Author Topic: Isolations, as a separate search! (Read 5181 times)

Lagereek · « **on:** July 08, 2012, 03:51 »

At the moment there is an incredible mixture of images/isolations all mixed up in almost every search in every agency. They separate between photos/vectors, so why not give, isolations, a separate search? cant be too hard, can it.
Isolations, cut-outs, etc, are very popular, especially in micro and to mix it up with conventional photography is somewhat very distracting. I think it would do general photography and isolations a big favour, if isolations, got its own search.
Yes I know, you can use isolations as a search word but its still not the same as having its own search. In some agencies, there are full pages, series with just isolations then all of a sudden a conventional shot comes along or vice versa. Looks very odd and confusing.

jm · « **Reply #1 on:** July 08, 2012, 04:01 »

This works well at PantherMedia by checking "isolated objects" box. Unfortunately contributors have to check "isolated" box when they submit image.
It also works (but not that well) at ThinkStock by checking "white background only".

Lagereek · « **Reply #2 on:** July 08, 2012, 04:25 »

Quote from: jm on July 08, 2012, 04:01

This works well at PantherMedia by checking "isolated objects" box. Unfortunately contributors have to check "isolated" box when they submit image.
It also works (but not that well) at ThinkStock by checking "white background only".

Yes at PM, it works a lot better. Trouble is most agencies cant really get their search together at all so whats happening at the moment is, you can get 40 isolations in a row, whole series in fact and mostly the same subject but in differant poses or whatever, looks crazy! and then comes a general shot or something, depending on the search.
I just looked at a carpenter holding a spanner, against white, 25 isolations in a row, just that he changes the hand, moves a foot, smiles, etc, almost all identical. Looks unprofessional.

heywoody · « **Reply #3 on:** July 08, 2012, 05:26 »

There's a filter on the FT search - it does bring back plain backgrounds as well as true isolations and the odd "mistake". Still, it seems to work based on the image rather than keywords or categories and does a reasonably good job.

ShadySue · « **Reply #4 on:** July 08, 2012, 06:16 »

Al Alamy you can filter on 'cut out', but actually I'm not sure if this should be used for in-camera isolations.

You can specify that you want isolations or don't want isolations on iStock, but of course that depends on the tog having added that keyword.

Lagereek · « **Reply #5 on:** July 08, 2012, 09:34 »

Yes but I actually meant their own files/archives, category, etc.

stormchaser · « **Reply #6 on:** July 08, 2012, 22:44 »

One of the problems is that stockers are frequently clueless as to what the term Isolated really means to a seasoned buyer. Isolated should mean "No shadow" and I think only Bigstock comes right out and says this. Search almost any agency, and you will find numerous objects with shadow, ugly shadows, really bad color noise shadows.

http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?searchterm=isolated+on+white&search_group=&lang=en&search_source=search_form#id=67910515

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-78672016/stock-photo-backpack-on-isolated-white-background.html

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-61289104/stock-photo-fresh-coconut-on-white-isolated-background.html

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-97890524/stock-photo-nerd-glasses-on-isolated-white-background-perfect-reflection.html

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-75402184/stock-photo-asphalted-road-on-white-isolated-d-image.html

And here's my favorite - what is this??

http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?searchterm=isolated+on+white&search_group=&lang=en&search_source=search_form#id=65304868

So someone tell me - how can ANY of these images be considered Isolated? Does not matter if it is a photo or 3D. Yet the term has been inserted by the contributor.

If an agency tied to segregate just via use of the Term Isolated to form an auto-catagory or genre, well you can see what an absolute joke this would be.

Lagereek · « **Reply #7 on:** July 09, 2012, 00:22 »

Quote from: stormchaser on July 08, 2012, 22:44

One of the problems is that stockers are frequently clueless as to what the term Isolated really means to a seasoned buyer. Isolated should mean "No shadow" and I think only Bigstock comes right out and says this. Search almost any agency, and you will find numerous objects with shadow, ugly shadows, really bad color noise shadows.

http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?searchterm=isolated+on+white&search_group=&lang=en&search_source=search_form#id=67910515

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-78672016/stock-photo-backpack-on-isolated-white-background.html

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-61289104/stock-photo-fresh-coconut-on-white-isolated-background.html

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-97890524/stock-photo-nerd-glasses-on-isolated-white-background-perfect-reflection.html

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-75402184/stock-photo-asphalted-road-on-white-isolated-d-image.html

And here's my favorite - what is this??

http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?searchterm=isolated+on+white&search_group=&lang=en&search_source=search_form#id=65304868

So someone tell me - how can ANY of these images be considered Isolated? Does not matter if it is a photo or 3D. Yet the term has been inserted by the contributor.

If an agency tied to segregate just via use of the Term Isolated to form an auto-catagory or genre, well you can see what an absolute joke this would be.

Yeah, see what you mean, some horror examples! well in this case maybe agencies should pay a hell of a lot more attention to the keywording and make sure its done right, or else, out with the picture.

stockastic · « **Reply #8 on:** July 09, 2012, 09:42 »

A true isolation (no shadow) can be readily detected by software, so the agencies could be doing this as part of the search without relying on keywording.

ShadySue · « **Reply #9 on:** July 09, 2012, 11:53 »

Quote from: stockastic on July 09, 2012, 09:42

A true isolation (no shadow) can be readily detected by software, so the agencies could be doing this as part of the search without relying on keywording.

Seems like iStock officially accepts a shadow in an isolation. Thread started only a few minutes ago references this post by emyerson. Although it's an old post, Ethan is an admin with keywords responsibilities, and the definition hasn't been rescinded or updated:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=89444