Author Topic: Thread for Deletion (Read 9269 times)

Goldmund · « **on:** September 30, 2011, 02:36 »

I tried something, it didn't work. Mods, please delete this thread. Thanks.

markrhiggins · « **Reply #1 on:** September 30, 2011, 03:08 »

needs a vignette to be Vetta?

markrhiggins · « **Reply #2 on:** September 30, 2011, 03:09 »

It is serious however as the brand is being diluted. best match is lots of similar, mostly exclusive and often poor quality.

ShadySue · « **Reply #3 on:** September 30, 2011, 03:32 »

"...we are on a mission to simplify the ingestion process as well as the inspection process"

ETA: that photo has 3 x 5* reviews.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #4 on:** September 30, 2011, 05:21 »

Link: http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-17763924-close-up-of-water-pouring-from-a-copper-fountain.php

fotografer · « **Reply #5 on:** September 30, 2011, 05:30 »

Quote from: sjlocke on September 30, 2011, 05:21

Link: http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-17763924-close-up-of-water-pouring-from-a-copper-fountain.php

55 credits for small size!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

rubyroo · « **Reply #6 on:** September 30, 2011, 05:41 »

OMG

Maui · « **Reply #7 on:** September 30, 2011, 05:42 »

Ranked with 5 stars by 3 users? Hmmmm....

cathyslife · « **Reply #8 on:** September 30, 2011, 05:52 »

While millions of people have either lost their jobs completely or have had to take a serious cut in pay, there are still companies that can afford to pay 55 credits for a small size image? Somebody's still rolling in the dough.

Difydave · « **Reply #9 on:** September 30, 2011, 05:58 »

Quote from: cclapper on September 30, 2011, 05:52

While millions of people have either lost their jobs completely or have had to take a serious cut in pay, there are still companies that can afford to pay 55 credits for a small size image? Somebody's still rolling in the dough.

Doesn't look like anyone has felt the need to download it yet.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #10 on:** September 30, 2011, 06:02 »

If IS, or any stock site, can sell images like this at Agency level prices we should all be happy and take note of how undervalued our work is.

Micro has set our value perception, and also buyers perception, so low that now everything is expected to be cheap.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #11 on:** September 30, 2011, 06:05 »

Here's another example, this time with outrageous lens flare/veiling flare.

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-15436834-carefree-woman-with-outstretched-arms-holding-a-flowing-scarf.php?st=c338afc

Would these be old slide scans, by any chance? I quite like some of them but they clearly violate iStock quality standards.

I also noticed one edstock cityscape taken this year with the horizon about 2 degrees out of level (and I haven't bothered looking at more than a dozen of the edstock images). It seems the edstock types don't waste time correcting anything about the stuff they churn out. I won't be surprised if they have sensor dust, too.

ShadySue · « **Reply #12 on:** September 30, 2011, 06:07 »

The real insult is that while that file, by a 'fake' exclusive, is sold at agency prices, all independent files, and maybe soon some/all plebby exclusive files are being compulsorily sold at TS prices. :-(

rubyroo · « **Reply #13 on:** September 30, 2011, 06:27 »

Wow. My retinas are burned out!

Goldmund · « **Reply #14 on:** September 30, 2011, 06:43 »

ShadySue · « **Reply #15 on:** September 30, 2011, 06:49 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on September 30, 2011, 06:05

I also noticed one edstock cityscape taken this year with the horizon about 2 degrees out of level (and I haven't bothered looking at more than a dozen of the edstock images). It seems the edstock types don't waste time correcting anything about the stuff they churn out. I won't be surprised if they have sensor dust, too.

It could be that they don't do any post work at all: they maybe just upload their images directly from location.

ShadySue · « **Reply #16 on:** September 30, 2011, 07:09 »

Agency:

... which IMHO is worse than some images I've had rejected altogether for 'poor light'.
(But I don't know how to link to a rejected image)

Goldmund · « **Reply #17 on:** September 30, 2011, 07:19 »

Nadya · « **Reply #18 on:** September 30, 2011, 07:31 »

newbielink:http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-17764042-olives-on-olive-tree-in-front-of-luxury-resort.php?st=8e90c8d" [nonactive]

cathyslife · « **Reply #19 on:** September 30, 2011, 07:35 »

pimping thread

Goldmund · « **Reply #20 on:** September 30, 2011, 07:40 »

Nadya · « **Reply #21 on:** September 30, 2011, 08:01 »

Agency:
newbielink:http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14765925-young-couple-at-lake-powell.php [nonactive]
Rejected:
newbielink:http://"http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-17446857-love.php?st=645937d" [nonactive]

michealo · « **Reply #22 on:** September 30, 2011, 08:20 »

Goldmund, do you think that your decision to resign as an inspector and your vocal criticism are leading to you being punished?

Goldmund · « **Reply #23 on:** September 30, 2011, 08:39 »

My decision to resign is not the subject of this topic so let's not go into that. I am raising here a valid concern and any half decent person to just look at these and many other examples will see no reason to punish me for criticizing the obvious double standard policy. Istock's success is in my best interest and I am doing what is in my power to point to flaws of the system that have potential to affect this success. And we are not in middle ages, there are written agreements that define obligations of contracted parties. I have not nor do I intend to breach any of my obligations so I don't see what "punishment" could possibly await me.

michealo · « **Reply #24 on:** September 30, 2011, 08:52 »

Quote from: Goldmund on September 30, 2011, 08:39

My decision to resign is not the subject of this topic so let's not go into that.

No problem with that.

Quote from: Goldmund

I am raising here a valid concern

I agree with you.

Quote from: Goldmund

and any half decent person to just look at these and many other examples will see no reason to punish me for criticizing the obvious double standard policy.

I'm afraid you have greater faith in Getty/IS than I do.

Quote from: Goldmund

Istock's success is in my best interest

And theirs too.

Quote from: Goldmund

and I am doing what is in my power to point to flaws of the system that have potential to affect this success.

If they didn't want to hear it on their forum what makes you think they would be more receptive here?
I know Chris pops in here to keep a check on what IS contributors say here.

Quote from: Goldmund

And we are not in middle ages, there are written agreements that define obligations of contracted parties. I have not nor do I intend to breach any of my obligations so I don't see what "punishment" could possibly await me.

Well increased rejections, fewer acceptances to premium collections, no lypse assignments, and any number of things

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Thread for Deletion (Read 9269 times)

Goldmund

markrhiggins

markrhiggins

ShadySue

Sean Locke Photography

fotografer

rubyroo

Maui

cathyslife

Difydave

PaulieWalnuts

BaldricksTrousers

ShadySue

rubyroo

Goldmund

ShadySue

ShadySue

Goldmund

Nadya

cathyslife

Goldmund

Nadya

michealo

Goldmund

michealo

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors