Author Topic: iStockphoto Upload Limit (Read 22911 times)

rachell · « **on:** October 12, 2006, 09:45 »

I was finally accepted in to iStock, and can only upload 20 files in a 168 hour time period. Does anyone know how long this restriction will last?

CJPhoto · « **Reply #1 on:** October 12, 2006, 10:05 »

Forever. It has been there a while now and they dont have a current need to reduce it. They actually suspended all uploads as their que got to long.

rachell · « **Reply #2 on:** October 12, 2006, 10:13 »

So is 20 the limit for everyone? Or is it a higher limit for the old-timers and newbies like me only get 20?

leaf · « **Reply #3 on:** October 12, 2006, 10:14 »

after you have sold X amount of images your limit gets raised.

GeoPappas · « **Reply #4 on:** October 12, 2006, 10:24 »

I combined the following two pages:

http://www1.istockphoto.com/xnet.php

http://www1.istockphoto.com/icons.php

To come up with this:

In order to bring down the queue, we have temporarily lowered the upload limits. Please be your own editor and upload wisely.

Default: 20
Bronze (500+ DLs): 25
Silver (2,500+ DLs): 30
Gold (10,000+ DLs): 35
Diamond (25,000+ DLs): 50

Exclusive limits remain unchanged.

There is also a Black Diamond icon/level, but I'm not sure what the upload limits for that are. I'm not going to research the issue, since I probably will never reach it...

rachell · « **Reply #5 on:** October 12, 2006, 14:02 »

Wow -- and are those upload limits all within 168 hours? Or does the time between uploads change as well the more downloads you have?

leaf · « **Reply #6 on:** October 12, 2006, 14:30 »

nope the time doesn't change at all. All those numbers are for 168 hours.

rachell · « **Reply #7 on:** October 12, 2006, 14:53 »

I can't believe their limit is so LOW!!!! I was feeling like quite a loser at only 20 per 168 hours. Now I don't feel so bad

Striker77s · « **Reply #8 on:** October 12, 2006, 16:39 »

There limits are extremely low and they are rejecting almost everything. Very little is getting through. I've stopped uploading altogether and have no intention of even bothering with IS until things improve if they ever do.

Mark

rachell · « **Reply #9 on:** October 12, 2006, 17:02 »

Not to mention its such a pain in the A**. I don't mind so much the time its taking to review each keyword line, but having to upload one image at a time is a real pain!

rachell · « **Reply #10 on:** October 12, 2006, 17:42 »

Get this -- around the same time I applied to be a photographer at iStock, I also submitted an application for illustration. Well, I just received news that I have been accepted as an illustrator and go to upload my illustrations -- and find out the 20 image limit is for everything -- photos, illustrations, flash, and video! This is crazy! I think if I have to go through a separate application process (including the quiz, and submitting images for review) for each format, we should have separate upload limits!

beisea · « **Reply #11 on:** October 12, 2006, 20:17 »

Even though I am getting 1/3 through when compared with DT and FT, but since this month, the sales finally start to pick up, average daily sales for the first time exceed FT in Oct., of course still trailing overall, DT is way ahead of everyone else.

So with this month's sales increase, I will deal with the pain, and continue to upload.

snem · « **Reply #12 on:** December 03, 2006, 04:57 »

IS just downs my limit to 15. They seem working against me :-D

phildate · « **Reply #13 on:** December 03, 2006, 10:00 »

I get the feeling non-exclusives are being squeezed out at IS. From November's report card, most exclusives had BME (Best Month Ever) whilst many non-exclusives like me, reported quite drastic decreases (-21% sales).

Having my upload limit reduced to 35 a week (as a diamond) only lessens my ability to keep up with the other exclusive members. Given the time they want me to spend DSing my files, I feel quite unfairly treated I must say.

madelaide · « **Reply #14 on:** December 03, 2006, 11:36 »

I can't complain this month, it was my best month at IS. But I agree that non-exclusives are not treated fairly. I have seen some images from exclusives being accepted that would never be otherwise - tilted horizons, untuned colors.

Regards,
Adelaide

yingyang0 · « **Reply #15 on:** December 03, 2006, 14:21 »

I agree that Istock is squeezing the non-exclusives out, but I had my best month ever this month (Nov.) So I think phil's theory is based only on his own sales.

CJPhoto · « **Reply #16 on:** December 03, 2006, 16:27 »

I had a BEM for the second month in a row (from a small base though).

Not really sure what they are playing at. Exclusives are good but if you dont have the same images everyone else has, some people will start shopping around.

beisea · « **Reply #17 on:** December 04, 2006, 00:35 »

IS almost 45% down from last month, so it's not very stable for me, since I only have 134 images on line with them. $92 in Oct, but $50 in Nov

Since they lowered the limit, haven't had a chance to upload anything, maybe when the weather gets a little nicer, I will shoot more.

paperboy · « **Reply #18 on:** December 04, 2006, 05:29 »

15 upload limit...

kosmikkreeper · « **Reply #19 on:** December 04, 2006, 11:35 »

yup, just saw their new upload limits... what can you do..... with a portfolio of over 800 images and a backlog of roughly 200 images waiting to be submitted on Istock, I predict that at the end of 2007, 123RF, and Bigstock will surpass my Istock sales (not o mention DT, SXpert and FT that will probably surpass it in the next 4 months).

Their loss IMO.

Bateleur · « **Reply #20 on:** December 04, 2006, 12:28 »

I'm a non-exclusive, and my sales have shown a steady downward trend since the big shakeup ... even though I've been disambiguating (horrible word) as fast as I can bear to (it's a total pain in the posterior).

As far as I'm concerned, IS is going on the back-burner. There's no way I'm going exclusive, given the way they treat their contributors ... the lifeblood of their operation ... and why . should I for the measly rates they pay? I actually went from a bronze to a silver canister with them a short while ago, and have only just noticed. That's how much I care.

This whole exclusive/non exclusive thing smacks of Getty, trying to control the entire stock photo market ... and the photographers.

iStock seem to attract a fawning, sycophantic crowd of photographers. Just look at their forums. They announce a cut in uploads and immediately the threads fill up with "GEE! WOW! Thank you. Thank you, iStock! These new limits are SOOOOO cool!" messages. Beurk! Excuse me while quietly vomit in a corner.

I'll continue trying to take the best photos I can and submit them exactly where I want. And if Getty/iStock doesn't want them or won't let me upload them because of some measly limits ... their loss.

madelaide · « **Reply #21 on:** December 04, 2006, 15:18 »

Although it was my best month at IS - maybe that disambiguation is a good thing after all? - it's a site that disappoints me in many ways. I'm only there because it's the site to be in this market, I think. And average earnings per image, although low compared to others, is better than many.

Regards,
Adelaide

Greg Boiarsky · « **Reply #22 on:** December 04, 2006, 18:02 »

It looks like my decision to tell Istock to screw themselves was a good one. I have not added a single photo in months, nor do I intend to do so in the future. Does anyone here remember that Istock's reduction to 20 images a week was supposedly temporary? Hah! They weren't fooling anyone. And now they've "temporarily" reduced it to 15 to catch up on the work caused by their fabulous, wonderful, amazing, new, better-than-sliced-bread keyword system. Does anyone believe it this time? You'd better not.

Let's also not forget that they're offering the possibility of real "pro" status to diamond level exclusives--giving them the possibility of a Getty contract. I guess Phil ain't no pro, right? He's diamond, but only exclusives are true professional photographers. What a load of bull.

They're obviously trying to merge Istock with the Getty parent company. I predict that by the end of 2007, Istock will be absorbed totally by the Getty name and become another named Getty collection. Look at what Getty's doing now--allowing us the privilege of paying $50 per image to have them host our photos. And, they're offering an industry-low 30% commission. Sounds a whole lot like the Istock model--and they've admitted that Istock was their inspiration for the new collection.

Hang on to your lenses, boys and girls. It's going to be a bumpy year.

berryspun · « **Reply #23 on:** December 04, 2006, 18:45 »

Greg/Professor, a bumpy year for the photographers, do you think even IS exclusives ?

I do remember that the reduction was to temporarily relieve the approvers' loads of work... that what was written anyway, but I didn't buy it when this upload penalty restriction only applied to non-exclusives.

And yes, it seems obvious that the big fish Getty is in the process of swallowing IS, encouraging their microstock exclusives to be full-time 'real pros', trying to flatter their egos in order to keep them.

Of course Phil Date is a pro, and it is obvious that IS don't treat photographers like him with the respect they deserve.

Now I wonder, we already know that there is no consideration for the non-exclusives. But who will gain or lose from these swift Getty/IS policy changes:

- the company ? (they hope anyway)
- the exclusive photographers ?
- the designers ?

...or, was the decision so inconsiderate or out of touch that the exclusive and the designers will shop for more freshness, diversity, quality, and respect somewhere else, and that in the long run Getty/IS is creating its own doom ?

Greg Boiarsky · « **Reply #24 on:** December 04, 2006, 21:21 »

I think that some of the exclusives will suffer. Those with smaller portfolios that don't have much originality will find themselves on the short end of things. Istock clearly has the "what have you done for me lately" mentality. If a photographer doesn't provide enough profit, that photographer's position with Istock is in jeopardy.

What Istock doesn't understand is that people with talent (like Phil) can take their wares and form their own cooperatives, although they will suffer reduced income for a time. A guy here in Colorado (I don't know who he is) has already done just that and is taking clients away from Getty. So, it can be done. My hope is that I develop enough skill to ride the coattails of someone like Phil and earn some real money and do some quality photography.

Not that stock is a big part of my plans. I'll keep in it for some additional revenue, but I'm looking for local photography jobs--much more predictable and less capricious. I'd rather not support huge corporations whose appetite for profit is so strong that they kill themselves off by underselling their own markets and killing the potential for reasonable profits.

vicu · « **Reply #25 on:** December 06, 2006, 16:27 »

Quote from: Professorgb on December 04, 2006, 18:02

It looks like my decision to tell Istock to screw themselves was a good one. I have not added a single photo in months, nor do I intend to do so in the future.

THANK YOU! You are setting an example for others who, despite enduring ongoing persecution and maltreatment, continue to expel valuable emotional energy ranting and raving about istock at every opportunity. Yet they keep their portfolios there. I don't get it. Why give them so much power? Why obsess about something you believe to be inherently evil? Isn't that time better spent building your portfolio at the other more perfect stock sites?

So thank you again, for showing us a shining example of how the oppressed should put their focus on greener pastures and not look back at the steaming mass of poo that is istock, lest they turn into a pillar of bitter salt.

Greg Boiarsky · « **Reply #26 on:** December 06, 2006, 17:58 »

You may save your sarcasm for someone who gives a rat's ass about it.

Quote from: vicu on December 06, 2006, 16:27

Quote from: Professorgb on December 04, 2006, 18:02
It looks like my decision to tell Istock to screw themselves was a good one. I have not added a single photo in months, nor do I intend to do so in the future.

THANK YOU! You are setting an example for others who, despite enduring ongoing persecution and maltreatment, continue to expel valuable emotional energy ranting and raving about istock at every opportunity. Yet they keep their portfolios there. I don't get it. Why give them so much power? Why obsess about something you believe to be inherently evil? Isn't that time better spent building your portfolio at the other more perfect stock sites?

So thank you again, for showing us a shining example of how the oppressed should put their focus on greener pastures and not look back at the steaming mass of poo that is istock, lest they turn into a pillar of bitter salt.

leaf · « **Reply #27 on:** December 06, 2006, 18:02 »

ok, ok, let's try a keep this civil.

i am going to bed now, so don't let things explode while i sleep.

if this thread makes a turn for the worse by the morning it will be locked or removed. I hope we can continue in constructive discussion.

berryspun · « **Reply #28 on:** December 06, 2006, 18:11 »

Hehe...

berryspun · « **Reply #29 on:** December 06, 2006, 18:37 »

Coming back to the main topic, in a sense I really appreciate the upload restriction at this point. If I would have the choice to upload more than 2 pictures a day with IS with their new keyword system added to the non-FTP upload, I would lose my patience....

Void · « **Reply #30 on:** December 06, 2006, 18:39 »

Just thought I would throw in my own two cents here.
My sales aint great at iStock, but they have gotten better since they revamped the keyword stuff.
My upload limit has been reduced to 15 also but they are also approving alot of my images....
As far as the uploading goes, I now do it exclusively through Aperture. I wish other sites would come up with a plug in like this, it makes it a whole lot easier......

S

Greg Boiarsky · « **Reply #31 on:** December 06, 2006, 19:00 »

Such a naughty little person . . .

Quote from: berryspun on December 06, 2006, 18:11

Hehe...

Susan S. · « **Reply #32 on:** December 07, 2006, 03:21 »

Personally I think for people starting out or with a large exisiting portfolio 15 would be pretty squeezy. And if I wasn't exclusive I think I'd be somewhat cheesed off - it would have been fairer in appearance if everyone including exclusives had a cut in uploads.

I rather think that in many ways istock have been victims of their own success . Many of their recent problems -poor implementation of the new search and keywording, the dreaded disambiguation, all sort of issues with poor communication, increasing queues all strike me as classic signs of a business which has outgrown its current organisational structure. It's very rapidly gone from a backyard operation to a multi million dollar operation which is a totally different ballgame. Hopefully they will get themselves through it.

With the queues they are really caught between a rock and a hard place. You can't just magically produce new inspectors - they need training - and poorly trained inspectors reducing the queues quickly with arbitrary decisions would produce more complaints than long queues, I would have thought. So they can either have two or three week or more waiting periods or try to get people to cull their own images by making them think a bit harder about what to upload, by imposing limits.

roman · « **Reply #33 on:** December 07, 2006, 06:43 »

I've seen people complain not only about the preferential acceptance rates for exclusives but also the order in which photos appear when using their search engine. They are getting sloppy, even though istock provides about 10 percent of Getty's revenues. The irony of istock is that their goal-at least as it seems to me-is to create a Micro Ghetto predominantly populated by the exclusives. At 15 images a week, you have to be very good to reach the exclusive mark of 500 downloads. Can someone explain disambiguation (I hope I spelled it correctly) concept?

CJPhoto · « **Reply #34 on:** December 07, 2006, 07:19 »

The preferential treatment in teh best match search has apparently ended (it only lasted a weekend). though the ratings gangs still get preference (you need a 5 star rating to be best match).

Getting to exclusive isn't a major - if you upload 15 per week, I would expect you would get their easily in a year. Get to diamond where it makes sense to be exclusive is a whole different matter.

Do a search on disambiguation or look on the istock forum. Basically, they have taken you keywords and assigned tags to them. ie orange can be orange (colour), orange (fruit) or you can tick both. However, the computer obviously doens't know which so it made a guess. when you disambiguate, you correct the computers errror.

roman · « **Reply #35 on:** December 07, 2006, 07:31 »

Thanks CJ for the explanation. But, we were required to do that anyways during the uploads. Ok. sorted.

leaf · « **Reply #36 on:** December 07, 2006, 08:20 »

yeah, you are required to disambiguate when you upload but for those with images online before the keyword tags were in place, you can either just let your images 'rot'

in disambiguation, or you can disambiguate them and hope for the best.

Susan S. · « **Reply #37 on:** December 07, 2006, 16:12 »

Quote from: roman on December 07, 2006, 06:43

I've seen people complain not only about the preferential acceptance rates for exclusives but also the order in which photos appear when using their search engine. They are getting sloppy, even though istock provides about 10 percent of Getty's revenues. The irony of istock is that their goal-at least as it seems to me-is to create a Micro Ghetto predominantly populated by the exclusives. At 15 images a week, you have to be very good to reach the exclusive mark of 500 downloads. Can someone explain disambiguation (I hope I spelled it correctly) concept?

well I've only been exclusive for a month, and as I said on another post it's not affected my acceptance rate any. If some exclusives do get accepted at a higher rate then it might just be because they have a better feeling for what istock will accept as that's all they do (and I'll grant you that rejections aren't always obvious and neither always are acceptances)

It's not particularly hard to make exclusive at istock - it took me about seven months, in two of which I uploaded zero images as I was overseas and only in the first two months did I upload more than about twenty in a month (I have a 200 image portfolio - not a big deal - and it's not a classic stock portfolio either - no business handshakes!)
Disambiguation is a matter of going through exisiting images and making sure that correct meanings are assigned to the keywords (tags as they are now caled) If you leave the old ones undisambiguated then they are likely to drop back in the search a bit. Although now so many peole have disambiguated their files I think the advantage has dropped back - I got a very nice upload increase when I was one of the few who had done it but that and the last round of changes in the search engine which have deemphasised excllusivenesss and re-emphasised newness of files has slowed things down about 25 per cent in the last couple of weeks.

meckoy · « **Reply #38 on:** December 08, 2006, 16:05 »

It is not difficult to get exclusive with this limit. If you provide good, useful pictures, that is. (EDIT: I have just a little over a hundred pictures in my portfolio. Very few, if any of these are of the classic stock-type.)
There is way too much whining about low acceptance rates. Hell yeah, I'm facing rejections all the time just like the rest of you, but most often I learn something from it.

Upload limit: Personally I think it is a good thing, that they decide to concentrate on the already long cue. I guess they are just as interested as the contributors to have a large collection. As some of you might know, Istockphoto actually makes money on selling pictures - Of course they want a big collection! If they feel they are short of inspectors, I'm sure they'll put some new inspectors to training.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: iStockphoto Upload Limit (Read 22911 times)

Greg Boiarsky

Greg Boiarsky

vicu

Greg Boiarsky

Greg Boiarsky

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors