Author Topic: standards at IS (Read 6559 times)

shudderstok · « **on:** July 18, 2014, 20:07 »

i have been a long time contributor to IS and used to love their tough inspection standards. as of late they seem to be taking some very appalling images. they are simply bad photos in every way. the keywording is equally appalling. i would post links to far too many images to illustrate this post, but in all fairness i don't want to embarrass or single out any one photographer for even taking such garbage and calling it a photo. as of late i feel borderline embarrassed even being involved with such inferior junk. what is the management at IS thinking? i am at a loss for words.

ShadySue · « **Reply #1 on:** July 18, 2014, 20:19 »

This has been the case for months, and there have been loads of threads here and also over there, e.g. several posts in this thread http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=358828&page=1 especially on the last two pages. It's also been discussed on the two Fb groups I'm on, and for all I know on many others.
No conclusion has been reached.

One odd thing was that several months ago, a newbie posted there asking why they had no sales. ATT, they only had 8 files. On one of these, the main subject was not only not properly identified, and tiny in the frame (from the 'generic' title, it was the intended subject) but also both out of focus and blown out - and none of the critiquers mentioned that. I have no idea if anyone who dared mention it was deleted, or if no one really thought it was worth mentioning. Even now, their port is full of pics that the judge of a Novice competition at a camera club would be hard pressed to find a positive to be encouraging - just as 'photos', not even as stock photos.

I have no idea what's going on, but reality has always in the past been worse than anything I've imagined, so ...

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #2 on:** July 18, 2014, 20:29 »

I'm assuming this has more to do with Getty (and thus Carlyle) than IS, and that there is some notion of the quantity of items in the collection mattering to them - because other agencies have more.

It's sad to see IS fall behind on so many aspects of its site and collection, search and just about everything else. The really good work that is there is just lost

ShadySue · « **Reply #3 on:** July 18, 2014, 20:49 »

I just did a search, best match, where with 200 files to a page, almost the entire bottom third of the first page were by one newbie, and every single one of the second page. All uploaded in April, big batches of 'very similars' of the topic.
Tellingly, I happened to upload some (unrelated to the above) files in April, and on a main keyword, not one is in the top ten pages by best match, i.e. not in the first 2000 files.

Goofy · « **Reply #4 on:** July 18, 2014, 21:11 »

Quote from: shudderstok on July 18, 2014, 20:07

i have been a long time contributor to IS and used to love their tough inspection standards. as of late they seem to be taking some very appalling images. they are simply bad photos in every way. the keywording is equally appalling. i would post links to far too many images to illustrate this post, but in all fairness i don't want to embarrass or single out any one photographer for even taking such garbage and calling it a photo. as of late i feel borderline embarrassed even being involved with such inferior junk. what is the management at IS thinking? i am at a loss for words.

No need to single anyone out- their images will not sell thus they will fade away. High end folks (like yourself) will not be effected in sales thus just keep producing good stuff like you have been doing and don't worry about the poor quality. One good thing from this subject - good images will stick out from the others for sure

grsphoto · « **Reply #5 on:** July 19, 2014, 00:32 »

But I have a real tough time getting my images accepted.... all because of the model release.

I use the spanish language version of iStock's release, but some reviewers don't accept that because it isn't in English. Some don't accept it, because the phone number "has to many digits". Others because the address isn't right ( in the place I am in they do not number the buildings and postal codes are still a few years away from being widely used)

Then there are other reveiwers who accept the same release ( and images from the same session)

I also get rejections because of problems with the buttons on the jeans ( trademark, copywrite?)

I think that what has happened is the company is run by lawyers, not image makers

PixelBytes · « **Reply #6 on:** July 19, 2014, 10:50 »

When I saw the title Standards At Istock I figured it was some joke because there aren't any now. Very sad. They used to have tightest collection in micro. Buyers put up with all the price rises because the collection was perceived better. Now thats out the window.

oxman · « **Reply #7 on:** July 21, 2014, 01:38 »

it is like IS has no strategy or are just stupid

first they blow out most of their client base with overly aggressive pricing, confusing price options and poorly functioning site then they remove upload limits and QC so junk floods in the door. did they not read the research about buyers not wanting to wade through trash to find quality?

now SS is upping standards .... who didn't see that coming.

Gettys stupidity would be amusing if it did not affect our bank accounts

Karen · « **Reply #8 on:** July 21, 2014, 09:03 »

When they put the prices up - the price sensitive clients left. Those clients who staid with iStock were able to pay higher prices for higher quality strictly curated collection.
But iStock screw it by flooding search results with all this garbage.

gnirtS · « **Reply #9 on:** July 21, 2014, 09:14 »

IS now seem to accept absolutely anything provided every tiny bacteria in the shot is model released. I'm actually not sure now how to get something rejected.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

goober · « **Reply #10 on:** July 21, 2014, 18:42 »

I don't know how they can continue to pay inspectors to inspect files that never get views. I wonder if that has a lot to do with the quality downgrades. I've found myself just throwing up anything I think could possibly sell. It's like a closing down sale. Everything must go.

I think if we were inside hearing all that goes on we would understand but we're kept outside in an opaque, murky side of the business.

ShadySue · « **Reply #11 on:** July 21, 2014, 19:32 »

Quote from: gnirtS on July 21, 2014, 09:14

IS now seem to accept absolutely anything provided every tiny bacteria in the shot is model released. I'm actually not sure now how to get something rejected.

Make an illustration that they deem 'too simple'.

old crow · « **Reply #12 on:** July 22, 2014, 19:22 »

Is the collection destroyed, could they have somehow placed a rating on each image so they could at some point reverse what they did??

It would be massive to re-evalute every image and keyword in the collection.

oxman · « **Reply #13 on:** July 22, 2014, 20:23 »

Quote from: old crow on July 22, 2014, 19:22

Is the collection destroyed, could they have somehow placed a rating on each image so they could at some point reverse what they did??

It would be massive to re-evalute every image and keyword in the collection.

that would require Getty to do something forward thinking and calculated based on a thought-out business model.

hahahahahahahah

old crow · « **Reply #14 on:** July 23, 2014, 06:10 »

I think they have already made their investment back and are just raping it. Anything they can come up with that makes a little money is just a bonus, and this is where it gets dangerous. After buying a company, making your money back, then squeezing out every penny, what would you do with the site to make one last ditch effort before throwing the carcass in the trash ? What happens to Getty when istock collapses ? nothing !

These companies may have expexted a contributor revolt long before this and are amazed that actual humans still contribute for this amount.

mojaric · « **Reply #15 on:** July 23, 2014, 08:43 »

IS still is my best perfmorming agency...if i look at parameter porftolio/incomes(%) i get more money from IS than SS....if you look the portfolio there are many VERY BAD images in IS portfolio also from the past...yes they are accepting almost everything but when i look around images in IS i find many very bad images also dated 2007/2008/2009/2010....when IS was class microstock agency.

BoBoBolinski · « **Reply #16 on:** July 23, 2014, 08:48 »

Quote from: old crow on July 23, 2014, 06:10

These companies may have expexted a contributor revolt long before this and are amazed that actual humans still contribute for this amount.

Still contribute for what amount? You have no idea what contributors earn there, the spread is so great. I still earn a reasonable 5 figure income, despite seeing a fall of 50% or so over the last 3 years. I'm not happy with things at IS, but nor am I happy with some of the nonsense I read here, usually written by hobbyists.

old crow · « **Reply #17 on:** July 23, 2014, 15:15 »

Quote from: BoBoBolinski on July 23, 2014, 08:48

Quote from: old crow on July 23, 2014, 06:10

These companies may have expexted a contributor revolt long before this and are amazed that actual humans still contribute for this amount.

Still contribute for what amount? You have no idea what contributors earn there, the spread is so great. I still earn a reasonable 5 figure income, despite seeing a fall of 50% or so over the last 3 years. I'm not happy with things at IS, but nor am I happy with some of the nonsense I read here, usually written by hobbyists.

Your point is well written and understood, and I am a hobbyist at best. The responses on IS forums tend to show however that many long term contributors, (even one that brown nosed a lot) are willing to speak out at IS. How long will you ride the ship ? How much of that 50% occurred after the lowering of standards?

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: standards at IS (Read 6559 times)

shudderstok

ShadySue

Jo Ann Snover

ShadySue

Goofy

grsphoto

PixelBytes

oxman

Karen

gnirtS

goober

ShadySue

old crow

oxman

old crow

mojaric

BoBoBolinski

old crow

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors