pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Did a Test at IStock  (Read 33590 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

rinderart

« on: August 18, 2009, 00:46 »
0
OK, well I've been with them since the beginning, Im sick of the silly ignorant rejections. I sent a friend of mine 10 Images that were rejected for  You know   "Over filtered" the only thing I think they teach them. i dont use filters so It's always funny.   Anyway He's Exclusive and has all the little BS hats, crowns and stuff they give you. He submitted them and Bingo all 10 approved. there ya go. Your Mileage may vary. I'll just submit through Him from now on. for what they pay, Who in . are they Kidding?


nruboc

« Reply #1 on: August 18, 2009, 01:12 »
-1
OK, well I've been with them since the beginning, Im sick of the silly ignorant rejections. I sent a friend of mine 10 Images that were rejected for  You know   "Over filtered" the only thing I think they teach them. i dont use filters so It's always funny.   Anyway He's Exclusive and has all the little BS hats, crowns and stuff they give you. He submitted them and Bingo all 10 approved. there ya go. Your Mileage may vary. I'll just submit through Him from now on. for what they pay, Who in . are they Kidding?

Sometimes I look at the exclusive only cue, and chuckle to myself what exclusives can get through. However, the last thing I would do, would be to send them to a friend who is exclusive, thereby negating my ability to send to other sites.

Let IStock self-destruct by themselves, whenever a customer searches on a competitors site, and finds what they need, that they were unable to find on IStock, the more likely they will do it again in the future.

Xalanx

« Reply #2 on: August 18, 2009, 01:51 »
0
what I learned about istock as a non-exclusive is to:
- do not send series larger than 2-3 photos. I sent for example about 7 shots from an ancient castle in mountains, a very popular travel destination and after accepting 3 of them, they started seeing noise and artefacts in the rest of the shots. Which were with the same settings, same day, same camera and same lens
- pay attention to the CV. It's horror, but you ought to.

« Reply #3 on: August 18, 2009, 02:20 »
0
>...
<...
Let IStock self-destruct by themselves, whenever a customer searches on a competitors site, and finds what they need, that they were unable to find on IStock, the more likely they will do it again in the future.

Is this not the same argument the exclusives will use, "they can go to the other big sites find the exact same images including most of those rejected by istock, all sites, same images, same artists at different price points, how frustrating for the buyers, then they can come to istock and find quality exclusive content, and more likely they will do it again in the future".

I am not a contributor to Istock so I have no hidden agenda, but your comment does not make sense, if I am looking for a specific images what is the point of me looking on many websites and only seeing the same 100 images for my search time and time again, when I find a website that has some of the better images I have already seen and a few more good images that were not on any of the other websites where will I look next time I want a image?

It is more possible that the other 'open door' websites will self-destruct by presenting almost the exact same set of images for a search as thier rivals, then to one that will win would be the cheapest, and the only way to be the cheapest is by lowering commisions. 


David  ;)

« Reply #4 on: August 18, 2009, 02:21 »
+1
I don't think they just mean filters on the lens, it is also what you do in photoshop.  Some reviewers are more lenient than others and it does get frustrating.  

Singing over my copyright to an exclusive just to get them accepted doesn't seem like a good solution.  Just remove a bit of saturation for istock and keep sending rejections to scout.  It is funny that lots of their best selling images should of been rejected for over filtration, if all the reviewers had the same strict standards.

« Reply #5 on: August 18, 2009, 03:07 »
0
ditto what sharpshot said.

taking it easy on the curves is also a way to reduce 'filters'

I have recently been downsizing most of my istock submissions and have had much better luck getting them accepted.  A shame they have to be a smaller file, but much better than getting rejects all the time.

Sergey

    This user is banned.
« Reply #6 on: August 18, 2009, 03:28 »
0
IStock is right.

i've never seen so many overphotoshopped images like on micros.
you'll hardly find anything "normal", even a simply postcard style
picture with a sky and a mountain will need to have purple layers
in the clouds and oversharpened rocks and ice on the mountain
with more sh-it layered here and there to add more fakeness to
whole composition.

and colors .. gosh .. you'll hardly find a picture on micros with normal
colors .. everything must be oversaturated by default .. grass is always
supergreen, sky is as blue as a diving pool, flowers are booming in a lysergic
raimbow ...

what ?

« Reply #7 on: August 18, 2009, 03:43 »
+1
^^^and these sell really well, that is why you see so many.

Xalanx

« Reply #8 on: August 18, 2009, 03:51 »
+1
^^^and these sell really well, that is why you see so many.

Exactly. And requires (again) talent in photoshop.

« Reply #9 on: August 18, 2009, 04:18 »
0
i've never seen so many overphotoshopped images like on micros.
you'll hardly find anything "normal", even a simply postcard style
picture with a sky and a mountain will need to have purple layers
in the clouds and oversharpened rocks and ice on the mountain
with more sh-it layered here and there to add more fakeness to
whole composition.

and colors .. gosh .. you'll hardly find a picture on micros with normal
colors .. everything must be oversaturated by default .. grass is always
supergreen, sky is as blue as a diving pool, flowers are booming in a lysergic
raimbow ...

what ?
You obviously know precious little about stock photography if you think that the majority of buyers want 'normal' colours and saturation! It doesn't work like that, never has, never will. Stock images need to have maximum visual impact and you don't get that with everything looking 'normal'. Same with Getty, Corbis, etc.

« Reply #10 on: August 18, 2009, 04:52 »
+1
Im sick of the silly ignorant rejections. I sent a friend of mine 10 Images that were rejected for  You know   "Over filtered" the only thing I think they teach them. i dont use filters so It's always funny.   Anyway He's Exclusive and has all the little BS hats, crowns and stuff they give you. He submitted them and Bingo all 10 approved. there ya go. Your Mileage may vary. I'll just submit through Him from now on. for what they pay, Who in . are they Kidding?

Believe me, ignorant rejections are not in the sole ownership of non exclusives.

For example I posted in a thread on istock this week, I had a series of images of a stormy sea rejected for 'noise', this after a previous image of the same subject in a previous storm had been an IOTW and a  "punctum" finalist. I got them overturned and since then 3 were sent to 'vetta' and one was published in istocks recent coffee table charity book.

Only this week images made from the same source material to be in the same series as ones that sold in their thousands last year were rejected as non suitable for stock.

It's easy to be paranoid, but when you're dealing with poorly paid conveyer belt human inspectors snafus and stupidity is commonplace.

« Reply #11 on: August 18, 2009, 04:58 »
+1
It's easy to be paranoid, but when you're dealing with poorly paid conveyer belt human inspectors snafus and stupidity is commonplace.

Unfortunately that's the truth.

As they say "Those who can, do; those who can't, inspect". There's a very good reason why virtually none of the major players on IS are inspectors.

« Reply #12 on: August 18, 2009, 05:15 »
0
It's easy to be paranoid, but when you're dealing with poorly paid conveyer belt human inspectors snafus and stupidity is commonplace.

Unfortunately that's the truth.

As they say "Those who can, do; those who can't, inspect". There's a very good reason why virtually none of the major players on IS are inspectors.
lisegagne? spxchrome? - only black diamonds but I guess that doesn't count for much (and yes admins do inspect). mevans (190000), aldra (110000) - no doubt quite a few others, these are just off the top of my head.
« Last Edit: August 18, 2009, 05:19 by averil »

Sergey

    This user is banned.
« Reply #13 on: August 18, 2009, 05:22 »
+1
wrong.

on RM there's plenty of unphotoshopped images that sell.
the reason is simple : the authors managed to get the shot looking good
in the first place just with a normal polarizer and a correct exposure and
catching the right light at the right moment.

besides, you won't see all those oversaturated images in normal
travel magazines for instance, you only see them in photographic magazines
where photgs showoff and agree with each other, see the new fad about HDR
which is the ultimate heresy in photography.

reality is already very colorful by itself, it your pictures are washed out is because maybe
you're more a photoshopper than a photographer ... which once again reminds me of my rant about how much time you guys waste on photoshop instead of making saleable pictures straight out of the camera.

michealo

« Reply #14 on: August 18, 2009, 05:37 »
0
Quote
It's easy to be paranoid, but when you're dealing with poorly paid conveyer belt human inspectors snafus and stupidity is commonplace.

I'm sorry but I don't agree with your assessment of IS inspectors.

My experience is that they are fair, and highly skilled. And that is both as a non exclusive and an exclusive.




« Reply #15 on: August 18, 2009, 05:40 »
0
on RM there's plenty of unphotoshopped images that sell.
the reason is simple : the authors managed to get the shot looking good
in the first place just with a normal polarizer and a correct exposure and
catching the right light at the right moment.

Seriously, will you shut up with this?  There is an entire world of images that sell, from more illustrative photoshopped images to straight out of the camera.  Both on microstock, and other licensing models. There is no need to constantly hype on your technology phobia every chance you get.

« Reply #16 on: August 18, 2009, 05:41 »
0
IStock is right.

i've never seen so many overphotoshopped images like on micros.
you'll hardly find anything "normal", even a simply postcard style
picture with a sky and a mountain will need to have purple layers
in the clouds and oversharpened rocks and ice on the mountain
with more sh-it layered here and there to add more fakeness to
whole composition.

and colors .. gosh .. you'll hardly find a picture on micros with normal
colors .. everything must be oversaturated by default .. grass is always
supergreen, sky is as blue as a diving pool, flowers are booming in a lysergic
raimbow ...

what ?

Sergey, I already posted once several IS exclusive images that are super-oversaturated, plus filtered in totally unnatural filter, plus they are sold more than 1000 times. In the same time we get rejections for oversaturation and overfiltering for some slightly altered images. SO, you are not right when you say that IS images look always natural. If you don't believe me, just type "sunset, beach" in IS search box, and click search button. You will see that all images with flames are oversaturated, and some of them have even green sky and yellow water....not just blue.


« Reply #17 on: August 18, 2009, 05:41 »
+2
OK, well I've been with them since the beginning, Im sick of the silly ignorant rejections. I sent a friend of mine 10 Images that were rejected for  You know   "Over filtered" the only thing I think they teach them. i dont use filters so It's always funny.   Anyway He's Exclusive and has all the little BS hats, crowns and stuff they give you. He submitted them and Bingo all 10 approved. there ya go. Your Mileage may vary. I'll just submit through Him from now on. for what they pay, Who in . are they Kidding?

I'm sure support would love to hear about your friend submitting images he doesn't own the copyright for.  Perhaps you'd like to pass your experience on to them?

Or post them here for critique?

Sergey

    This user is banned.
« Reply #18 on: August 18, 2009, 06:04 »
+1
RM is full of unedited images because there are buyers who need do to THEIR OWN editing afterwards and this couldnt be possible or very limited starting from an overphotoshopped image.

yellow water/green sky ? you can do that with any 20$ polarizer filter, but it will not look as fake as if done with PS, that's the difference.

buyers loving oversaturation are the ones who obviously have a tight budget and need something "done" to use right away.

serious buyers, the ones with $$$, always go RM and have their own photo editors.

it's not technology phobia, it's you guys who are born in the digital world and think there was nothing before digital and PS, believe it or not there are plenty of guys making big $$ shooting film (yes !) and b/w with ancient Leicas both in stock RM as in artistic photography and much more.

but as micros are very limited in their offering they only accept oversaturations etc
so now you're sort of thinking one-way ...

in fact the many microstockers who tried their luck with Getty etc and got rejected had to realize the fact
they shoot "micro" the hard way.



« Reply #19 on: August 18, 2009, 06:12 »
0
wrong.

on RM there's plenty of unphotoshopped images that sell.
the reason is simple : the authors managed to get the shot looking good
in the first place just with a normal polarizer and a correct exposure and
catching the right light at the right moment.

besides, you won't see all those oversaturated images in normal
travel magazines for instance, you only see them in photographic magazines
where photgs showoff and agree with each other, see the new fad about HDR
which is the ultimate heresy in photography.

reality is already very colorful by itself, it your pictures are washed out is because maybe
you're more a photoshopper than a photographer ... which once again reminds me of my rant about how much time you guys waste on photoshop instead of making saleable pictures straight out of the camera.
There are also plenty of photoshopped images that sell on the macros and I have seen loads in magazines and holiday brochures.  And it only takes seconds to add a bit of saturation.  Digital camera files can look a bit dull compared to slide film, so I don't see much problem with adding a bit of saturation.  Some people go way over the top but if it makes them money and is what the buyer wants, as is often clearly the case, they shouldn't be criticized.

« Reply #20 on: August 18, 2009, 07:22 »
0
<...
>...
RM is full of unedited images because there are buyers who need do to THEIR OWN editing afterwards and this couldnt be possible or very limited starting from an overphotoshopped image.

Sergey, from what I read you shoot photojournalism, social documentry and travel, and when you are shooting or talking RM you would have editorial in mind, lets look at Alamy where they sell over 80% editorial and RM, in a lot of editorial area's any image manipulation other than slight adjustments of levels would get you 'No Sales', and has got the editor fired more than once from thier jobs, so it is horses for courses, what works for one area of the stock business is a no-no to another.

Commercial images for advertising and advertorial are often enhanced as they are trying to sell something and make you dream of the blue skys and hot summer days, where your gritty type of social documentry and editorial would look silly enhanced as the images are meant to be realistic and bring the hard reality home to the reader.

The oversaturated images are not replacing your social documentry images and affecting your bottom line, on the other hand if the oversaturated travel images are hurting your revenue, then maybe you need to look at how you can enhance your travel images.

David  ;)

Sergey

    This user is banned.
« Reply #21 on: August 18, 2009, 08:04 »
0
There are also plenty of photoshopped images that sell on the macros and I have seen loads in magazines and holiday brochures.  And it only takes seconds to add a bit of saturation.  Digital camera files can look a bit dull compared to slide film, so I don't see much problem with adding a bit of saturation.  Some people go way over the top but if it makes them money and is what the buyer wants, as is often clearly the case, they shouldn't be criticized.

wrong wrong wrong again.

RM costs more because is mainly targeted at PRINT.

print is not RGB, it's CMYK, that's why it's important to start from images
as neutral as they can, provided they're very good already regarding colors
as the conversion RGB->CMYK almost always will screw up some gamut range
and you will need to recalibrate etc

the photoshopped RMs you see around are there because the buyers decided
they like 'em that way but this is not the norm in the industry.

digital files vs film : no no no, if they look washed out is because you
shoot in AUTO mode or never set correctly exposure contrast and saturation
or use crappy UV/polarizers.

digital can be extremely saturated if you want, all looking much more natural
than with PS, it's up to you but you see nowadays people shoot almost everything AUTO
with bad lights and bad weather and then complain their pictures suck.

the only thing film is still superior is about resolution and dynamic range.

people just go out of their way because they have uncalibrated monitors,
they're maybe also a bit daltonic or need new eyeglasses, or simply because
they've no idea their camera can be setup in 100s different ways and produce
excellent images without any need for postprocessing.

this may sound amazing to some of you but until few years ago
photographers were supposed to make perfect shoots with just
film and uv/polarizer and their 30 yrs-old photos are still selling
on RM even now in 2009.

and finally, oversaturated crap sells fine because buyers have usually very gross and bad tastes.


« Reply #22 on: August 18, 2009, 08:06 »
0
RM is full of unedited images because there are buyers who need do to THEIR OWN editing afterwards and this couldnt be possible or very limited starting from an overphotoshopped image.

yellow water/green sky ? you can do that with any 20$ polarizer filter, but it will not look as fake as if done with PS, that's the difference.

buyers loving oversaturation are the ones who obviously have a tight budget and need something "done" to use right away.

serious buyers, the ones with $$$, always go RM and have their own photo editors.

it's not technology phobia, it's you guys who are born in the digital world and think there was nothing before digital and PS, believe it or not there are plenty of guys making big $$ shooting film (yes !) and b/w with ancient Leicas both in stock RM as in artistic photography and much more.

but as micros are very limited in their offering they only accept oversaturations etc
so now you're sort of thinking one-way ...

in fact the many microstockers who tried their luck with Getty etc and got rejected had to realize the fact
they shoot "micro" the hard way.




Do you hear yourself?? What RM? Which buyers with real $$$?? We talk here about microstock and images for few dollars, not $$$. We talk here about buyers who want cheap images. Who asked you about RM and expensive images?
The image with green sky and yellow sea is not made using real filter. It's made using PS and that's very obvious.

Rinder, I think you did right no matter you gave images with your copyright to another person. You wanted to prove inconsistence in reviewing regarding exclusives/non-exclusives, and you proved it. It was brave of you to post it here, but the truth is on your side.

Sergey

    This user is banned.
« Reply #23 on: August 18, 2009, 08:16 »
0
<...
>...
RM is full of unedited images because there are buyers who need do to THEIR OWN editing afterwards and this couldnt be possible or very limited starting from an overphotoshopped image.

Sergey, from what I read you shoot photojournalism, social documentry and travel, and when you are shooting or talking RM you would have editorial in mind, lets look at Alamy where they sell over 80% editorial and RM, in a lot of editorial area's any image manipulation other than slight adjustments of levels would get you 'No Sales', and has got the editor fired more than once from thier jobs, so it is horses for courses, what works for one area of the stock business is a no-no to another.

Commercial images for advertising and advertorial are often enhanced as they are trying to sell something and make you dream of the blue skys and hot summer days, where your gritty type of social documentry and editorial would look silly enhanced as the images are meant to be realistic and bring the hard reality home to the reader.

The oversaturated images are not replacing your social documentry images and affecting your bottom line, on the other hand if the oversaturated travel images are hurting your revenue, then maybe you need to look at how you can enhance your travel images.

David  ;)

yeah but let's then look at travel advertising :

i don't see all this oversaturation with swimming pools, beaches, and bikinis...
they look vivid because they ARE vivid in the real world ...

maybe you guys are used to shoot washed out images and then think it is "normal"
to waste 1 hour with PS to revive your photos one by one and then in the meantime
add too much saturation here and there...

the typical travel advertisement is hardly oversaturated, as they preserve the reds
and yellow for the sales message, logos, and promotional text, which can not and should not
be colorfully put in second place by the photo itself.

i'm not affected by oversaturations in my field, not at all, i'm just disgusted by the trends
i see in other fields related to travel, temples and monuments for instance now are mostly
super vivd explodiing with sunsets etc etc i don't get it, it's a temple not a circus or fireworks ...

i'm of the idea that people need PS so badly because their pictures suck
and they suck because they're not real photographers, i.e. not able to make
a perfect shooting without the help of PS.

let's face it : NONE of you guys would have ever started selling photos without
the help of PS, all your pictures would have been miserably and rightfully rejected.

Sergey

    This user is banned.
« Reply #24 on: August 18, 2009, 08:25 »
0

Do you hear yourself?? What RM? Which buyers with real $$$?? We talk here about microstock and images for few dollars, not $$$. We talk here about buyers who want cheap images. Who asked you about RM and expensive images?
The image with green sky and yellow sea is not made using real filter. It's made using PS and that's very obvious.

Rinder, I think you did right no matter you gave images with your copyright to another person. You wanted to prove inconsistence in reviewing regarding exclusives/non-exclusives, and you proved it. It was brave of you to post it here, but the truth is on your side.

then you're an amateur.

learn to use polarizer filters and you can make the water green or yellow or orange and the sky green or purple or whatever in between, and much much more, that's been the norm since the times of Ansel Adams who was using b/w by the way so go figure.

and you need more contrast ? use the camera, and it will look ten times better than with PS.

more grain ? same as above ?
more sharpness ? ditto.

color dots ? selective out of focus ? gradients ? use filters on the lens, as any other pro does since the rock age.

you guys crack me up ... if being a photographer is all about PS you better get another hobby.
what i enlisted so far are the very BASICS of photography, and it's more fun than messing with a laptop and PS for hours.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
11 Replies
4815 Views
Last post July 16, 2011, 20:52
by Will Dutt
55 Replies
10294 Views
Last post August 16, 2011, 16:06
by Suljo
6 Replies
1208 Views
Last post December 17, 2012, 14:16
by WarrenPrice
6 Replies
1589 Views
Last post January 15, 2013, 03:49
by sdeva
12 Replies
2851 Views
Last post April 23, 2013, 07:23
by archibald1221

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results