Author Topic: IOTW (Read 8240 times)

Pixart · « **on:** February 01, 2009, 16:39 »

What do you think of the Image of the Week? It's nicely done for what it is, looks like a book cover. I never thought I'd see something like this on micro, it's rather unsettling, and here it is featured on the front page. (I think it was taken at a stockalypse?)

I'm wondering what others think - is it shocking? Is it in bad taste?

cdwheatley · « **Reply #1 on:** February 01, 2009, 17:13 »

I like it! sneaky!! looks like she had it planned. Clear message, strong shadows, unrecognizable people, the shoe tells you right away its a woman. Perfect for murder mystery

shank_ali · « **Reply #2 on:** February 01, 2009, 17:22 »

Quote from: cdwheatley on February 01, 2009, 17:13

I like it! sneaky!! looks like she had it planned. Clear message, strong shadows, unrecognizable people, the shoe tells you right away its a woman. Perfect for murder mystery

Istock invest heavily in organising lypses.Then they try to sell the images taken at these lypses heavily.I counted 3 free from Seattle.Not sure about malta but you can sure bet there will be more from the Berlin.Boxing,crime and a nutty proffessor in an old electric power station will be with us shortly...

icefront · « **Reply #3 on:** February 01, 2009, 18:24 »

Basically everything happening around us can be illustrated - this is what about the stock photography is talking. You - as photographer - always will find somebody as buyer who will think similarly to you and that person will buy your photograph/illustration.

Please consider the stock photos with negative content also good stock because stock is about illustrating not about changing the world or promoting some kind of vision.

Pixart · « **Reply #4 on:** February 01, 2009, 18:39 »

Stock photos with negative content are especially refreshing because they are so rare. I don't think they have the sales numbers that happy smiling does though. I was wondering what everyones' knee jerk reaction is on this one. I think my thoughts went something like... 1. Wow, that's really good. 2. But, they would never accept it from me. 3. That's risky on the front page for a whole week, won't someone be offended?

It sure tells a story though, doesn't it? Wow.

bittersweet · « **Reply #5 on:** February 01, 2009, 21:22 »

This is nothing compared to the controversy stirred up when this image was selected as image of the week, and yet it still managed to sell a few times:
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup/people/2090996-abuse.php?id=2090996

vonkara · « **Reply #6 on:** February 01, 2009, 21:52 »

Yeah, two good images.

Personally, I see them as artist work. These kind of images are great for making people think about what they won't normally. They have their place in front I think

Graffoto · « **Reply #7 on:** February 01, 2009, 22:23 »

I find it disturbing. I guess that means it is a very good image.

After all 'art' is supposed to make us stop and think, not just flip through to the next page for the story on 10 ways to regain your pre-baby figure in 30 days

NancyCWalker · « **Reply #8 on:** February 03, 2009, 17:36 »

Some of my better selling work is of a forensic tech investigating a 14 year old gun shot victim. He was "shot" in the head.

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup/lifestyle/teens/6666368-gunshot-wound.php?id=6666368

cathyslife · « **Reply #9 on:** February 03, 2009, 18:29 »

I think it's a good image, but it looks pretty heavily filtered to me. I would NEVER get an image like that accepted on istock, I'd get an overfiltered rejection.

leaf · « **Reply #10 on:** February 04, 2009, 03:48 »

There was a really great image on Lucky Oliver that they had as the image of their week once. it was of divorce in the back seat of a car with a husband and wife on either side of a child who had been crying, if I remember correctly. I tried finding it on the other stock sites and can't find it anywhere. It was a great (negative) image though.

Microbius · « **Reply #11 on:** February 04, 2009, 07:17 »

If that wasn't on the front page it would never make enough sales to justify the time and expense to set up.
Great shot, not great microstock. Stock libraries like to plug holes in their libraries so that the one in a thousand buyer doesn't get his head turned when the image isn't there. For the contributor shooting this sort of thing is never going to pay off on micro.
Just look at IStock's "images we need" page for illustrations, then check out how the image types on the list are selling.
Now do the same for "images we don't need" page.

null · « **Reply #12 on:** February 04, 2009, 08:54 »

I have quite some "negative" images, like goth, addiction, and especially homelessness, negative emotions etc... They simply don't sell at commercial microstock. Quite obvious, who could use that kind of imagery to endorse a product or a service? They do well at Flickr and Deviantart. One exception though. I had a surge in downloads of my desperate/flabbergasted businessmen in suits the last months.

shank_ali · « **Reply #13 on:** February 08, 2009, 04:00 »

Another photo from the Berlin Lypse is the IOTW.
This is what they want in the new Premier collection IMO.
The new technical director wants to break down the boundries of normal photography and amaze the world via istock....slight problem in those images are not of any use to a buyer.
We are only interested in producing files that SELL and sell alot.
If i wanted to showcase my skill with a camera/photoshop i might join deviant art or fliker or a local camera club.

bittersweet · « **Reply #14 on:** February 08, 2009, 09:47 »

Quote from: shank_ali on February 08, 2009, 04:00

....slight problem in those images are not of any use to a buyer.

Not trying to defend istock at all, but what makes you think this?

Graffoto · « **Reply #15 on:** February 08, 2009, 10:51 »

Quote from: shank_ali on February 08, 2009, 04:00

The new technical director wants to break down the boundries of normal photography and amaze the world via istock....slight problem in those images are not of any use to a buyer.

I can see these being used as book covers for a suspense novel or as illustrations for a new story about crimes of passion etc, etc.
Having said that, I don't think these images will sell a LOT, as this is a very specialized use indeed.

shank_ali · « **Reply #16 on:** February 08, 2009, 11:26 »

Quote from: whatalife on February 08, 2009, 09:47

Quote from: shank_ali on February 08, 2009, 04:00
....slight problem in those images are not of any use to a buyer.

Not trying to defend istock at all, but what makes you think this?

simplicity is the key to a good selling micro image.
The last two I.O.T.W.are hardly simple.A murder scene and an old guy knocked out by a female will never attract alot of sales and seems to me alot of time and effort for small rewards.

yecatsdoherty · « **Reply #17 on:** February 09, 2009, 00:31 »

a bit late chiming in on these...the first with the murder scene of the crime is okay, doesn't wow me though I can appreciate the effort and talent involved in creating the shot.....the one with the woman's green eyes and hand over mouth is one of my absolute favourite images ever, on IS and elsewhere. I think it is incredibly emotive and gorgeously shot. I wish IS would take more artistic/filtered stuff.

I really really like the staged shots, though if I were to attend a lypse, it would be to learn from and meet others....and not with getting sellable shots in mind. I have yet to see lypse shots that look like they would sell in volume, of course I'm sure there are exceptions.

digiology · « **Reply #18 on:** February 11, 2009, 15:39 »

I am totally coming in late to this too but I just saw this by total fluke. This istock contributer found it necessary to apologize to buyers on his blog for last weeks IOTW.

The image did nothing for me but obviously evoked some very strong reaction in others.

vonkara · « **Reply #19 on:** February 11, 2009, 15:52 »

Quote from: lclark on February 11, 2009, 15:39

I am totally coming in late to this too but I just saw this by total fluke. This istock contributer found it necessary to apologize to buyers on his blog for last weeks IOTW.

The image did nothing for me but obviously evoked some very strong reaction in others.

Wow, it's not even his fault I am wrong? I don't like reactive people. At least I don't get what the situation is all about LOL. Does these people think he actually killed someone for making the photograph ??

bittersweet · « **Reply #20 on:** February 11, 2009, 15:53 »

I don't get what the big deal is either.

yecatsdoherty · « **Reply #21 on:** February 11, 2009, 22:59 »

....someone was actually that upset by the image? I mean, I suppose the whole gun violence thing, domestic abuse thing. and if I were to think about it, abuse implied as sexy would never fly if that was a man holding a gun after shooting a woman. so, hmmmmm......I guess on some level I can see why the image was upsetting, even though it didn't bother me in the least

holy cow, his apology is really over the top.....if he is that sorry, why did he take the picture? ridiculous and strange

KarenH · « **Reply #22 on:** February 12, 2009, 00:03 »

Quote from: yecatsdoherty on February 11, 2009, 22:59

holy cow, his apology is really over the top.....if he is that sorry, why did he take the picture? ridiculous and strange

I don't think he's the one that took the picture, is he? Unless I misread that, it sounds like he's apologizing for iStock selecting the picture.

yecatsdoherty · « **Reply #23 on:** February 12, 2009, 00:33 »

I think it is his image, why would he apologize suggesting he had no control over its selection? wow, if he is just some contributor upset by the selection, that is nuts. I gotta go check it out...

yecatsdoherty · « **Reply #24 on:** February 12, 2009, 00:36 »

wow, you're totally right, it was xaviarnau......omg, what a ridiculous apology on a blog for an image he had nothing to do with. honestly, how RIDICULOUS. now I get it, duh.....

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: IOTW (Read 8240 times)

Pixart

cdwheatley

shank_ali

icefront

Pixart

bittersweet

vonkara

Graffoto

NancyCWalker

cathyslife

leaf

Microbius

null

shank_ali

bittersweet

Graffoto

shank_ali

yecatsdoherty

digiology

vonkara

bittersweet

yecatsdoherty

KarenH

yecatsdoherty

yecatsdoherty

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors