MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: Graffoto on July 21, 2008, 16:35
-
I was just looking at the portfolio of this weeks 'Artist of the Week', SarahLen.
No doubt they are wonderful character studies, but why were these not rejected for overfiltering or 'overprocessed from their original quality'?
I mean this is really a very grunge style that only occurs with a lot of post processing (or a touch of Lucisart).
Am I missing something, or is this style just 'hip' enough that IS will take it even though they are aware that it is heavily manipulated?
-
IS does not reject all processing - there are lots of great examples of things that have been pushed quite a bit. I think this artist's work is gorgeous - more like a painting than a straight photo.
They have zero tolerance for some of the very saturated scenics that SS will happily accept, and it's much harder to predict which files will pass IS inspection when you heavily post-process.
I think the strong and clear style is probably a big help, and if you look at a 100% view (they are XXL files) the detail is gorgeous.
-
First, let me qualify this by saying that I'm an illustrator, not a photographer.
However, isn't the majority of that effect coming from a ringflash, not photoshop? They look like the pictures my friend takes with her ringflash + some strobes.
-
First, let me qualify this by saying that I'm an illustrator, not a photographer.
However, isn't the majority of that effect coming from a ringflash, not photoshop? They look like the pictures my friend takes with her ringflash + some strobes.
For certain this is not simply lighting, although that is a necessary foundation for this sort of work. It also is not a ringflash. Just check out the catchlights in the subjects eyes or the reflection from glasses. It looks more like softboxes of differing size from both sides.
I believe that the first person to popularize this style of post processing was Andrzej Dragan. Although his work is much more over the top than what I see from Sarahlen.
Dave Hill also has a similar post processing technique, although his results are also a bit different. In any case, it is more of an 'illustrated' look than a pure photograph.
Hence the reason for my original question... since it started out as a photograph, why the inspectors let it through. Although I think jsnover, pretty much answered my question.
-
yes I do agree that IS talks through both sides of their mouth, by rejecting many of overfiltering from the original, then highlighting something over the top. it sends conflicting messages.
or maybe we can just blame the reviewer, as one reviewer could be the one who rejects all over-filtering, then the next reviewer will take all that.
another thing, is this exclusive? maybe IS want to show they are going to be different and WACKY! 8)
with the uncertainty that everyone is seeing lately, anything is possible!
-
another thing, is this exclusive? maybe IS want to show they are going to be different and WACKY! 8)
Not exclusive - she has 10 files and 14 downloads.
-
Looks to me like some sort of HDR technique. Quite nice but certainly 'overfiltered'. :-\
-
Am I the only one who's wondering why she's artist of the week, I mean without being rude, a couple of weeks ago she uploaded 10 shots of people (possibly done in one studio session) who look related (family album?) that she's cross processed, and she's chosen as artist of the week!!
I'm not saying they're bad if you like that look, but to be totally honest apart from the interesting characters she's chosen, the photography isn't exactly awe inspiring.
I thought artist of the week was supposed to be someone who's demonstrated a bit more variety.
-
Very often IS selects AOTW among new members with small portfolio. I recall they commented about that a while ago saying they are doing that to promote new talents.
-
Am I the only one who's wondering why she's artist of the week, I mean without being rude, a couple of weeks ago she uploaded 10 shots of people (possibly done in one studio session) who look related (family album?) that she's cross processed, and she's chosen as artist of the week!!
I'm not saying they're bad if you like that look, but to be totally honest apart from the interesting characters she's chosen, the photography isn't exactly awe inspiring.
I thought artist of the week was supposed to be someone who's demonstrated a bit more variety.
If you click on the business website you can see who he is (not "she"). No "mom with a camera" taking some pictures for the "family album". Just click on his pages "my work" and "bio/exhibition".....
Here are the infos listed at his istock account:
Business Name: Deniz Saylan
Business Website: www.denizsaylan.com
-
If you click on the business website you can see who he is (not "she"). No "mom with a camera" taking some pictures for the "family album". Just click on his pages "my work" and "bio/exhibition".....
Here are the infos listed at his istock account:
Business Name: Deniz Saylan
Business Website: www.denizsaylan.com
I've heard of Deniz Saylan before, and when I saw that you'd written this I was more surprsied to think he would be selling via iStock, so I checked the iStock account and just as you said the info was there - HOWEVER the blog was signed SarahLen, hmmn strange I thought, I wonder if it's one of his assisstants portfolio, guess what check the iStock page again, the business name is now Sarah Len and there's no website link!!
But you were right Deniz Saylan is a fantastic photographer and has done some amazing photo's, I'm not sure that you'll find the one's on iStock are his, same style and technique but a world away from his quality, which makes me think assisstant even more now.
Of course none of this matters really.
-
whatever, still, it's good to know somebody!
p.s.
anyone can introduce me to someone famous, or maybe a reviewer ???
-
Am I the only one who's wondering why she's artist of the week, I mean without being rude, a couple of weeks ago she uploaded 10 shots of people (possibly done in one studio session) who look related (family album?) that she's cross processed, and she's chosen as artist of the week!!
I'm not saying they're bad if you like that look, but to be totally honest apart from the interesting characters she's chosen, the photography isn't exactly awe inspiring.
I thought artist of the week was supposed to be someone who's demonstrated a bit more variety.
If you click on the business website you can see who he is (not "she"). No "mom with a camera" taking some pictures for the "family album". Just click on his pages "my work" and "bio/exhibition".....
Here are the infos listed at his istock account:
Business Name: Deniz Saylan
Business Website: [url=http://www.denizsaylan.com]www.denizsaylan.com[/url]
Where do you see that? I see
Business Name: Sarah Len
and no business website on the profile page: http://www.istockphoto.com/sarahlen (http://www.istockphoto.com/sarahlen)
What page are you at for the Deniz Saylan info?
Edit: (ah - read another post. Are you saying it used to say Deniz Saylan and it changed to SarahLen? At any rate, istock would have an id that matched the copyright name they list, right?)
Edit again: There IS NO copyright line on his/her image pages, like there is on the rest of ours. Something VERY irregular is going on.
-
Edit again: There IS NO copyright line on his/her image pages, like there is on the rest of ours. Something VERY irregular is going on.
There's a preference somewhere that lets you choose whether or not to show your real name in the copyright. I would assume if it's not there it's because someone doesn't want the world to know that she/he is selling stock/microstock.
-
There's a preference somewhere that lets you choose whether or not to show your real name in the copyright. I would assume if it's not there it's because someone doesn't want the world to know that she/he is selling stock/microstock.
although i never can quite understand why anyone is ashamed of telling who they really are. not unless the photos are crappy or embarassing.
but that's their choice.
then again : wow, 10 files , 21 downloads , and on IS.
like , isn't this, something you only dream of ... for IS?
i have to congratulate whoever she is, or he is..or whatever ! :o
-
There's a preference somewhere that lets you choose whether or not to show your real name in the copyright. I would assume if it's not there it's because someone doesn't want the world to know that she/he is selling stock/microstock.
although i never can quite understand why anyone is ashamed of telling who they really are. not unless the photos are crappy or embarassing.
but that's their choice.
then again : wow, 10 files , 21 downloads , and on IS.
like , isn't this, something you only dream of ... for IS?
i have to congratulate whoever she is, or he is..or whatever ! :o
Maybe some people have a day job that would perceive stock as a conflict of interest.
-
If you are exclusive on Istock you cannot upload to other sites, not even your rejected photos. I'm making a wild guess here that there's a few exclusives with more than one identity for other RF sites.
-
If you are exclusive on Istock you cannot upload to other sites, not even your rejected photos. I'm making a wild guess here that there's a few exclusives with more than one identity for other RF sites.
I dunno. Most sites require you to send in a government id, don't they? I can't imagine many people go to the trouble of faking their id.
People who hide their real name are hiding it from the customers, not the site admins. And SarahLen isn't exclusive at any rate.
-
If you are exclusive on Istock you cannot upload to other sites, not even your rejected photos. I'm making a wild guess here that there's a few exclusives with more than one identity for other RF sites.
Funny I always figured that to be true as well ... I find it hard to believe, given all the trouble some people have gone to in the past to promote their ports at istock (ratings syndicates, etc), that some people are not getting away with it .. and the only site that ever required ID from me was Fotolia ...
-
yes, it's all very strange. Note that many of the hugely glowing reviews are from istock admins and top sellers.
I agree that they're great images but would be interesting to see if any old schmuck could get them accepted.
-
Personally I think that most of them are really great images and I think Artist of the week is well deserved.
-
yes, it's all very strange. Note that many of the hugely glowing reviews are from istock admins and top sellers.
I agree that they're great images but would be interesting to see if any old schmuck could get them accepted.
Its not that sinister, admins and top sellers (mostly exclusives) would tend to be more active on the site
-
yes, it's all very strange. Note that many of the hugely glowing reviews are from istock admins and top sellers.
I agree that they're great images but would be interesting to see if any old schmuck could get them accepted.
Its not that sinister, admins and top sellers (mostly exclusives) would tend to be more active on the site
Oh I know; It's just my cynical, conspiracy theory nature kicking in. Freezingpictures; no one ever said they weren't great images...
And yes, his portfolio still has Deniz Saylan as the business website.
-
I agree that they're great images but would be interesting to see if any old schmuck could get them accepted.
It has been said over and over and over again by JJRD that the "overfiltered" rejection is not used in the case of artistic images that are very well done. Bruce himself has stated that their inspection philosophy is that for a borderline image, they are to look for a reason to accept. It is really sad that some people are so adamant that any rejection they ever get MUST be because they are not exclusive or because istock sucks or any other thing except the flicker of possibility that it might actually have something to do with the merits of their own images.
In my opinion, it's really rude and disrespectful to have even posted this thread at all. Any beef you may have with istock should not involve singling out and calling into question another artist's abilities on a public forum. It comes across as petty and jealous, and really lends no credence whatsoever to any of your conspiracy theories.
-
I agree that they're great images but would be interesting to see if any old schmuck could get them accepted.
It has been said over and over and over again by JJRD that the "overfiltered" rejection is not used in the case of artistic images that are very well done. Bruce himself has stated that their inspection philosophy is that for a borderline image, they are to look for a reason to accept. It is really sad that some people are so adamant that any rejection they ever get MUST be because they are not exclusive or because istock sucks or any other thing except the flicker of possibility that it might actually have something to do with the merits of their own images.
In my opinion, it's really rude and disrespectful to have even posted this thread at all. Any beef you may have with istock should not involve singling out and calling into question another artist's abilities on a public forum. It comes across as petty and jealous, and really lends no credence whatsoever to any of your conspiracy theories.
Hey Bitter, I am the OP so this must have been addressed to me.
I posted it as an honest question, since from a lot of my readings on this site people have stated over and over that IS does not like heavily processed images.
I certainly was not trying to be disrespectful to the artist, and if you read carefully you will see that I did say the I thought they are wonderful character studies. So, I actually am agreeing that the work is deserving of praise.
BTW, I don't have a 'beef' with IS and juggernaut that they are, I am sure that they don't need you coming to their rescue either.
BTW who is JJRD?
-
[.................
BTW who is JJRD?
see here -> http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=385
BTW who is bittersweet? ;) Maybe somebody on this "who´s who" list?
-
[.................
BTW who is JJRD?
see here -> [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=385[/url]
BTW who is bittersweet? ;) Maybe somebody on this "who´s who" list?
He or she staunchly claims not to be ...
-
.....................
He or she staunchly claims not to be ...
As far as I know bittersweet said he is not "bitter", but the list is quite long.....
LOL, this little secret will keep us busy for some time.....stay tuned, the quest for bittersweet will continue after the commercial break.... ;D
-
There's at least one IStock employee here I know about, but it doesn't really matter. Any exclusive should tow the IStock line as their financial future is so closely tied up with IStock's success.
Any post by an IStock exclusive should be viewed with this in mind.
-
LOL, this little secret will keep us busy for some time.....stay tuned, the quest for bittersweet will continue after the commercial break.... ;D
Commercial break blow my mind. I will zap to another thread
-
Deleted because trying to work out who bittersweet is might not be very nice to him/ her (not sure about the etiquette here?)
-
Deleted because trying to work out who bittersweet is might not be very nice to him/ her (not sure about the etiquette here?)
Darn! I missed the wild speculation session. I would bet my life that whatever conclusion you came to was wrong, but I would have been interested to see your thought process. ;)
-
I agree that they're great images but would be interesting to see if any old schmuck could get them accepted.
It has been said over and over and over again by JJRD that the "overfiltered" rejection is not used in the case of artistic images that are very well done. Bruce himself has stated that their inspection philosophy is that for a borderline image, they are to look for a reason to accept. It is really sad that some people are so adamant that any rejection they ever get MUST be because they are not exclusive or because istock sucks or any other thing except the flicker of possibility that it might actually have something to do with the merits of their own images.
In my opinion, it's really rude and disrespectful to have even posted this thread at all. Any beef you may have with istock should not involve singling out and calling into question another artist's abilities on a public forum. It comes across as petty and jealous, and really lends no credence whatsoever to any of your conspiracy theories.
Bittersweet, how does my comment in any way call "into question another artist's abilities on a public forum"? I mean, for god's sake, the part of my post you quoted has me saying, "I agree they're great images". What a stupid response.
Seriously this really bugs me. I thought this was supposed to be an independent "meeting place for microstock photographers" where you could express views and discuss the particular sites. I never, ever questioned the ability of the artist in question and the fact that you have turned my comments around to try to portray that in an effort to "protect" iStock is pretty pathetic and transparent. I mean god's sake, it's not like I even attacked iStock in any major way. The whole thing was a bit tongue in cheek.
Is iStock that precious that it can't take a bit of a ribbing?
-
Personally I think that most of them are really great images and I think Artist of the week is well deserved.
Freeze, I have to agree...cudos and let it rest ;)
-
I agree that they're great images but would be interesting to see if any old schmuck could get them accepted.
It has been said over and over and over again by JJRD that the "overfiltered" rejection is not used in the case of artistic images that are very well done. Bruce himself has stated that their inspection philosophy is that for a borderline image, they are to look for a reason to accept. It is really sad that some people are so adamant that any rejection they ever get MUST be because they are not exclusive or because istock sucks or any other thing except the flicker of possibility that it might actually have something to do with the merits of their own images.
In my opinion, it's really rude and disrespectful to have even posted this thread at all. Any beef you may have with istock should not involve singling out and calling into question another artist's abilities on a public forum. It comes across as petty and jealous, and really lends no credence whatsoever to any of your conspiracy theories.
Bittersweet, how does my comment in any way call "into question another artist's abilities on a public forum"? I mean, for god's sake, the part of my post you quoted has me saying, "I agree they're great images". What a stupid response.
Seriously this really bugs me. I thought this was supposed to be an independent "meeting place for microstock photographers" where you could express views and discuss the particular sites. I never, ever questioned the ability of the artist in question and the fact that you have turned my comments around to try to portray that in an effort to "protect" iStock is pretty pathetic and transparent. I mean god's sake, it's not like I even attacked iStock in any major way. The whole thing was a bit tongue in cheek.
Is iStock that precious that it can't take a bit of a ribbing?
the "any old shmuck" part was what I was replying to in your post. It implies that the image was accepted because of who the artist is, not solely on its own merits.
The rest of my comments were not directed at you, but more general statements about many other things that have been said and implied here. The OP said "why wasn't this rejected" and of course someone had to follow up with the usual assumption that it just MUST be an exclusive image (the seriously tired mantra of the rejected). They never even took the time to check before just posting complete BS.
I just get sick of seeing the same whiny baseless claims being made inserted into every single thread that involves anything at all to do with istock. As I always wonder, WHY do you all put up with it if it's so terrible? Nothing would thrill me more than to see a mass exodus of all the mistreated oppressed contributors who hate hate hate big evil istock. It would be less competition for the rest of us. ;D
-
I thought this was supposed to be an independent "meeting place for microstock photographers" where you could express views and discuss the particular sites.
It is, and the subject of this thread is one of those photographers who quite possibly is a member here. Put yourself in his/her place for a moment, re-read the comments made in this thread (the majority of which are not positive), and see if you can stretch your imagination to understand that it was not istock that I was "protecting".
-
ohhh never mnd.. on second thought! (withdrawn) ;D
-
Hey, I think the character studies by the AOTW are wonderful ... I even went to his website -really great work ... but I do think there is a valid discussion to be had about double standards on istock ... and I am not talking about the AOTW here ... hands down, his pics are great. I am not calling into question his "worthiness", if you will. I think his merit is clear. But it does raise the issue of double standards ... sorry, but if I had submitted those photos (and I wish I had half the skills he does) they would have been rejected without a doubt.
-
I thought this was supposed to be an independent "meeting place for microstock photographers" where you could express views and discuss the particular sites.
It is, and the subject of this thread is one of those photographers who quite possibly is a member here. Put yourself in his/her place for a moment, re-read the comments made in this thread (the majority of which are not positive), and see if you can stretch your imagination to understand that it was not istock that I was "protecting".
Seriously Bittersweet, I don't want to get into a debate on forums (hate that) but I would have to disagree that "the majority...are not positive". I've reread the thread and just about every poster has commented that they are great pictures.
And never did I complain about iStock rejections. I have a pretty good acceptance rate there.
-
I think Istock's rejection policy when it comes to postprocessing is fairly decent.
When the result (in hindsight) was questionable it was rejected. Recently i had an image in which (in my humble opinion) the PP complements/enhances the photo even though it distorts the appearance.
Was it accepted?
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=6690732
*grin*
-
There's at least one IStock employee here I know about, but it doesn't really matter. Any exclusive should tow the IStock line as their financial future is so closely tied up with IStock's success.
Any post by an IStock exclusive should be viewed with this in mind.
If you think that exclusives agree with every iStock action you really need to read more.
-
There's at least one IStock employee here I know about, but it doesn't really matter. Any exclusive should tow the IStock line as their financial future is so closely tied up with IStock's success.
Any post by an IStock exclusive should be viewed with this in mind.
If you think that exclusives agree with every iStock action you really need to read more.
Love your work.
I am not saying exclusives agree with every action IStock takes.
My post said they should tow the line. The exclusive agreement means you are almost an employee on commission payments. It would be foolish to be too critical about your employer as maintaining their reputation effects your income.
If you are wise you don't bite the hand that feeds you.
For the rest of us this means taking opinions of IStock exclusives on IStock with a pinch of salt.
-
There's at least one IStock employee here I know about, but it doesn't really matter. Any exclusive should tow the IStock line as their financial future is so closely tied up with IStock's success.
Any post by an IStock exclusive should be viewed with this in mind.
If you think that exclusives agree with every iStock action you really need to read more.
Love your work.
I am not saying exclusives agree with every action IStock takes.
My post said they should tow the line. The exclusive agreement means you are almost an employee on commission payments. It would be foolish to be too critical about your employer as maintaining their reputation effects your income.
If you are wise you don't bite the hand that feeds you.
For the rest of us this means taking opinions of IStock exclusives on IStock with a pinch of salt.
I take all opinions with a pinch of salt and a healthy dose of skepticism ...
-
Skepticism is healthy!
PS: Oh, com'on people, the AOTW's work is * perfect! Overfiltered? Well procesed!
Probably we must diference between veryfiltered and overfiltered! You can put tones of filters and obtain a good image or simply adjust levels and overfilter... I think it's not a problem of quantity but of quality.
-
I am not saying exclusives agree with every action IStock takes.
My post said they should tow the line. The exclusive agreement means you are almost an employee on commission payments. It would be foolish to be too critical about your employer as maintaining their reputation effects your income.
If you are wise you don't bite the hand that feeds you.
For the rest of us this means taking opinions of IStock exclusives on IStock with a pinch of salt.
Exclusives aren't employees, not even almost. We all criticize the sites we make money from - have a read in here at the threads critical of just about every one of the sites at one time or another.
I do like to know if someone is exclusive to one site or not as it helps to know if they've actually got any experience with the other sites if they opine on that subject (in the past there would be folks on IS forums talking about how other sites did or didn't do things and they had no idea what they were talkinng about). It's also good to know if someone is an admin at a site (remember the bosters for LO while it was still alive) so you know about someone's vested interests.
As for takiing opinions with a pinch of salt that depends upon the writer and past experience with them. IS exclusivity doesn't necessarily render them unable to make a cogent point about IS :)
-
Skepticism is healthy!
PS: Oh, com'on people, the AOTW's work is * perfect! Overfiltered? Well procesed!
Wow, we can't type J E S U S but the f word doesn't get filtred!
-
Skepticism is healthy!
PS: Oh, com'on people, the AOTW's work is * perfect! Overfiltered? Well procesed!
Wow, we can't type J E S U S but the f word doesn't get filtred!
frankly, i'd rather you used the f*** word than J****
as to some people like myself, the latter is as sacred as the g** word
or moh****.
so please use the f*** word. cheers!
-
Oh, com'on people, the AOTW's work is f****** perfect! Overfiltered? Well procesed!
:P
-
Loosely translated into old fashioned English English:
Oh, come on chaps, the AOTW's work is simply spiffing, what, what? Overfiltered? Top drawer processing!
:)
-
I am not saying exclusives agree with every action IStock takes.
My post said they should tow the line. The exclusive agreement means you are almost an employee on commission payments. It would be foolish to be too critical about your employer as maintaining their reputation effects your income.
If you are wise you don't bite the hand that feeds you.
For the rest of us this means taking opinions of IStock exclusives on IStock with a pinch of salt.
Exclusives aren't employees, not even almost. We all criticize the sites we make money from - have a read in here at the threads critical of just about every one of the sites at one time or another.
I do like to know if someone is exclusive to one site or not as it helps to know if they've actually got any experience with the other sites if they opine on that subject (in the past there would be folks on IS forums talking about how other sites did or didn't do things and they had no idea what they were talkinng about). It's also good to know if someone is an admin at a site (remember the bosters for LO while it was still alive) so you know about someone's vested interests.
As for takiing opinions with a pinch of salt that depends upon the writer and past experience with them. IS exclusivity doesn't necessarily render them unable to make a cogent point about IS :)
We'll just have to differ on this. I think the exclusivity contract restricts activity outside IStock to a high enough degree that exclusives (at least those that get the majority of their income from microstock) have what you would call a pretty serious "vested interest" in IStock's success.
A freelancer can criticize any site as much as they like, irrespective of how much money it brings in for them. If customers leave the site due to bad publicity we can just follow the money and upload to another site, or more likely are already uploading to that competitor's site.
This isn't a criticism of IStock, they happen to be both my biggest earner and one of my favorites when it comes to contributor relations (as opposed to SS, my second biggest earner that treats contributors like crap and does nothing to protect their intellectual property-- see what I did there, openly criticized my second biggest earner)
It is also not a criticism of IStock exclusives, anybody that takes their earnings seriously isn't going to publicly insult their main source of income too much, they'd be mad to. I know I wouldn't, in fact, if I start toning down my comments about IS you know I'm considering going exclusive!
-
...in fact, if I start toning down my comments about IS you know I'm considering going exclusive!
So not this week? :)
-
I'm exclusive at istock and I will say loud and clear when I think the things they are doing are wrong. Including on their forums. (I've not been banned yet!) I've been vocal on the current wiki fiasco - vocal enough to insist that they remove my little wiki icon as I no longer wish to be associated with the system while it's such a mess, and on several other issues.
My view is that because I've got all my eggs in their basket , I've gt the right to have some input into their systems - just as a share holder has the right to voice their disapproval of a company's policies at a share holder's meeting.
-
Oh, com'on people, the AOTW's work is f****** perfect! Overfiltered? Well procesed!
:P
Loosely translated into old fashioned English English:
Oh, come on chaps, the AOTW's work is simply spiffing, what, what? Overfiltered? Top drawer processing!
:)
simply spiffy ! ;D and if you're from Wales... GOOOORGGEOUS! ;D
-
Hahahaha! Very funny! And thanks for the translation, I never expected to see my words in a so smart english!
-
...in fact, if I start toning down my comments about IS you know I'm considering going exclusive!
So not this week? :)
LOL ;D
Susan, I think you also have the right to voice an opinion, as do I, I may be non exclusive but their cut of my sales is about $10,000 per month, so if I have something to say they'd better listen.
All I'm saying is that someone in your position has a vested interest in not voicing negative opinions about IStock publicly in a way that someone in my position doesn't. That is not to say that you personally would not do so. Only that as a whole exclusives are less likely to be expressing an unbiased view on a public forum.
That is not to say that their views should be ignored, only that they should be heard with this in mind.
-
Susan S, which comes to the scary part of becoming exclusive, isn't it? How much say do you think you , as exclusives, have with the decisions of the site?
I don't think it is like that of a shareholder, but more like someone in the pecking order. The higher your sales, the more preference you get, but unless you're a top draw, I can't see anyone getting the special treatment equal to that of being a shareholder.
-
Susan S, which comes to the scary part of becoming exclusive, isn't it? How much say do you think you , as exclusives, have with the decisions of the site?
I don't think it is like that of a shareholder, but more like someone in the pecking order. The higher your sales, the more preference you get, but unless you're a top draw, I can't see anyone getting the special treatment equal to that of being a shareholder.
I suspect on most issues individually I have very little influence on the Powers That Be at Istock. There have been a couple of issues where I think I and several others acting as a group have had some effect
Generally I think istock will listen when a significant number of exclusive/high performing (which I'm not) contributors all speak together on an issue - as with the recent wiki problems, there has at least been some admission that there has been something of an issue, even if the response is not as yet terribly satisfactory. The response only happened when some relatively senior istock members, including some who have been very supportive of the wiki system, said that there was something odd going on with wikiing, en masse.
Ain't thread drift great.
Returning to the original theme of this thread, I think SarahLens images are striking, if not necessarily quite stock. istock seem to run with artists like this who they decide can represent the edginess available at the site from time to time. Personally I've never had any problems getting filtered images up on istock - I've got HDR (mild!) and heavily saturated landscapes through. The key thing is that whatever you do mustn't muck up the appearance of the file when you look at it at 100 per cent. It helps if you have a body of work in a particular style to upload, I think, rather than random heavily processed images. And of course getting composites through is reportedly a bit of a lottery. But then I don't do them, so it doesn't affect me.
-
Susan, that's a lot of insight here you just shared with us. Cheers for that.
I do know that it's true firsthand what you mentioned:
"It helps if you have a body of work in a particular style to upload, I think, rather than random heavily processed images. And of course getting composites through is reportedly a bit of a lottery."
all these applied to me and yes, for that , as I stated at the onset of this thread, IS is quite predictable and faithful to a theme. Most of my accepted images are just that.
Lastly, composites a lottery, YES, as i found out quite recently. even if it was to enhance the composition, i now try not to be too smart with composites. Cheers once again.