pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Lots of rants about random stuff (was: More Getty content on iStock)  (Read 62484 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #175 on: June 11, 2011, 11:55 »
0
SNP .. I am glad to see you back from the London lypse, and in rare form as usual. Can't wait to see your photos on Thinkstock as my company has a subscription there.

here we go again! :)
I took it as a troll and am not rising to the bait.  ::)

No trolling. I was being completely sincere. No sarcasm, really.


ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #176 on: June 11, 2011, 11:57 »
0
I know several long time pro photographers, mostly stock and commercial shoots.  They are definitely not a positive bunch.  All them them I know were nearly destroyed by us (microstock).  Some have joined us after years of grousing, but have not put in the effort to make it worthwhile, and the "easy" window of opportunity may have passed.  Every one of them says they were not at all worried about competition from "poor quality" point and shoot stock available from mere amatures online at the beginning.  After all they are pros and customers know it and you get what you pay for.  Wow were they wrong.
I fear we are doing the same.
Since we're on editorial, I won't comment on commercial shoots, but certainly, as I said above, many end editorial users don't need iStock's pixel-peeping, either because of the quality of their printing or paper, or because they're going to be used really small. So I don't see how we can compete with 'free' for many uses which don't require MRs or PRs. And in fact, IMO a lot of Flikr images are 'better' for many uses inasmuch as they can be much more 'free' than anything you see on any agencies.

« Reply #177 on: June 11, 2011, 12:03 »
0

Is it true? I sometimes wonder about it too.
...Are we really such a negative bunch?  A few years ago when most of us were seeing our incomes grow every month, I thought we were a pretty positive group.  I suspect it is recent circumstances that have made us over into a bunch of grouches... :P
...All them them I know were nearly destroyed by us (microstock).  Some have joined us after years of grousing, but have not put in the effort to make it worthwhile, and the "easy" window of opportunity may have passed.  Every one of them says they were not at all worried about competition from "poor quality" point and shoot stock available from mere amatures online at the beginning. ...Wow were they wrong.
I fear we are doing the same.

I'm not sure which part of "the same" applies to us in our current setting. With the microstock rise "destroying" conventional stock photographers, any of them could have participated in microstock if they'd wanted, with just as much (arguably more) going for them as we had.

In our current mess, where Getty is dumping wholly-owned content onto the site (or other content they have a deal to represent with more favorable-to-them terms that our work) how do we get in on that game, even if we want to?

I get the adapt-or-die mantra, but I'm trying to see how we're failing here. Can you elaborate a bit?

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #178 on: June 11, 2011, 12:04 »
0
Today's stuff from Getty has some very generic (and iMO not very good) images of Venice sunsets, a vase of flowers, rolled towels, power pylons silhouetted, etc. That (a) wouldn't be accepted if we submitted it to either collection and (b) competes with existing content in both collections (the only advantage regular iStock contributors have being that their shots are better).

They aren't looking at this closely enough and are just dumping expensive crap (along with the genuine editorial of shots of Einstein's papers, for example).

Another example of a stupid/irrelevant title:
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-16838458-gordon-brown-travels-to-israel.php?st=7d67cf2
It's a photo of Silvio Belusconi, tight portrait of him holding his head in his hands. Could have been taken anywhere, but titled, as the URI above, "Gordon Brown Travels to Israel", though the title explains that it is SB.
Trouble is that if anyone raises these specific issues on the iStock forum, Lobo will just snark and say you can't call out images.
Contacting Support will take months to get a cookie cutter answer from their cut and paste list.
SMing admin will get a hastily thought up 'justification' which holds no water.
« Last Edit: June 11, 2011, 12:06 by ShadySue »

« Reply #179 on: June 11, 2011, 12:27 »
0
Yesterday I tried to wiki one of the Ed Stock files which had horrible and 100% irrelevant keywords, but they're in some review state, so I couldn't. I guess they're on their own with that mess - them and the poor buyers...

« Reply #180 on: June 11, 2011, 12:28 »
0

Is it true? I sometimes wonder about it too.
...Are we really such a negative bunch?  A few years ago when most of us were seeing our incomes grow every month, I thought we were a pretty positive group.  I suspect it is recent circumstances that have made us over into a bunch of grouches... :P
...All them them I know were nearly destroyed by us (microstock).  Some have joined us after years of grousing, but have not put in the effort to make it worthwhile, and the "easy" window of opportunity may have passed.  Every one of them says they were not at all worried about competition from "poor quality" point and shoot stock available from mere amatures online at the beginning. ...Wow were they wrong.
I fear we are doing the same.

I'm not sure which part of "the same" applies to us in our current setting. With the microstock rise "destroying" conventional stock photographers, any of them could have participated in microstock if they'd wanted, with just as much (arguably more) going for them as we had.

In our current mess, where Getty is dumping wholly-owned content onto the site (or other content they have a deal to represent with more favorable-to-them terms that our work) how do we get in on that game, even if we want to?

I get the adapt-or-die mantra, but I'm trying to see how we're failing here. Can you elaborate a bit?
By saying "the same", I mean being slow to recongized what changes mean and adapting appropriatley from a business perspective.   In 3 years, we will all know how we should have handled the current changes. Few of us ,myself included, are wise enough to know what we should be doing right now to maximize our position in the future.

« Reply #181 on: June 11, 2011, 12:37 »
0
...http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-16838458-gordon-brown-travels-to-israel.php?st=7d67cf2...


I just zoomed 100% in on that image.

I thought there were quality standards in place at IS even for editorial...???

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #182 on: June 11, 2011, 12:47 »
0
...http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-16838458-gordon-brown-travels-to-israel.php?st=7d67cf2...


I just zoomed 100% in on that image.

I thought there were quality standards in place at IS even for editorial...???

Only for us lowlifes. Not for ingestions from 'superior' Getty togs.
Remember the 'Agency' ingestion.

lisafx

« Reply #183 on: June 11, 2011, 12:57 »
0
...http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-16838458-gordon-brown-travels-to-israel.php?st=7d67cf2...


I just zoomed 100% in on that image.

I thought there were quality standards in place at IS even for editorial...???

Only for us lowlifes. Not for ingestions from 'superior' Getty togs.
Remember the 'Agency' ingestion.


OMG - at 100% it looks like a pointillist painting by Seurat ;)

« Reply #184 on: June 11, 2011, 14:39 »
0
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-16838458-gordon-brown-travels-to-israel.php?st=7d67cf2
It's a photo of Silvio Belusconi, tight portrait of him holding his head in his hands. Could have been taken anywhere, but titled, as the URI above, "Gordon Brown Travels to Israel", though the title explains that it is SB.


The picture is going to be part of a series covering the entire Gordon Brown visit event, possibly shot by someone who travelled with him. The title is, in effect, the title of the folder containing all the pictures from that event. The keyword "Ehud Olmert" is there because it was shot during his speech. By istock standards, more than half the keywords are irrelevant but they are giving the place, time and event, which would be relevant if you wanted a picture of Berlusconi at the Jerusalem press conference - rather than just an "any time, anywhere" Berlusconi shot.

It seems that many of the pictures have an overall event title which is the same for an entire series, even if it seems irrelevant to the specific subject.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #185 on: June 11, 2011, 14:48 »
0
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-16838458-gordon-brown-travels-to-israel.php?st=7d67cf2
It's a photo of Silvio Belusconi, tight portrait of him holding his head in his hands. Could have been taken anywhere, but titled, as the URI above, "Gordon Brown Travels to Israel", though the title explains that it is SB.


The picture is going to be part of a series covering the entire Gordon Brown visit event, possibly shot by someone who travelled with him. The title is, in effect, the title of the folder containing all the pictures from that event. The keyword "Ehud Olmert" is there because it was shot during his speech. By istock standards, more than half the keywords are irrelevant but they are giving the place, time and event, which would be relevant if you wanted a picture of Berlusconi at the Jerusalem press conference - rather than just an "any time, anywhere" Berlusconi shot.

It seems that many of the pictures have an overall event title which is the same for an entire series, even if it seems irrelevant to the specific subject.

Indeed, but that doesn't follow 'iStock standards' as they have been set out for us.
They could surely have thought up an overall title which was relevant to the whole series.
And there's nothing in that image which isn't just an 'any time, anywhere' Berlusconi shot.

« Reply #186 on: June 11, 2011, 15:07 »
0
Supermarket advertising often depicts particular brands of goods on offer, that's the sort of market where you might sell some of this "editorial" stuff (yes, I know it's a violation of the license terms). The demand for a shot of a specific event from the past is very low. If the subject is a celebrity pin-up there are likely to be so many photos readily available - even from the celeb's own agent - that there is hardly any market.

I wonder if the supermarket flyers will provide much of a market for that type of editorial.  Having worked for food manufacturers I know we would get requests for photos, descriptive copy, etc. for the weekly flyers.  We provided them at no cost as it was promoting our product. 

« Reply #187 on: June 11, 2011, 15:17 »
0
ShadySue, from a newspaper picture editor's point of view, if you want a picture to illustrate a report referring back to Berlusconi at that event, you don't want to run something and then get told that the picture can't be from there because he was wearing something different or had his head shaved at that time. So even though the location is unidentifiable, being certain that you have the right location at the right time is valuable information.
I wouldn't be surprised if the whole Brown in Jerusalem set was uploaded in a file of that name by the photographer. It makes sense to keep the set together so that newsdesks can view them easily to pick out what they want. The header may not work that way on iSTock but I bet it did at the beginning of the set's life.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #188 on: June 11, 2011, 15:41 »
0
ShadySue, from a newspaper picture editor's point of view, if you want a picture to illustrate a report referring back to Berlusconi at that event, you don't want to run something and then get told that the picture can't be from there because he was wearing something different or had his head shaved at that time. So even though the location is unidentifiable, being certain that you have the right location at the right time is valuable information.
I wouldn't be surprised if the whole Brown in Jerusalem set was uploaded in a file of that name by the photographer. It makes sense to keep the set together so that newsdesks can view them easily to pick out what they want. The header may not work that way on iSTock but I bet it did at the beginning of the set's life.
I do understand all of that. The thing is, it's now on iStock, and under different standards to the ones we have to adhere to. That's the only point I'm making.
I'll raise again my oft-repeated complaint that there is no way we can indicate whether a main collection ('creative') image is unaltered (to editorial standards), so can be used where they are required.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #189 on: June 11, 2011, 17:40 »
0
Trouble is that if anyone raises these specific issues on the iStock forum, Lobo will just snark and say you can't call out images.
Just call me sue.itoldyaso.com

« Reply #190 on: June 11, 2011, 17:44 »
0
My logic dictates that if you have superior quality images, and your competition has inferior quality images it is actually a GOOD thing for you.
Am I wrong in my way of thinking ?
Low quality getty content = good for us.

« Reply #191 on: June 11, 2011, 17:50 »
0
My logic dictates that if you have superior quality images, and your competition has inferior quality images it is actually a GOOD thing for you.
Am I wrong in my way of thinking ?
Low quality getty content = good for us.

true but not 100% and why? because they will take away a little sales, actually the more there is on stock the less you will got, as we read everywhere top contributors arent increasing their earnings after a few years, the majority is actually decreasing them.. I am not talking about yourself, myself and other that started less than 3 years ago..

lisafx

« Reply #192 on: June 11, 2011, 18:03 »
0
My logic dictates that if you have superior quality images, and your competition has inferior quality images it is actually a GOOD thing for you.
Am I wrong in my way of thinking ?
Low quality getty content = good for us.

In a perfect world, yes, this is the way it should work.  But the world of Istockphoto has proved less than ideal. 

In Istockworld, the best match is frequently manipulated to showcase images according to what will put the most money in Getty's pockets, not yours.  So your superior images can be buried 50 or more pages back in a search where they will never be seen, resulting in most sales going to "inferior" Getty content. 

« Reply #193 on: June 11, 2011, 18:07 »
0
luissantos84 :This may be true, but in this specific situation the goal (so they claim, and it does make sense to me) is to attract the traditional editorial buyers to IS.  Again, this sounds like a GOOD thing to me.
Also do note that every EdStock photo import has a link and banner to the entire editorial collection.
I am personally satisfied with this move.

Lisa: Maybe, and maybe not. I wouldn't be suprized if you are right, but I will give them the benefit of the doubt in the meantime.
« Last Edit: June 11, 2011, 18:09 by aeonf »

lisafx

« Reply #194 on: June 11, 2011, 18:14 »
0

Lisa: Maybe, and maybe not. I wouldn't be suprized if you are right, but I will give them the benefit of the doubt in the meantime.

Fair enough.

FWIW, I hope you are right and I am wrong. :)

« Reply #195 on: June 11, 2011, 18:37 »
0
one thing is for sure, the photo+ is a lot better than this edstock

« Reply #196 on: June 11, 2011, 18:58 »
0
My logic dictates that if you have superior quality images, and your competition has inferior quality images it is actually a GOOD thing for you.
Am I wrong in my way of thinking ?
Low quality getty content = good for us.

not if it drives away the buyers.  well, I guess that is okay if it drives them to the other sites that us independents work with.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #197 on: June 11, 2011, 19:15 »
0
So, Lobo has posted:
There are clearly some bones to pick about the following:

1. Keywords
2. Titles
3. Apparent quality
4. Placement in search
5. Content flowing quicker to iStock than it's flowing to the Partner Program sites and Getty

These are obvious issues that people need to have addressed. That said the issues aren't going to be addressed this weekend. I will make sure to point the obvious out to the folks at HQ early next week. I know there are other people watching this thread besides me but I tend to be more visible because I play traffic cop when things like this are announced.


Hope it will do some good. They must have known about these issues before they ingested the images, so why should they do anything about it now?

« Reply #198 on: June 11, 2011, 19:30 »
0
So, Lobo has posted:
There are clearly some bones to pick about the following:

1. Keywords
2. Titles
3. Apparent quality
4. Placement in search
5. Content flowing quicker to iStock than it's flowing to the Partner Program sites and Getty

These are obvious issues that people need to have addressed. That said the issues aren't going to be addressed this weekend. I will make sure to point the obvious out to the folks at HQ early next week. I know there are other people watching this thread besides me but I tend to be more visible because I play traffic cop when things like this are announced.


Hope it will do some good. They must have known about these issues before they ingested the images, so why should they do anything about it now?

Should we make predictions? Hundred buck says they don't care about any of that and will just continue on as they always have.

« Reply #199 on: June 11, 2011, 20:14 »
0
I didn't read most of the posts, but I do have a question? Is editorial even worth the time you put in? I can't judge from my sales, since I don't have many editorial photos in my port and virtually all of them were rejected anyway (just the opposite from the normal collection), but I did some research and besides ipad/iphone/social network screenshots they don't sell well and mostly they don't sell at all. I know it's easier if you're doing a lot of people shots, no retouching, no MRs needed, just some work with captions and rejections because of them. But what's the sales potential anyway, when you can't post anything time sensitive, anything the news agencies, papers and blogs would mostly be interested in? They can find similar people shots in the main collection, which are usually better anyway. Besides products shots, there probably is nothing really worth uploading and also all those cans of beer, sneakers, electronics don't really sell.

I see IS editorial as one big failure and disappointment.

Stamps seem to have been selling well.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
8740 Views
Last post June 03, 2010, 11:32
by Opla
5 Replies
6596 Views
Last post March 17, 2011, 07:50
by ProArtwork
7 Replies
5333 Views
Last post August 14, 2013, 17:34
by KB
7 Replies
3429 Views
Last post March 30, 2017, 17:37
by Sean Locke Photography
5 Replies
4622 Views
Last post December 25, 2018, 05:23
by mara

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors