MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA  (Read 26278 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

nruboc

« on: November 13, 2010, 01:41 »
0
VETTA

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-2369762-silhouette-of-businessmen-and-women-s-legs.php

NON-VETTA

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-2420884-i-m-interested.php

Do you see it, the VETTA is clearly better saturated...or wait...no, its because the mans legs are open wider in the non-vetta...what a joke


« Reply #1 on: November 13, 2010, 02:30 »
0
ROFL

RacePhoto

« Reply #2 on: November 13, 2010, 03:42 »
0
It's probably worth 55 more credits because of the extra work it took to add the fake sepia tone?  :D

« Reply #3 on: November 13, 2010, 06:54 »
0
Both are great images.

« Reply #4 on: November 13, 2010, 06:58 »
0
VETTA

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-2369762-silhouette-of-businessmen-and-women-s-legs.php

NON-VETTA

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-2420884-i-m-interested.php

Do you see it, the VETTA is clearly better saturated...or wait...no, its because the mans legs are open wider in the non-vetta...what a joke


Or it could be the same reason why this little ducky is free: http://www.dreamstime.com/duck-imagefree1307291 While this little ducky can be bought "for as low as $0.20" and as much as $13.75: http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photography-santa-claus-duck-image3082977

« Reply #5 on: November 13, 2010, 07:30 »
0
VETTA

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-2369762-silhouette-of-businessmen-and-women-s-legs.php

NON-VETTA

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-2420884-i-m-interested.php

Do you see it, the VETTA is clearly better saturated...or wait...no, its because the mans legs are open wider in the non-vetta...what a joke


Obviously, something like that would either not be a smart move on behalf of the contributor, or not a smart move on behalf of the editors for not taking both (or rejecting both).

nruboc

« Reply #6 on: November 13, 2010, 14:11 »
0
VETTA

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-2369762-silhouette-of-businessmen-and-women-s-legs.php

NON-VETTA

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-2420884-i-m-interested.php

Do you see it, the VETTA is clearly better saturated...or wait...no, its because the mans legs are open wider in the non-vetta...what a joke


Or it could be the same reason why this little ducky is free: http://www.dreamstime.com/duck-imagefree1307291 While this little ducky can be bought "for as low as $0.20" and as much as $13.75: http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photography-santa-claus-duck-image3082977





Go get some glasses if you can't see the differences my images. And while your at it, please explain the
difference in some of yours, maybe you can tell us the secret of sneaking similars past IStock inspectors:

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14097885-beach-in-mozambique-africa.php
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-11743297-beach-in-mozambique-africa.php

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-3480626-berlin-hauptbahnhof.php
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-3759352-berlin-hauptbahnhof.php

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-3655002-fraser-island-lake-boomanjin.php
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-3409911-fraser-island-lake-boomanjin.php

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-11743302-beach-in-mozambique-africa.php
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14097887-beach-in-mozambique-africa.php

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-3480582-abel-tasman-kayaking.php
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-4195239-abel-tasman-kayaking.php

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-9775590-aleppo-citadel.php
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14579017-aleppo-citadel.php

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-6243079-coconut-growth.php
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-3878118-coconut-growth.php
« Last Edit: November 13, 2010, 14:27 by nruboc »

« Reply #7 on: November 13, 2010, 14:38 »
0
Sneaking suggests someone did something on purpose in an underhanded way. Not sure you have any basis for saying that.

Some of those photos appear identical (versus similar) and were uploaded in different months. That just suggests a mistake in uploading the same image twice. We all make mistakes sometimes - it's always nice if someone points those out gently and privately.

I don't like the policies over similars with Vettas/Agency but no reason to turn this into some slug-fest over something that wasn't even your original issue.

nruboc

« Reply #8 on: November 13, 2010, 15:04 »
0
Sneaking suggests someone did something on purpose in an underhanded way. Not sure you have any basis for saying that.

Some of those photos appear identical (versus similar) and were uploaded in different months. That just suggests a mistake in uploading the same image twice. We all make mistakes sometimes - it's always nice if someone points those out gently and privately.

I don't like the policies over similars with Vettas/Agency but no reason to turn this into some slug-fest over something that wasn't even your original issue.

Hardly a slug fest, he was implying my images are similar, I think they are not. I think it's fair to point out several from his portfolio that are similar.

« Reply #9 on: November 13, 2010, 16:43 »
0
I think it's been proven several times over that the new Vetta prices in some cases create a very large price difference between very similar images.  I do not think there is a need to be calling people out and linking to specific examples.  Sorry, but I can't see how someone having similars that are Vetta/non Vetta in their portfolio affects you personally to the point that you feel justified in picking them apart on a public forum.

I understand venting about policies you don't agree with and that we are lucky to have a place here to do just that.  But I still think it's very bad form to make it personal and link to people's images  this way.  If you feel that strongly about it and actually wonder what the photographer's thoughts are on this why don't you contact them privately and ask? (Realizing of course that they have absolutely no obligation to explain themselves to anyone.)

nruboc

« Reply #10 on: November 13, 2010, 17:21 »
0
I think it's been proven several times over that the new Vetta prices in some cases create a very large price difference between very similar images.  I do not think there is a need to be calling people out and linking to specific examples.  Sorry, but I can't see how someone having similars that are Vetta/non Vetta in their portfolio affects you personally to the point that you feel justified in picking them apart on a public forum.

I understand venting about policies you don't agree with and that we are lucky to have a place here to do just that.  But I still think it's very bad form to make it personal and link to people's images  this way.  If you feel that strongly about it and actually wonder what the photographer's thoughts are on this why don't you contact them privately and ask? (Realizing of course that they have absolutely no obligation to explain themselves to anyone.)

Sorry, but I think it's perfectly acceptable to link to someone elses images to illustrate an example. I didn't make a judgement about the quality of said images, in fact a client sent me the link to it, so they must have thought it was good. Thus, I will continue to do so to illustrate a point I'm trying to make, especially since, yes, it affected me personally.

bittersweet

« Reply #11 on: November 13, 2010, 18:05 »
0
The themes of the original two examples are totally different. There is more difference than the masterful sepia tone. ;)
Can you really not see that?

And no, they are not my images.  :D  

I also am not a big fan of calling out people's work like this, but that hasn't stopped anyone so far from doing it, so I'm sure it will continue to be accepted practice around here.
« Last Edit: November 13, 2010, 18:08 by whatalife »

« Reply #12 on: November 13, 2010, 20:06 »
0
Do you see it, the VETTA is clearly better saturated...or wait...no, its because the mans legs are open wider in the non-vetta...what a joke
Yes, so many jokes from iStock. iStock has become iLaughingstock.

« Reply #13 on: November 13, 2010, 21:10 »
0
Calling people out?
Sorry, I don't believe that's what NRuboc did.

He never questioned the quality of the work. Great images, and he never said differently.
He never called the photographer.

What's questionable is the criteria.
And judging by the other examples, I'm sorry to say that it is not only the Vetta inspection team that comes under questioning.
It seems the problem is a bit more general than that.

Somehow I'm not surprised.

bittersweet

« Reply #14 on: November 13, 2010, 21:40 »
0
Calling people out?
Sorry, I don't believe that's what NRuboc did.

He never questioned the quality of the work. Great images, and he never said differently.
He never called the photographer.

What's questionable is the criteria.
And judging by the other examples, I'm sorry to say that it is not only the Vetta inspection team that comes under questioning.
It seems the problem is a bit more general than that.

Somehow I'm not surprised.

Oh okay, I am admittedly not up on how the Vetta process works.... I thought the photographers selected/suggested their own photos for Vetta consideration.

« Reply #15 on: November 14, 2010, 00:05 »
0
Sneaking suggests someone did something on purpose in an underhanded way. Not sure you have any basis for saying that.

Some of those photos appear identical (versus similar) and were uploaded in different months. That just suggests a mistake in uploading the same image twice. We all make mistakes sometimes - it's always nice if someone points those out gently and privately.

I don't like the policies over similars with Vettas/Agency but no reason to turn this into some slug-fest over something that wasn't even your original issue.

Hardly a slug fest, he was implying my images are similar, I think they are not. I think it's fair to point out several from his portfolio that are similar.

My point was that you have images with no apparent difference in quality with similar concepts at different price points: free vs paid. I didn't say that they were the same. Nor are the images you link - they're different concepts. 

Yes I have some images that are similars - up until recently I've been uploading mainly from slow connections on a laptop and on a variety of agencies. The upload restrictions on iStock meant you need to keep track of what's been uploaded, and usually can't upload a full batch at once. Guess what - I occasionally make mistakes. FWIW I think similars often actually hurt you in the search on iStock because your images end up competing against each other.   

« Reply #16 on: November 14, 2010, 03:24 »
0
Hmmm...maybe we have a different definition of "calling out" but I really feel this thread is a little discourteous.

Put yourself in the shoes of the photographer who's images were linked ... if you were to read the sarcastic thread title, and click on the thread only to find it's about your images and the relative pricing of one of your Vetta's being "a joke" while some people join in to have a good chuckle over it, how would you feel?

If by any chance the photographer does think that image is worth the Vetta price then you've flat out insulted her judgment. On the other hand, the Vetta approval process seems to be just as subjective as normal iStock approvals and there has been frustration expressed on the contributor end too when trying to figure out how some of their similar images made the cut or didn't.   You can't really know how this particular file ended up at Vetta pricing.

I know my opinion probably means about as much as threads like these mean to iStock management ;) I just don't like seeing the frustration that should be aimed at the company itself being taken out on individuals who aren't here to have their say. 

hqimages

  • www.draiochtwebdesign.com
« Reply #17 on: November 14, 2010, 04:50 »
0
I don't buy from Istock anymore for my company, and this exact problem is one of the reasons why.. it's immoral to take 60 credits for an image, and then sell an almost identical one at 5-10 credits, as a buyer it doesn't make me feel that I can trust the pricing, or trust the supplying web site, and I would abslutely hate to be a customer that bought that image at 60 credits, and then down the line spotted an identical image for much cheaper on the SAME web site.. there's something a bit criminal about it..

hqimages

  • www.draiochtwebdesign.com
« Reply #18 on: November 14, 2010, 04:55 »
0
And I don't think it's wrong to link to specific images to illustrate this point, I did the exact same thing when Vetta was first released in my shock that they could dare charge a customer 60 credits for an image, when there is another one, by the same photographer/same set/same models at 5-10 credits.. the only difference might be that the models head is angled more slightly in a different direction, how they can take money for the more expensive image from people is just wrong..

ShadySue

« Reply #19 on: November 14, 2010, 05:22 »
0
I don't buy from Istock anymore for my company, and this exact problem is one of the reasons why.. it's immoral to take 60 credits for an image, and then sell an almost identical one at 5-10 credits, as a buyer it doesn't make me feel that I can trust the pricing, or trust the supplying web site, and I would abslutely hate to be a customer that bought that image at 60 credits, and then down the line spotted an identical image for much cheaper on the SAME web site.. there's something a bit criminal about it..
[/quote
Happens all the time in department stores. There is only very seldom a good, articulatable reason why this pair of jeans/fleece jacket/plain white T costs five times as much as that one. (OK, some at the very bottom of the market won't be wearable after a few washes, but we'll discount them. But even the FairTrade products (an 'artuculatable reason') are now often price-compatible with the rest.)
Anyway, not Vetta, but here's a contributer's view about Exc+. I have series of similars. Like other series, sometimes one from a series sells much better than others. I've made the better sellers Exc+. The customer has a choice - if they can't see any difference, they can buy a cheaper one; if they prefer the more popular one, they can pay a bit more. i have to find some way of making up the money I'll be losing when I turn Gold in a few weeks, but won't bet getting the expected percentage rise.
Anyway, what do you think a buyer would prefer: I used up my maximum Esc+ slots (at the moment, I've used up about 1/4 of my 'allocation') over series, or that they have a choice?

hqimages

  • www.draiochtwebdesign.com
« Reply #20 on: November 14, 2010, 08:08 »
0
I don't buy from Istock anymore for my company, and this exact problem is one of the reasons why.. it's immoral to take 60 credits for an image, and then sell an almost identical one at 5-10 credits, as a buyer it doesn't make me feel that I can trust the pricing, or trust the supplying web site, and I would abslutely hate to be a customer that bought that image at 60 credits, and then down the line spotted an identical image for much cheaper on the SAME web site.. there's something a bit criminal about it..
Happens all the time in department stores. There is only very seldom a good, articulatable reason why this pair of jeans/fleece jacket/plain white T costs five times as much as that one. (OK, some at the very bottom of the market won't be wearable after a few washes, but we'll discount them. But even the FairTrade products (an 'artuculatable reason') are now often price-compatible with the rest.)
Anyway, not Vetta, but here's a contributer's view about Exc+. I have series of similars. Like other series, sometimes one from a series sells much better than others. I've made the better sellers Exc+. The customer has a choice - if they can't see any difference, they can buy a cheaper one; if they prefer the more popular one, they can pay a bit more. i have to find some way of making up the money I'll be losing when I turn Gold in a few weeks, but won't bet getting the expected percentage rise.
Anyway, what do you think a buyer would prefer: I used up my maximum Esc+ slots (at the moment, I've used up about 1/4 of my 'allocation') over series, or that they have a choice?

Even department stores wouldn't price a t-shirt from the same manufacturer, using the same material, that they bought at the same price, from the same person, with maybe.. a zig-zag instead of a straight stich in the arm, at 60 dollars vs 10 dollars, ON THE SAME RACK.. you have to remember this is the same shop..

« Reply #21 on: November 14, 2010, 09:57 »
0
I don't buy from Istock anymore for my company, and this exact problem is one of the reasons why.. it's immoral to take 60 credits for an image, and then sell an almost identical one at 5-10 credits, as a buyer it doesn't make me feel that I can trust the pricing, or trust the supplying web site, and I would abslutely hate to be a customer that bought that image at 60 credits, and then down the line spotted an identical image for much cheaper on the SAME web site.. there's something a bit criminal about it..

And now some of those similars are in Agency. So you have some in the regular collection, some in the Vetta collection, and some in the Agency collection. And the Agency collection ones are 1000% more expensive than their similar counterparts.

« Reply #22 on: November 14, 2010, 11:03 »
0
I don't buy from Istock anymore for my company, and this exact problem is one of the reasons why.. it's immoral to take 60 credits for an image, and then sell an almost identical one at 5-10 credits, as a buyer it doesn't make me feel that I can trust the pricing, or trust the supplying web site, and I would abslutely hate to be a customer that bought that image at 60 credits, and then down the line spotted an identical image for much cheaper on the SAME web site.. there's something a bit criminal about it..

It certainly isn't immoral, and there's nothing to do with "trust" as the price is right there on the page.  What you should absolutely hate, is that you may not have taken the time to look a little further.  Nothing at all criminal about it.  If you don't want it at the price offered, don't buy it.

« Reply #23 on: November 14, 2010, 11:06 »
0
I don't buy from Istock anymore for my company, and this exact problem is one of the reasons why.. it's immoral to take 60 credits for an image, and then sell an almost identical one at 5-10 credits, as a buyer it doesn't make me feel that I can trust the pricing, or trust the supplying web site, and I would abslutely hate to be a customer that bought that image at 60 credits, and then down the line spotted an identical image for much cheaper on the SAME web site.. there's something a bit criminal about it..

Blah blah blah, It's immoral? Give me a break. For this small moment in time I will side on iS. There is nothing immoral about it. GO to a department store and look at the price reduced bin of underwear. Same stuff as is on the shelf just way less money. Besides the Vetta image as posted in the OPs thread is better than the non Vetta image. BTW good luck with your shopping elsewhere.

Good grief, I just noticed I sided with SJlocke above. What next?
« Last Edit: November 14, 2010, 11:08 by Zeus »

« Reply #24 on: November 14, 2010, 11:10 »
0
This just in, flying pork spotted in the skies overhead!


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
13 Replies
3444 Views
Last post October 23, 2008, 22:54
by helix7
3 Replies
1773 Views
Last post July 26, 2009, 14:38
by madelaide
12 Replies
3925 Views
Last post July 05, 2011, 14:45
by Shank_ali
9 Replies
3005 Views
Last post January 25, 2017, 11:34
by izzikiorage
2 Replies
1781 Views
Last post May 02, 2017, 09:21
by Noedelhap

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results