pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Did a Test at IStock  (Read 33568 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

ShadySue

« Reply #125 on: August 19, 2009, 16:02 »
0
they can get an editor they like to work with

?
Yup, I agreed with Jonathan's post overall, but didn't understand this bit either.


SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #126 on: August 19, 2009, 16:14 »
0
we don't get to choose the editor/reviewer/inspector or whatever you wish to call them. but otherwise Jonathan, I would agree with what you are saying. and I would also argue that most of the energy spent here complaining and speculating about istock standards and their 'unfair' policies would be better spent learning how to improve images and perhaps on a few self-esteem courses. insecurity makes people awfully nasty and defensive.

« Reply #127 on: August 19, 2009, 16:16 »
0
My experience with inspections pre and post exclusive. Before I went exclusive I had a 55% acceptance, and after going exclusive it jumped to about 80% on recent uploads. HOWEVER...

I used to do a lot of walk around photography and frequently had lighting/focus issues. I have a strong personal preference for dark and moody imagery. After going exclusive, with 50 slots a week to fill, I started doing almost exclusively isolated on white studio work with a good lighting kit (three Bowens strobes, seamless, etc.) Pretty hard to get that wrong once you know how to clean up the background. The walk around shots I do now get nearly as many rejections for lighing, focus etc as before. Also, with a real opportunity to grow my portfolio, I tackled a few issues that I hadn't bothered with before, and I'm now better at producing stock style imagery.

« Reply #128 on: August 19, 2009, 17:04 »
0
And mine - prior to going exclusive, I had acceptance rates varying between 45% and 89% per month, an average of about 74%.

Since going exclusive, it's varied between 53% and 91% per month, and is currently averaging about - oh wow - 74%.

So not much change there then...

I don't buy all these theories.
« Last Edit: August 19, 2009, 17:10 by Gannet77 »

« Reply #129 on: August 19, 2009, 17:41 »
0
Hi All,

 I also agree that I don't think Istock is as tough as people make them out to be between on how they treat their non exclusives vs. their exclusives. They offer some perks to exclusives like larger uploads and they can get an editor they like to work with but I don't believe higher acceptance rate is part of that package. I have been seeing my acceptance rate at Istock increase more and more as we have added files and learned what to do on our back end to meet their technical needs. All these agencies have different standards that others, some tighter than others. The trick is listening to them and finding a way to fix what isn't working. My last istock upload was 100% accepted and when I started it was down at 65% or something of that nature. The more you listen to your agencies requests I think you will find higher acceptance rates. My 2 cents.

Best,
Jonathan

I agree 100%

« Reply #130 on: August 19, 2009, 20:59 »
0
 Hi All,

 Please excuse me for my mistake on the editor part. That was how it was explained to me by Istock but I must have misunderstood. I was under the impression If you found an editor or editors you liked as an exclusive that you could request to work with that editor in the future, my error.
 Other than that I hope I got the rest correct. Ask someone who is exclusive when in doubt. Some will help you out and correct the misinformation but others might just question you without explanation, depends on the person. Thanks to those that explained the system clearer to me about Istock standards.
 Oh and after all this time I found this awesome button that let's you block anyone you want on this site if they seem to consistently badger your posts. Great tool, wish I had found it a year ago ;D

Best,
Jonathan
« Last Edit: August 19, 2009, 21:02 by Jonathan Ross »

« Reply #131 on: August 19, 2009, 21:09 »
0
Hi All,

 I also agree that I don't think Istock is as tough as people make them out to be between on how they treat their non exclusives vs. their exclusives.


I have no doubt that istock gives some preference in acceptance criteria for exclusives ... but so what? We know what the "rules" are going in ... if you choose exclusivity you get certain perks. If you choose not to be exclusive, you don't. I suspect the main difference in acceptance likely comes down to the close calls ... if the image is borderline from an acceptance viewpoint, an exclusive image will be accepted. If you are not exclusive it probably won't be. And I would argue that is somewhat fair given that non-exclusives can have their images elsewhere ... and sure mistakes get made and people have differing opinions. Bit it is what it is ...

The bottom line is that istock does not require a valid reason to ban somebody - they can ban anybody they want (assuming they are not being banned for race, gender etc reasons -  then there may be a legal argument otherwise) - submitters do not have a right to membership. Istock could wake up one day and say - I hate that Hoi Ha - no reason, just don't like her/him ... and they could ban me. Now I don't think they would do that cause it makes no business sense ... but they could if they wanted to provided they cut me a cheque for whatever may be in my account and deactivated all my images ... fortunately most of these sites have enough business sense not to behave this way ... but our "rights" are very few indeed ... and that is the way it should be. Isn't it?


« Reply #132 on: August 19, 2009, 21:50 »
0
How can we help or do something that iStock return Rinders porfolio live???
Why they are doing that destructive things???
Where is they mathematics in first place???
He, like most of nonexlusives earn only 20% and on every his sales iStock earned 80% doing nothing??? For me this seams like that they dont need money.
Evolution is in this case very strange thing.
First like designers little djevery thing and now they are looked for nonexclusives in manner FuckU all.

Anyhow in this case some reviewer must have doggystile pose to explain what is going wrong in booth cases (eg. why he reject Laurin photos in first place which made him "mad" to prove what happens in second place)

Anyhow seems that reviewers are trash can employees for them and I dont care of them in the same manner.

I really dont undestand whatever big you are (iStock under getty shelter) and dont even think about that to admit they mistake.


If you want that kind of killing spree, kill my account and make Rinders acc live again.
Suljo

« Reply #133 on: August 19, 2009, 22:09 »
0
Some will help you out and correct the misinformation but others might just question you without explanation, depends on the person. Thanks to those that explained the system clearer to me about Istock standards.

I know this may be confusing to you Jonathan, but a question mark is usually used when someone doesn't understand what you've posted.  ie. "I don't understand what this means".

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #134 on: August 19, 2009, 22:17 »
0
okay, I'm sorry...but is this suljo person for real? do I really have to wade through posts like that ALL the time just to get information on this site? I suppose that is the price we pay to speak freely, less moderation = more info and more idiocy I guess.

« Reply #135 on: August 19, 2009, 22:29 »
0
okay, I'm sorry...but is this suljo person for real? do I really have to wade through posts like that ALL the time just to get information on this site? I suppose that is the price we pay to speak freely, less moderation = more info and more idiocy I guess.

lOOk
Suljo is REAL person and have same name and same avatar on other sites.
if you dont realize or easy find that search by photographers name on big 6 or more. (how they says PERIOD)
« Last Edit: August 19, 2009, 22:31 by Suljo »

bittersweet

« Reply #136 on: August 19, 2009, 22:31 »
0
okay, I'm sorry...but is this suljo person for real? do I really have to wade through posts like that ALL the time just to get information on this site? I suppose that is the price we pay to speak freely, less moderation = more info and more idiocy I guess.
No, the quick fix is to click on the "ignore" button and future posts by this person will be collapsed from your view. Then you will have the choice of skipping past or taking a peek. :)

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #137 on: August 19, 2009, 22:43 »
0
thank you....done

« Reply #138 on: August 20, 2009, 01:29 »
0
The web is so PC these days. In the heyday of usenet one put posters one didn't like into the KILLFILE. Very aggressive those Unix admin types. The usual final comment was plonk.

« Reply #139 on: August 20, 2009, 01:46 »
0
The web is so PC these days. In the heyday of usenet one put posters one didn't like into the KILLFILE. Very aggressive those Unix admin types. The usual final comment was plonk.


Ah yes, tis a kinder and gentler interweb ere the one a fore it  ;D

Microbius

« Reply #140 on: August 20, 2009, 02:20 »
0
How can we help or do something that iStock return Rinders porfolio live???
Why they are doing that destructive things???
Where is they mathematics in first place???
He, like most of nonexlusives earn only 20% and on every his sales iStock earned 80% doing nothing??? For me this seams like that they dont need money.
Sheesh

I think you may need to reread this thread.

This isn't the SS forums and that stuff ain't gonna fly here. What's so strange about closing the portfolio of someone who has never earned much for the site and has gone out of their way to damage your reputation?

Why not write to IS and ask them to disable your portfolio in exchange for Rinder's? They probably would refuse in any case because I'm sure you sell better there then Laurin ever has.

michealo

« Reply #141 on: August 20, 2009, 04:10 »
0
Hi All,

 I also agree that I don't think Istock is as tough as people make them out to be between on how they treat their non exclusives vs. their exclusives. They offer some perks to exclusives like larger uploads and they can get an editor they like to work with but I don't believe higher acceptance rate is part of that package. I have been seeing my acceptance rate at Istock increase more and more as we have added files and learned what to do on our back end to meet their technical needs. All these agencies have different standards that others, some tighter than others. The trick is listening to them and finding a way to fix what isn't working. My last istock upload was 100% accepted and when I started it was down at 65% or something of that nature. The more you listen to your agencies requests I think you will find higher acceptance rates. My 2 cents.

Best,
Jonathan

Jonathan I agree and I thing your approach is more business like than many photographers here, you get that IS or indeed any site does not want to reject images, they would much rather get a good saleable image, approve it and have it make money for them.


« Reply #142 on: August 20, 2009, 04:25 »
0
Hi All,

 I also agree that I don't think Istock is as tough as people make them out to be between on how they treat their non exclusives vs. their exclusives.


I have no doubt that istock gives some preference in acceptance criteria for exclusives ... but so what?
<snip>


I don't know where you get this opinion;  it's already been stated by myself and another exclusive that they don't see any significant preference in their rates of acceptance before and after becoming exclusive, and I've never seen any say otherwise though obviously other peoples experience may be different.

Certainly I've had images accepted which, on reflection, I don't think really make the grade - both before and after exclusivity.  I've also had rejections on images that I thought were just as good as others that were accepted, again, both before and after.  And I've had acceptances on images that were rejected by other agencies, though obviously only before being exclusive.

And there's no direct correlation between being exclusive and great images - of course you'll see lots of mediocre images going through the exclusive queue, the exclusive criteria don't require you to produce better images, only to sell a certain amount. If you're anywhere near competent with a camera you will reach that limit sooner or later, maybe in only a couple of months if you're very good, maybe in a year or whatever, but you'll get there.


« Reply #143 on: August 20, 2009, 04:32 »
0
There is a positive side to the rejections for non-exclusives.  istock must of rejected hundreds of thousands of big selling images because they don't like the over filtered look and most non vector illustrations.  These are doing well on some of the other sites and will stop people going exclusive and istock dominating the market.  Perhaps we should be celebrating every time we see a reject :)

They also accept shallow focus photos that sell well and get rejected by shutterstock.  Those that say all the sites sell the same images should take a closer look.

« Reply #144 on: August 20, 2009, 05:20 »
0


I have no doubt that istock gives some preference in acceptance criteria for exclusives ... but so what?
<snip>

[/quote]

I don't know where you get this opinion;  it's already been stated by myself and another exclusive that they don't see any significant preference in their rates of acceptance before and after becoming exclusive, and I've never seen any say otherwise though obviously other peoples experience may be different.

[/quote]

Because I used to be exclusive then gave it up ... but as mentioned I don't have a problem with that - assuming there are no major technical issues with an image, IS will accept what in their view is saleable ... they are not going to reject an image that could sell just because the person is not exclusive. But where the image might be borderline - say it is yet another image of a flower - I think the exclusive will likely have it accepted and the non-exclusive likely not. Again this is fair in my view as the non-exclusive has other options ...

« Reply #145 on: August 20, 2009, 05:41 »
0


I have no doubt that istock gives some preference in acceptance criteria for exclusives ... but so what?
<snip>


I don't know where you get this opinion;  it's already been stated by myself and another exclusive that they don't see any significant preference in their rates of acceptance before and after becoming exclusive, and I've never seen any say otherwise though obviously other peoples experience may be different.

[/quote]

Because I used to be exclusive then gave it up ... but as mentioned I don't have a problem with that - assuming there are no major technical issues with an image, IS will accept what in their view is saleable ... they are not going to reject an image that could sell just because the person is not exclusive. But where the image might be borderline - say it is yet another image of a flower - I think the exclusive will likely have it accepted and the non-exclusive likely not. Again this is fair in my view as the non-exclusive has other options ...
[/quote]

Fair enough!  Not my experience though.

« Reply #146 on: August 20, 2009, 06:04 »
0
deleted
« Last Edit: August 20, 2009, 06:13 by Phil »

lisafx

« Reply #147 on: August 20, 2009, 09:12 »
0
I would not be a bit surprised if istock did favor exclusive contributors a bit on borderline images.  That seems fair to me.  They have no other outlet for their images. 

However I don't think a 3 image sample, or even the 10 image sample given in the OP are anywhere near large enough to prove anything. 

Jonathan is right that through trial and error, paying attention to rejection reasons,  and a lot of work anyone can improve their acceptance rate at any agency. 

And for the most part istock's reviews are still among the most consistent and logical in the business.

abimages

« Reply #148 on: August 20, 2009, 10:36 »
0


And for the most part istock's reviews are still among the most consistent and logical in the business.

Gotta agree with you there!

« Reply #149 on: August 20, 2009, 10:47 »
0
I would not be a bit surprised if istock did favor exclusive contributors a bit on borderline images.  That seems fair to me.  They have no other outlet for their images. 

However I don't think a 3 image sample, or even the 10 image sample given in the OP are anywhere near large enough to prove anything. 

Jonathan is right that through trial and error, paying attention to rejection reasons,  and a lot of work anyone can improve their acceptance rate at any agency. 

And for the most part istock's reviews are still among the most consistent and logical in the business.

Maybe they do - but Hoi Ha is the first posting I've seen to actually state that as personal experience, every other time I've seen it mentioned it appears to be just speculation.

Personally I don't think they should, and as I said it isn't my experience that they do, but obviously I'd be arguing against my own best interests there!  In fact, ideally I would think the submitter should be anonymous to the reviewer, but I have no idea if that is in fact the case.

Otherwise yes, most certainly, paying attention to rejection reasons and learning from them is the way to go.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
11 Replies
4810 Views
Last post July 16, 2011, 20:52
by Will Dutt
55 Replies
10289 Views
Last post August 16, 2011, 16:06
by Suljo
6 Replies
1203 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
2849 Views
Last post April 23, 2013, 07:23
by archibald1221

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results