I guess I am of several minds here.  I find myself agreeing with everyone a little bit.

I don't object to some price stratification to separate out the high production value, creative stuff from the every day, low budget micro images.  That makes sense.  

But Istock seems to have gone overboard the past year or so by creating so many different collections at such vastly differing price points.  The ability to search the site and filter the various price points hasn't kept up.  Add to that the deliberate front loading of the most expensive images in the default search.  

Even though there are still a majority of low to moderately priced images on the site, the perception seems to be that most of the good content has skyrocketed in price.   The end result is lots of confused and angry buyers.  

Even though there are still a majority of low to moderately priced images on the site, the perception seems to be that most of the good content has skyrocketed in price.   The end result is lots of confused and angry buyers.  

Perception is definitely a big part of it. I hope that if the site is fixed then afterwards there will be a real push to make it all cool again. Showcasing some of the great low cost images available would be a great move. I really really hope they are in it for the long run.

I guess I am of several minds here.  I find myself agreeing with everyone a little bit.

I don't object to some price stratification to separate out the high production value, creative stuff from the every day, low budget micro images.  That makes sense.  

But Istock seems to have gone overboard the past year or so by creating so many different collections at such vastly differing price points.  The ability to search the site and filter the various price points hasn't kept up.  Add to that the deliberate front loading of the most expensive images in the default search.  

Even though there are still a majority of low to moderately priced images on the site, the perception seems to be that most of the good content has skyrocketed in price.   The end result is lots of confused and angry buyers.  

I know I've mentioned it before, but I really like Veer's search functionality. They have prices ranging from 1,5 Euro to 679 Euro, and will show everything in the default search. But there is a very visible and easy to use slide bare on the side, where you can narrow it to less than 399, less than 199, or less than 29.

A lot of different prices, everything thrown together in the same database, but easy to use to the buyer.

@caspixel - IIRC from the iStockphoto forum you used to be someone who as a buyer was quite (something like ... ) critical of iStockphoto. I hope that's fair analysis. What brought you back to iStockphoto ?

Haha. Yes, I have been (and still am) critical of iStock. I wouldn't say that I'm "back" at iStock. Now I buy primarily from Dreamstime. On the rare occasion that I might happen to purchase from iStock, I would only buy from non-exclusives at this point. I'm glad there are still other people who buy from exclusives, because I don't have anything against them, I just don't care for the greedy corporate attitude and constant price hikes coming out of HQ.

I do still read the forums every now and then though. It's like an afternoon soap. You know it sucks and it's not worth the time to watch, but you can't seem to keep yourself from tuning in.

Now I buy primarily from Dreamstime. On the rare occasion that I might happen to purchase from iStock, I would only buy from non-exclusives at this point.

So what makes you buy non exclusive content from iStockphoto rather than from somewhere else ? Is it less expensive ?

So people saying that iStockphoto is too expensive but actually you're shopping there because it's less expensive. Interesting. It seems to rather contradict the "bailing" meme

I guess iStockphoto needs to get the word out better ?

So people saying that iStockphoto is too expensive but actually you're shopping there because it's less expensive.

No, I'm not saying they are less expensive than other agencies. In general they aren't, because the credits are across the board more expensive than at other agencies. What I am saying is that the non-exclusive files are less expensive than the exclusive one.

See my previous post that clarifies how I might purchase an image.

BTW, one of the main reasons I also don't want to pay a lot for stock is because I don't really buy images that require big studio set-ups and models. Mostly I buy a lot of textures and things like that. I don't see a need to plunk down a hundred bucks for stuff like that. When things were really tight last year (and iStock's prices kept rising) I actually just started making my own background textures.

If I had clients with bigger budgets I wouldn't mind buying more expensive photos, but right now, it is what it is. Sorry.

Don't be sorry ! I'm a very small fish and it's none of my business where you buy images. So I appreciate you sharing your interesting insights. And I'm absolutely neutral about the advantages and disadvantages of the different main agencies. I want them all to be great. I'm very much in favour of competition and innovation.

It's always interesting to see new perspectives about how this all works. So I am especially interested about what you say about iStockphoto being less expensive in some cases. I was thinking that the Dollar Bin is where the bargains remain where as actually you have pointed out that it is a more complicated picture. I guess it is rather like comparing different phone tariffs.

And FWIW I totally get what you are saying about price being the main issue for you. Do you charge your clients for the time it takes to find images ?

I work for an ad agency in the LA area � and I must say, the iStock content is by far superior from other microstock sites. We actually save money using iStock because the quality is right up there with macro sites. Dreamstimes, Fotolia, Canstockphoto, �etc seem to accept any low quality photos. Its seems their inspectors need to raise the bar. Time is money, and finding a high quality photo is the key.

As a supplier I don't find much difference between the acceptance/rejection rate on any of the leading sites. Sometimes one rejects what another accepts, but that can be iS accepting what DT, Fotolia or SS reject.

One of the bizarre effects of iS policy is that image price depends on supplier status not image quality. That means you can have two near identical images, one listed as "vetta" and another in the non-exclusive price range.

Quote from: jjauregui on February 16, 2011, 01:44

I work for an ad agency in the LA area � and I must say, the iStock content is by far superior from other microstock sites. We actually save money using iStock because the quality is right up there with macro sites. Dreamstimes, Fotolia, Canstockphoto, �etc seem to accept any low quality photos. Its seems their inspectors need to raise the bar. Time is money, and finding a high quality photo is the key.

As a supplier I don't find much difference between the acceptance/rejection rate on any of the leading sites. Sometimes one rejects what another accepts, but that can be iS accepting what DT, Fotolia or SS reject.

One of the bizarre effects of iS policy is that image price depends on supplier status not image quality. That means you can have two near identical images, one listed as "vetta" and another in the non-exclusive price range.

I can care less about the acceptance rate. Our agency just cares about quality. Companies are willing to spend the money for the right photo.
Let me show you some examples of some garbage:
http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-image-creative-work-image10178466 [nofollow]
http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photos-what-s-the-problem--image10178178 [nofollow]
I just searched with the keywords, "laptop, man". Now tell me, if you cant tell the difference between istock and the other agencies than you don't have an eye for design. If I were a student or a freelancer with a low budget, then I would consider using canstock, dreamstime, shutterstock�etc.

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on February 16, 2011, 03:00

Quote from: jjauregui on February 16, 2011, 01:44

I work for an ad agency in the LA area � and I must say, the iStock content is by far superior from other microstock sites. We actually save money using iStock because the quality is right up there with macro sites. Dreamstimes, Fotolia, Canstockphoto, �etc seem to accept any low quality photos. Its seems their inspectors need to raise the bar. Time is money, and finding a high quality photo is the key.

As a supplier I don't find much difference between the acceptance/rejection rate on any of the leading sites. Sometimes one rejects what another accepts, but that can be iS accepting what DT, Fotolia or SS reject.

One of the bizarre effects of iS policy is that image price depends on supplier status not image quality. That means you can have two near identical images, one listed as "vetta" and another in the non-exclusive price range.

I can care less about the acceptance rate. Our agency just cares about quality. Companies are willing to spend the money for the right photo.
Let me show you some examples of some garbage:
http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-image-creative-work-image10178466
http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photos-what-s-the-problem--image10178178
I just searched with the keywords, "laptop, man". Now tell me, if you cant tell the difference between istock and the other agencies than you don't have an eye for design. If I were a student or a freelancer with a low budget, then I would consider using canstock, dreamstime, shutterstock�etc.

Don't know many student or freelancer designer willing to go on the hook for 199,00 EUR per month for a Shutterstock Subscribe, but I guess they could paid the on demand cost of 39,00 EUR for 5 images.

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on February 16, 2011, 03:00

Quote from: jjauregui on February 16, 2011, 01:44

I work for an ad agency in the LA area � and I must say, the iStock content is by far superior from other microstock sites. We actually save money using iStock because the quality is right up there with macro sites. Dreamstimes, Fotolia, Canstockphoto, �etc seem to accept any low quality photos. Its seems their inspectors need to raise the bar. Time is money, and finding a high quality photo is the key.

As a supplier I don't find much difference between the acceptance/rejection rate on any of the leading sites. Sometimes one rejects what another accepts, but that can be iS accepting what DT, Fotolia or SS reject.

One of the bizarre effects of iS policy is that image price depends on supplier status not image quality. That means you can have two near identical images, one listed as "vetta" and another in the non-exclusive price range.

I can care less about the acceptance rate. Our agency just cares about quality. Companies are willing to spend the money for the right photo.
Let me show you some examples of some garbage:
http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-image-creative-work-image10178466
http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photos-what-s-the-problem--image10178178
I just searched with the keywords, "laptop, man". Now tell me, if you cant tell the difference between istock and the other agencies than you don't have an eye for design. If I were a student or a freelancer with a low budget, then I would consider using canstock, dreamstime, shutterstock�etc.

I could find you some garbage on IS too. Most independents I know, and these are contributors who don't shoot "garbage", upload to all the major sites, so yes, you can find the same quality images on all the other sites.

Uh oh, another wave of IS exclusives/cheerleaders trying to prove all the other sites are inferior. Too funny.