Author Topic: Who are they kidding? (Read 9157 times)

Greg Boiarsky · « **on:** March 31, 2006, 15:15 »

Istock is unbelievable. I submitted a series of 16 photos, all processed identically. Istock takes half of them, says the other half have "artifacting" at full resolution. What horsewater. They're all fine, and every other site has taken them.

No wonder SS is overtaking them. Who needs the aggravation?

leaf · « **Reply #1 on:** March 31, 2006, 15:41 »

i second that motion.

My upload time to them is dwindling by theday... so i will have stopped uploading there all together

Striker77s · « **Reply #2 on:** March 31, 2006, 19:49 »

If you read the past week or so. Everyone is complaining about iStockPhoto's approval process. It is getting slower and slower and they reject a lot of images. Most of the images I had rejected are not suffereing from the problems they claim, like noise and artifacts lack of focus and on and on. My guess is unless you are one of their prime photographers they aren't going to treat you very well. Oh well,

It could be new policies coming down from Getty

Mark

chellyar · « **Reply #3 on:** March 31, 2006, 20:26 »

Their review time certainly isn't that good, but I don't think they are any more or less harsh on rejections at the moment....

Although I did get one odd rejection last week for 'lighting' on a shot that obviously had too much noise in it, but I'd submitted on the off chance.. (It was accepted by SS so I thought I'd giveit a go on SI and DT... DT rejected it for noise (rightly so) and IS on lighting/shadows)

When I look at the images IS rejects vs the other sites there are different 'themes' to the rejections, but I don't think they are being unfair...

I do know that I don't submit similar shots at the same time anymore, as they'll get more picky if you submit a whole block of similiar content at the same time.. You'll get rejetions for noise, artifacts, lighting etc as they will look harder at the group of images than they would if just one shiny screwdriver was in front of them.. Or at least that's my take on it. (This is similar for all the sites).

I always submit similar images a few days apart so that the reviewers are not getting them all at the same time.

Just my 2c worth...

Greg Boiarsky · « **Reply #4 on:** March 31, 2006, 20:42 »

Good ideas. I hadn't thought about the theme issue, given that SS and others don't seem to do that kind of comparison (although Bigstock has done something similar to me).

I also think that IS doesn't like food shots, or cooking-related shots, as much as others.

Fotolia seems to have a minor bias against mountain shots; they probably have enough already.

Anybody else see any themes?

leaf · « **Reply #5 on:** April 01, 2006, 00:27 »

well shutterstock says on their 'needs' page thatthey need food shots, and food shots with people in them.. so they SHOULD want them i would think.

admart01 · « **Reply #6 on:** April 02, 2006, 15:44 »

Just deleted a shot before filling out all the info on it and got this message...

"It probably wouldn't have sold anyway, we're sure you have more great stuff to upload. Thank you for using iStockphoto."

How's that for optimism

leaf · « **Reply #7 on:** April 02, 2006, 16:39 »

at least they have a sense of humour

chellyar · « **Reply #8 on:** April 03, 2006, 01:52 »

..

Never noticed that msg before, one of their developers obviously has too much time on his/her hands..

mnbvblah · « **Reply #9 on:** April 07, 2006, 04:57 »

Quote from: Greg Boiarsky on March 31, 2006, 15:15

Istock is unbelievable. I submitted a series of 16 photos, all processed identically. Istock takes half of them, says the other half have "artifacting" at full resolution. What horsewater. They're all fine, and every other site has taken them.

No wonder SS is overtaking them. Who needs the aggravation?

I'm just not finding this. Most of what I submit gets accepted at iStock. Even some stuff which I've later rejected and deactivated myself. And looking back at the rejections I've had - well they all made good sense.

I'm not a member at Shutterstock. How do you mean that they are overtaking?

iStock gets better and better IMO.

leaf · « **Reply #10 on:** April 07, 2006, 05:38 »

I think he meant overtaking in terms of earnings per image (for a contributer) and total number of images on the site.

For many people (such as myself) shutterstock is their top earner, considering shutterstock is a lot newer in the microstock game, they may end up being a bigger player than istock in another few months to a year.

mnbvblah · « **Reply #11 on:** April 07, 2006, 06:02 »

Certainly SS is an interesting site and I know that it is well liked. I'm absolutely keeping an eye on it.

But currently - (and I know that things change all the time) - I think that the SS library has too much material which just doesn't look good enough and which makes the site seem less than serious.

Not to say that they have't also got some very useable images.

Maybe they should have a spring clean - and start accepting a few less images. Raise the bar, so to speak

leaf · « **Reply #12 on:** April 07, 2006, 06:07 »

well i do agree they have more sub par images that istock, however i would say istock has their fair share as well. Perhaps they will do some spring cleaning when they reach a certain goal, such as a million images or something. I have a feeling in the future (1 or 2 years away) it is going to be a challenge to get images on the micros, you will need a pro setup and camera to sell there.

ichiro17 · « **Reply #13 on:** May 15, 2006, 23:08 »

I think it would be very easy to reduce the number of images and keep the 'essence' of microstock. From what I gather, microstock is slightly more amateur and recreational than macrostock or something along those lines. (I don't mean to offend anyone by that). What I mean is that it allows for the amateur photographer to have a go and give it a try - like myself. Back to my main point, my idea would be that images that are on the server that have not been downloaded within a specific (and potentially controversial) period of time could clear up and give new images a shot. Shutterstock has that already in place in a way with the sort by Most Recent options, but by having images removed after a certain period of time that don't generate a single download may help.

I understand that there are many flaws for this proposed solution, but it could be the building blocks to keeping the recreational guy involved as well.

I thought I'd generate some discussion if anyone's up to it - just get ideas flowing.

CJPhoto · « **Reply #14 on:** May 16, 2006, 02:03 »

Much like digital cameras, the microstocks were playing the numbers game - more pictures the better. Now they are focusing a bit more on quality (see threads on rejections). Soon, maybe once they believe they have enough pictures, they will start weeding out the lower quality ones but I dont think the time has come for them to give up the numbers game (ie. bigger is better much like MP - would you buy a 6MP camera now that 8 or 10 is the standard).

I believe that in a year or two you will need a pro set up.

First the amateur killed the pro by submitting on microstock.
Soon the pro will kill the amateur by submitting on microstock.

leaf · « **Reply #15 on:** May 16, 2006, 03:03 »

yeah i agree with this

once it is well known and agreed that pros can submit on the micros, the amateur will have a hard time. Or another way, once the amateurs on the micros have earned enough to buy a pro set up, it is going to be hard for the amateur to get a foot in the door. It shouldn't be so surprising though, once a library has a few million pictures they are no doubt going to be more picky.

Alamy on the other hand, is gobbling up everything that gets thrown at them. They have a different strategy than anyone else, and it seems to be working for a few people, and probably them.

Istock, has started the 'trashing old unsold photos' idea allready. about 6 months or so, I was givin a notice that three or so files had not sold, and did not fill the 'needs' of istock and were thus deleted. A fair thing i think... and something we will start to see more of.

CJPhoto · « **Reply #16 on:** May 16, 2006, 06:04 »

I agree with what you say but a ameteur with a pro setup who has earned that amount is getting pretty close to being a pro.

Alamy is a weird one. I looked at a guys photos there and some of them were very average - looked like he had put on his christmas day photos. With no review of quality there, it is no wonder designers are turning to microstock for stock photos. The expensive sites will end up being the domain of the "exclusive shots" where special releases are need (ie celebrities etc)

madelaide · « **Reply #17 on:** May 16, 2006, 17:37 »

Quote from: ichiro17 on May 15, 2006, 23:08

Back to my main point, my idea would be that images that are on the server that have not been downloaded within a specific (and potentially controversial) period of time could clear up and give new images a shot.

I think it was at BigStock that this idea was recently discussed. This would also avoid so many rejections because similar images are already in the portfolio - new ones may be equal or better and sell more. But as far as I know it hasn't been implemented yet.

Regards,
Adelaide
-----------
http://www.geocities.com/photocorner.geo/

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Who are they kidding? (Read 9157 times)

Greg Boiarsky

leaf

Striker77s

chellyar

Greg Boiarsky

leaf

admart01

leaf

chellyar

mnbvblah

leaf

mnbvblah

leaf

ichiro17

CJPhoto

leaf

CJPhoto

madelaide

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors