0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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.
another thing, is this exclusive? maybe IS want to show they are going to be different and WACKY!
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 SaylanBusiness Website: www.denizsaylan.com
Quote from: RT on July 22, 2008, 04:16Am 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 SaylanBusiness Website: www.denizsaylan.com [nofollow]
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.
Quote from: jsnover on July 22, 2008, 18:53There'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 !
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.
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.
Quote from: Cooper on July 23, 2008, 02:04yes, 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
I agree that they're great images but would be interesting to see if any old schmuck could get them accepted.
Quote from: Cooper on July 23, 2008, 02:04I 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.