makes a lot of sense.  It could be argued this is a good think for Istock contributors ITLR.  Although if I were a Getty editorial contributor, I would be worried about my livelihood.  Especially if/when stage 4 kicks in. 

I agree. Makes a lot of sense. Seems a viable plan, for them.

Noodles

« Reply #239 on: June 13, 2011, 19:40 »
0
Okay, I lied. I'm back to this thread. Someone really needs to come up with an ignore/block entire websites or posts function for browsers. I need it.

First, I'm not just talking Istock here. It's negativity in general toward stock overall. Old sites, new sites, macro sites, macro contributors, new contracts, old contracts, you-name-it. This place is like grumpystockgroup.com.

I'm glad you posted because I think your response really highlights my point. If I remember correctly you pulled all of your files from Istock, and yet you still spend time to write about everything that's wrong with them. ??? Why do you even care? You're done. Free of their dastardly grip and shenanigans. You've moved on to stock paradise with other sites. You've beat the evil empire.

Okay so Istock is a mess and doesn't deserve you breaking out the pom-pons. Is there something good out there?

Reading this reminds me about a co-worker I have to prepare a report on. She is a good worker but anything outside the box and she is completely hopeless. She fails to take any kind of initiative on her own and is miserable at adapting to new concepts/ideas and such. This type of person is commonly known as a dinosaur I believe.

I think we have a lot of dinosaurs here.

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #240 on: June 13, 2011, 22:16 »
0
Okay, I lied. I'm back to this thread. Someone really needs to come up with an ignore/block entire websites or posts function for browsers. I need it.

First, I'm not just talking Istock here. It's negativity in general toward stock overall. Old sites, new sites, macro sites, macro contributors, new contracts, old contracts, you-name-it. This place is like grumpystockgroup.com.

I'm glad you posted because I think your response really highlights my point. If I remember correctly you pulled all of your files from Istock, and yet you still spend time to write about everything that's wrong with them. ??? Why do you even care? You're done. Free of their dastardly grip and shenanigans. You've moved on to stock paradise with other sites. You've beat the evil empire.

Okay so Istock is a mess and doesn't deserve you breaking out the pom-pons. Is there something good out there?

Reading this reminds me about a co-worker I have to prepare a report on. She is a good worker but anything outside the box and she is completely hopeless. She fails to take any kind of initiative on her own and is miserable at adapting to new concepts/ideas and such. This type of person is commonly known as a dinosaur I believe.

I think we have a lot of dinosaurs here.

I recently went back to the beginning posts of this site and found the first post welcoming an iStock exclusive (Amanda something or other) for coming in to give an alternative perspective. within four or five pages, blood was being drawn and iStock was the spawn of Satan and that was in 2006. seems things haven't changed since the age of the dinosaur.

as for Paulie's post (thank you for that post)...you could add about five other people who spend unbelievable amounts of time in iStock threads despite having 'broken up' with iStock, or despite NEVER having contributed to iStock.

helix7

« Reply #241 on: June 13, 2011, 22:42 »
0
Okay, I lied. I'm back to this thread. Someone really needs to come up with an ignore/block entire websites or posts function for browsers. I need it.

First, I'm not just talking Istock here. It's negativity in general toward stock overall. Old sites, new sites, macro sites, macro contributors, new contracts, old contracts, you-name-it. This place is like grumpystockgroup.com...

...Okay so Istock is a mess and doesn't deserve you breaking out the pom-pons. Is there something good out there?

Sure, there's plenty of good going on. And you're right, it is getting overshadowed by the negativity. People used to talk a lot more about good things happening around here. So I'll give it a go...

I personally think Shutterstock is doing great, despite the larger opinion that rejections are too frequent these days. I'm having a rare $100+ day at Shutterstock, so certainly no complaints from me. I'm having a bit of a laugh right now that in just 1 day, my Shutterstock earnings trumped my istock earnings for the entire month so far. I'm not being negative about it, really. It's sort of comical at this point. :)

And I think StockFresh is doing well. Sure they're a little slow out of the gate, but overall I'm optimistic about the site. Looking forward to those good ol days of StockXpert coming back around in the form of SF. Hopefully...

So there. Positivity!

:)

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #242 on: June 13, 2011, 22:47 »
0
Okay, I lied. I'm back to this thread. Someone really needs to come up with an ignore/block entire websites or posts function for browsers. I need it.

First, I'm not just talking Istock here. It's negativity in general toward stock overall. Old sites, new sites, macro sites, macro contributors, new contracts, old contracts, you-name-it. This place is like grumpystockgroup.com.

I'm glad you posted because I think your response really highlights my point. If I remember correctly you pulled all of your files from Istock, and yet you still spend time to write about everything that's wrong with them. ??? Why do you even care? You're done. Free of their dastardly grip and shenanigans. You've moved on to stock paradise with other sites. You've beat the evil empire.

Okay so Istock is a mess and doesn't deserve you breaking out the pom-pons. Is there something good out there?

Reading this reminds me about a co-worker I have to prepare a report on. She is a good worker but anything outside the box and she is completely hopeless. She fails to take any kind of initiative on her own and is miserable at adapting to new concepts/ideas and such. This type of person is commonly known as a dinosaur I believe.

I think we have a lot of dinosaurs here.

I recently went back to the beginning posts of this site and found the first post welcoming an iStock exclusive (Amanda something or other) for coming in to give an alternative perspective. within four or five pages, blood was being drawn and iStock was the spawn of Satan and that was in 2006. seems things haven't changed since the age of the dinosaur.

as for Paulie's post (thank you for that post)...you could add about five other people who spend unbelievable amounts of time in iStock threads despite having 'broken up' with iStock, or despite NEVER having contributed to iStock.

One thing to clarify. To me this sounds like I'm picking on Cathy and singling people out which is not what I'm trying to do. There are plenty of people here, myself included sometimes, who seem to get sucked into the bashing bandwagon. We are all in the same boat.

Istock isn't in the greatest of technical or functional shape right now so they're an easy target. They clearly are placing an urgency on financial gains over everything else including site stability. We can only guess why. Dumping Getty content is, to me, a sign that a significant amount of Getty buyers have moved to Istock.

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #243 on: June 13, 2011, 23:46 »
0
^ well FWIW, I thought you were referring to the post not the person and I agree, which is why I said that there are a number of people who seem to go out of their way to be absurdly negative. I don't have a problem with constructive negativity that informs...it's the vengeful, exaggerated, petty stuff that is really hard to wade through and it often comes from serial posters that have little to no stake in iStock.

« Reply #244 on: June 14, 2011, 00:36 »
0
I was overly optimistic until StockXpert was shut down.  There really hasn't been much to feel optimistic about for me since then.  Istock was at least the second highest earner for a lot of non-exclusives and losing a lot of that income also hurts.  I really don't want to use thinkstock and it looks like a significant portion of istock buyers have been moved over there.  It's not much fun seeing your earnings dip and not being able to get back to the highs.  The fact that the UK government has devalued its currency while inflation is relatively high really magnifies the problem for me.  I know it's the same in lots of countries around the world.

I'm sure if I was an exclusive with istock, I wouldn't even look at this forum.  It was never an option for me to go exclusive, as the financial side didn't add up and I also don't want nearly all my income coming from one site.

There is too much istock bashing here but it's an open forum and I don't really see much point in complaining about something that isn't going to stop.  I'm sure if istock/Getty raised commissions and made the search neutral for non-exclusive and exclusives, people would change their attitude towards them.  I'm not holding my breath.

« Reply #245 on: June 14, 2011, 03:36 »
0
Thank you MR PaulieWalnuts for expressing my exact thoughts and saving me a lot of time and trouble articulating them.

+1

I still come here out of habit, but its getting to the stage that its become a daily dose of depressant. There's always been a bit of a negative sentiment around, but being so consistently negative isn't really healthy for anyone.

« Reply #246 on: June 14, 2011, 05:52 »
0
+1

I still come here out of habit, but its getting to the stage that its become a daily dose of depressant. There's always been a bit of a negative sentiment around, but being so consistently negative isn't really healthy for anyone.

+1

If you take a look at my recent posts you will see that I don't post as often as I used to either. Funny thing is, I posted something positive in my post above! Unfortunately, it isn't true, but then you guys aren't asking for truth, you're asking for positivity!

I don't think you have looked at each and every one of my posts either, or you will have seen some positivity. The post before this one, I think, was one where I said "no" to the question "are all your images getting mass rejections on shutterstock". That's a positive thing!

I have every right to post anything I like, just as you all do. You all complain about negativity towards istock, yet here you are, after complaining over and over, reading the istock posts again! You know they aren't likely to be positive, yet you still come and put people down and name call. If negativity isn't healthy, then go do positive things yourself! You're putting people down negatively because they are negative!  ::)

lagereek

« Reply #247 on: June 14, 2011, 05:56 »
0
Not negativity really, its more frustration, venting frustration over something we cant controle, not even with our magnificent uploads. The power of the picture, stops right there.

« Reply #248 on: June 14, 2011, 09:52 »
0
Thank you MR PaulieWalnuts for expressing my exact thoughts and saving me a lot of time and trouble articulating them.

+1

I still come here out of habit, but its getting to the stage that its become a daily dose of depressant. There's always been a bit of a negative sentiment around, but being so consistently negative isn't really healthy for anyone.
And now we get people being negative about the negativity :)

« Reply #249 on: June 14, 2011, 11:26 »
0
Thank you MR PaulieWalnuts for expressing my exact thoughts and saving me a lot of time and trouble articulating them.

+1

I still come here out of habit, but its getting to the stage that its become a daily dose of depressant. There's always been a bit of a negative sentiment around, but being so consistently negative isn't really healthy for anyone.
And now we get people being negative about the negativity :)

Multiplying two negatives makes a positive.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
6556 Views
Last post June 03, 2010, 11:32
by Opla
5 Replies
3989 Views
Last post March 17, 2011, 07:50
by ProArtwork
7 Replies
2649 Views
Last post August 14, 2013, 17:34
by KB
7 Replies
1678 Views
Last post March 30, 2017, 17:37
by Sean Locke Photography
46 Replies
7419 Views
Last post November 07, 2018, 12:32
by Microstock Man

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors