I came across this photo that was just added to the iStock collection last month and I was wondering if this is the new standard of quality that we can expect going forward on iStock as photo buyers?

[*Image Removed*]

I noticed that this photo appears to have uninteresting composition, dull and hazy lighting, flat colors, and no contrast.  

I can also easily identify the brand of the bottle of orange colored hot sauce appearing in the photo and have serious doubts this image could safely be used commercially.

Isn't iStock still applying strict and discriminating standards of quality to their inspection process as they once were?

As a buyer who purchases all of my photos from iStock, I am truly amazed to see this kind of image being offered on iStock.  

I would appreciate feedback opinions on this matter from other members of the Microstock community.

--
admin edit
* Not sure what's the best to do here, it is an interesting discussion on the changing acceptable quality on iStock but picking on a single photographer and criticizing his photos isn't acceptable on the forum.  Not that the first post was so very critical or nasty but the thread moved in that direction as it often does.

Well,  its embarrasing the least, dustbin material at best. I am not surprised.

I was going to say that it is incredibly bad taste to call out a picture/photographer like this.

But since I see it is an Inspector with more than 150,000 sales, maybe it isn't just a rogue oversight so I think I'll bite my tongue on this one.

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on April 07, 2012, 10:41
I was going to say that it is incredibly bad taste to call out a picture/photographer like this.

But since I see it is an Inspector with more than 150,000 sales, maybe it isn't just a rogue oversight so I think I'll bite my tongue on this one.

Yep! its bad taste alright! then again its an inspector and as you say, make an exeption on this one.

I am kinda curious, though, about how he managed to hang his camera above the restaurant table like that. Assuming he didn't have a ladder he could put up in that situation, do you think it was taken with a P&S or phone camera?

It would be really handy if it was, because with my broken digital bodies all I have at the moment is a range of very fine medium format film cameras and an old Nokia phone. If Nokia  is OK for iS, then I can at least do some uploading without waiting for the 120 film to come back from Peak Imaging in England.

I think it's a cell phone camera.  Maximum size is medium.

iPhones are allowable:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=342251&page=1
I know it's wrong unacceptable to call out other people's photos, and I know people who live in glass houses etc ... but it seems that that contributor has a deteriorating vision problem, if you compare his most recent 200 files with his earlier work. And I guess he could be one of the high flyers whose work doesn't get cross-inspected. And I guess he's going to the more 'natural' 'unposed/unset-up' look with his compositions.

Now this is very discouraging!!
I just failed my 3rd attemt to pass the istock entry test - I am by no means on a professional level as are many stock photographers, but after submitting a variety of images , all of which I think are technically sound, and getting a fail, and seeing something like this is totally disheartening.
Is the approval process more stringent and once your accepted, are they more lenient? Is that the case with istock? Many have said that recently the approval process is much more strict than in years past - maybe a photographer of my skill has missed the boat to agencies like this?

frustrated, but not giving up

Quote from: noodle on April 07, 2012, 12:58
Is the approval process more stringent and once your accepted, are they more lenient? Is that the case with istock? Many have said that recently the approval process is much more strict than in years past - maybe a photographer of my skill has missed the boat to agencies like this?

I hear the approval process is more stringent than it used to be, but also getting files accepted is more stringent. The above mentioned portfolio notwithstanding.

One of the problems in applying a demonstrable double standard (however rare)  is that it tends to affect the credibility of the whole process...

Quote from: ShadySue on April 07, 2012, 12:57
iPhones are allowable:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=342251&page=1

Oh my God.  They are accepting cellphone pics?!  Can we please have some commentary on this by the folks who keep going on about how Istock is raising standards? 

(Out of respect for the policy of not calling out other people's work, I'll keep my opinion of that particular photo to myself.)

The photographer is a big piece at IS, he does what he wants and they do what he needs. If you are big on IS, you get bigger, and you don't have to produce good stuff. He has been there since 2004, he gets the views.

I'm not the best one to evaluate but -- there are even worse images in that portfolio. 
Are you sure this is an inspector?

Quote from: WarrenPrice on April 07, 2012, 15:09
I'm not the best one to evaluate but -- there are even worse images in that portfolio. 
Are you sure this is an inspector?

Says so on his profile.

Quote from: ShadySue on April 07, 2012, 15:12

Quote from: WarrenPrice on April 07, 2012, 15:09
I'm not the best one to evaluate but -- there are even worse images in that portfolio. 
Are you sure this is an inspector?

Says so on his profile.

Thanks, I didn't get that far.  Saw the cat paws on piano keyboard and couldn't continue. 
How can that person judge anyone's images?

Quote from: WarrenPrice on April 07, 2012, 15:15

Quote from: ShadySue on April 07, 2012, 15:12

Quote from: WarrenPrice on April 07, 2012, 15:09
I'm not the best one to evaluate but -- there are even worse images in that portfolio.  
Are you sure this is an inspector?

Says so on his profile.

Thanks, I didn't get that far.  Saw the cat paws on piano keyboard and couldn't continue.  
How can that person judge anyone's images?

Scary, innit?
The only spin I can put on it is that maybe he's been, for whavever reason, asked to produce this sort of photo.

Quote from: lagereek on April 07, 2012, 11:01

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on April 07, 2012, 10:41
I was going to say that it is incredibly bad taste to call out a picture/photographer like this.

But since I see it is an Inspector with more than 150,000 sales, maybe it isn't just a rogue oversight so I think I'll bite my tongue on this one.

Yep! its bad taste alright! then again its an inspector and as you say, make an exeption on this one.

that's why the hot sauce is available - to hide the bad taste

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on April 07, 2012, 11:10
I am kinda curious, though, about how he managed to hang his camera above the restaurant table like that. Assuming he didn't have a ladder he could put up in that situation, do you think it was taken with a P&S or phone camera?

if your camera has a tiltable display, just stand on a chair, hold the camera at arm's length,  and compose - if no tilt screen, skip the composition step

After years of rejecting perfectly usable 12MP, ISO 200, level 10 JPGs from quality DSLRs for "artifacts" I think they decided they had to accept iPhone photos because the iPhone is just, like, so totally cool.

By looking at his port, I think this is one of his styles. It's nothing wrong with being edgy.

Unfortunately, for most nobodies, we can not afford this luxury.

I'm going to throw my laptop....

Quote from: Freedom on April 07, 2012, 19:32
By looking at his port, I think this is one of his styles. It's nothing wrong with being edgy.

Unfortunately, for most nobodies, we can not afford this luxury.

Edgy?  That?

The "style" doesnt have many downloads.

Quote from: JPSDK on April 07, 2012, 21:09
The "style" doesnt have many downloads.

Most seem to have been uploaded in the past couple of weeks.

The most horrendous thing about that image is that it'll cost you around $15 to get the medium size. Don't forget, just because it has that crown icon next to it, that image must be more valuable somehow.