MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Did a Test at IStock  (Read 33581 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: August 18, 2009, 08:35 »
0
wrong wrong wrong again.

RM costs more because is mainly targeted at PRINT.

Wrong, wrong again, old hippy.

RM may cost more (than another image license) because it is priced based on usage.  It may also cost less.  You may find RM sales on Alamy as low as $10.  You may also find them much higher than that.

Ok, your turn for another unfounded rant.


« Reply #26 on: August 18, 2009, 08:37 »
0
Sergey, I have to tell you this (which is not my style at all, and everyone will confirm that), but dude, you are full of crap. You can say what you want, and you can insult other people as much as you want, but you sound empty like a empty canister. I will quote some of your statements here:

"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."

Buyers don't decide, reviewers do.

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

Doesn't matter. Buyers "buy" and that's the most important thing. Also, buyers have taste and they know what they need. They don't learn from you.

"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 ... "

Or maybe you should consider visiting ophthalmologist.

"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... "

When you say this you sound like you have no idea what is PS for. For this adjustments, one need 5-15 seconds in PS.

"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 ..."

From which century are you actually?

Look at this image. It's sold more than 1000 times. Tell me, can you do it using polarized filter? Look at the light blue tint over water. Does it look natural? Does it look like it's straight from the camera? But it's selling, and it's selling very good! And buyers love it!


And I like it also! We are talking here about rejections for overfiltering. We don't talk about your analog v.s. digital crap. Thank God IS have scout. He/she accepted all my images rejected for overfiltering.
« Last Edit: August 18, 2009, 08:47 by Whitechild »

« Reply #27 on: August 18, 2009, 08:55 »
0
^^^ Save your time and your breath for more important things.

Sergey is just a troll from the Alamy forums (as Screwgle & Screwgle2) who has been kicked out and so now comes here. They've deleted most of his posts too, some of them since yesterday, but a few of his witterings still exist on this link (supplied by one of our senior members who has excellent troll-hunting skills);

http://www.google.com/search?q=screwgle+site%3Aalamy.com

According to his posts on Alamy he "... knew nothing about stock until a few months ago ..." which is self-evident from what he writes here in the guise of 'expert old-timer'.

« Reply #28 on: August 18, 2009, 09:08 »
0
Rejections are just so random I would be nuts to go exclusive with any one site. At IS I just had one image in the vertical format accepted and the next image of the identical scene but in the horizontal format rejected for "artifacts". Same settings taken 10 seconds apart.

« Reply #29 on: August 18, 2009, 09:13 »
0
While most Istock Exclusives know how to take properly exposed, focused and composed images I do have to agree that quite a bunch of inferior images get through the exclusives queue.

While some stuff is plain out of focus many images are just snapshot like IMHO.

But what gets me most is the stats of some exclusives.

The other day I tripped over a guy's portfolio with 155 images and 39.000 sales. He's exclusive since 2007. 155 images in 2 years.
39.000 sales.

He (or she) only uploaded 3D images. Nothing out of this world but nicely executed I have to say. Although, I see many of the same or even better from other artists that don't even get close to this guy's sales figures. I'm stunned.

« Reply #30 on: August 18, 2009, 10:06 »
0
I wonder how long its going to take the folks over at IS HQ to get wind of Rinder's publicly posted 'experiment' that, though I'm not 100% sure and its not worth me going through, is probably in violation of a bunch of rules that you agree to.

As for the completely off-topic rant by some unknown weirdo, well, I got nothing to contribute to that.


« Reply #31 on: August 18, 2009, 10:13 »
0
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.

Are the resized images getting accepted because they prefer smaller sizes? Or is it because there are fewer visible flaws in the resized images?

Microbius

« Reply #32 on: August 18, 2009, 10:27 »
0
I wonder how long its going to take the folks over at IS HQ to get wind of Rinder's publicly posted 'experiment' that, though I'm not 100% sure and its not worth me going through, is probably in violation of a bunch of rules that you agree to.

As for the completely off-topic rant by some unknown weirdo, well, I got nothing to contribute to that.



If the experiment ever actually happened. I understand why Laurin would want to do it, but why would someone who was an exclusive jeopardise their IStock account for no good reason?

« Reply #33 on: August 18, 2009, 10:28 »
0
I wonder how long its going to take the folks over at IS HQ to get wind of Rinder's publicly posted 'experiment' that, though I'm not 100% sure and its not worth me going through, is probably in violation of a bunch of rules that you agree to.

As for the completely off-topic rant by some unknown weirdo, well, I got nothing to contribute to that.



Yes, sending images from which you don't own the copyright is the clumsiest move someone who wants to stay and grow in microstock can do, at istock or at any other site.

« Reply #34 on: August 18, 2009, 10:34 »
0
Technically it's no problem as long as he transferred the copyright to the exclusive photographer.

Xalanx

« Reply #35 on: August 18, 2009, 10:36 »
0
Technically it's no problem as long as he transferred the copyright to the exclusive photographer.

Exactly. You have to own the copyright, that's all.

« Reply #36 on: August 18, 2009, 10:38 »
0
Are the resized images getting accepted because they prefer smaller sizes? Or is it because there are fewer visible flaws in the resized images?

Because there are less visible flaws in smaller size...less noise for example.

« Reply #37 on: August 18, 2009, 11:06 »
0
However, if he submitted them to iStock, they stay in the rejected items area - and if they were resubmitted by an exclusive, then they would be linked to two users.  Wouldn't that scream for penalty?

tobkatrina

  • Crazy Bird Lady
« Reply #38 on: August 18, 2009, 11:06 »
0
I have the same problem at IS. I upload only a few at a time with about a half hour inbetween because I have noticed it depends on what reviewer I get. Since I batch upload through Aperture, if I get a reviewer who doesn't like me, they all get rejected. When I "batch" only a few at a time with space inbetween, I get better luck.

I did bring it up on their site, once, and miraculously my sales tanked since then. Who knows why but anyways......

Oh and scout has always worked for me even though it's only a few here and there....


I so feel your pain :)

« Reply #39 on: August 18, 2009, 11:40 »
0
However, if he submitted them to iStock, they stay in the rejected items area - and if they were resubmitted by an exclusive, then they would be linked to two users.  Wouldn't that scream for penalty?

But they were first submitted by a non-exclusive and rejected. Then the copyright was transferred (or sold, whichever the case) to an exclusive who submitted them and got them accepted. I don't recall anything in the rules that say a non-exclusive cannot sell the copyright to someone else. What that someone else does with the photo, under it's new copyright, to me, seems like a whole new ball game. As far as I can tell, no "crime" has been committed here.

The whole exercise was to prove a point anyway. Rinder knows the rules and I'm sure under normal circumstances follows them.

I'm sure istock will not appreciate the humor or truth. But I don't see where anyone has violated any written rule. Though now a new clause, the Rinder Clause, will be added to the Contributor terms document! :)


« Reply #40 on: August 18, 2009, 11:54 »
0
Technically it's no problem as long as he transferred the copyright to the exclusive photographer.

Yeah, I'm sure they wrote up a contract and had it witnessed and notarized for their 'experiment'.

« Reply #41 on: August 18, 2009, 12:15 »
0
Its just like scout.  He also gets everything accepted. Ill stick with him I think... :'(    Transfer the copyright... cmon... he he


« Reply #42 on: August 18, 2009, 12:24 »
+1
Oh well, iStock will probably have something to say about it at some point, we may never hear about it though.  Regardless, I would take anything Rinder says with a grain of salt (or a cube, or a kilo) - but the proof for that kind of stuff is in previous threads 

Have a good one

« Reply #43 on: August 18, 2009, 12:26 »
0
Technically it's no problem as long as he transferred the copyright to the exclusive photographer.

Yeah, I'm sure they wrote up a contract and had it witnessed and notarized for their 'experiment'.
There must be lots of contracts drawn up and notarized with NASA :)

rinderart

« Reply #44 on: August 18, 2009, 12:59 »
0
Yes, Sean We did, My wifes a notary and he's a neighbor. Im an Old hippy also My friend But Not stupid.LOL

Boy, Im sure glad I don't hang out here anymore. You guys sure do get your panties in a twist about silly stuff. I've been a reviewer for 3 years. The trend Im seeing is "Photography meets Graphic design" Big time. The "Cookie cutter" stuff is done. I also see lots of Semi photographers doing elements shooting to use in there own submissions as they are joining in record numbers. You can spot them a Mile away. And the numbers of Old School Photographers are diminishing who do Know how to get it right.

                                                                             I mean seriously, How many more 2/3 Pretty plastic People getting spa massages or in an office do buyers need. nothing against it but, I think the new wave will be much more 1/2 Photo,1/2 Graphic. At least thats what Im seeing. Photoshop skills are becoming very quickly the new Normal. I do Love to search Places Like masterfile and the Like because the production value at least to me is on another level and Folks there don't send in 500 samo Pics. Not many people jumping against a Overcooked sky with fake grass either. But Hey, thats cool also I like it all if it's done well. I've always shot what turns me on, Im not a Real "Stock" shooter Perse" I teach photography, I can do any style anytime and do it well from Glamour to Bugs. Im just a Photographer, Not a Stock Photographer and When People come to my Classes and workshops they come to learn the tricks that took me 45 years to Learn.

                                                                             As far as the test I did, It was ongoing, a few here and there that had issues or I added issues and The ones in question were deleted right after they were approved and No I dont need a critique on them. Im good enough to Know and yes I handed over the copyrights and if Istk wants My head, they can Have it.But, I needed to know.

                                                                             I sold my first stock Image In 1968. Been there and done that guys. I use My portfolios on stock sites to get me "Other" work which works quite well. If I had to reley on this business for the nut I have to make. i'd be out of business But I do applaud those with the work Ethic they Put into this Like sean and Yuri and many others. As a Photographer though, I would be creatively sad. Thank god, I still have some of my Old clients so I don't "HAVE" to shoot what Sells this Month.

                                                                              Just Have fun Guys. Now I gotta go back to my Home site and Help someone get approved. And I respect Older shooters that have paid there dues.

« Reply #45 on: August 18, 2009, 13:03 »
0
Well then, good for you for doing it legally.  You get a bonus point!

« Reply #46 on: August 18, 2009, 13:12 »
0
For microstock I make what sells.  Whats wrong with that ??? (oversaturated or not)    The rest is another story...

rinderart

« Reply #47 on: August 18, 2009, 13:14 »
0
Thanks Man, BTW, your also one of my heros along with my Old Pal Yuri for doing the work and knocking down some doors, I respect that and use you guys as examples as to what can be accomplished in this Crazy business. I don't post much here but, I do read.

« Reply #48 on: August 18, 2009, 13:16 »
0
Well then, good for you for doing it legally.  You get a bonus point!

As long as Rinder is the legal owner of the images, it is within his full rights to give it away to someone else, free or not free, with or without notarization. The notarization is for the protection of the recipient, in case Rinder complains and wants compensation later or changes his mind, etc.

« Reply #49 on: August 18, 2009, 13:41 »
0
Great experiment Rinder! It's good to see the truth come out like this.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
11 Replies
4812 Views
Last post July 16, 2011, 20:52
by Will Dutt
55 Replies
10293 Views
Last post August 16, 2011, 16:06
by Suljo
6 Replies
1204 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