Author Topic: Ha...ha...ha... IStock Photo of the week (Read 19674 times)

photox · « **on:** April 14, 2009, 00:44 »

Would be rejected by every NON-exclusive for over-filtered, blown highlights... what a joke

Is that suppose to give the effect of being shot on the beach?

They must be desperate

Graffoto · « **Reply #1 on:** April 14, 2009, 00:53 »

I rather like the shot myself.
The cloud reflections in the sunglasses suggest that it is an outdoor scene.

However, looking at other shots from the series where the sunglass reflections were not 'shopped', reveals a large reflector held in front of the model and other stuff that was laying around the studio

anton9 · « **Reply #2 on:** April 14, 2009, 01:29 »

I dont mind the image either but I do see where your coming from. Ive had people images rejected for being over filtered and have seen many images even more than mine and wonder why thats accepted and mines not. But that cant be helped and its all part of it.

RT · « **Reply #3 on:** April 14, 2009, 02:03 »

I like the image, it has the effect that reminds me of a polaroid that'd been left out in the sun for a while, and from what I can see he/she has done it quite well.

Though I do agree that if I'd uploaded that I'd have got the big 'overfiltered' rejection reason, mind you I am bitter because I've just had a virtual slap on the wrists by one inspector for trying to sneak a deliberate and described overfiltered image through for the second time, maybe I should go exclusive

Clivia · « **Reply #4 on:** April 14, 2009, 02:16 »

On one of the pictures in the series (The one where she is touching her ear) you can plainly see the photographer taking the picture in his very messy house. It looks like his living room with a big reflector stuck in the middle. Not a real studio. At least he is dressed, not like the famous Ebay reflections!

fotografer · « **Reply #5 on:** April 14, 2009, 02:43 »

The photographer is reflected in at least 3 of the images

alias · « **Reply #6 on:** April 14, 2009, 03:03 »

It's a great and very effective image and very much in the style of work which has been current of certainly a decade or more. Anyone who has followed contemporary magazine and fashion photography is going to understand that.

And there is nothing wrong with being able to see reflected stuff going on in the studio or location. It's a time old tradition at least back to Cecil Beaton and probably much further. In this context it adds to something like the back story.

When you can see stuff reflected - or at the edges etc - then it also becomes a picture about a picture being taken. Which adds something.

tempura · « **Reply #7 on:** April 14, 2009, 06:38 »

love it!

null · « **Reply #8 on:** April 14, 2009, 06:59 »

Quote from: alias on April 14, 2009, 03:03

And there is nothing wrong with being able to see reflected stuff going on in the studio or location.

I always wondered... on all my cropped closeup portraits outdoors, with focus on the eyes, I can clearly recognize myself in the reflection of the black cornea/pupil of the model. Would I need to upload a model release of myself too?

sam100 · « **Reply #9 on:** April 14, 2009, 08:55 »

Quote from: alias on April 14, 2009, 03:03

It's a great and very effective image and very much in the style of work which has been current of certainly a decade or more. Anyone who has followed contemporary magazine and fashion photography is going to understand that.

And there is nothing wrong with being able to see reflected stuff going on in the studio or location. It's a time old tradition at least back to Cecil Beaton and probably much further. In this context it adds to something like the back story.

When you can see stuff reflected - or at the edges etc - then it also becomes a picture about a picture being taken. Which adds something.

Strange, there is a site that is consistently rejecting my images from a series because of the reflections. For that particular site i have to mask the reflection to get my images accepted.

Patrick H.

loop · « **Reply #10 on:** April 14, 2009, 10:43 »

Quote from: photox on April 14, 2009, 00:44

Would be rejected by every NON-exclusive for over-filtered, blown highlights... what a joke

Is that suppose to give the effect of being shot on the beach? They must be desperate

That tells more about your understanding of the art/craft of photography thant about istock, certainly.

lisafx · « **Reply #11 on:** April 14, 2009, 10:49 »

It is a very creative photo. I like it too.

But I agree with the OP it would never have been accepted from a non-exclusive.

batman · « **Reply #12 on:** April 14, 2009, 10:53 »

Quote from: lisafx on April 14, 2009, 10:49

It is a very creative photo. I like it too.

But I agree with the OP it would never have been accepted from a non-exclusive.

ARGHH, flemish dream was right, Getty recruiting Flickr cellphone shooters as exclusives

Graffoto · « **Reply #13 on:** April 14, 2009, 16:58 »

Quote from: lisafx on April 14, 2009, 10:49

It is a very creative photo. I like it too.

But I agree with the OP it would never have been accepted from a non-exclusive.

Lets just assume for a moment that your statement is true Lisa, even though I have some doubts.

I think we can all agree that the shot has artistic merit.
But do such shots actually sell as stock? I would venture a guess that there is not much call for this sort of work.

Yes, I see that the shot has 23 or so downloads thus far, but I don't feel that would have happened if it were not featured on the front page.

In short, what I am saying is; these shots are used to attract people to the site. Sexy, artsy etc. are not what stock is primarily about. Just look at Yuri or Sean or LisaFX

.

So yes, IS accepts these type of photos but they are not bread and butter files. They are the 'HEY COME LOOK OVER HERE" shots that can be used for the splash page, web and print promotions for IS.

Get 'em in the door to see the Corvette, but sell them the Malibu because thats what they can actually use.

batman · « **Reply #14 on:** April 14, 2009, 17:02 »

Quote from: nosaya on April 14, 2009, 16:58

Quote from: lisafx on April 14, 2009, 10:49
It is a very creative photo. I like it too.

But I agree with the OP it would never have been accepted from a non-exclusive.

Lets just assume for a moment that your statement is true Lisa, even though I have some doubts.

I think we can all agree that the shot has artistic merit.
But do such shots actually sell as stock? I would venture a guess that there is not much call for this sort of work.

Yes, I see that the shot has 23 or so downloads thus far, but I don't feel that would have happened if it were not featured on the front page.

In short, what I am saying is; these shots are used to attract people to the site. Sexy, artsy etc. are not what stock is primarily about. Just look at Yuri or Sean or LisaFX .

So yes, IS accepts these type of photos but they are not bread and butter files. They are the 'HEY COME LOOK OVER HERE" shots that can be used for the splash page, web and print promotions for IS.

Get 'em in the door to see the Corvette, but sell them the Malibu because thats what they can actually use.

psst, ...tons of them at flickr

Graffoto · « **Reply #15 on:** April 14, 2009, 17:08 »

Sorry, I avoid flickr like the plague. It hurts my eyes

Wait.... they have Chevys at Flickr?

stacey_newman · « **Reply #16 on:** April 14, 2009, 17:26 »

I really like the photographer's portfolio, they are obviously extremely talented, but overall this is my least favourite IOTW ever. I really dislike it. but that's the way it goes, I think there are probably as many who hate each IOTW as do like it- that is probably the rule rather than the exception.

batman · « **Reply #17 on:** April 14, 2009, 19:17 »

Quote from: nosaya on April 14, 2009, 17:08

Sorry, I avoid flickr like the plague. It hurts my eyes

Wait.... they have Chevys at Flickr?

now now, don't go insulting Istock's little idiot sister

CCK · « **Reply #18 on:** April 15, 2009, 07:16 »

mmmm....
32 downloads in 10 days - better than I'm doing at at iS LOL!

digiology · « **Reply #19 on:** April 15, 2009, 12:58 »

I like it.

But now I wonder, is it really acceptable to have all the reflected stuff in the glasses? (Not talking about the IOTW but the rest in the series). Knowing it was there would drive me nuts. I do like what Alias says about it... puts kind of a romantic spin on it.

Quote from: alias on April 14, 2009, 03:03

And there is nothing wrong with being able to see reflected stuff going on in the studio or location. It's a time old tradition at least back to Cecil Beaton and probably much further. In this context it adds to something like the back story.

When you can see stuff reflected - or at the edges etc - then it also becomes a picture about a picture being taken. Which adds something.

I can see it being a "time old tradition" with film but does it still apply to digital? Or have we just come to a point of over scrutinizing every pixel?

lisafx · « **Reply #20 on:** April 15, 2009, 13:28 »

Quote from: lclark on April 15, 2009, 12:58

But now I wonder, is it really acceptable to have all the reflected stuff in the glasses? (Not talking about the IOTW but the rest in the series).

No, it isn't, and I can speak from personal experience on this one. I have received many, many rejections of models in sunglasses from istockphoto for reflections that are much less obvious than some of those.

stacey_newman · « **Reply #21 on:** April 15, 2009, 13:33 »

yes, even as an exclusive I have received rejections for my "reflected mini scene"....

alias · « **Reply #22 on:** April 15, 2009, 14:17 »

Quote from: lisafx on April 15, 2009, 13:28

Quote from: lclark on April 15, 2009, 12:58

But now I wonder, is it really acceptable to have all the reflected stuff in the glasses? (Not talking about the IOTW but the rest in the series).

No, it isn't, and I can speak from personal experience on this one. I have received many, many rejections of models in sunglasses from istockphoto for reflections that are much less obvious than some of those.

Would it not depend upon the nature and style and theme of the image? So the fact that we get reflections for rejections does not mean that all reflections will result in rejections. And there is always the scout system and the critique forum.

Maybe like motion blur or too much post processing. We have probably all had rejections from istock and the other istocks for motion blur or post processing and yet it is sometimes legitimate.

lisafx · « **Reply #23 on:** April 15, 2009, 14:39 »

Quote from: alias on April 15, 2009, 14:17

Would it not depend upon the nature and style and theme of the image? So the fact that we get reflections for rejections does not mean that all reflections will result in rejections. And there is always the scout system and the critique forum.

Listen, I am not complaining about rejections. Frankly, with an approval rate at istock in the 90% range, I am doing pretty well there.

If I feel strongly about an image, I will submit to Scout and have had most of my scout submissions approved. In the case of sunglass rejections I felt it was a legitimate rejection - I'm actually shocked that it wasn't applied to some of the images in the series under discussion.

The point was made by others in this thread that there is a double standard between what is accepted from exclusives vs. independents. I never used to think there was, but recently it has begun to seem that might be the case. Certainly the series the IOTW was plucked from seems to suggest it.

Maybe it is just huge inconsistencies between individual reviewers, rather than from exclusive to non. I don't know, nor do I stay up nights worrying about it. However as someone who very vocally praised istock as the most consistent reviewing process in the industry for years, I have been sorry to see it become so random and inconsistent over the past year or so.

alias · « **Reply #24 on:** April 15, 2009, 15:06 »

Quote from: lisafx on April 15, 2009, 14:39

In the case of sunglass rejections I felt it was a legitimate rejection - I'm actually shocked that it wasn't applied to some of the images in the series under discussion.

Maybe you do not get why the images work, their style

Could be that. I know that sometimes it takes me ages to get my head around why an image works and especially if it is something outside my normal mindset. I'm sticking to my view that the reflections you are seeing are deliberately there.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Ha...ha...ha... IStock Photo of the week (Read 19674 times)

photox

Graffoto

anton9

RT

Clivia

fotografer

alias

tempura

null

sam100

loop

lisafx

batman

Graffoto

batman

Graffoto

stacey_newman

batman

CCK

digiology

lisafx

stacey_newman

alias

lisafx

alias

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors