you are making it look like it is the only place I shop because the prices are lower

Not intentionally. Sorry if it seemed like that

iStock content is cheaper is if it is NON-EXCLUSIVE and available at other sites at a higher price point

Yes - that was what I thought you meant too. Clearly there is also more expensive content there too. It's quite a spread. As I said I think that, on price, it is rather like comparing phone tariffs.

I think we are saying the same thing. It's a mixed picture.

LOL, jjauregui, another Anonymous poster that only sings the praises of IStockphoto and puts others down. Why be anonymous? Must be related to Vlad_the_imp. It's funny how one disappears and the other shows up...LOL

C'mon Mr. Big Buyer? Show us your talent... Don't be scared.

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.

So these are examples to show that Istock has the superior images and other sites' reviewers need to step up?

As others have said, there is crap on all sites (including Istock). Sometimes the same crap (including Istock).

Maybe Istock reviewers need to step up too... 

Quote from: jjauregui on February 16, 2011, 03:47

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.

So these are examples to show that Istock has the superior images and other sites' reviewers need to step up?

As others have said, there is crap on all sites (including Istock). Sometimes the same crap (including Istock).

Maybe Istock reviewers need to step up too... 

Hilarious, that is too funny, post of the year in my opinion

Quote from: jjauregui on February 16, 2011, 03:47

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.

So these are examples to show that Istock has the superior images and other sites' reviewers need to step up?

As others have said, there is crap on all sites (including Istock). Sometimes the same crap (including Istock).

Maybe Istock reviewers need to step up too... 

Great catch, dirkr! 

^^^I think there are a lot more from the macro world that have huge portfolios on all the other sites and only a small portfolio on istock because of the upload limits.  I don't think many of them would go exclusive with istock because they don't want to be exclusive for all their RF work.  They might not even bother with istock cutting commissions now, I'm not sure how many macro contributors want to start on 15% commission.  Shutterstock, Dreamstime and Fotolia have tightened up their standards, it's much harder to get images accepted with them now.  I really don't see istock as a place with superior quality, they have accepted lots of my photos that have never sold and I really shouldn't of bothered uploading there.  When I look at their newly approved images, I'm often left wondering how they approve some of them.

I also don't like the sites tightening their standards too much because reviewers often reject images that sell well elsewhere.  They just aren't good enough to make the choice.  Images that don't sell get buried in the search anyway, so I don't see the problem.  Shutterstock and Dreamstime have raised the bar too high now.  I think all the sites would be better off accepting more and then deleting images that haven't sold after a year.  They have millions of old files taken years ago with old lower mega pixel cameras.  Why not delete them and accept more new images that are superior quality?  A lot of us have invested in better cameras and lenses but can't get as many images accepted now, it really doesn't make much sense to me.

Quote from: sjlocke on February 16, 2011, 08:12

Quote from: cclapper on February 16, 2011, 08:10

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

So, a buyer actually comes in to say something, and he's just an "exclusive/cheerleader" ?

Sorry Sean - this guy is NOT a real buyer - my guess is he is an exclusive IS contributor. I would be willing to put money on it. He has probably gone rogue (I am not saying IS put him/her up to it) but a realy buyer he or she ain't. The amount of "bad" content is about the same at Dreamstime, Shutterstock, Fotolia and IS (most of it legacy from years ago). The quality of what is available on the top sites is very similar. Where IS has the advantage and the edge still is in its wider choice of good imagery because it has the exclusives and the indepenents.  Anyone who is a real buyer knows this.

I shop at the other sites because 90% of the time they have what I need at a cheaper price - if I cannot find it I go to IS as a lost resort because chances are they will have whatever it is I am looking for. But that's the only time I go there to buy these days.

You are funny, I have no reason to lie.
We use to get catalogs from stock sites sent to us back in the days. They would send us thumbnails, then we would call to purchase the photos we would need. Or in some cases hire a photographer. Our storage room, is filled with CDs from photodisc, eyewire, stockbyte, comstock...etc. And its nice now, because Getty now has virtual CDs that make it easier when buying a collection. You don't have to worry about storing it.

Here's a thought that came to me right now. Not to far from where I live, is CalArts. CalArts is one of the top notch art schools in the nation. Some of the top animators (John Lasseter, Brad Bird, John Musker, Henry Selick and Tim Burton) went to this school. To get accepted a portfolio is required, which is part of their review process. iStock and macro sites use a similar process, you need to submit work before getting accepted. I think Dreamstime, and other sites should consider doing this before accepting a photographer's application. Personally, I think it would help their business. Its about quality, not quantity.

To get accepted a portfolio is required, which is part of their review process. iStock and macro sites use a similar process, you need to submit work before getting accepted. I think Dreamstime, and other sites should consider doing this before accepting a photographer's application. Personally, I think it would help their business. Its about quality, not quantity.

Perhaps you aren't aware of it, but Shutterstock requires contributors to submit 10 images with their initial application.  At least 7 of the 10 have to pass before the contributor is accepted.  From what I read in the forums, most contributors aren't accepted the first time around, and unlike Istock they have to wait a month to reapply. 

Fotolia doesn't have an initial application review, that I know of, but they do seem to reject more than any of the other micros, including Istock. 

Dreamstime is harder on similars than any of the other micros. 

So my point is they all have tough inspections, in one way or another.  And as demonstrated here, some crap gets through on all of them.  Probably a big part of the problem is that they are all mostly looking at technical aspects, and not aesthetic ones, or marketability. 

Quote from: jjauregui on February 17, 2011, 04:23

To get accepted a portfolio is required, which is part of their review process. iStock and macro sites use a similar process, you need to submit work before getting accepted. I think Dreamstime, and other sites should consider doing this before accepting a photographer's application. Personally, I think it would help their business. Its about quality, not quantity.

Perhaps you aren't aware of it, but Shutterstock requires contributors to submit 10 images with their initial application.  At least 7 of the 10 have to pass before the contributor is accepted.  From what I read in the forums, most contributors aren't accepted the first time around, and unlike Istock they have to wait a month to reapply.  

Fotolia doesn't have an initial application review, that I know of, but they do seem to reject more than any of the other micros, including Istock.  

Dreamstime is harder on similars than any of the other micros.  

So my point is they all have tough inspections, in one way or another.  And as demonstrated here, some crap gets through on all of them.  Probably a big part of the problem is that they are all mostly looking at technical aspects, and not aesthetic ones, or marketability.  

FWIW, it took me six months to get accepted on iStock. I was accepted on Shutterstock first time. to be fair though, I was accepted on SS two years later when I was considering non-exclusivity. but I was still surprised to get 10 accepted off the bat. especially when my acceptance rate at iStock continues to hover around 76%.

Nice, you got me! LOL! I wonder if those inspectors were on crack. I showed one of the account execs at work these photos of this furball. Man, he got a good laugh.

Its interesting looking at the keywords for these sorts of images. They're probably not what everyone is looking for, but one of the images in the series has found 2 buyers on IS: http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-10042839-hairy-attractive-man.php and the result is that "hairy" is the highest ranked keyword, followed by men and messy. In some ways its an indication that the search is doing something right.

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 Dreamstime, Fotolia or Shutterstock 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.

This week I had a project and the client specified images from IS.  Unfortunately I could not find the majority of images they needed on IS.  DT and Veer had a much better selection and DT had every image they needed @ high quality! In fact the quality was better on DT.

Maybe the name of this thread should be changed to "Buyers Bailing on Microstockgroup".

rofl

Another disgruntled customer, psasser;

"If I search 2 terms and a NOT, I get ZERO results. Search is a mess now. I've already started using other sites to download from, because other than costing me money by constantly increasing prices per credit while increasing number of credits required for each download, iStock is now costing me money through ubillable hours. This is become a huge waste of my time. All of this screw up for what? A system that is minutely more visually appealing but, even without the bugs, is at best no better than the former system. If I tallied up the hours wasted since F5 (wonder what 'F' stands for?), they would no doubt hit triple digits. Why can't I simply search as I once did:

woman AND pain NOT sexy

so that I can illustrate an article about a medical issue?"