pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Hot Shot Joke?  (Read 21872 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: July 06, 2010, 13:24 »
0
I do respect when non-pros get a lucky shot and get their 5 minutes of fame when they have a sale at Getty through the Flickr collection.

This week's Hot Shots features 8 Getty images with only 2 of them coming from Getty.

6 featured images are from the Flickr collection.

A couple of questions: Are the images on Flickr better than the images that can be found in the Getty collection?

and: Why wouldn't Getty feature more "in-house" top sellers rather than images that used to linger around at Flickr?

Doesn't this make Getty look "cheap"? 5 of the 6 Flickr images are basically snapshot situations. Let's not argue about the execution of the images in terms of conceptual approach and technical quality but why even try to throw money into a photo shoot paying models, MUAs, assistant, props, location etc. if all it takes is snapping around outdoors?

I also understand that "snap shot" is not always the same. But 4 of the 6 didn't require months of planning. If you think otherwise, please elaborate.








The dog shot is the best IMO.


lagereek

« Reply #1 on: July 06, 2010, 13:51 »
0
Oh man!  is this what its come to?  jeez,  no pride in it anymore. Sad.

« Reply #2 on: July 06, 2010, 13:56 »
0
What I don't understand is that the sites are all rejecting more and more, saying they want better quality, more studio pro shots, etc. (as an example, see the rejections in this thread from Veer:
http://www.microstockgroup.com/veer-marketplace/2-weird-rejections-of-the-1st-10/msg151315/?topicseen#new

so then how does photo #1 and 2 rate having getty images on there?

It's getting kind of ridiculous/confusing/contradictory.

lagereek

« Reply #3 on: July 06, 2010, 14:05 »
0
What I don't understand is that the sites are all rejecting more and more, saying they want better quality, more studio pro shots, etc. (as an example, see the rejections in this thread from Veer:
http://www.microstockgroup.com/veer-marketplace/2-weird-rejections-of-the-1st-10/msg151315/?topicseen#new

so then how does photo #1 and 2 rate having getty images on there?

It's getting kind of ridiculous/confusing/contradictory.



To be honest, Im beginning to doubt most of these even have qualified personell to spot a professional shot anymore.

« Reply #4 on: July 06, 2010, 14:30 »
0
Maybe the key is to look so ordinary that it's considered professional...?

At least I'm not the only seeing some "discrepancy" here.

I wonder if those Flickr images are free of noise and artifacts as well. Or is exactly that the justification why they are worth "more"?

Is the last image a panoramic image? 14457px x 9638 px? I'm just stunned.
http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/97840446/Flickr?axd=DetailPaging.Search|1&axs=0|97840446|0&esource=iStock_HotShotsWk67

« Reply #5 on: July 06, 2010, 14:35 »
0
Is the last image a panoramic image? 14457px x 9638 px? I'm just stunned.
http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/97840446/Flickr?axd=DetailPaging.Search|1&axs=0|97840446|0&esource=iStock_HotShotsWk67


Wow, that is a HUGE image.

« Reply #6 on: July 06, 2010, 15:09 »
0

so then how does photo #1 and 2 rate having getty images on there?

It's getting kind of ridiculous/confusing/contradictory.

maybe the day has finally arrived - if you have a camera then you are automatically a professional phonographer.  ;D

microstockphoto.co.uk

« Reply #7 on: July 06, 2010, 16:21 »
0
Maybe the key is to look so ordinary that it's considered professional...?

Not that I approve it, but I see it more and more often in tv ads as well: bad lighting, unprofessional cameras... just to look "natural"

so sad... good ads were the only thing I enjoyed watching on tv

« Reply #8 on: July 06, 2010, 17:19 »
0
y do you like dog shot the best because i certainly dont think thats the "best" and ive seen those images tons of times? i personally like the shot at the beach the best but when it comes to creative content everyone has their own opinion.

KB

« Reply #9 on: July 06, 2010, 17:26 »
0
I'm surprised the Glacier Bay image is ok for advertising without MRs. I know IS won't accept such images (I've had one where the people were even smaller within the frame, and it wasn't accepted).

I also like the last one (taken with a TS lens) the best.

vonkara

« Reply #10 on: July 06, 2010, 17:34 »
0
LOL a frog on a swing!!



LOL Getty Image

« Reply #11 on: July 06, 2010, 17:56 »
0
y do you like dog shot the best because i certainly dont think thats the "best" and ive seen those images tons of times? i personally like the shot at the beach the best but when it comes to creative content everyone has their own opinion.

Because it appears that the photographer actually set up lights for this shot, put a wig on a dog that is actually holding still for a moment and the look on the dog's face is hilarious - that's why.

Everything else is "just" like walking up to it and taking a picture.

« Reply #12 on: July 06, 2010, 17:59 »
0
Because it appears that the photographer actually set up lights for this shot, put a wig on a dog that is actually holding still for a moment and the look on the dog's face is hilarious - that's why.
The real dogs specialist on this forum is Artemis. Check his IS port! Far superior to this Getty snapshot.

KB

« Reply #13 on: July 06, 2010, 18:05 »
0
Everything else is "just" like walking up to it and taking a picture.

Yep, I have dozens of snaps of giant frogs on swings.

« Reply #14 on: July 06, 2010, 18:22 »
0
Because it appears that the photographer actually set up lights for this shot, put a wig on a dog that is actually holding still for a moment and the look on the dog's face is hilarious - that's why.
The real dogs specialist on this forum is Artemis. Check his IS port! Far superior to this Getty snapshot.

Just to set this straight - I'm not saying that this is the best dog shot I have ever seen. I said I like it best from those posted. There is a big leeway.

« Reply #15 on: July 06, 2010, 19:28 »
0
This week's Hot Shots is enough to make me consider the whole Fickr Getty thing.

Somehow the comment that if IStock rejected it then Getty wouldn't think it's good enough over on Flickr just doesn't ring true.

« Reply #16 on: July 06, 2010, 19:45 »
0

so then how does photo #1 and 2 rate having getty images on there?

It's getting kind of ridiculous/confusing/contradictory.

maybe the day has finally arrived - if you have a camera then you are automatically a professional phonographer.  ;D

Or maybe it is bigger chance to sell if you use Point and Shoot. Is it my eyes that none of the photo is sharp
... sharp and clean that IStock want our picture to be or else it is rejected.
But I cannot see any of the picture you put here that is sharp and clean.

Can someone confirm, maybe my eyes?

« Reply #17 on: July 06, 2010, 19:54 »
0
#1 looks quite soft. I bet in the other images there is some focal point somewhere - hard to tell.

I really don't want to judge the images themselves. Good for the photographers to find a buyer who needs them.

It just shows that more could sell than what we get approved at most agencies.

And why even bother shooting "beautiful business woman on headset" if all it takes is snap-shot style pics to sell them for a much higher price?

I think this seriously undermines the entire stock image concept.

Fine, if there are buyers that need a business team shot with 5 pro-models and the whole shebang. But then the agencies should also realize that true-life shots should have their place as well.

It's ridiculous to see the approval standards at IS, SS and some other nit picking agencies as long as P&S images sell at X times the price at Getty.

I don't get it.

« Reply #18 on: July 06, 2010, 20:06 »
0
y do you like dog shot the best because i certainly dont think thats the "best" and ive seen those images tons of times? i personally like the shot at the beach the best but when it comes to creative content everyone has their own opinion.

Because it appears that the photographer actually set up lights for this shot, put a wig on a dog that is actually holding still for a moment and the look on the dog's face is hilarious - that's why.

Everything else is "just" like walking up to it and taking a picture.

What matters is what the image conveys. It really doesnt matter how the image gets there whether its a snap shot, studio lit with props, or heavily processed. Your post makes it sound like you hate an orange for being an orange and not an apple.

« Reply #19 on: July 06, 2010, 21:56 »
0
y do you like dog shot the best because i certainly dont think thats the "best" and ive seen those images tons of times? i personally like the shot at the beach the best but when it comes to creative content everyone has their own opinion.
Because it appears that the photographer actually set up lights for this shot, put a wig on a dog that is actually holding still for a moment and the look on the dog's face is hilarious - that's why.

Everything else is "just" like walking up to it and taking a picture.
What matters is what the image conveys. It really doesnt matter how the image gets there whether its a snap shot, studio lit with props, or heavily processed. Your post makes it sound like you hate an orange for being an orange and not an apple.

I do admit that English is not my mother tongue but I don't know how you could read that between my lines.

Just because in image is taken without much thought or planning doesn't automatically mean that it's a bad image or that it doesn't convey a message.

My point was that the Flickr images in question don't appear to be taken with a concept in mind. I might be totally wrong, that's possible I admit.

To me it appeared that the dog shot had some thought process to it. I don't have wigs laying around, nor do I have access to someone owning a dog that doesn't freak out when a wig is placed on its head. I think this was some sort of concept well thought out and executed.

Just take the frog on the swing. Whichever way I would try to take an image of such a scene, I would not have taken it with the frogs legs cut off. In fact it takes more than a blink of the eye to recognize what this thing in the foreground even is. It's not super obvious that a frog is hanging around on a swing... Now is this some genius pro-shooter who knew exactly at the time of shooting that Getty would look for such an image? Was it a lucky shot in the dark? Would I dare spending my time submitting images like that one?

That's what I would like to hear from you.

Xalanx

« Reply #20 on: July 07, 2010, 00:41 »
0
First 2 images are pathetic. The rest of them are really nice. Last one is a great example of how a tilt & shift lens can be used for interesting concepts.
I bet that in the 4th image with the sunset and the field some flash or strobe was used - very nice image too. And the dog is awesome  ;D

« Reply #21 on: July 07, 2010, 03:05 »
0
Merci for the compliment about my dogs mister FD :)
Imho the first 2 are a (bad) joke... there's something to say for the others though...(personally not a fan of the glacier one either, the flower meadow looks nice... but seen it before, many times. again, imho of course)
I agree VB it's all about what the image conveys and i've seen some super snapshots (who are super because of their spontanity and unexpected impact), but those first 2 are snapshots, point, no impact whatsoever for me.... if buyers really want to pay for that i think it might be time to go do something else; total waste of efforts.

« Reply #22 on: July 07, 2010, 04:41 »
0
#1 looks quite soft. I bet in the other images there is some focal point somewhere - hard to tell.

I really don't want to judge the images themselves. Good for the photographers to find a buyer who needs them.

It just shows that more could sell than what we get approved at most agencies.

And why even bother shooting "beautiful business woman on headset" if all it takes is snap-shot style pics to sell them for a much higher price?

I think this seriously undermines the entire stock image concept.

Fine, if there are buyers that need a business team shot with 5 pro-models and the whole shebang. But then the agencies should also realize that true-life shots should have their place as well.

It's ridiculous to see the approval standards at IS, SS and some other nit picking agencies as long as P&S images sell at X times the price at Getty.

I don't get it.

I think everyone agree that microstock approval system bar is too high for the money they give .
Also, based on what you put here, or from others and my own experience too, the point and shoot pictures
sell more than the "dog" type (studio setting, many thoughtful time , composition, lighting,etc) .

But also, most will not go past the reviewer for "poor composition", "no focus point", "snapshot".etc..
all subjective.

Then we see this example and we shake our head.  You are right, maybe so, buyers maybe want snapshots.
Only but first how we can get the snapshots point and shoot stuff pass the reviewers :)

« Reply #23 on: July 07, 2010, 06:01 »
0
I opened one thread about "hot shots" before. It was similar to this one.
The way of choosing these images for hot shots collection is a real mystery to me, because I think they needed to look just 2 minutes more to find tons of much better images. These images are obviously selected by just one person without any consultation with others. Maybe the person is important enough that no one has courage to tell him/her that images are bad. To me it looks like the person doesn't have any experience in photography, even tho he/she works in Getty....
I am not a pro, but I feel free to say that almost anyones portfolio contains better images than these.

« Reply #24 on: July 07, 2010, 06:21 »
0
#1 looks quite soft. I bet in the other images there is some focal point somewhere - hard to tell.

I really don't want to judge the images themselves. Good for the photographers to find a buyer who needs them.

It just shows that more could sell than what we get approved at most agencies.

And why even bother shooting "beautiful business woman on headset" if all it takes is snap-shot style pics to sell them for a much higher price?

I think this seriously undermines the entire stock image concept.

Fine, if there are buyers that need a business team shot with 5 pro-models and the whole shebang. But then the agencies should also realize that true-life shots should have their place as well.

It's ridiculous to see the approval standards at IS, SS and some other nit picking agencies as long as P&S images sell at X times the price at Getty.

I don't get it.

I think everyone agree that microstock approval system bar is too high for the money they give .
Also, based on what you put here, or from others and my own experience too, the point and shoot pictures
sell more than the "dog" type (studio setting, many thoughtful time , composition, lighting,etc) .

But also, most will not go past the reviewer for "poor composition", "no focus point", "snapshot".etc..
all subjective.

Then we see this example and we shake our head.  You are right, maybe so, buyers maybe want snapshots.
Only but first how we can get the snapshots point and shoot stuff pass the reviewers :)
Buyers aren't looking for P&S images they want images that have some emotions . Images with real impact are hard to find on the microstock sites. I know of at less four heavy buyers that don't buy microstock images anymore, the reason being all the images look the same. As for the Hot Shots I find them all ok,  Better then another Businesswoman with headset image, or Apple on white.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
2567 Views
Last post September 19, 2009, 09:16
by elvinstar
69 Replies
29136 Views
Last post December 18, 2016, 11:28
by emjaysmith
1 Replies
2248 Views
Last post September 18, 2015, 23:04
by hairybiker777
38 Replies
16996 Views
Last post June 27, 2018, 11:14
by madman
9 Replies
3899 Views
Last post October 24, 2018, 15:18
by farbled

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors