pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Agency Collection Now Showing up on IStock  (Read 35815 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: September 15, 2010, 21:50 »
0
I'm embarrassed iStock. and disappointed. I hope you know what you are doing. sigh. I feel tested beyond the limit now.

Remember what I said about it being ok?  I was wrong.  Time to panic.


« Reply #26 on: September 15, 2010, 21:58 »
0
Well look at the bright side: buyers won't be tempted to spend their credits on that garbage.

« Reply #27 on: September 15, 2010, 22:00 »
0
Yeah, but you can't turn them off without turning off vetta, too!

Here is the IS discussion:

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=255782&page=1

« Reply #28 on: September 15, 2010, 22:04 »
0
I think this might just be the worst one I've seen yet.

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14241929-vacant-sign-on-toilet-door.php

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Good New For You
« Reply #29 on: September 15, 2010, 22:04 »
0
I'd like to see what data they're looking at that tells them these images will sell for that much.

Some of the Vetta stuff I can understand being higher priced because of the costs or massive time Photoshopping.

No offense to the photographers who took the images but I don't understand how these images will sell for top dollar on a site already stuffed with cheaper images. Why would a buyer not just look for a cheaper version?

And again, they've now dumped yet another price category into the mix which may further confuse buyers. I still think the search results should display separate "standard" and "premium" sections.

« Reply #30 on: September 15, 2010, 22:08 »
0
No offense to the photographers who took the images but I don't understand how these images will sell for top dollar on a site already stuffed with cheaper images. Why would a buyer not just look for a cheaper version?

Why no offense?  Please, offend.

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #31 on: September 15, 2010, 22:11 »
0
I'm offended to have that garbage next to my work, and priced higher. I think I already said that.

« Reply #32 on: September 15, 2010, 22:13 »
0
I think this might just be the worst one I've seen yet.

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14241929-vacant-sign-on-toilet-door.php


Ahhh... but its in German... that should explain the premium pricing.

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Good New For You
« Reply #33 on: September 15, 2010, 22:14 »
0
No offense to the photographers who took the images but I don't understand how these images will sell for top dollar on a site already stuffed with cheaper images. Why would a buyer not just look for a cheaper version?

Why no offense?  Please, offend.

You first.

« Reply #34 on: September 15, 2010, 22:16 »
0
Looks like these new files are getting wonderful reviews too...

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #35 on: September 15, 2010, 22:17 »
0
allow me, those images aren't even up to vacation snapshot standards, let alone iStock standards. they are utter crap. total nonsense.

« Reply #36 on: September 15, 2010, 22:20 »
0
....

Don't even know what to say...

I am speechless...

Should I laugh or cry?  Maybe both at the same time.

OMG

Someone please tell me all this is a joke. Please, please!!!

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #37 on: September 15, 2010, 22:22 »
0
you think you want it to be a joke? I look like a total ass for being so trusting. and to boot, it's a factory....unbelievable

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Good New For You
« Reply #38 on: September 15, 2010, 22:23 »
0
No offense to the photographers who took the images but I don't understand how these images will sell for top dollar on a site already stuffed with cheaper images. Why would a buyer not just look for a cheaper version?

Why no offense?  Please, offend.


Wow, I may decide to offend after reading this post by Derick Rhodes. It's from 2007 but arrogance usually doesn't change over time.

http://www.abouttheimage.com/2811/editorial_microstock_in_context/author7

« Reply #39 on: September 15, 2010, 22:32 »
0
OMG!

"...end users love a bargain, but they also love not burning money by having to spend precious time sorting through substandard imagery." Derick Rhodes

"...I think Microstock is actually healthy for our industry, because what it essentially does is help to differentiate imagery that is easy/inexpensive to produce (and, as a result, shouldnt be costly) from imagery that is more difficult/expensive to produce (and necessarily costs more)." Derick Rhodes

Thanks for the link PaulieWalnuts

« Reply #40 on: September 15, 2010, 22:34 »
0
No offense to the photographers who took the images but I don't understand how these images will sell for top dollar on a site already stuffed with cheaper images. Why would a buyer not just look for a cheaper version?

Why no offense?  Please, offend.


Wow, I may decide to offend after reading this post by Derick Rhodes. It's from 2007 but arrogance usually doesn't change over time.

http://www.abouttheimage.com/2811/editorial_microstock_in_context/author7


This is my favourite quote from his article: "Stylistically, Microstock seems to be dominated by imagery with a late 80s sensibility..."

« Reply #41 on: September 15, 2010, 22:44 »
0
Reminds me of Fotolia's "Infinite" collection when it began. Has that one gotten any better?

In a word... no.

« Reply #42 on: September 15, 2010, 22:45 »
0
iSuck just keeps getting better and better.

« Reply #43 on: September 15, 2010, 22:47 »
0
@hawk eye, welcome to the dark side.

« Reply #44 on: September 15, 2010, 22:47 »
0
You know the worst part?  I don't know of a single microstock agency that would have accepted half those images.

Traditional RF togs have ripped us a new one over the years, I guess we know why now, they couldn't compete with our image quality.

« Reply #45 on: September 15, 2010, 22:48 »
0
I can tell you that there is a snow balls chance in hell that buyers will be willing to wade through this crap.  It cements the deal for me I will be buying from agencies with higher ethics and review standards.

The writing is on the wall Istock has lost complete control of its business model and they are being forced into this!

« Reply #46 on: September 15, 2010, 22:49 »
0
Wow, those are are really bad - no way they're gonna command premium pricing.
I was expecting something to compete with Blend, or maybe even select images from Blend.

Early prediction: Agency will fail even worse than E+.


Man, I really hope you are right.... actually, I can't see any way you could be wrong on this.
These are awful.

« Reply #47 on: September 15, 2010, 22:57 »
0
Wow.  As much as I've grown to hate iStock, this is just sad.  Getty has a lot to answer for.

« Reply #48 on: September 15, 2010, 22:59 »
0
The natives are going crazy over these at iSuck, while at the same time watching their p's and q's.

« Reply #49 on: September 15, 2010, 23:05 »
0
It has been speculated that these are just a test batch to see if he program works....


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
6 Replies
3634 Views
Last post September 17, 2010, 01:08
by leaf
85 Replies
17798 Views
Last post November 09, 2010, 20:54
by Chico
10 Replies
2806 Views
Last post October 28, 2010, 11:34
by WarrenPrice
Agency collection? oh! boy!

Started by lagereek « 1 2 ... 5 6 » iStockPhoto.com

125 Replies
23573 Views
Last post December 04, 2010, 13:45
by jbarber873
6 Replies
2489 Views
Last post July 30, 2011, 13:19
by leaf

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results