Quote from: molka on October 08, 2010, 08:21

You guys really are being treated as 4th class citizens there. They also lied to you: they said the new content gonna go thru inspection just like your stuff. You have to go thru inspections, get a lot of rejections, and if you do get rejections, start all over with uploading, keywording, etc... The agency stuff was uploaded in bulk, and when found to have bad keywording, it just gets corrected by the nice people at istock for them : ) But if you do wrong keywording, you have to start all over and it's deducted from your upload limit. This is humiliating beyond all measures.

But there's something many of you should realize: you are experiencing the same kind of aggressive intrusion into your little playfield, as did old time pros by you with the onslaught of microstock. They are kinda getting back at you for that .

How this is different, is that it is our 'coachs and managers' have sold out to the big boys league and have invited them to take up residence and are giving them the advantage, on our home turf.

This is completely contrary to the field notes we were given:
QUOTE
"It's important for our professional photographers to understand that it's completely separate," says Getty director of photography and filmmaker relations Paul Banwell, adding, "It effectively means nothing changes. It's business as usual."

Similarly, iStock CEO Bruce Livingstone and vice president of marketing Kelly Thompson say their day-to-day operations will not change as a result of the sale to Getty.

"They want us to keep our culture. It's what makes our site great," Thompson says.

Getty spokesperson Deb Trevino and Thompson both say there are no plans to market the two brands together, or to direct traffic from one web site to the other.
END QUOTE

from this article - now only on the wayback machine

http://web.archive.org/web/20060317050825/http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001994651

well... do you just generally beleive everything people tell you? thats all

Quote from: molka on October 08, 2010, 10:34

well... do you just generally beleive everything people tell you? thats all

No, actually, personally, I DON'T, and I, like a handful of others, questioned it.  We were made assurances.  We were operating on trust.   We were betrayed. That trust has being irreconcilably destroyed.

Gloat on that.

Ok i get that. I very much doubt tho that you had any real assurances. I doubt even more that they really did think that's the way things will go when they said that. I have this question for you, seriuos question, please don't take it as any kind of mokckery no inention of that sort: would say now, that you were naive?

Quote from: lisafx on October 08, 2010, 09:45

Quote from: molka on October 08, 2010, 08:21

But there's something many of you should realize: you are experiencing the same kind of aggressive intrusion into your little playfield, as did old time pros by you with the onslaught of microstock. They are kinda getting back at you for that .

Yeah.  We get it.  You don't like Microstock.  Troll. 

Sure, it's always the easiest to just call anyone a troll who has a different opinion. I find it kinda curious tho, how many of you even go down to the level of getting personal with someone criticizing the system that they got repeteadly shafted by in a really mean way... prejiduce never shows much reason, does it? It wasn't getty or anything, the going of things was built into this system. It was inevitable. You get into a business with sites competing by having super low cut flea-market prices, and than they compete among each other starting from that point... what . do you expect? Do you people ever think? jesus... : )

I personally welcome the alternate view. That's why I read this forum is to see what everyone is thinking (good or bad and right or wrong). I'd say I'm not too worried about the competition of the agency stuff, but I do worry that it is going to poison the well. That is, adding overpriced files to the micro collection at the top of searches may turn buyers away. Although, that worry is a little tempered by not really giving a crap about what IS does anymore. As far as revenge from the macros, someone is always claiming that one thing or another is destroying the industry, but the industry is still here.

Quote from: molka on October 08, 2010, 10:28

Quote from: lisafx on October 08, 2010, 09:45

Quote from: molka on October 08, 2010, 08:21

But there's something many of you should realize: you are experiencing the same kind of aggressive intrusion into your little playfield, as did old time pros by you with the onslaught of microstock. They are kinda getting back at you for that .

Yeah.  We get it.  You don't like Microstock.  Troll. 

Sure, it's always the easiest to just call anyone a troll who has a different opinion. I find it kinda curious tho, how many of you even go down to the level of getting personal with someone criticizing the system that they got repeteadly shafted by in a really mean way... prejiduce never shows much reason, does it? It wasn't getty or anything, the going of things was built into this system. It was inevitable. You get into a business with sites competing by having super low cut flea-market prices, and than they compete among each other starting from that point... what . do you expect? Do you people ever think? jesus... : )

I personally welcome the alternate view. That's why I read this forum is to see what everyone is thinking (good or bad and right or wrong). I'd say I'm not too worried about the competition of the agency stuff, but I do worry that it is going to poison the well. That is, adding overpriced files to the micro collection at the top of searches may turn buyers away. Although, that worry is a little tempered by not really giving a crap about what IS does anymore. As far as revenge from the macros, someone is always claiming that one thing or another is destroying the industry, but the industry is still here.

I think what most people ment was destroying the industry as a noble means of making a good living for photographers, turning it into something far less respectable, reliable and stylish, not that the whole thing just stops. Sure, the corps make a lot of money the business is ok moneywise. Hey, the coal mining business was great back 100 years ago when 8 year old kids worked in the mines for pennies untill an early death.

In my humble opinion, getty is trying to elimininate the low price market, but instead just putting up a "closed" sign on the site, (which is not unheard of in the corporate world: big company buys smaller one simply to close it down - even if it was making good profit) but demolish it from the inside. They probably just want to drive away the people who produce stuff that's not up to their style standards, which would be the tipical low-price-bulk micro style stuff that they don't want really want to be associated with, people shooting their car keys, and half eaten fortune cookies, and turning the whole thing into some overtly desciptive thing with a nasty typo. And than... raise the rest to regular prices.

These agency files at these prices can't hurt microstock. Maybe Istock, if costumers flee in awe. But the truth is that ther are lots and lots of far better stuff in the plain microstock area. If the files we have seen is what macro has to offer to our customers... bufff

I think what most people ment was destroying the industry as a noble means of making a good living for photographers, turning it into something far less respectable, reliable and stylish, not that the whole thing just stops.

Was my job supposed to be respectable, reliable and stylish? When I got my BFA, I was just hoping I wouldn't be working at McDonalds.  

Quote from: molka on October 08, 2010, 12:22

I think what most people ment was destroying the industry as a noble means of making a good living for photographers, turning it into something far less respectable, reliable and stylish, not that the whole thing just stops.

Was my job supposed to be respectable, reliable and stylish? When I got my BFA, I was just hoping I wouldn't be working at McDonalds.  

Any job supposed to be respectable and reliable. : ) Of course just a handfull of those are stylish at the same time.

Quote from: lisafx on October 07, 2010, 14:21

Those results for "Setting the table" are really, unbelievably TERRIBLE!

What a horrible, horrible joke.  Please tell me it's April 1st over at Istock?!

So six hours ago it was apparently fixed:

Posted by ducksandwich: This search has been batch edited as promised yesterday. Wait a few hours and you will see the difference.

Now it's even worse. LOL.

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_search.php?action=file&text=setting%20the%20table&oldtext=leaf%20scroll&textDisambiguation={%22language%22%3A%204%2C%20%22maps%22%3A%20{%221%22%3A%20{%22tag%22%3A%20%22scroll%22%2C%20%22language%22%3A%204%2C%20%22choices%22%3A%20[%225_196%22]}}}&oldTextDisambiguation={%22language%22%3A%204%2C%20%22maps%22%3A%20{%221%22%3A%20{%22tag%22%3A%20%22scroll%22%2C%20%22language%22%3A%204%2C%20%22choices%22%3A%20[%225_196%22]}}}&abstractType=4&bestmatchmix=100&filterContent=false&perPage=200&showContributor=true&showDownload=true&showTitle=true

they sure did batch edit that... epic fail. those retro beauty portraits kinda cool tho

The bathtub beauty is just cleaning up after setting the table!

Quote from: molka on October 08, 2010, 10:28

Quote from: lisafx on October 08, 2010, 09:45

Quote from: molka on October 08, 2010, 08:21

But there's something many of you should realize: you are experiencing the same kind of aggressive intrusion into your little playfield, as did old time pros by you with the onslaught of microstock. They are kinda getting back at you for that .

Yeah.  We get it.  You don't like Microstock.  Troll. 

Sure, it's always the easiest to just call anyone a troll who has a different opinion. I find it kinda curious tho, how many of you even go down to the level of getting personal with someone criticizing the system that they got repeteadly shafted by in a really mean way... prejiduce never shows much reason, does it? It wasn't getty or anything, the going of things was built into this system. It was inevitable. You get into a business with sites competing by having super low cut flea-market prices, and than they compete among each other starting from that point... what . do you expect? Do you people ever think? jesus... : )

Yeah, and it's easy to come back and gloat when something changes for a competitor, troll.  The fact is that the microstock photographers beat the traditional ( read : oldtimers with connections and legacy images paid for by clients) at their own game by creating fresh, new and creative work. Digital imaging and the internet ran a bulldozer through your little playground and you don't like it. It's called creative destruction, and it's happened throughout history. What you were part of was a guild, and the microstock photographers weren't allowed in. Rather than just give up, they went around your tired old distribution model and created a new one, and now you're on the outside looking in. Any changes  at istock will be dealt with, adapted to and taken advantage of, with the same creative spirit that made this whole community what it is. The sad part for you is that you just want to have someone to blame. Do you really think that if microstock hadn't come along, your old world would be intact? Now, that's naive!

The only thing I'v got to do with macrostock is buying it for layouts.  Maybe you should read and understand what you read, before you waste so many words just to make a fool of yourself. Btw, you didn't beat anybody just played your part in creating a mess, but I guess on your level dragging others down into to the mud is kinda of a victory.

Being proud of that 'bulldozer thru your little playground'... bringing that into this thread in that context, that was smart dude, did you check the thread title? Congratulations. Microstock being fresh and creative : ) You gotta be sh*tt**g me. Maybe if you were raised in a barn. I've seen some very nice shots there yes, about 4%, maybe (and I probably know a lot more about the content than you). As someone justly pointed out on IS forums most of you just copied the shots of pros, than copied each other endlessly. But that's not big deal, because stock in general is anything but creative - it works around reproducing qiute banal cliches over and over, in a restrictive, narrowed down visual manner. If you want ceativity I suggest look you somehwere else... unless your idea of creativity is stuff like someone holding a copyspace banner upside down. ; )

But that's not big deal, because stock in general is anything but creative - it works around reproducing qiute banal cliches over and over, in a restrictive, narrowed down visual manner. If you want ceativity I suggest look you somehwere else... unless your idea of creativity is stuff like someone holding a copyspace banner upside down. ; )

I'm not sure I'd confuse commercial work with lacking creativity. Some of the best commercial work is reinventing a cliche or defining an archetype perfectly. I was never all that into editorial or conceptual stuff (some of that seems like a concept slapped onto poor execution). I like the freedom of creating bright and colorful stuff that I'm interested in. Yeah, making money influences it, but I think that is probably true with all art. I agree that there are a lot of people in stock that are just producing "me too" items, but I don't think there is anything wrong or lacking creativity about coming up with new images in a known commercial niche.

The only thing I'v got to do with macrostock is buying it for layouts. 

Well, if that's true, then I wonder why you're even here. And if macrostock is so superior, I'm sure your clients are happy to pay up for it, given your great creative sensibilities. If i had to guess, however, i would say that you're more like a deer in the headlights- not sure what is happening. But you've got to be angry at someone, so here you are. So let's see- "The only thing I'v got to do with macrostock is buying it for layouts"- brings up the question- what have you got to do with microstock? Except trolling, of course.

" you're more like a deer in the headlights- not sure what is happening."

that's a decent description of this thread about istock isn't it? Actually I'v been saying a long time ago to people involved with istock and the like: 'just wait untill they tank up on images and market position, they'll start really skinning you'. Nobody beleived me. Now that I took a look inside I realized that's far from the truth - actually they have been treating cintributors like second class citizens way before the current mess, It's just that the poeple I talked to involved in it played fanboys, but I'm not bad at reading people, it was very apparent reading between the lines things weren't that nice at all.

"what have you got to do with microstock?"

I bought rather large amounts of that too, one of the agencies I worked for, was buying thousands of credits there, so that's where I had to go for images when working for them, unless marketing poeple at the clients started searching for images (they like to do that nowadays) they liked, for some reason their preference seemed to be shutterstock. Oh man I'v browsed pages and pages and pages, getting thru thuosands and thousands and thousands of images to find something that might at least to some extent worked with the concept at hand, and of course always in rush. It was so bad, I had to actually train myself to only spend a certain amount of time looking at each thumb. That's something most of you might not comprehend, but I got so tired with all that, I said to myself that I never-ever want to go around browsing that, unless someone is paying for it, because I'm gonna have nightmares of falling into an endless void with floating thumbnails : ) and I'm truly sorry but still find it hard to get myself to look at people's ports that argue around here too, tho I know this and that nick is a succesful contributor, etc.

But more and more of my time went to photography as hobby, which got me talking to people doing micro, so I wanted to have peek inside this. It's like a little subculture, and people involved in it seemed to be so secretive, only giving vague hints of information, that it was almost fishy. And of yourse the kind of stuff that floats around, like for examle "istock's standards are os darconian, they reject most of the stuff", etc, didn't tell me much, becouse people saying things like that were usually total amateurs at visual 'arts' and even more at PS. I realized the obviuos : ) that getting involved is the only way to see what this whole thing really is.. So I started contributing to several places to have a peek inside. It's not nice. You poeple are really badly treated, even besides the financial things, just terribly disrespectfully, and many of you cheer for it (). This is beyond me. If I would ever have been handled like that at the places I worked, I would have thorn heads off and put them up on a spike raised really high for everyone to see. Thats it basically. Satisfied? : )

Quote from: molka on October 09, 2010, 08:22

But that's not big deal, because stock in general is anything but creative - it works around reproducing qiute banal cliches over and over, in a restrictive, narrowed down visual manner. If you want ceativity I suggest look you somehwere else... unless your idea of creativity is stuff like someone holding a copyspace banner upside down. ; )

I'm not sure I'd confuse commercial work with lacking creativity. Some of the best commercial work is reinventing a cliche or defining an archetype perfectly. I was never all that into editorial or conceptual stuff (some of that seems like a concept slapped onto poor execution). I like the freedom of creating bright and colorful stuff that I'm interested in. Yeah, making money influences it, but I think that is probably true with all art. I agree that there are a lot of people in stock that are just producing "me too" items, but I don't think there is anything wrong or lacking creativity about coming up with new images in a known commercial niche.

well, is it niche or clihe?  It's not all the people that lack creativity, but the final product. And if it doesn't lack real creativity, it's prolly not really stock coz it wont sell. There are quite a few micro shooters who show great talent, but I really don't think it's gonna be the micro or macro where it's they can truly show it. But I don't want to get too deep into that argument, because the term 'creativity' has been totally hijacked for dacedes now, most people simply use it instead of 'gimmick'. Stuff like shooting your models with eyes crossed is considered top-notch creativity nowadays. : )