MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: 'Edstock' now has over 15,000 files...  (Read 33619 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #150 on: October 20, 2011, 22:39 »
0
Thanks to the person who had saved out the expunged post I mentioned earlier, in response to Lobo's nippy note about 'we won't be answering your questions in the forum: contact CR, Scout or [email protected]

~~~~~~~~~~

Sorry, wrong thread, so I've moved it to the    Unreleased Copyrighted Material No Longer Accepted thread. Sorry Stacey for 'orphaning' your comment.

no problem. it provided fodder for gostwyck to whinge about tonight, so at least it was a productive evening for him ;-)


RacePhoto

« Reply #151 on: October 20, 2011, 23:37 »
0
I'm not religious, but his name has never gotten me upset, as it seems to have you...who cares? his posts are thoughtful and relevant. and long--my guess is that he seems to wait until he's read a lot about a discussion before jumping in. he is one of the posters I often keep an eye on in threads and he is generous with advice.

Whatever. I can't believe you're still whinging about IS's editorial policy. It is the way it is __ get over it. There's precious little money to be made in it anyway (at microstock prices) other than using it as a dumping ground for 10K's of ex-newsworthy files, which is of course what they are doing with their own stuff. It is their own agency after all so why shouldn't they utilise it? I don't understand why you people are trying so hard to spend valuable time processing/uploading to a market that hardly exists at all anyway.

ARe you talking about IS, or Microstock in general as the market that hardly exists? Using your arguments, no one should be in any type of microstock, because "I don't understand why you people are trying so hard to spend valuable time processing/uploading"... Yeah I'm starting to agree, no Ed. not IS, no market.

traveler1116

« Reply #152 on: October 26, 2011, 01:46 »
0

« Reply #153 on: October 26, 2011, 03:26 »
0
These go through an inspection process?  

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-17503581-santa-monkeys-around-with-the-chimps.php?st=b8e41c0


:) Intresting to see that is uploaded in 12-19-03. So they changed the upload date to not gain place in the best match. That is nice from iStock.

The caption files have is not an iStock standard either. There is no year in the caption. All should be rejected ;)
« Last Edit: October 26, 2011, 03:30 by Michael Lancaster »

« Reply #154 on: October 26, 2011, 03:36 »
0
These go through an inspection process? 

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-17503581-santa-monkeys-around-with-the-chimps.php?st=b8e41c0


just thought I'd post what your link was sending to as I'm guessing it'll now be taken down...

grp_photo

« Reply #155 on: October 26, 2011, 03:49 »
0
I'm not religious, but his name has never gotten me upset, as it seems to have you...who cares? his posts are thoughtful and relevant. and long--my guess is that he seems to wait until he's read a lot about a discussion before jumping in. he is one of the posters I often keep an eye on in threads and he is generous with advice.

Whatever. I can't believe you're still whinging about IS's editorial policy. It is the way it is __ get over it. There's precious little money to be made in it anyway (at microstock prices) other than using it as a dumping ground for 10K's of ex-newsworthy files, which is of course what they are doing with their own stuff. It is their own agency after all so why shouldn't they utilise it? I don't understand why you people are trying so hard to spend valuable time processing/uploading to a market that hardly exists at all anyway.

ARe you talking about IS, or Microstock in general as the market that hardly exists? Using your arguments, no one should be in any type of microstock, because "I don't understand why you people are trying so hard to spend valuable time processing/uploading"... Yeah I'm starting to agree, no Ed. not IS, no market.
No I don't think so, he is talking about 'Editorial Microstock' and I agree totally with him.

« Reply #156 on: October 26, 2011, 07:24 »
0
These go through an inspection process?  

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-17503581-santa-monkeys-around-with-the-chimps.php?st=b8e41c0


just thought I'd post what your link was sending to as I'm guessing it'll now be taken down...


-------------------------------------

Very nice.  I'm sure the rest of the image is spectacular, more then making up for all the pipe bits.

Edited to add that this must be a case of the chimps doing a self inspection ;D
« Last Edit: October 26, 2011, 07:30 by Sadstock »

RacePhoto

« Reply #157 on: October 27, 2011, 00:45 »
0
These go through an inspection process?  

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-17503581-santa-monkeys-around-with-the-chimps.php?st=b8e41c0


just thought I'd post what your link was sending to as I'm guessing it'll now be taken down...


-------------------------------------

Very nice.  I'm sure the rest of the image is spectacular, more then making up for all the pipe bits.

Edited to add that this must be a case of the chimps doing a self inspection ;D


Loved it, I have my own personal screen capture in the archives. Yup, no special treatment, same standards as everyone else. Except maybe, no review of keywords, captions or the actual image?  :o

« Reply #158 on: November 19, 2011, 09:26 »
0
seems that there are new 1975 agency editorial files in edstock account http://www.istockphoto.com/search/portfolio/7675241/?facets=%7B%2225%22%3A%226%22%7D#3927d6d .... WOW^2

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #159 on: November 19, 2011, 11:34 »
0
this is one of the situations on iStock that reminds me how site-oriented things have become, versus contributor-oriented. it is also a blatant contradiction of the standards we are rigorously held to. I've sorted the edstock files using the price slider to see the Agency file match match. the shots selected for Agency are utterly terrible. snapshots, red carpet outtakes and the shots that are usually between the good shots. there is no excuse for this kind of unfair and insulting double standard. particularly when contributors are already so hobbled when it comes to contributing editorial to iStock. look at some of these Agency files:

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-18425396-jessica-alba-little-fockers-world-premiere-inside-arrivals.php?st=e1f1916

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-18425242-simon-o-connor-ry-russo-young-borden-capalino-you-won-t-mis.php?st=e1f1916

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-18425109-pedro-almodovar-women-on-the-verge-of-a-nervous.php?st=e1f1916

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-18425121-barbara-bobulova-ti-presento-un-amico-milan-premiere.php?st=e1f1916
« Last Edit: November 19, 2011, 12:21 by SNP »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #160 on: November 19, 2011, 16:22 »
0
The agency thing must surely be a bug. It's a blanket of "Ed's" most recent pics on the site.

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #161 on: November 20, 2011, 13:15 »
0
The agency thing must surely be a bug. It's a blanket of "Ed's" most recent pics on the site.

I really hope it is a bug. no way many of those files should be agency.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #162 on: November 20, 2011, 13:50 »
0
The agency thing must surely be a bug. It's a blanket of "Ed's" most recent pics on the site.

I really hope it is a bug. no way many of those files should be agency.

Yeah, thankfully Sean posted over there and EvilClown confirmed it's a bug.
Now, how exactly can that happen?

« Reply #163 on: November 20, 2011, 14:26 »
0
yeah a bug. Why is up to contributors to consistently call them out and monitor their QC.

Surely trying to pull this isn't in their interest.

It is good to see that so called high quality getty content is just as crap as some of my stuff I'd hit delete on my camera. Makes me warm and fuzzy

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #164 on: November 25, 2011, 07:47 »
0
So, five days later, this 'Agency bug' on EdStock's files hasn't been sorted - maybe it's on the list for the downtime tomorrow.

« Reply #165 on: December 05, 2011, 19:41 »
0
So, five days later, this 'Agency bug' on EdStock's files hasn't been sorted - maybe it's on the list for the downtime tomorrow.

The EdStock Aagency files are still Agency, so it appears fixing this problem isn't much of a priority. With a portfolio of over 77K files, only 2,200 have even one download, and on a quick scan, no blue cameras in those pages.

So if the idea was to do a little test to see if they could get more money for these files, I'd say they have their answer. Most of them are overpriced at E+ - who's going to pay premium prices for pictures of feet on a red carpet?

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #166 on: December 05, 2011, 19:48 »
0
So, five days later, this 'Agency bug' on EdStock's files hasn't been sorted - maybe it's on the list for the downtime tomorrow.

The EdStock Aagency files are still Agency, so it appears fixing this problem isn't much of a priority. With a portfolio of over 77K files, only 2,200 have even one download, and on a quick scan, no blue cameras in those pages.

So if the idea was to do a little test to see if they could get more money for these files, I'd say they have their answer. Most of them are overpriced at E+ - who's going to pay premium prices for pictures of feet on a red carpet?

Sean brought it up again on the iStock forums a few days back. The thread was locked with a curt 'we're onto it'. I guess it hasn't been as important as the other bugs, but hey, someone could have manually deAgencied them by now.

« Reply #167 on: December 05, 2011, 22:33 »
0
Wth all the things going on, I really dont think this is or should be a major priority right now. Let them fix the site first.

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #168 on: December 05, 2011, 23:05 »
0
who cares if it takes a while for them to fix it, I can't imagine many will sell at Agency prices considering their lack of quality and time-sensitive content anyways. the problem was the apparent blanket Agency designation to Edstock files, regardless of quality. That isn't happening, so I'm not worried. I too think the focus should remain on keeping the site working for buyers.

« Reply #169 on: December 05, 2011, 23:32 »
0
Seems to me you're presupposing that no buyer actually wants to buy any of this "Agency" content. If they do, they're stuck with a ludicrous price for it. I think it is a buyer issue - things on the site at the wrong price.

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #170 on: December 06, 2011, 02:12 »
0
considering there have been just 3,500 sales of Edstock files out of 77,000 files...and literally just 1 download on all the Agency files....not too worried. as long as it wasn't a decision to place some of those crap files in Agency. what really kills me is that I have better shots from the TIFF premiere of The Town. I shoot the red carpets and press conferences/parties during the Toronto International Film Festival...along with all the other 'events' in Toronto...but Getty says they have Toronto covered...code for another pro shooter doesn't want anyone on his turf....
« Last Edit: December 06, 2011, 02:46 by SNP »

traveler1116

« Reply #171 on: December 06, 2011, 03:01 »
0
considering there have been just 3,500 sales of Edstock files out of 77,000 files...and literally just 1 download on all the Agency files....not too worried. as long as it wasn't a decision to place some of those crap files in Agency. what really kills me is that I have better shots from the TIFF premiere of The Town. I shoot the red carpets and press conferences/parties during the Toronto International Film Festival...along with all the other 'events' in Toronto...but Getty says they have Toronto covered...code for another pro shooter doesn't want anyone on his turf....
Put it up on Alamy.

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #172 on: December 06, 2011, 12:44 »
0
considering there have been just 3,500 sales of Edstock files out of 77,000 files...and literally just 1 download on all the Agency files....not too worried. as long as it wasn't a decision to place some of those crap files in Agency. what really kills me is that I have better shots from the TIFF premiere of The Town. I shoot the red carpets and press conferences/parties during the Toronto International Film Festival...along with all the other 'events' in Toronto...but Getty says they have Toronto covered...code for another pro shooter doesn't want anyone on his turf....
Put it up on Alamy.

I got my Alamy ducks in a row and prepared some of my editorial content to go up there....but I don't want to get established selling there with some of my files if we'll be able to upload this content to iStock eventually. I'm reluctant to split my work across agencies.....it's not that I don't want to do the work. it's that I'm so busy, and my portfolio so big that I'm worried about inadvertently infringing on my exclusivity

traveler1116

« Reply #173 on: December 06, 2011, 13:09 »
0
I understand, I just removed all my alamy images because iStock began editorial which meant I had to wait 6 months to get the files down.  Now that they are down a lot of those same files aren't allowed at iStock so I'll probably go ahead and put them back up on Alamy.  I can't understand why sculptures and statues that are in public spaces can't be put up as editorial but Getty won't let me submit them either so I guess I don't have much choice. 

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #174 on: December 06, 2011, 14:00 »
0
^ yeah, exactly. and I've even been reluctant to sell too much as RM through traditional wires etc., in the event that down the road it limits my ability to sell editorial on iStock. I have patience for the evolution of iStock's editorial as long as it seems to be moving forward. I think it may be, jury is still out.  It works so much better for me to be with one Agency selling....and then of course I have all my assignment stuff on the side too.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
new files and 2.0

Started by yecatsdoherty iStockPhoto.com

6 Replies
3152 Views
Last post March 11, 2009, 10:32
by lisafx
10 Replies
8632 Views
Last post February 02, 2010, 10:45
by Stu49
17 Replies
5815 Views
Last post November 04, 2010, 00:29
by RacePhoto
7 Replies
2653 Views
Last post September 19, 2011, 11:53
by ShadySue
22 Replies
5683 Views
Last post January 15, 2012, 17:47
by ShadySue

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle