MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: istock and keywords  (Read 24509 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: November 24, 2008, 04:50 »
0
recently one of my photos have been approved on istock but they said that the following keywords are not fully relevant to the subject: {[Joy,  Day,  Copy Space,  20-24 Years,  25-29 Years]}
This is the file: http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=7831720

Maybe they're right....actually the model looks sad, this photo has been shot at night, there is no room to write a message or insert objects, and of course the model  is 50 years old....but she just came back from a spa and looks younger!!  ;D

I think I should go for exclusivity....my doctor said it will help me to have good sight..... ;)

Best,
diego


fotorob

  • I am a professional stock photographer

« Reply #1 on: November 24, 2008, 05:25 »
0
Oh well, there are stories to tell.
I had a woman with boxing gloves some days ago and they refused to accecpt the keyword "boxing (women)"

I guess they want to have only the exclusives on istock and the rest on stockxpert.

Caz

« Reply #2 on: November 24, 2008, 06:16 »
0
I don't see how the image depicts "joy". She's smiling a little bit, but to me I'd say joy would have to be represented by more than a little half smile. And the keyword "twenties" maps to young adult which would have covered her (without chosing the "be more specific option") if indeed she is actually in her twenties.

« Reply #3 on: November 24, 2008, 06:25 »
0
recently one of my photos have been approved on istock but they said that the following keywords are not fully relevant to the subject: {[Joy,  Day,  Copy Space,  20-24 Years,  25-29 Years]}
This is the file: http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=7831720

Maybe they're right....actually the model looks sad, this photo has been shot at night, there is no room to write a message or insert objects, and of course the model  is 50 years old....but she just came back from a spa and looks younger!!  ;D

I think I should go for exclusivity....my doctor said it will help me to have good sight..... ;)

Best,
diego


All the removed words were clearly innapropiated. Abouyt the model's age, when in doubt, inspectors just have to look at the model relase, where there's the model's date of birth.

« Reply #4 on: November 24, 2008, 06:28 »
0
Agree with loop.  There certainly isn't any copyspace here.  Not particularly joyful, etc...

This is why people who complain about keywords need to post an image to show their case.

« Reply #5 on: November 24, 2008, 06:36 »
0

rejected for keywords:  Ecstatic (Expressing Positivity), Cheerful (Expressing Positivity)
there were others like individuality and mug shot that might be a stretch for a strict Istock tag policy,

lagereek

« Reply #6 on: November 24, 2008, 07:11 »
0
IS dont understand conceptual keywording, have never done. Maybe its because most of their photographers just shoots ordinary, generic stuff.
Getty on the contrary will allow 5 conceptual keywords, doesnt make sense to me.

« Reply #7 on: November 24, 2008, 07:19 »
0
Maybe because Getty keywording is done by a small in house staff who know what they are doing, and iStock is keyworded by 50,000 contributors around the world who don't all speak English?

vikavalter, you may want to post that in the keywording forum for comments. 

lagereek

« Reply #8 on: November 24, 2008, 07:39 »
0
Hi Sean!

Yes I know Getty has an in-house keywording team. Wouldnt be a bad idea though, with 4 mill images in stock if IS would consider working on the same lines. Sure, wages have to be paid etc but in the long run it would save time and money plus complete disasters as far as spamming.

Tuilay

« Reply #9 on: November 24, 2008, 07:53 »
0

rejected for keywords:  Ecstatic (Expressing Positivity), Cheerful (Expressing Positivity)
there were others like individuality and mug shot that might be a stretch for a strict Istock tag policy,


her teeth weren't white enough for iStock!  ;D ;D ;D
try using vinegar to whiten them. Istockers use them for everything ,
eye wash, mouth wash, ...cleanse and exorcise all...except their personality. ;D ;D ;D

« Reply #10 on: November 24, 2008, 08:11 »
0
Hi Sean!

Yes I know Getty has an in-house keywording team. Wouldnt be a bad idea though, with 4 mill images in stock if IS would consider working on the same lines. Sure, wages have to be paid etc but in the long run it would save time and money plus complete disasters as far as spamming.

Maybe, but that isn't where we are now, which is why I think concepts need to be tight.

dbvirago

« Reply #11 on: November 24, 2008, 08:20 »
0
They recently started rejecting my model closeups for keywords, face, skin, cosmetics, lips, etc.  Several months back, I stopped uploading generic stock and just did models as they seemed to be the only thing accepted. Now those are being rejected also. Since they have fallen from 20% of my income in Feb to 3% last month, maybe it doesn't matter any more.

« Reply #12 on: November 24, 2008, 08:32 »
0
I'm getting so paraniod about keywording badly and getting a refusal that I end up putting the bare minimum  but wouldn't feel right going in and adding them afterwards so am probably losing out on sales.

« Reply #13 on: November 24, 2008, 08:44 »
0
I had two images uploaded together. One is a derivative of the other (my 2009 candles, shown in a StockXpert thread, one is the plain image, the other is the same with an added reflection below).  Anyway, the first was rejected due to keywords (some stretches), so I rushed and edited the second one.  It was rejected for artifacting...  The first, after keyword edition, was approved.  Go figure. 

Regards,
Adelaide

hali

« Reply #14 on: November 24, 2008, 08:51 »
0
IS dont understand conceptual keywording, have never done. Maybe its because most of their photographers just shoots ordinary, generic stuff.
Getty on the contrary will allow 5 conceptual keywords, doesnt make sense to me.
or maybe their reviewers are just plain generic... not understanding the diff between high key and lens flare image degeneration; selective focus and out of focus,etc...
creative and well-done isolated shots are mostly rejected, in favour for boring cat and dog photographs.

to reiterate Adelaide, go figure

Tuilay

« Reply #15 on: November 24, 2008, 08:54 »
0
OR THEY JUST DON'T LIKE YOUr lousy photos,,, . go away from iStock . we have our own stock ;)

creative and well-done isolated shots are mostly rejected, in favour for boring cat and dog photographs. to reiterate Adelaide, go figure

Hali, if they want your boring cat and dog photos, then give them your boring cat and dog photos. make a friend of the reviewers. make them happy and make them feel important. ;D
« Last Edit: November 24, 2008, 09:02 by Tuilay »

bittersweet

« Reply #16 on: November 24, 2008, 09:03 »
0
or maybe their reviewers are just plain generic... not understanding the diff between high key and lens flare image degeneration; selective focus and out of focus,etc...
creative and well-done isolated shots are mostly rejected, in favour for boring cat and dog photographs.

You might be on to something! It really is amazing that they are still in business, isn't it?

Tuilay

« Reply #17 on: November 24, 2008, 09:06 »
0
or maybe their reviewers are just plain generic... not understanding the diff between high key and lens flare image degeneration; selective focus and out of focus,etc...
creative and well-done isolated shots are mostly rejected, in favour for boring cat and dog photographs.

You might be on to something! It really is amazing that they are still in business, isn't it?
hey whatalife,
be a toadie, and you will go far with IS !  we have the beastmaster with SS,
and we have the toad master at IS.  the secret to being successful with them is so obvious. ;)

bittersweet

« Reply #18 on: November 24, 2008, 09:37 »
0
You don't have to be a "toadie" to realize that the statement that all these wonderful photos are rejected in favor of dogs and cats is just ridiculous.

This is what I hear:

1. iStock hates non-exclusives!
2. iStock reviewers are idiots who have no clue what they are doing!
3. iStock rejects my images for no grounds whatsoever!
4. All my wonderful images are selling like hotcakes on every other site!
5. iStock is filling their collection with a bunch of crap shots from the lousy kiss-ass exclusives!
6. I am not getting any sales at iStock!
7. iStock is the worst earner out of all thirty of the sites I contribute to!


So, IF all of the above are true, and IF you (the collective you who are complaining in this thread, and the other threads just like it) are still choosing to submit your images to "iStock"... then are you sure that the istock reviewers are the idiots here?
« Last Edit: November 24, 2008, 09:39 by whatalife »

« Reply #19 on: November 24, 2008, 09:46 »
0
Agree with loop.  There certainly isn't any copyspace here.  Not particularly joyful, etc...

This is why people who complain about keywords need to post an image to show their case.

Sean, I forgot to mention that I don't do keywording by myself anymore and outsorce it to wordsforimages.com, which is a professional service working accordingly to Getty guidelines and is managed by Shannon Routzahn, who did keywording for superstock for about 8 years....
I don't think professionals do keyword spamming for their clients!!  ;)

Talking about copyspace, one of the photos of this series has been licenced to Zweute Hand for their new advertisement, which found enough copyspace to insert 1 object (note that all 5 photos of this series have been taken from the same angle or slightly different).

Further, none of 10 other agencies (between microstock and midstocks) pointed out any keyword spamming....nor that some keywords are inappropriate.

... ???

dbvirago

« Reply #20 on: November 24, 2008, 09:51 »
0
I upload at IS when I have pretty much run out of other stuff to do. I don't come close to even their paltry 15 a week limit.  It takes way too long to upload there, only to have 2/3 rejected (and it's always 2 out of 3 - no variation, even if all 3 are the same model with the same keywords) to earn 3% of my micro income.

bittersweet

« Reply #21 on: November 24, 2008, 09:55 »
0
I upload at IS when I have pretty much run out of other stuff to do. I don't come close to even their paltry 15 a week limit.  It takes way too long to upload there, only to have 2/3 rejected (and it's always 2 out of 3 - no variation, even if all 3 are the same model with the same keywords) to earn 3% of my micro income.

If that's true, I guess I don't see why you bother. Isn't your time more valuable than that?

CofkoCof

« Reply #22 on: November 24, 2008, 10:01 »
0
In contrast to you what I hear is:
1. IS prefers exclusives (and I agree it should, not sure about the extent of this preferment)
2. & 3.  iStock has some weird rejections. Some images are far from being bad, but they get rejected for very small mistakes. I mean even if you download an image at the largest size available and print it on a billboard/full page in a magazine you won't see that tiny little artifact in the shadow of the tree. Rejecting an image for one (doubtfully) wrong keywords is a PITA (I've had a few of those). Not to mention all the people that add the keywords after he file was accepted and have a very large ammount of their images under keyword inspection all the time. Combine that with the long queues we've been having lately and the painfull uploading process.
4. Some of the images that are rejected by IS sell pretty well on other sites
5. There are some images from exclusive contrubutors that might seem inappropriate for IS collection. At least if we try to compare them with some of our rejected images.
6. I am getting lower sales then last year/1-2 months ago/before the best match change even though I've added more images
7. IS is far from being the top earner for most of the independent authors. The trends show that it's one of the few sites that show negative trend in the last few months.
« Last Edit: November 24, 2008, 10:07 by CofkoCof »

bittersweet

« Reply #23 on: November 24, 2008, 10:09 »
0
In contrast to you what I hear is:
1. IS prefers exclusives (and I agree it should, not sure about the extent of this preferment)
2. & 3.  iStock has some weird rejections. Some images are far from being bad, but they get rejected for very small mistakes. I mean even if you download an image at the largest size available and print it on a billboard/full page in a magazine you won't see that tiny little artifact in the shadow of the tree. Rejecting an image for one (doubtfully) wrong keywords is a PITA (I've had a few of those). Especially if you combine it with the long queues we've been having lately and the painfull uploading process.
4. Some of the images that are rejected by IS sell pretty well on other sites
5. There are some images from exclusive contrubutors that might seem inappropriate for IS collection. At least if we try to compare them with some of our rejected images.
6. I am getting lower sales then last year/1-2 months ago/before the best match change even though I've added more images
7. IS is far from being the top earner for most of the independent authors. The trends show that it's one of the few sites that show negative trend in the last few months.

Very few of the complaints have been stated as mildly as your list here. I think you know that. They are very often embellished with some type of venom spewing directed at either the inspector, the exclusives, or just the entire site.

I certainly do not agree with or defend everything that istock does, but after a while it starts to remind me of a neighbor I had many years ago. Her live-in boyfriend would beat her black and blue on a regular basis. The first time she "left" him, I helped her move her stuff out, gave her money and a place to stay. The second time she "left" him, I let her stay with me for a week and fed her. The third time she "left" him, I let her borrow my phone to call the police. The fourth time, I did not answer the door.

If the experience is as unfair and impossible as some people here obviously believe it to be, then I believe they must bear some of the responsibility for continuing to put themselves in that position.

lagereek

« Reply #24 on: November 24, 2008, 10:14 »
0
No, there is nothing wrong with the reviewers, Inspectors at IS. Believe me, theyve got very good eyes. As far as keywording? theyre not the ones deciding, they will follow instructions from above, little can they do about it.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
0 Replies
2728 Views
Last post July 01, 2006, 11:14
by Quevaal
6 Replies
5893 Views
Last post September 20, 2006, 11:43
by Bateleur
27 Replies
9930 Views
Last post October 20, 2006, 17:54
by GeoPappas
8 Replies
4889 Views
Last post February 16, 2007, 15:21
by madelaide
9 Replies
4387 Views
Last post January 31, 2008, 15:47
by madelaide

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle