Author Topic: istock...arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrggh!!! (Read 31131 times)

Elenathewise · « **Reply #75 on:** June 22, 2010, 12:54 »

Quote from: lagereek on June 22, 2010, 09:03

Im sure they have some summer-reviewers or trainees. My latest experience with an oil-industrial shot, well?? blimey, even the knowledge of English was questionable. Im waiting for autumn to upload any special photography, dont want to go through all that again.

I totally agree. My previous batch had 100% acceptance. My last batch got rejections that made me think some mentally challenged person was reviewing the images. It's probably trainees or summer students or whatever. I've noticed too it happens every summer. The question is why is Istock allowing that. It's very time consuming to submit to them, so assigning unqualified people to review images is a huge waste of our time. If they don't care about us wasting time, maybe they should care about rejected images that are good sellers and frustrated photographers who'd quit submitting because of this crap.

Dr Bouz · « **Reply #76 on:** June 22, 2010, 13:15 »

well, all i can say is that everyone is free to found his own www.my-stocksite.com microstock site, and to make a rules he thinks are o.k. e.t.c.
o.k. that is true that for let's say... (2010. -1983.....=...) 27 years, i had no image "rejected" with any of microstock rejection reasons. my customers do have only one criteria: i like (or dislike) image i need. and that's it. no counting pixels, no finding noise, no looking at 200% (or re-examining big print form the film).
these standards are well... we can discuss about this. -but - these are rules. anyone can take it, or leave it.

i had this image rejected with out of focus:
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/13131124/2/istockphoto_13131124-aquarium-snails.jpg

and this snapshot is online:
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/12787053/2/istockphoto_12787053-helix-pomatia.jpg

do i think mine is better/ nice/... -yes.
will i quit sending images on is? - no.
why? - i like $.
*of course, i am not questioning a tehnical skill, and experience of an author, or equipment used for the second one. -i just picked it up on random search.

the main thing that i am trying to point here is that i do agree that reviewers do make mistakes, and i agree that buyers always look on to the image, and never look onto the pixels/etc... -but these mistakes - made by humans - not machines -are much more rarely done, than the contributors are boo-hoo-hoo-ing. reviewers are people like anyone of us - with heart beating in the chest, and hot blood running through the veins. yes-they make mistakes- anyone of us do make mistakes - but once again - it's not so often.
**i never saw -anywhere on forums that someone complained that his image is online, and later-he saw a few mistakes, and image should actually be rejected

(and we will agree that there are also this kind of images)
here is one of mine

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/1793156/2/istockphoto_1793156-meat.jpg
-underexposed with ugly white blownout spots.
o.k. camera used for this image was really inferior, and i shot this as jpg, but....

lagereek · « **Reply #77 on:** June 22, 2010, 13:54 »

Nobody is disputing what youre saying but I rather be safe then sorry. Let me tell you, for three years I helped the mentor of all stock-photography to edit pictures, Tony-Stone of Stones, who later in 92 sold to Getty and together with the Image-Bank actually made Getty what it is.
Professional rules of picture-editing are: once the easy stuff is under way such as exposure, composition, etc there are three main questions:

1: will this picture sell? if no= dustbin, if yes, next question is 2: towards which market or markets? and 3: is this picture too similar to what we already have in the files? if yes, then the picture is dumped even if its fullfilled the previous criteria.

Keywording?? no! there was a special small team inside Stones, Getty-RM and Image-Bank and THEY did all keywording, equal for all and needles to say, prevented any kind of spamming.

This is the way it should operate., Sure you have to pay wages but then again I doint think fulltime or part-time reviewers work on honors?

Elenathewise · « **Reply #78 on:** June 22, 2010, 14:25 »

Quote from: Dr Bouz on June 22, 2010, 13:15

well, all i can say is that everyone is free to found his own www.my-stocksite.com microstock site, and to make a rules he thinks are o.k. e.t.c.
o.k. that is true that for let's say... (2010. -1983.....=...) 27 years, i had no image "rejected" with any of microstock rejection reasons. my customers do have only one criteria: i like (or dislike) image i need. and that's it. no counting pixels, no finding noise, no looking at 200% (or re-examining big print form the film).
these standards are well... we can discuss about this. -but - these are rules. anyone can take it, or leave it.

Yup it's all true if you're selling your own images. The moment you start selling someone else's, it becomes some form of partnership. You can't just do whatever you want, or you'll lose your partners. Let's say Istock decreased commissions to something entirely ridiculous, like 5%. How many of us would stay?
Same with the reviewers. They have to be at least semi-qualified people. Everyone has rejections here and there, it's part of the business, most people don't complain when it's business as usual - some accepted, some rejected, some make sense, some don't, whatever, moving on. But when they let someone who has no idea what they are doing to work on the queue, it becomes a problem. Then, in my opinion, as partners, we have every right to complain and request the problem to be fixed.

ap · « **Reply #79 on:** June 22, 2010, 14:46 »

Quote from: ShadySue on June 22, 2010, 10:56

Again, this would be much easier if we could see the actual image, but it looks like they would need to know that you had just put in the words 'Love, Love, Love' youself, and that it isn't the name of an actual movie.

What works on Dreamstime is irrelevant to what will be accepted at iStock, and probably vice versa.

sigh. 'love, love, love' are the actual words on the marquee. i presume that's not allowed either. it's getting to the point where what's literally there is not allowed and what's implied is also not allowed. i really need to get a phd in keywording to figure out what to input.

the point about dreamstime is to compare how different agencies deal with keywords. the fact that they show what keywords the buyers used to search for our images is infinitely more valuable than attempting to keep us in a keywording strait jacket.

it's beyond me to try and influence is policy but i can certainly consider eliminating them as an agency to contribute to for it's just getting to be such an unpleasant process.

lagereek · « **Reply #80 on:** June 22, 2010, 14:51 »

Quote from: Elenathewise on June 22, 2010, 14:25

Quote from: Dr Bouz on June 22, 2010, 13:15
well, all i can say is that everyone is free to found his own www.my-stocksite.com microstock site, and to make a rules he thinks are o.k. e.t.c.
o.k. that is true that for let's say... (2010. -1983.....=...) 27 years, i had no image "rejected" with any of microstock rejection reasons. my customers do have only one criteria: i like (or dislike) image i need. and that's it. no counting pixels, no finding noise, no looking at 200% (or re-examining big print form the film).
these standards are well... we can discuss about this. -but - these are rules. anyone can take it, or leave it.

Yup it's all true if you're selling your own images. The moment you start selling someone else's, it becomes some form of partnership. You can't just do whatever you want, or you'll lose your partners. Let's say Istock decreased commissions to something entirely ridiculous, like 5%. How many of us would stay?
Same with the reviewers. They have to be at least semi-qualified people. Everyone has rejections here and there, it's part of the business, most people don't complain when it's business as usual - some accepted, some rejected, some make sense, some don't, whatever, moving on. But when they let someone who has no idea what they are doing to work on the queue, it becomes a problem. Then, in my opinion, as partners, we have every right to complain and request the problem to be fixed.

Yes Elena! and very well put indeed.

ShadySue · « **Reply #81 on:** June 22, 2010, 16:17 »

Quote from: ap on June 22, 2010, 14:46

Quote from: ShadySue on June 22, 2010, 10:56
Again, this would be much easier if we could see the actual image, but it looks like they would need to know that you had just put in the words 'Love, Love, Love' youself, and that it isn't the name of an actual movie.

What works on Dreamstime is irrelevant to what will be accepted at iStock, and probably vice versa.
sigh. 'love, love, love' are the actual words on the marquee. i presume that's not allowed either.

Again, without seeing the actual image, it's impossible to say for sure, but I'm guessing that could be an IP issue, and that was what the note from the inspector in your OP was about. That's (potentially) a much bigger issue than the keywording issue. But we haven't seen the picture, so that's just inference.

vonkara · « **Reply #82 on:** June 23, 2010, 22:09 »

Anyone know for how long the uploads are usually deactivated ? I try to upload again and I can't...

pancaketom · « **Reply #83 on:** June 23, 2010, 22:53 »

here is a cut and paste...

Uploads will be turned off on Wednesday, June 23 from 8am until Thursday, June 24 at noon (all MST). During that time Contributor Applications, Moo Cards and Prints will also be unavailable.

The downtime is necessary for us to replace some of our servers. The team will work hard to make sure it runs smoothly.

modified to say that means that uploads will be down 'til 6 pm MST (or whenever they get around to getting it working again).

vonkara · « **Reply #84 on:** June 24, 2010, 00:28 »

Ok thanks a lot !

ap · « **Reply #85 on:** July 07, 2010, 20:07 »

is anyone experiencing problems with uploading? all the photos are stuck here: https://secure-uploads.istockphoto.com/file_upload.php and ultimately kicked back into "unfinished uploads" since yesterday.

i swear their system have so many problems or have i been complaining too much?

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #86 on:** July 07, 2010, 22:36 »

There's a forum thread here about upload problems. It isn't just you

ap · « **Reply #87 on:** July 08, 2010, 00:00 »

Quote from: jsnover on July 07, 2010, 22:36

There's a forum thread here about upload problems. It isn't just you

oh, thanx! i didn't see that.

lagereek · « **Reply #88 on:** July 08, 2010, 08:46 »

Well Im holding off, Im not uploading any new XXXL stuff just to get a summer reviewer touching them, Im waiting to the hollidays are over. Im re-doing some previous stuff and uploading that instead.

pet_chia · « **Reply #89 on:** July 23, 2010, 13:45 »

Quote from: lagereek on July 08, 2010, 08:46

Well Im holding off, Im not uploading any new XXXL stuff just to get a summer reviewer touching them, Im waiting to the hollidays are over. Im re-doing some previous stuff and uploading that instead.

Summer reviewers? That might explain my most recent string of rejections. A picture taken under a tree with dappled sunlight => "lighting could be improved". An ordinary landscape with out-of-the-camera settings => "over-filtered/over-processed". And so on.

Meanwhile my inbox is spammed every month with over-shopped, weirdly-composed snapshots which I am told are "top shots".

I assume that at times, IS become concerned about the sheer volume of pictures being uploaded so they scare the reviewers into increasing their rejection percentage. Since nobody ever got fired for approving "cute girl with laptop" or "smiling cougar with tennis racket", I will retreat to my studio and resume taking these shots.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #90 on:** July 23, 2010, 13:49 »

Quote from: pet_chia on July 23, 2010, 13:45

A picture taken under a tree with dappled sunlight => "lighting could be improved". An ordinary landscape with out-of-the-camera settings => "over-filtered/over-processed". And so on.

"Dappled sunlight" normally looks pretty bad when people are sitting in it. "out-of-the-camera settings" often results in artifacting from heavy .jpg processing.

pet_chia · « **Reply #91 on:** July 23, 2010, 14:41 »

Quote from: sjlocke on July 23, 2010, 13:49

Quote from: pet_chia on July 23, 2010, 13:45
A picture taken under a tree with dappled sunlight => "lighting could be improved". An ordinary landscape with out-of-the-camera settings => "over-filtered/over-processed". And so on.

"Dappled sunlight" normally looks pretty bad when people are sitting in it. "out-of-the-camera settings" often results in artifacting from heavy .jpg processing.

Thank you for the suggestions. It wasn't a people picture under dappled sunlight. I think it was a perfectly valid exposure given the highlight/shadow situation. If the opinion of the general public matters, people who saw the photo on my monitor when I loaded it into the computer said, "That's a nice photo!" No need to show everybody the photo to quibble over, you can believe me or don't.

The other shot was not JPG out of the camera, it was raw, and in Digital Photo Professional I gave one "bump" upward to saturation to what was a slightly dull photo due to the cloudy light. Nothing extreme - I did not give it "Top Shot of the Month" saturation

I dialed back the sharpening a notch and otherwise left it alone, saved to 16 bit TIF, shopped out a couple of faces, saved as JPG, 100%, etc. Who knows if a tree looks "too green"? One can either upload a slightly dull photo and hope that the customers will see something with potential if they jazz it up a bit, or one can process the photo to give it "curbside appeal" so that they will actually notice the picture when they are scanning through pages of thumbnails.

To be fair to the reviewers and the review process, none of these photos was particularly striking or commercial looking. They were more like, "10 sales over 2 years" type of photo. Possibly the reviewers sensed this, but for whatever reason they hit the "bad lighting" or "over filtered" button instead. Maybe they were inexperienced, or maybe they just didn't want to have it scouted if they made the subjective call "not suitable for stock" or whatever other buttons are provided to them for saying, "Meh."

Maybe the real lesson is, don't even lift the camera up and take the picture unless what you're looking at is an obviously striking composition of a really appealing subject, with excellent lighting. It has to be something that's going to grab the reviewers, or else is such an obvious best-seller that it will be worth fighting for in scout. From now on my motto is, "No More Meh!"

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #92 on:** July 23, 2010, 15:00 »

Quote from: pet_chia on July 23, 2010, 14:41

If the opinion of the general public matters, people who saw the photo on my monitor when I loaded it into the computer said, "That's a nice photo!" No need to show everybody the photo to quibble over, you can believe me or don't.

Nothing personal, but I don't believe anyone who extols their own virtues here without a sample.

ap · « **Reply #93 on:** July 23, 2010, 15:13 »

Quote from: sjlocke on July 23, 2010, 15:00

Quote from: pet_chia on July 23, 2010, 14:41
If the opinion of the general public matters, people who saw the photo on my monitor when I loaded it into the computer said, "That's a nice photo!" No need to show everybody the photo to quibble over, you can believe me or don't.

Nothing personal, but I don't believe anyone who extols their own virtues here without a sample.

he might be accused of pimping his photo by other members of the forum. however, as the op i hereby encourage those who's bemuddled by the is reviewers (summer or otherwise) to show their rejected photos here for a fair assessment. no stoning or sharp criticism, only constructive words, please.

in any case, i believe you, pet chia.

FD · « **Reply #94 on:** July 25, 2010, 19:40 »

Quote from: ap on July 23, 2010, 15:13

he might be accused of pimping his photo by other members of the forum.

It would be if there was a "buy now" link and if this forum was populated with buyers. Both aren't true.

Suljo · « **Reply #95 on:** July 25, 2010, 22:16 »

istock...arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrggh!!!

This is one of reason why I "love" my "fabulous" iStock site

Safari can’t open the page “https://secure-uploads.istockphoto.com/file_upload.php” because the server unexpectedly dropped the connection. This sometimes occurs when the server is busy. Wait for a few minutes, and then try again.

Specially when I loose 5-10 mins to manage keywords an cats and see this message.
Grrrrrrrrrrrr

How months/years passes iStock for me seams like car 10 or 15 years old which needs so many maintenance for basic operations?!?
Very professional for wanabee "big dog"

cathyslife · « **Reply #96 on:** July 26, 2010, 06:23 »

Quote from: FD-regular on July 25, 2010, 19:40

Quote from: ap on July 23, 2010, 15:13
he might be accused of pimping his photo by other members of the forum.
It would be if there was a "buy now" link and if this forum was populated with buyers. Both aren't true.

Actually, that isn't true. I am a buyer. Not a huge buyer, but buyer nonetheless. But hey, whatever.

ap · « **Reply #97 on:** July 26, 2010, 06:32 »

it'd be kind of funny if a (noncontributor) buyer showed up to critique our photos. i think it may even be more constructive.

microstockphoto.co.uk · « **Reply #98 on:** July 26, 2010, 06:49 »

what's wrong with pimping?

anyway, it doesn't work: buyers search pictures by keywords, not on forums

vonkara · « **Reply #99 on:** July 26, 2010, 09:21 »

I will buy any funny cat picture posted under my post

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: istock...arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrggh!!! (Read 31131 times)

Elenathewise

Dr Bouz

lagereek

Elenathewise

ap

lagereek

ShadySue

vonkara

pancaketom

vonkara

ap

Jo Ann Snover

ap

lagereek

pet_chia

Sean Locke Photography

pet_chia

Sean Locke Photography

ap

FD

Suljo

cathyslife

ap

microstockphoto.co.uk

vonkara

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors