Author Topic: Thread for Deletion (Read 8127 times)

gostwyck · « **Reply #25 on:** September 30, 2011, 08:56 »

Quote from: michealo 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

At least he still has his self-respect though. That's worth more than an inspector's badge.

Goldmund · « **Reply #26 on:** September 30, 2011, 09:07 »

Quote from: michealo on September 30, 2011, 08:52

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

Yeah, that makes sense.. but even if I do get a rejection here and there still majority of the team are beautiful kind hearted people who probably feel the same way I do but just prefer to stay under the radar. I don't see them rejecting my images because I stated the obvious.

As for the Lypse's, oh man, after the Tokyo one I couldn't care less for not being invited for the rest of my life and beyond.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #27 on:** September 30, 2011, 09:31 »

If you recall the initial Agency ingestion where we lampooned here (and to a lesser extent on the iStock forums) some of the content they were including in the collection, it's clear that there is a lot of content that for one reason or another wouldn't meet iStock standards for the main collection, let alone Agency or Vetta. I never for one minute bought the excuse that it was a software glitch that resulted in those files getting approved.

Getty wants to flog as much of its content via iStock's traffic (ignoring the issue of how they could smother that fire completely if they aren't careful) as they can. I don't think they are as interested in accepting content from iStock exclusives to whom they have to pay higher royalties.

I don't think there is or will be any attempt to meld the two sets of acceptance criteria to make a single coherent whole for how you get content into Agency/Vetta. I think that we'll see more Getty collections soon and that the hints in JJRD's recent announcement with Andrew to smooth things over with contributors are about multiple standards and us learning to live with that.

I like that blown out woman in a field a lot - has a great feel to it - but I can't imagine that getting through iStock inspection. I think most people's issues are with multiple standards - why does the low-royalty stuff get a free pass while the higher royalty stuff has to jump very high hurdles.

In a sense, Getty would do better to let cheapo (<20%) independents contribute to Vetta and Agency, but there'd a riot among exclusives if they tried that

To me it feels like iStock is an Arab spring in reverse - going from something pretty open and collaborative and participatory to something pretty dictatorial and stratified. They don't care that we don't like it. I think they're on a road to have two Getty sites, at which point you'd ask what the point is of the second one.

gostwyck · « **Reply #28 on:** September 30, 2011, 09:43 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers 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.

Nothing wrong with that image or the series that it's a part of. It's a well executed and reasonably lit portrayal of an early morning in nature. Plenty of buyers have been willing to stump up at least 55 credits to use it and others like it. On the question of whether we'd have got it through inspection ... probably only if you were either an inspector or part of the in-crowd (or both). Istock can sometimes get too hung up about it's 'technical standards' though. They need to see the bigger picture, so to speak.

SNP · « **Reply #29 on:** September 30, 2011, 10:51 »

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. 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.

I really applaud your attitude and your willingness to discuss problems reasonably. legitimate success is in all of our best interest, and we're all invested to varying degrees...to expect us to sit back and look the other way on these issues is unfair and disrespectful of our labours. I'm not going to post any of my rejections, though lately I seem to have royally ticked off some Vetta Gods...not to mention Agency.

But one examples of a file that should not be Agency:

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14626236-businessman-playing-the-cup-game.php?st=2bc2ca0

Goldmund · « **Reply #30 on:** September 30, 2011, 11:09 »

Downtown Pearl · « **Reply #31 on:** September 30, 2011, 18:42 »

don't understand all the whining - everything is subjective - just imagine the outcome if there were a set of standards programmed into a machine, do you think that scenario would be better & be more lucrative for the photographer? - my take on the pix of water coming out of copper pipe - it's a great stock pix! - it's about the water coming out not the whole * pipe, on the black couple - omg - hot spots - that's unacceptable with anyone in the know - yoga pose against that floor - go back to the pipe - what's the photo about the yoga concept or the floor? it would have worked if the floor was submitted separately by itself. sure the inspectors have their preferences but none of these examples would be any different with different inspectors. better to figure out a way to have a viable group where buyers would go, pix would be great and we'd get paid fairly. have yet to find that.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #32 on:** September 30, 2011, 20:23 »

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

Magic, it disappeared.

Also what's the reasoning for posting a thread that almost all the messages are "..." What's that all about? Censorship by oneself? Revising history by removing it from the knowledge base, so it never happened? Since I missed it, was the original thread about a double (or triple) standard for reviews?

Strange!

Thanks, now I get it: "I showed about 20 different examples of photos which were in Agency collection but belong better to the Dollar Bin" logical point of view and does hint that there may be some double-standard with regards to reviews in some cases.

As for my own submissions, I've found IS to fair and consistent as far as quality requirements or standards. I may not agree and they have rejected my best sellers from SS, but the reviews are consistent and it appears the reviewers are well trained to keep things equal.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #33 on:** September 30, 2011, 21:27 »

So the water out of the pipe photo is no longer on iStock, Goldmund has deleted all his posts and asked leaf to delete the thread. What's up? Did someone at iStock express displeasure with discussion of this issue and request that Goldmund remove his posts?

I don't see why the thread should be deleted as others had something to say on the issues - not sure I like the idea of being able to revise history where things can be "un happened".

Goldmund, could you shed some light on why you removed everything?

Goldmund · « **Reply #34 on:** September 30, 2011, 21:56 »

I removed the examples because initially I thought this would be a group effort to show the obvious flaw of the system. However, it rather looked like a one man show where I hold the stage and others are either cheering or wooing. I didn't like that. I showed about 20 different examples of photos which were in Agency collection but belong better to the Dollar Bin, and all other people showed 3 or 4 of which some were fairly decent images. I assume most other people were just too afraid to contribute to this thread in a meaningful way (with a few exceptions). If anyone feels this should be continued feel free to do so and I will contribute. To make it perfectly clear - no, no one threatened me or anything of that sort. I still think all of what I initially said, I just don't think there's enough good will amongst the fellow contributors to act on this issue and I don't think I should be the only black sheep.

sharpshot · « **Reply #35 on:** October 01, 2011, 02:11 »

I think most people have gone past caring. Istock have ignored us for the past few years, making mistake after mistake. How many non-exclusives here are going to bother with this? I feel for exclusives but there's always the option to drop the crown. Until istock see that treating contributors with contempt hits their profits, I don't think there's much we can do to improve things. I really hope they have a change of attitude one day and the site can move back towards how it was a few years ago, when there were very few complaints from contributors.

cathyslife · « **Reply #36 on:** October 01, 2011, 07:24 »

You are just a little late to the party. This was hashed out here when it first started happening, and as already mentioned, not too many care anymore. I just saw this thread as you posting what you thought was a bad agency image and then comparing it to what you think are your "perfect" shots. Anyone can find flaws in anyone else's work, so really the topic is very subjective to begin with.

Maybe while others were complaining the first time around, it didn't affect you because your bottom line was still way up there. Now, your bottom line is beginning to drop and you find the injustice of it?

As sharpshot said, you could always drop the crown, but I'm guessing you make too much money to do that. Posting here is a way to vent personally, but it sure as heck isn't going to change things at IS. Whatever move you make is only going to be to make yourself happy. IS's attitude is basically put up or shut up.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #37 on:** October 01, 2011, 07:29 »

Quote from: Goldmund on September 30, 2011, 21:56

I just don't think there's enough good will amongst the fellow contributors to act on this issue and I don't think I should be the only black sheep.

Maybe we did act in some way, but just didn't have time to sort through random images to post here.

Goldmund · « **Reply #38 on:** October 01, 2011, 12:36 »

Fair enough, Sean..

Artemis · « **Reply #39 on:** October 01, 2011, 15:45 »

I also think that for many of us its just a given now...
The double standards (in really every aspect), the nepotism, the broken promises, the neverending greed,....
We've complained, been angry and frustrated, endlessly lamented about it... it doesnt change a thing, so each personally did what they felt is best and moved on...
I personally couldnt care less anymore, i know how they are and i'm not wasting anymore anger or frustration on them...

fotografer · « **Reply #40 on:** October 01, 2011, 16:37 »

Quote from: Artemis on October 01, 2011, 15:45

.
I personally couldnt care less anymore, i know how they are and i'm not wasting anymore anger or frustration on them...

I think that sentence expresses perfectly the sentiments of many of us here now. We are just so fed up with it nothing surprises us anymore or even gets much of a reaction out of us.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #41 on:** October 01, 2011, 16:46 »

The only other factor here is that only an exclusive would have any Agency rejects to share. There are some ex exclusives like me, but not all that many current iStock exclusives who are active participants (there's Sean and then there's... ... )

The obvious place would be the Agency forum on iStock, but they wouldn't permit this sort of thing.

SNP · « **Reply #42 on:** October 01, 2011, 17:04 »

I'm disappointed to see that you've deleted your posts Goldmund. I think the points you raised were/are important. I understood you weren't pimping with the examples you provided.

Goldmund · « **Reply #43 on:** October 01, 2011, 22:06 »

Perhaps you did, Stacy, but obviously many people thought I was just so inclined to show them my precious images.

Graffoto · « **Reply #44 on:** October 01, 2011, 22:13 »

@ Goldmund, I for one did not think you were pimping your images.
Anyway, MSG is a far different place than the IS forums. No woo-yays thank TPTB and a lot of grumbling.

Anyone that chooses to hang out here should have a fairly thick hide and there are some here that can be quite acerbic.

Please continue to use these forums, your insight is appreciated by me and I am sure that I am not alone.

Goldmund · « **Reply #45 on:** October 01, 2011, 23:27 »

I can see that it's a bit rough here with quite a few unpolished egos. Will stay around, just have to learn rules of conduct.

cathyslife · « **Reply #46 on:** October 02, 2011, 07:59 »

Quote from: Graffoto on October 01, 2011, 22:13

@ Goldmund, I for one did not think you were pimping your images.
Anyway, MSG is a far different place than the IS forums. No woo-yays thank TPTB and a lot of grumbling.

Anyone that chooses to hang out here should have a fairly thick hide and there are some here that can be quite acerbic.

Please continue to use these forums, your insight is appreciated by me and I am sure that I am not alone.

Bad Agency photos could have easily been pointed out without adding one's own images, no? The topic was discussed extensively when it first happened. So to me, your complaints looked like a little pimping going on. The main point of all the "unpolished egos" here was that your complaints were just a little late. And as also pointed out by JoAnn, there aren't many exclusives here on this forum to sympathize with you. Non-exclusives really don't care about Agency photos.

Sean weighed in, and you thanked him personally. Stacey constantly puts me down personally. Check how many people have her on ignore. (And yes, if you think anyone in particular is annoying and has nothing intelligent to say, like me for example, there is always the ignore button.)

I never understand people who post in a public forum, but when they get some negative answers or answers that don't support their own point of view, they get upset.

Your insight is always appreciated, but just like there are several people here pointing negatively to MY post implying you were pimping, just be aware that not everyone is going to agree with your thoughts.

ShadySue · « **Reply #47 on:** October 02, 2011, 08:55 »

Quote from: cclapper on October 02, 2011, 07:59

Bad Agency photos could have easily been pointed out without adding one's own images, no? The topic was discussed extensively when it first happened. So to me, your complaints looked like a little pimping going on. The main point of all the "unpolished egos" here was that your complaints were just a little late. And as also pointed out by JoAnn, there aren't many exclusives here on this forum to sympathize with you. Non-exclusives really don't care about Agency photos.

I've found some agency photos from time to time which IMO are worse than pics I've had rejected from the main collection. (Not often, as Agency focusses on advertising-style lifestyle, which I don't do). I'm sure independents who work in that genre can find the same issue, without much problem.
@Goldmund: I think it was what Sean said - you weren't going to get a rush of posts, but the thread could simmer on nicely for months.
FWIW, although there is a general rule ('gentlemen's agreement') about not calling out others' photos, IMO on the issue of ingestions, especially by pseudo-exclusives, it's perfectly fair. They're breaking the rules; tit for tat

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #48 on:** October 02, 2011, 10:24 »

I think if we're going to discuss a policy as fair that lets in merely adequate images, then there is no problem providing some of your own to compare to. It's not like buyers hang out here waiting for pimp threadz.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Thread for Deletion (Read 8127 times)

gostwyck

Goldmund

Jo Ann Snover

gostwyck

SNP

Goldmund

Downtown Pearl

RacePhoto

Jo Ann Snover

Goldmund

sharpshot

cathyslife

Sean Locke Photography

Goldmund

Artemis

fotografer

Jo Ann Snover

SNP

Goldmund

Graffoto

Goldmund

cathyslife

ShadySue

Sean Locke Photography

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors