Author Topic: My View on the future of IStock as a full-time non-exclusive microstocker (Read 54938 times)

loop · « **Reply #50 on:** December 02, 2008, 11:29 »

I see it easier. I think istock simply is simply doing what most businees of any kind would do: Emphasizing what they have and competition don’t, in this case exclusive files. At the same time, this acts like another perk to get and keep exclusives. Yes, there are some posts of people that say “I was thinking of going exclusive, but now...”, but actually, less than one of every 100 contributors posts at the forums. I don’t know at what rate is increasing the number of exclusives; but if I do an exclusive-content-limited search with any keyword and repeat it two or three weeks later I discover that the number of results has increased really fast. I think that's a good strategy.
And maybe non-exclusive good shots are being rejected for keywords or whatever, I won’t discuss that because I really cant’ know, but saying that exclusive crap is being approved because it’s exclusive is false, unfair and mean. From time to time you see in the recent uploads page some dubious file that seems to have sneaked through the inspector’s net; some of them are exclusive, some non-exclusive.

hali · « **Reply #51 on:** December 02, 2008, 12:18 »

today i am more convinced that the hewing and hawing of the exclusives is mostly sectional, as i am sure most of the exclusives are happy to share the level playing field with their peers, if anything to enjoy a little bit of fair competition .
i used to remember being a whippersnapper as a new graduate from NYI to compete in photojournalism in our capital , having some of the best photographers welcoming saying, "hey, if you're as good or better than us, take a share of our market!"; only a minority were out for my neck.

i say this, as i have added yet another exclusive to my network, who came into my portfolio to point out i was not letting my images be open to sub and was actually cutting my potential. thanks to that person, as i was never one to check too much of the little details.

so, who says all exclusives are out to disenfranchise the freeagent. i don't think so. just a small section of those too afraid to stay in the level playing field to compete. for those exclusives who have been so helpful, cheers!
and for those who are giving these good exclusives the bad name as a group,
shame on you . .. (the finger !).

hali · « **Reply #52 on:** December 02, 2008, 12:22 »

Quote from: loop on December 02, 2008, 11:29

And maybe non-exclusive good shots are being rejected for keywords or whatever, ..because it’s exclusive is false, unfair and mean. From time to time you see in the recent uploads page some dubious file that seems to have sneaked through the inspector’s net; some of them are exclusive, some non-exclusive.

somehow, i don't think Yuri 's images would be rejected for keywords or whatever. but they are.
so this alone speaks volume to us all, exclusives or non.

loop · « **Reply #53 on:** December 02, 2008, 12:41 »

Please, don't quote me out of context by deleting some of the middle tetxt. Thanks!

hali · « **Reply #54 on:** December 02, 2008, 13:02 »

Quote from: loop on December 02, 2008, 11:29

I see it easier. I think istock simply is simply doing what most businees of any kind would do: Emphasizing what they have and competition don’t, in this case exclusive files. At the same time, this acts like another perk to get and keep exclusives. Yes, there are some posts of people that say “I was thinking of going exclusive, but now...”, but actually, less than one of every 100 contributors posts at the forums. I don’t know at what rate is increasing the number of exclusives; but if I do an exclusive-content-limited search with any keyword and repeat it two or three weeks later I discover that the number of results has increased really fast. I think that's a good strategy.
And maybe non-exclusive good shots are being rejected for keywords or whatever, I won’t discuss that because I really cant’ know, but saying that exclusive crap is being approved because it’s exclusive is false, unfair and mean. From time to time you see in the recent uploads page some dubious file that seems to have sneaked through the inspector’s net; some of them are exclusive, some non-exclusive.

as per your request

jsnover · « **Reply #55 on:** December 02, 2008, 13:03 »

Quote from: hali on December 02, 2008, 12:22

somehow, i don't think Yuri 's images would be rejected for keywords or whatever. but they are.
so this alone speaks volume to us all, exclusives or non.

It's really hard, once someone has convinced themselves of a certain belief, to undo that. When iStock inspectors make mistakes, and we all know they do, whether for keywords, copyright, or something else, if it happens to an exclusive, there's no chat about it here; if it happens to an independent, it's taken as more evidence of a two-tier set of standards that disadvantages independents.

I can't imagine that I could convince anyone that the inspection system is the same for almost everyone (apparently there are a handful who get some type of special deal, but it certainly isn't all exclusives), but it's important to consider that this type of data gathering is highly selective.

I also refuse to accept the notion that because he's extraordinarily successful, Yuri is incapable of making keyword mistakes now and then - even if it's just stretching conceptual keywords beyond what IS policy allows. We all screw up sometimes, even the most experienced of us. I have no idea what specific keyword rejections you're referring to, so perhaps he got hit by an erroneous rejection, in which case the keyword forum is the place to bring it up and get it fixed.

lagereek · « **Reply #56 on:** December 02, 2008, 13:11 »

helix7!

Your right! today Getty is but a shadow of its glorious past and NO, they certainly havent got the power to stop the Micro, which we should be greatful for.

Loop!
If you really think Getty/IS will recruit more exclusives after this Globaly known charade against non-exclusives and even exclusives for that matter. Think again please.

Person exclusivity is an old, old model, dating back to the Magnum and Black-Star era. It never worked then and will never work now or in the future.
I personally know half a dozen "exclusives" even within the Getty-RM, successful, moneyspinning Pros, who are supplying totally diferant images to a whole bunch of other Agencies, been doing it for yaers.

Image exclusivity ( not hard to police ) is what they should introduce and opt for, saving face, money and further embarrasment. That way they would have the best of both worlds.

Micro is cheap pictures off the peg, no offence! but you know what I mean, theres nothing exclusive about it what so ever, so why pretend an exclusive Micro photographer could offer something extremely valuble and full of prestige.
Nonsense!

null · « **Reply #57 on:** December 02, 2008, 13:20 »

Quote from: jsnover on December 02, 2008, 13:03

I have no idea what specific keyword rejections you're referring to, so perhaps he got hit by an erroneous rejection, in which case the keyword forum is the place to bring it up and get it fixed.

Why lose time on a forum for a single rejected shot? That's overkill in terms of productivity since it will sell elsewhere anyways and better even. The rationale of microstock is to cut production costs per picture. Time (spent arguing theology on forums) is money. If the inspectors have time to point out the "bad" keywords, they can as well delete those and approve the shot, instead of "fix keywords and resubmit".

hali · « **Reply #58 on:** December 02, 2008, 13:30 »

Quote from: jsnover on December 02, 2008, 13:03

Quote from: hali on December 02, 2008, 12:22
somehow, i don't think Yuri 's images would be rejected for keywords or whatever. but they are.
so this alone speaks volume to us all, exclusives or non.

I also refuse to accept the notion that because he's extraordinarily successful, Yuri is incapable of making keyword mistakes now and then - even if it's just stretching conceptual keywords beyond what IS policy allows. We all screw up sometimes, even the most experienced of us. I have no idea what specific keyword rejections you're referring to, so perhaps he got hit by an erroneous rejection, in which case the keyword forum is the place to bring it up and get it fixed.

hey jsnover, nice to see you.
no, i was not implying that Yuri got rejected on a keyword issue, thus the "whatnot".
i was saying, if someone of Yuri's or also , someone of your status, being rejected ,
on similar issues of "off focus ", "over-processing", when it was really nothing of that sort.
how much does one need to processing using at 14 MP camera, other than levels, even if any?
and it's not rare to find a rejection of selective focus due to "off-focus".

that said, my point is that, there really seems to be very little consolation for us newbies in trying to augment our portfolio, if most of our better images are rejected.
it's even more disheartening, (discouraging, for lack of a better word), when we see
more "micro" experienced contributors facing the same dilemma.
best, as someone said, to go to where they want your images.

btw, how true is this... that some reviewers are also contributors. do you know?
isn't that conflict of interest? i think it is. in the business world, it is considered to be so.

(EDITED FOR BREVITY,, NOT TRYING TO MISQUOTE ANYONE)

AVAVA · « **Reply #59 on:** December 02, 2008, 14:25 »

Hi Lagereek,

Just to start off I want to say I really enjoy your posts. They are very informative and I feel show a great deal of depth to your understanding and knowledge of this industry. A true pleasure to read.
I know this industry isn't what it was even two years ago but Getty still controls the major portion of the stock market by a huge margin. That is still a pretty big shadow. I would like to see the market separated up as much as possible. I think that would give photographers a more secure future with greater options. Let's hope that occurs. I have the feeling it won't in the near future.

Best,
AVAVA

lisafx · « **Reply #60 on:** December 02, 2008, 14:34 »

Quote from: lagereek on December 02, 2008, 13:11

Person exclusivity is an old, old model, dating back to the Magnum and Black-Star era. It never worked then and will never work now or in the future.
I personally know half a dozen "exclusives" even within the Getty-RM, successful, moneyspinning Pros, who are supplying totally diferant images to a whole bunch of other Agencies, been doing it for yaers.

Christian, are these "exclusives" supplying images to other RF collections or RM? RM would not violate exclusivity, but RF definitely would.

Quote

btw, how true is this... that some reviewers are also contributors. do you know?
isn't that conflict of interest? i think it is. in the business world, it is considered to be so.

I think pretty nearly all the reviewers at istock are also contributors. I can see how it would seem to be a conflict of interest, but to be fair, I have never gotten a sense that it impacts their reviewing decisions.

Until very recently istock had the most consistent reviews in the industry. I imagine if the reviews have gotten wonky it is either the result of bringing on too many new inspectors without adequate training, or else a policy change from Getty.

jsnover · « **Reply #61 on:** December 02, 2008, 15:03 »

Quote from: hali on December 02, 2008, 13:30

i was saying, if someone of Yuri's or also , someone of your status, being rejected ,
on similar issues of "off focus ", "over-processing", when it was really nothing of that sort.

I completely understand the frustration when your assessment of your image (and mine of my images) doesn't match with the inspectors. I think it will drive me nuts as long as submit imgaes for stock. However an edited collection is always going to have some editor (inspector) making their judgement of our work. Even if they're a blind two-headed moron, they're still the editor and we're not

I've got a bucket load of examples from my independent days of IS rejecting something as over-filtered that won one of SS's monthly front page gallery slots or DT took as an Editor's choice or just sold like crazy. I don't think anyone has to lose hope because of such things, but it certainly is harder when your portfolio is small as each image is a greater percentage of your total.

For every IS frustration though, I can name some from DT (lack of composition for an image that at the time was my best seller at IS); try and get film scans through at SS; FT was always just random with its rejections; StockXpert didn't like cityscapes or nature; 123rf had nutso policies on too similar to others in a series. As an independent, if I'd have given up the agencies that frustrated me with rejections I didn't agree with, I'd have been down to ScanStockPhoto and CanStock pretty quickly and not selling anything.

As far as the issue of inspectors having a conflict of interest, I've never sensed that any of the sites have rejected images because the inspector was trying to keep out the competition. It seems to worry people when they start, but my experience has been that the system is even handed, for all its frustrations. I've never heard anyone actually come up with a case where that happened (although proving it would be hard without knowing who inspected your images, which you never do; that's why we have to trust the sites to police their inspection process). My only bad experience was in SS's early days where a forum discussion that got a bit heated (SS was resisting giving any reasons for rejection and contributors were asking for one). An inspector there said that I should watch my tongue when conversing with the person who inspected my images - I took that as an attempt to threaten, but as far as I know nothing came of it.

hali · « **Reply #62 on:** December 02, 2008, 16:28 »

Quote from: jsnover on December 02, 2008, 15:03

I completely understand the frustration when your assessment of your image (and mine of my images) doesn't match with the inspectors. I think it will drive me nuts as long as submit imgaes for stock. However an edited collection is always going to have some editor (inspector) making their judgement of our work. Even if they're a blind two-headed moron, they're still the editor and we're not
... (EDITED FOR BREVITY )...
As an independent, if I'd have given up the agencies that frustrated me with rejections I didn't agree with, I'd have been down to ScanStockPhoto and CanStock pretty quickly and not selling anything.
...
. My only bad experience was in SS's early days where a forum discussion that got a bit heated (SS was resisting giving any reasons for rejection and contributors were asking for one). An inspector there said that I should watch my tongue when conversing with the person who inspected my images - I took that as an attempt to threaten, but as far as I know nothing came of it.

(EDITED FOR BREVITY )...

thanks for the awesome insight. good to know . this response of yours jsnover
will certainly be helpful to many newbies like myself. cheers.
and you too lisafx !

j2k · « **Reply #63 on:** December 02, 2008, 16:43 »

I'm relatively new on IS (uploading since March), but I have the same results - October down a lot, and November is even worse - almost exactly 50% of September. Barely made the payout.

Yuri_Arcurs · « **Reply #64 on:** December 02, 2008, 16:51 »

I don't get rejections for keywords. My keywords are checked two times before they go for inspection on Istock:
1. first keywording. outsourced, India
2.second keyword check by australian company.
3. third check when uploadad and finished on Istock.

I get rejections for all kinds of other reasons. I also especially get the "isolation" rejection, even when all my files are naturally complete whites on the RAW file. The rejections only make sense if you think of the non-exclusive inspectors as trainees, which they are. It is however irritating on a professional level, three years into microstock, to have to be judged daily by people making more mistakes in basic technical photography then my assistants.
Training inspectors is however very hard, and I do see it from Istocks point of view too.

hali · « **Reply #65 on:** December 02, 2008, 17:13 »

Quote from: Yuri_Arcurs on December 02, 2008, 16:51

I don't get rejections for keywords. My keywords are checked two times before they go for inspection on Istock: ... EDITED FOR BREVITY..
... I also especially get the "isolation" rejection, even when all my files are naturally complete whites on the RAW file... It is however irritating on a professional level, three years into microstock, to have to be judged daily by people making more mistakes in basic technical photography then my assistants. .
..EDITED FOR BREVITY...

Yuri, i think i can picture the type of images you got rejections on "poor isolation" or whatnot.
highkey shot , natural light, complete white surface, using a reflector to bounce light back onto the subjects/objects to soften shadows, or get it almost shadowless.
rejection by reviewers: POOR ISOLATION.

even my own first year students, not yet studio assistants, were able to tell the difference.
basic technical photography morons, ya !

Tuilay · « **Reply #66 on:** December 02, 2008, 17:30 »

Quote from: Yuri_Arcurs on December 02, 2008, 16:51

I don't get rejections for keywords. My keywords are checked two times before they go for inspection on Istock:
1. first keywording. outsourced, India
2.second keyword check by australian company.
3. third check when uploadad and finished on Istock.

I get rejections for all kinds of other reasons. I also especially get the "isolation" rejection, even when all my files are naturally complete whites on the RAW file. The rejections only make sense if you think of the non-exclusive inspectors as trainees, which they are. It is however irritating on a professional level, three years into microstock, to have to be judged daily by people making more mistakes in basic technical photography then my assistants.
Training inspectors is however very hard, and I do see it from Istocks point of view too.

I am confused. If I had your calibre as a stock photographer.
I would not put up with all this crappola, and pull out every single one of my images from IStock.
That would be devastating to Istock, Getty or no Getty.

I am sure Getty would not bat an eyelid if they had 2million newbies or non-producing contributors pulling out their images. But this is Yuri.
I can only guess the reason why you did not do this, is that you're being a gentleman.
Lucky for Istock I am not Yuri, as I am no gentleman either.

sharply_done · « **Reply #67 on:** December 02, 2008, 17:38 »

Quote from: Tuilay on December 02, 2008, 17:30

I am confused. If I had your calibre as a stock photographer.
I would not put up with all this crappola, and pull out every single one of my images from IStock.
That would be devastating to Istock, Getty or no Getty.

I am sure Getty would not bat an eyelid if they had 2million newbies or non-producing contributors pulling out their images. But this is Yuri.
I can only guess the reason why you did not do this, is that you're being a gentleman.
Lucky for Istock I am not Yuri, as I am no gentleman either.

You have a unique point of view, to be sure.

lagereek · « **Reply #68 on:** December 02, 2008, 17:58 »

Hi Lisa!

Well what I meant was that a lot of exclusive contracted RM photographers work under lots of differant business-names, making very sure they dont supply similar images to various Agencies, may it be RM or RF. Although being exclusive, no damage is done because no two similar images will ever clash.
So, you see? so much for exclusivity??
Having said this: no, you cant supply same RM image also as RF or vice-versa, that could be a bit dangerous and render heavy consequences.

An agency imposing exclusivity contracts, DONT do that in order to increase their turnover, it wont, never will, its there to prevent contributors from increasing other agencies turnover, thats all,
Exclusivity was working in the days of the Trad-RM agencies with around 10000 photographers, globaly.
Today with hundereds of thousands of suppliers you can imagine? exclusivity is just a pretty word. buyers, clients looking for campaign images and big-time ADs, etc, certainly dont rumage the pages of any Micro site. Thereby is exclusivity not even important.

all the best Christian

hali · « **Reply #69 on:** December 02, 2008, 18:09 »

Quote from: sharply_done on December 02, 2008, 17:38

Quote from: Tuilay on December 02, 2008, 17:30
I am confused. If I had your calibre as a stock photographer.
I would not put up with all this crappola, and pull out every single one of my images from IStock.
That would be devastating to Istock, Getty or no Getty.

I am sure Getty would not bat an eyelid if they had 2million newbies or non-producing contributors pulling out their images. But this is Yuri.
I can only guess the reason why you did not do this, is that you're being a gentleman.
Lucky for Istock I am not Yuri, as I am no gentleman either.

You have a unique point of view, to be sure.

sounds like Tuilay is mean , and don't put up with too much "crappola", as mentioned.

lisafx · « **Reply #70 on:** December 02, 2008, 18:40 »

Quote from: lagereek on December 02, 2008, 17:58

Hi Lisa!

Well what I meant was that a lot of exclusive contracted RM photographers work under lots of differant business-names, making very sure they dont supply similar images to various Agencies, may it be RM or RF. Although being exclusive, no damage is done because no two similar images will ever clash.
So, you see? so much for exclusivity??
Having said this: no, you cant supply same RM image also as RF or vice-versa, that could be a bit dangerous and render heavy consequences.

An agency imposing exclusivity contracts, DONT do that in order to increase their turnover, it wont, never will, its there to prevent contributors from increasing other agencies turnover, thats all,
Exclusivity was working in the days of the Trad-RM agencies with around 10000 photographers, globaly.
Today with hundereds of thousands of suppliers you can imagine? exclusivity is just a pretty word. buyers, clients looking for campaign images and big-time ADs, etc, certainly dont rumage the pages of any Micro site. Thereby is exclusivity not even important.

all the best Christian

Thanks for explaining Christian

I misunderstood and thought you were talking about istock exclusives selling RF elsewhere, which of course is a BIG NO NO.

But yes, the type of traditional exclusivity that allows contributors to sell different types of images in different collections sounds much better for the average contributor. If istock would offer that I would upload some exclusive images there, but I don't think its ever gonna happen....

RT · « **Reply #71 on:** December 02, 2008, 19:03 »

Quote from: lisafx on December 02, 2008, 18:40

I misunderstood and thought you were talking about istock exclusives selling RF elsewhere, which of course is a BIG NO NO.

I know one iStock exclusive who needed a change of underwear when they heard Getty were buying Jupiter

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #72 on:** December 02, 2008, 22:47 »

Quote from: Yuri_Arcurs on December 02, 2008, 16:51

I get rejections for all kinds of other reasons. I also especially get the "isolation" rejection, even when all my files are naturally complete whites on the RAW file. The rejections only make sense if you think of the non-exclusive inspectors as trainees, which they are. It is however irritating on a professional level, three years into microstock, to have to be judged daily by people making more mistakes in basic technical photography then my assistants.
Training inspectors is however very hard, and I do see it from Istocks point of view too.

Perhaps you could post some of these rejections for critique so we can see them. I'm sure you'll be the first to admit you and your team are human. Remember the floating business team above the reflection. That happens a lot in those fake reflection shots and would probably trigger a rejection.

Elenathewise · « **Reply #73 on:** December 02, 2008, 23:47 »

Quote from: AVAVA on December 02, 2008, 14:25

Hi Lagereek,

Just to start off I want to say I really enjoy your posts. They are very informative and I feel show a great deal of depth to your understanding and knowledge of this industry. A true pleasure to read.
I know this industry isn't what it was even two years ago but Getty still controls the major portion of the stock market by a huge margin. That is still a pretty big shadow. I would like to see the market separated up as much as possible. I think that would give photographers a more secure future with greater options. Let's hope that occurs. I have the feeling it won't in the near future.

Best,
AVAVA

I agree - I enjoy the posts of Lagereek as well. I suspect Getty is doing what Microsoft did in it's time - buy off the viable competitors and either incorporate them or quietly put the pillow over their faces. I used to work for IBM and they did the same thing. It's a common corporate strategy.
And yes AVAVA I agree with you as well - I don't see them (Getty) giving up their position any time soon. Didn't they just buy Jupiter? And Stockxpert as a part of it as well?
With Istock, it's either "let's kill it slowly" position, or (which is oh so common in corporate environment) just plain stupidity. Both are viable versions. It just might be that people who were put in charge of Istock have no clue whatsoever about micro's specifics and the way micros work. Looks like they are trying to apply their macro policies to Istock, which is totally ridiculous. Sad, but again - not unheard of in corporations. That's why I still can't bring myself to shooting "business corporate" stuff - I know that inside out, and it stinks!:)
Scarred for life,
Elena:)

lagereek · « **Reply #74 on:** December 03, 2008, 04:07 »

Hi!

Well about the Getty and Jupiter deal? I got it from reliable sources that the deal included Jupiter and photos.com.
HAAP is still the owner of Stockxpert and was not included in this deal. This is the Info I got.

best. Christian

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: My View on the future of IStock as a full-time non-exclusive microstocker (Read 54938 times)

loop

hali

hali

loop

hali

jsnover

lagereek

null

hali

AVAVA

lisafx

jsnover

hali

j2k

Yuri_Arcurs

hali

Tuilay

sharply_done

lagereek

hali

lisafx

RT

Sean Locke Photography

Elenathewise

lagereek

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors