MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Agency Collection Now Showing up on IStock  (Read 41771 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #50 on: September 15, 2010, 23:05 »
« Last Edit: September 15, 2010, 23:16 by FD-regular »

« Reply #51 on: September 15, 2010, 23:06 »
Seriously... 55 credit for this Small Size.
I think no other agencies will accept the quality of this image, except iSuck itself.
I am not a photographer myself, but I think this picture is taken with a compact digital camera with a flash on.


  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #52 on: September 15, 2010, 23:06 »
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.

The Agency Collection on Getty does have some Blend Images stuff from John Lund.

ETA: Looked at more pages and there's a lot of Blend. Some nice stuff by them.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2010, 23:18 by PaulieWalnuts »


  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #53 on: September 15, 2010, 23:10 »
It has been speculated that these are just a test batch to see if he program works....

Maybe, but this looks like a normal image on Getty.

« Reply #54 on: September 15, 2010, 23:16 »
It has been speculated that these are just a test batch to see if he program works....

Look at the Agency Collection on gettyimages.com. It is for real. And it is ugly.

« Reply #55 on: September 15, 2010, 23:21 »
Maybe, but this looks like a normal image on Getty.
It's German culture! What's more, it's in Studio. A real mystery;D
Keywords: Mystery, Text, Vertical, Studio Shot, Indoors, Close-up, Domestic Bathroom, Door, Circle, Metal, Wood, German Culture, Closed, Curve, Relief, Toilet, Color Image, Silver, Single Word, Vacant Sign, Wood Grain, No People, Photography, Public Restroom, Colored Background.

« Reply #56 on: September 15, 2010, 23:30 »
This does seem like a sad replay of FT's Infinite collection introduction. I'm sure the thread is still here somewhere with the many examples of truly abysmal images being lampooned here. FT then tried to clean it up a bit, but it was old tired crap and there wasn't much to be done.

This garbage that is now getting accepted by IS doesn't meet copyright standards (logos in many of the images), lighting, composition or just about any metric for the main collection, let alone these stratospheric prices.

They just posted a FAQ saying the same inspection process would be used for the Agency Collection - utter BS. On top of it all, with 103 accepted images (all today) this person/factory is exclusive. Zero downloads, no criteria to meet.

A total disgrace. They need to remove this stuff and go back to the drawing board. It's an embarrassment to the site to have these images on it.

« Reply #57 on: September 15, 2010, 23:42 »
Some of it is starting to disappear now.

« Reply #58 on: September 15, 2010, 23:44 »
they removed all the urgly image we all point out..i think we should stop pointing out those urgly image, let them do their own home work, not us to help them find the urgly image!!


  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #59 on: September 15, 2010, 23:45 »
a test? gawd I hope so

« Reply #60 on: September 15, 2010, 23:49 »
I don't think it was a test, I think it was a screwup and this shouldn't have happened until September 27th, when a flood of 'Agency' images would have hidden some of the crap we just saw.

Be wary though, this looks like it was purely designed to push through content without inspection.  I write programs for a living, and it is highly unlikely you could make this kind of a mistake, pushing images directly into their portfolios when they should have been in an inspection queue of some kind.  You are talking about a lot of varying database calls that would have had to been all wrong to see something like this happen.

« Reply #61 on: September 15, 2010, 23:55 »
If the images are already owned by Getty or at least hosted by Getty, does it not stand to reason that they have already passed muster?


  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #62 on: September 15, 2010, 23:56 »
then muster is an idiot

« Reply #63 on: September 15, 2010, 23:58 »

« Reply #64 on: September 16, 2010, 00:20 »
They only removed a few, still a lot of noisy images, blurry images, logo issues, etc in there.

« Reply #65 on: September 16, 2010, 00:29 »
After reading the istock thread, it reminds me of drowning rats clinging to the hope that the cat will save them!

If this does not wake people up, nothing will, I am shocked the denial is so pervasive.


  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #66 on: September 16, 2010, 00:31 »
what denial? it is 100% agreement in there.

« Reply #67 on: September 16, 2010, 00:34 »
Yes more than a few agree it must be "a test batch"


"Quote A: Wager they are a test Batch Any takers ????


Quote B: Someone posted a link earlier to the Agency collection on the getty site. It's not pretty.

Quote A: Besides, I really don't believe istock would voluntarily subject itself to this negative PR just for testing purposes.

Ah but if they flipped or didnt flip the proper switch, Or simply grabbed the wrong batch.

I refuse to believe its nothing more than a mistake  IT !

Now back to our normally scheduled progam......."
« Last Edit: September 16, 2010, 00:48 by gbalex »


  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #68 on: September 16, 2010, 00:37 »
hmmmm - JJ post. error. bad error. bad bad bad.

« Reply #69 on: September 16, 2010, 00:51 »
It looks like the Agency plan is about putting some of the run-of-the-mill Getty stuff in the Istock collection and pricing it somewhere between Vetta and traditional collections now. They don't want to take the best of the best and place it at these new prices.

The big flaw with this strategy is that in any given search the best match on the istock collection is by and large better than most of what comes out of the traditional agencies - maybe with the exception of a few places like blend. Maybe a to a beancounter the logic of selling one product at 10 times the price of another means that its significantly better, but that's not really how it works in this industry.

Look at the way its developed: from something like 30,000 contributors competing in a free marketplace with no restrictions on what they can shoot and nobody telling them how to go about their business. The only restrictions being on copyright and technical perfection of the content. Over the last 10 years its resulted in the cream of a very large talent pool rising to the top, and incidentally a pool of photographers that has the ability and discipline to create technically exceptional material. It hasn't however created a marketplace where there is any correlation between price and value.

Now suddenly Getty wants to put it next to content that is the product of the old way of doing things - the sheltered environment of photographers used to big prices, shot lists, relying on creative directors and stylists etc. without a strict adherence to technical issues like noise, trademarks, lighting etc. This is the part of the industry that has been protected by the inertia of big ad agencies and the rest of the industry that is stuck into he old way of doing things.  

Its an experiment like throwing dinosaurs back into the modern world. Sure they're big and scary, but they also haven't adapted to pollution, cars or people with guns.

« Reply #70 on: September 16, 2010, 00:54 »
Right, but we did get to see what is in the rest of the 'Agency' collection on Getty.  Still not what they described it would be, and still not on par with the Vetta files they will be ranked (and priced) higher than.

Add the fact that you can't turn off Agency without also turning off Vetta in the searches, and some of the higher end exclusives depending on Vetta sales to make their credit targets might be in a bit of a spot.


« Reply #71 on: September 16, 2010, 01:18 »
1. Apologies for this maelstrom.

2. At this very moment & due to a technical glitch, both accepted and rejected files are showing up as active files in Agency.

3. Until this glitch is addressed and fixed, all ingestion into Agency has been paused.

Thank you so very much for your understanding.

A quote from iStock admin. They couldn't make this more of a PR disaster if they tried.

« Reply #72 on: September 16, 2010, 02:15 »
Another example that some of the managers there don't have a clue.  I think there is a real chance that istock is going to be hit hard by losing millions of images at the same time as putting off buyers with high prices, sending them to thinkstock and all these collections.  I just hope they wake up and make some changes before too much damage is done.

« Reply #73 on: September 16, 2010, 02:17 »
Ha ha ha - Istock * up - Yet again - how funney to see - selfdestruction at open carpet - oh my oh my...


« Reply #74 on: September 16, 2010, 03:10 »
Has anyone see Agency-Images from other Agencies not just fstop?


Related Topics

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

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

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


Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results


3100 Posing Cards Bundle