pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: iStock has ridiculous standards for Exclusives  (Read 16869 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: November 20, 2008, 20:01 »
0
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=7821748

seriously?

this photo is absolute garbage

in fact, it would be ashame to do anything but set fire to whatever media this snapshot is stored on


« Reply #1 on: November 20, 2008, 22:01 »
0
this photo is absolute garbage


Much better than this one I guess, because it was rejected on iStk for irrelevant keywords like "stress". By the way, I'm non exclusive  ;D


hali

« Reply #2 on: November 20, 2008, 22:10 »
0
no comment ichiro.
the man has 37027 dls and i have 2.  i wouldn't think my opinion would be worth tuppence to IS.

« Reply #3 on: November 20, 2008, 22:19 »
0
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=7821748

seriously?

this photo is absolute garbage

in fact, it would be ashame to do anything but set fire to whatever media this snapshot is stored on


Let us see your perfect photos to judge, ichiro.-

« Reply #4 on: November 20, 2008, 22:31 »
0
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=7821748

seriously?

this photo is absolute garbage

in fact, it would be ashame to do anything but set fire to whatever media this snapshot is stored on


Let us see your perfect photos to judge, ichiro.-


Oh come on, thats a stupid argument.   Unfortunately its arguments like that which upset me because "oh blah blah blah you can't do better"

Its not about me doing better, its about a certain standard being upheld.  I've been doing this since April 2006 and I know * well that this photo doesn't meet the standards.  Now loop, I don't know what you do or how many downloads you get, but I can guarantee you that if you posted something horrific like that and I saw it I would call you out. 

And yes, I can do better if I did people shots.  I don't really have any to compare right now.  And just so you know, when I started in 2006 my photos weren't great, or commercially awesome.  But I got better.  And just to add, in 2006, those shots would have been rejected too.

By the way, I didn't say he was a horrible photographer.  In fact, if you look at the majority of the photos in his portfolio they are very well done.  Unfortunately, his recent "flying baby in a tree with yellow leaves" batch was garbage.  And it just begs to question who is holding new uploads to such a horrific standard.

Flemish, I think that your photo is a wonderful stock photo - sorry for the ridiculous rejection.


bittersweet

« Reply #5 on: November 20, 2008, 22:53 »
0
I can guarantee you that if you posted something horrific like that and I saw it I would call you out. 

Why?

« Reply #6 on: November 20, 2008, 23:01 »
0
I can guarantee you that if you posted something horrific like that and I saw it I would call you out. 

Why?

Because I'm being called out over the fact that I point out some dude with a bunch of images at istock gets approved for something that should never sell and I get rejections for 'artifacting' that doesn't exist simply because I affiliate with other agencies that think the very same files are completely acceptable 

bittersweet

« Reply #7 on: November 20, 2008, 23:14 »
0
I can guarantee you that if you posted something horrific like that and I saw it I would call you out. 

Why?

Because I'm being called out over the fact that I point out some dude with a bunch of images at istock gets approved for something that should never sell and I get rejections for 'artifacting' that doesn't exist simply because I affiliate with other agencies that think the very same files are completely acceptable 

I think it's really low and unprofessional to call out anyone's work like that, especially without their knowledge. I would think the same thing if someone called out something of yours.

« Reply #8 on: November 20, 2008, 23:37 »
0
You're right Ichiro.
That photo is simply horrific.
That's the long and short of it, no matter what other arguments, 'calling out', 'calling in', 'shame on you' and the likes might be added.
That one is a scary photo and that's all there is to it.
No disrespect intended to the photographer.
Now let's be thankful it is only uploaded on IStock.

bittersweet

« Reply #9 on: November 20, 2008, 23:38 »
0
No disrespect intended to the photographer.
::)


shank_ali

« Reply #10 on: November 21, 2008, 02:11 »
0
I agree it's not a stock photo.I disagree that non exclusives get stricter inspections on their respective files than exclusive contributors
Istockphoto is coming up to having 4 million files in its library.A quarter  of those will never attain any sales.

lagereek

« Reply #11 on: November 21, 2008, 04:30 »
0
Getty/ IS, are enforcing their exclusivity program far too late in the day. This should have been done from the early start, upsetting all the non-exclusives now could render in a financial crisis.
The poor guys in the Admin? well most of them are probably on the payroll, they dont want any of this! they wanna come, put in a days work and go home. They dont want to get stuck in internal or external politics rubbish such as BMs, non-exclusives, Getty etc, etc.
Sure if you post a thread in their Forum, too close, too touchy, its closed down, although theyre pretty liberal I must say.
Its time for IS to be honest. Either tell all the non-exclusives to flat out LEAVE or STAY. Non of this in between wheeling and dealing, its hurting their image, it stops serious contributors from uploading, its loosing credibillity.
Just a go or stay, thats all.

« Reply #12 on: November 21, 2008, 04:44 »
0
I agree with everything you say.  I rarely visit the site now as I find it so depressing.  Just once a month to get a pay check.
Getty/ IS, are enforcing their exclusivity program far too late in the day. This should have been done from the early start, upsetting all the non-exclusives now could render in a financial crisis.
The poor guys in the Admin? well most of them are probably on the payroll, they dont want any of this! they wanna come, put in a days work and go home. They dont want to get stuck in internal or external politics rubbish such as BMs, non-exclusives, Getty etc, etc.
Sure if you post a thread in their Forum, too close, too touchy, its closed down, although theyre pretty liberal I must say.
Its time for IS to be honest. Either tell all the non-exclusives to flat out LEAVE or STAY. Non of this in between wheeling and dealing, its hurting their image, it stops serious contributors from uploading, its loosing credibillity.
Just a go or stay, thats all.

« Reply #13 on: November 21, 2008, 04:58 »
0
Previously when they have had a best match change that cuts my sales, they have changed it and my sales have bounced back.  Hopefully they will do that again this time.  If they don't, I will stop uploading there.  There is only so much I can take from a site that grabs 80% of my earnings.  The deal should be that they spend that money making good sales.  I am not going to put up with them spending that money increasing exclusives sales.

Going back to the photo being discussed here, perhaps it was one in a good series and the reviewer just let it go?  Reviews are subjective and I find the standards vary a lot on all the sites.  Sometimes photos that I know are high quality and will sell are rejected and other times ones I shouldn't bother uploading are accepted.  I do seem to have the biggest problem with istock though.  They have rejected lots of my best selling images, often stating they would not be good for stock and that makes it easy for me to reject their exclusivity offers.

CofkoCof

« Reply #14 on: November 21, 2008, 05:02 »
0
It's not only IS that has files like this approved from exclusives/admins/.... I remember just a while ago there was a topic about somebody getting banned on FT since he commented forum admins pict, saying it has a lot of noise and bad lighting. And yeah: don't ever post someone pic on the forum, unless you are gonna say how great it is. You should have learned that by now :D

« Reply #15 on: November 21, 2008, 05:15 »
0

Let us see your perfect photos to judge, ichiro.-

Oh come on, thats a stupid argument.   Unfortunately its arguments like that which upset me because "oh blah blah blah you can't do better"



[/quote]

"Garbage", "Stupid".... Please, go on. Im'm sure that you still have a lot more of polite nouns and adjectives.

« Reply #16 on: November 21, 2008, 09:15 »
0

Going back to the photo being discussed here, perhaps it was one in a good series and the reviewer just let it go?  Reviews are subjective and I find the standards vary a lot on all the sites.  Sometimes photos that I know are high quality and will sell are rejected and other times ones I shouldn't bother uploading are accepted.  I do seem to have the biggest problem with istock though.  They have rejected lots of my best selling images, often stating they would not be good for stock and that makes it easy for me to reject their exclusivity offers.

Just to note that other photos in the series 'composed' just as nicely as that one.  I just picked that one because it was the one I clicked on to view just to confirm it to myself
« Last Edit: November 21, 2008, 09:16 by ichiro17 »

« Reply #17 on: November 21, 2008, 09:18 »
0
Its interesting becasue IS really needs non-exclusives because they provide the greatest profit margin.  They use the exclusives as leverage to bring in the customers but the 80% they steal from non-exclusives is a really good bargain.

Not sure what else to say, but I'm glad I'm not alone in seeing that its not stock worthy (or snapshot worthy either)

hali

« Reply #18 on: November 21, 2008, 09:27 »
0
ichiro, i guess if we want to be objective about it:
we will have to give an F (fail) to both the photographer
AND even more  , the reviewer of IS . Both failed in editing theiir work.
as we all know, the photographer is no slack ass, his portfolio and dl number speak for him. but ok, i do admit, one would expect more from a contributor of his calibre to be more strict in selecting his images to upload.
or maybe, life has become too negligent for exclusives, ie. certain exclusives...
i must say, in order not to offend anyone , as i know some really good and helpful exclusives in my IS network.
« Last Edit: November 21, 2008, 09:29 by hali »

« Reply #19 on: November 21, 2008, 09:36 »
0
Ichiro is totally right. This file has at least these problems:

1. Focus is on childs pants
2. There are harsh shadows on the pants because of flash
3. Sky is totally burned out
4. The face of subject is hidden behind a leaf in very unusual and pointless way
5. Composition is....no comment...there is even visible some part of someones body in right bottom corner of image

The only nice thing in this image by my opinion is cute subject. The baby is really cute :)

I know some good exclusives aswell. It's not about them personally...
 
« Last Edit: November 21, 2008, 09:39 by whitechild »

« Reply #20 on: November 21, 2008, 09:43 »
0
Completely agree with the above 2 posts.  I find nothing more impressive than someone with 100,000 downloads and growing their portfolio in a very professional and creative way. 

And I don't think he's a bad photographer.  He's got some great photos, just that this last batch makes me question why someone would even bother uploading such 'content'

AVAVA

« Reply #21 on: November 21, 2008, 10:30 »
0
 Hi All,

 Are we looking at the same photographer. The guy I looked at has 10,000 files and 37,000 downloads not 100,000. I am not so surprised by the photo being accepted I have seen much worse at Istock or any Micro agency for that matter. The thing that jumps out at me is his sales to image ratio and the quality of his work is pretty good ( maybe not that image but he has some good stuff ).
 This guy has made probably about $5 dollars an image over 5 years. One dollar an image per year. 10,000 images as an exclusive! I know he could have made more money at the local quickie mart for the time he has invested let alone the money for equipment. It shows me that that even someone with 10,000 images and exclusive is not necessarily making big bucks but he still produces. That is a tough business model to compete with.
 He says he is quitting his full time corporate job to become a full time photographer and I commend him for that. I just don't know how someone leaves a corporate job to make 7,000 maybe 15,000 dollars a year. That will barely cover expenses when he has to get the proper insurance and invest in his growing company. I checked the chart and yesterday he had 57 downloads off his 10,000 images. I hope he has great success and his sales start to grow but I also hope you all do the math really well before you tell your boss to piss off.

Best,
AVAVA

« Reply #22 on: November 21, 2008, 10:31 »
0
no offense to the photographer but I totally agree with the comments above. had I been the reviewer I'd have definitely rejected the file.yet,it's true his got a great folio may be this is why people get surprised by such submission. anyway now it's buyers call whether to buy it or not.

hali

« Reply #23 on: November 21, 2008, 10:41 »
0
...
anyway now it's buyers call whether to buy it or not.
true. or maybe he is trying to see if his name is good enough to sell anything.
we really don't know. only guessing the true reason why this "renegade"  photo slipped by even
 iStock's genghis atilla checkpoint  ;D ;D

my point is, anything can be sold! it's not about quality or need, it's the power of marketing, right?
i remember one of you pointed out here in this forum somewhere else:
if it's just quality of image, crestock would be numero uno (#1).
« Last Edit: November 21, 2008, 10:43 by hali »

« Reply #24 on: November 21, 2008, 10:43 »
0
I have pointed out over the years that Exclusives at IS have had preferential treatment. The bar is much lower for exclusives on what is approved or not. The sad thing is that crap images like this clog up the system and will never get a download. Having said that, I'm seriously thinking about going exclusive just so I can get more images approved!


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
27 Replies
13226 Views
Last post April 21, 2007, 02:47
by Dr Bouz
31 Replies
11976 Views
Last post January 01, 2009, 11:02
by Perrush
16 Replies
8376 Views
Last post December 01, 2009, 21:48
by RacePhoto
13 Replies
5908 Views
Last post April 29, 2012, 18:06
by santosa laksana
60 Replies
26193 Views
Last post September 14, 2014, 16:05
by landbysea

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors