MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: landbysea on July 08, 2013, 13:46
-
It seems inspectors will accept anything. But at least it is fast. I am real glad for the fast inspections, I am going through the archives now and I like to have one from a series accepted before I put up a whole batch. But I was checking recent uploads on my favorite keyword and I see they are taking anything. One guy had the same photo up with about 20 versions. Different crops and brightness and the worst thing was the white balance bracketing. Horrible and just filling a big chunk of the page in a sort by file age. Not to single anyone person's work but I see it has been mentioned here, but no thread. Lobo locked the thread on istock on the reasoning that people would post examples.
Pendulum has swung too far the other way. But why?
-
Who knows? The quality of its inspections and the resulting high standard of content was one of iStock's redeeming features.
Seems that's been chucked out of the window now.
Presumably someone higher up the food chain has said 'I don't care about quality, I want a gazillion images!'
The conspiracy theorist in me suggests it's a way to sell millions of files that thousands of artists will never reach payout on, thus allowing the greedy goats at the top to keep all the money for themselves. Surely not.
-
Good to know.
Will also try out in sending some images from my archieve ;)
-
Maybe they are testing their newly invented auto pilot program - that way they don't have to pay the inspectors anymore... ;)
-
I guess i can no longer take pride in my high acceptance rating :(
-
Not sure that such things matter any more for independent contributors. My RPD is down by more than 50% since the price changes.
-
There was a time when being accepted as a iS contributor was kind of proof that you are at least above average photographer. Now it's proof that you are camera owner.
-
Good to know.
Will also try out in sending some images from my archieve ;)
Yeah, but it's really difficult to sell new pics as for months new files have been trounced in the best match.
-
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-25503909-background-from-white-paper-texture.php (http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-25503909-background-from-white-paper-texture.php)
Good stuff.
-
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-25503909-background-from-white-paper-texture.php[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-25503909-background-from-white-paper-texture.php[/url])
Good stuff.
The title and keywords are all wrong __ I'm sure that's a white cat in a snowstorm.
-
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-25503909-background-from-white-paper-texture.php[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-25503909-background-from-white-paper-texture.php[/url])
Good stuff.
Anyone care to speculate as to why having two of these is a good idea - same contributor, one right after the other sorted by file age...?
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-25503892-white-template-paper-texture-or-background.php (http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-25503892-white-template-paper-texture-or-background.php)
-
They are in fact different images LOL. I am just shocked to see images on IS that wouldnt even pass muster at DP or CanStockPhoto
-
There is presumably a Plot afoot. Probably we should be very afraid.
I don't usually suspect iS of advance planning (unless it's some way to shaft us).
-
I love this one.
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-25704679-wet-white-onion-with-roots.php?st=9e66cb0 (http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-25704679-wet-white-onion-with-roots.php?st=9e66cb0)
I really don't understand their plan if there is any. Quality of images was probably last advantage of iS.
-
I love this one.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-25704679-wet-white-onion-with-roots.php?st=9e66cb0[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-25704679-wet-white-onion-with-roots.php?st=9e66cb0[/url])
I really don't understand their plan if there is any. Quality of images was probably last advantage of iS.
Only from iStock - Thank god.
-
Don't worry. Quality control is still there. :P My latest rejection:
(http://i826.photobucket.com/albums/zz187/rimglow/Diced_zps320130a3.jpg) (http://s826.photobucket.com/user/rimglow/media/Diced_zps320130a3.jpg.html)
-
Don't worry. Quality control is still there. :P My latest rejection:
([url]http://i826.photobucket.com/albums/zz187/rimglow/Diced_zps320130a3.jpg[/url]) ([url]http://s826.photobucket.com/user/rimglow/media/Diced_zps320130a3.jpg.html[/url])
::) :o
-
I learnt a lot from my istock rejections. Too bad istock is not giving these contributors a chance to learn from their mistakes and improve their skills.
I am not blaming the contributors for uploading, all over the stock world people are looking at old files and rejects to send them off to istock.
But I really don't understand how files like these will attract new customers and grow sales. SS and all the other sites, must be handing out free champagne whenever one of these files get's accepted. For their sales team christmas came earl this year.
And I sincerly hope this is not done in an attempt to let go of inspectors.
Never a dull moment. Let's see what will happen in September!
-
SS IPO mentioned they had so many files, valued at blah blah. Maybe Getty is bloating the IS collection so when they put IS up for sale they can say we have so many images valued at blah blah. Driving the price of Istock up.
-
I love this one.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-25704679-wet-white-onion-with-roots.php?st=9e66cb0[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-25704679-wet-white-onion-with-roots.php?st=9e66cb0[/url])
I really don't understand their plan if there is any. Quality of images was probably last advantage of iS.
I see your onion and raise you a squash...
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-25704683-yellow-squash-on-wood.php (http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-25704683-yellow-squash-on-wood.php)
One can only hope this is a contributor testing the boundaries just to see...
-
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-25503909-background-from-white-paper-texture.php[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-25503909-background-from-white-paper-texture.php[/url])
Good stuff.
At least it's only 7 credits for an XXXL.
-
removed
-
Also, except for my nemesis Keywordzilla, they seem to be letting all sorts of irrelevant keywords through.
Keyword checking has been inconsistent for a long time, but now almost anything goes. Even with the onion and the squash, why were e.g. 'farm' and 'community' let through? (I've seen much, much worse, though.)
-
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-25503909-background-from-white-paper-texture.php[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-25503909-background-from-white-paper-texture.php[/url])
Good stuff.
a real class act, linking other photographers work.
-
I love this one.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-25704679-wet-white-onion-with-roots.php?st=9e66cb0[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-25704679-wet-white-onion-with-roots.php?st=9e66cb0[/url])
I really don't understand their plan if there is any. Quality of images was probably last advantage of iS.
I see your onion and raise you a squash...
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-25704683-yellow-squash-on-wood.php[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-25704683-yellow-squash-on-wood.php[/url])
One can only hope this is a contributor testing the boundaries just to see...
I'll see your squash with this here potato [url]http://www.stocksy.com/19921[/url] ([url]http://www.stocksy.com/19921[/url])
again, a real class act linking other peoples work.
-
Yeah, you're right I'll remove it.
-
There is presumably a Plot afoot. Probably we should be very afraid.
I don't usually suspect iS of advance planning (unless it's some way to shaft us).
I suspect they are preparing some kind of Google Drive 2.0 or a similar scam.
-
Thanks I enjoyed that! Have a camera? You're a Microstock Professional now. :o I was confounded when places started taking Phone Photos, so how's this anything worse? AT least it's a real camera. (no I'm not defending dummy down, just pointing out phones are accepted, why not a real camera?) Lower the bar, and everyone passes.
There was a time when being accepted as a iS contributor was kind of proof that you are at least above average photographer. Now it's proof that you are camera owner.
-
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-25503909-background-from-white-paper-texture.php[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-25503909-background-from-white-paper-texture.php[/url])
Good stuff.
a real class act, linking other photographers work.
How can we discuss it if we can't see it? 'I just saw this crazy file, but I can't show you or tell you :( '.
-
I love this one.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-25704679-wet-white-onion-with-roots.php?st=9e66cb0[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-25704679-wet-white-onion-with-roots.php?st=9e66cb0[/url])
I really don't understand their plan if there is any. Quality of images was probably last advantage of iS.
I see your onion and raise you a squash...
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-25704683-yellow-squash-on-wood.php[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-25704683-yellow-squash-on-wood.php[/url])
One can only hope this is a contributor testing the boundaries just to see...
I'll see your squash with this here potato [url]http://www.stocksy.com/19921[/url] ([url]http://www.stocksy.com/19921[/url])
again, a real class act linking other peoples work.
People upload their images for sale to a public, searchable stock image web site. This isn't taking anything private and making it public. I realize that some have a notion that this is akin to using the fish fork for the salad course, or even in some way ethically suspect, but I think that's irrational.
From the toilet door shot with a flash uploaded when iStock's Agency Collection first got a dump truck of Getty files to the garbage in the Clerkenwell Images collection (to be clear, there are many files that are fine stock, albet not Vetta or special, mixed in with the garbage) we can't discuss problems with inspection standards or even the outright rubbish spouted by iStock that all incoming files would be subject to the same inspection standards without looking at the files.
What's a real class act is trashing a once good stock web site with the dreck that doesn't belong on Flickr, let alone to be sold for money.
-
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-25503909-background-from-white-paper-texture.php[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-25503909-background-from-white-paper-texture.php[/url])
Good stuff.
a real class act, linking other photographers work.
Boo hoo. How can we discuss it if we can't see it? 'I just saw this crazy file, but I can't show you or tell you :( '.
So you are discussing this file? and implying it is... "Good stuff"?
Seems to me you are doing nothing more than ridiculing others work, which you are very good at and seem to have a lot of time for.
It has also been brought to my attention that you are also "discussing" this file on the secret group of "united stock artists" FB page with such childish discsussions ridicule as "Albino cow in a snowstorm!" and "And a steal for 7 credits! Whoops, I mean $21..."
i'd say that is either intellectual discussion beyond my understanding or i'd say that is pure ridicule.
-
seem to have a lot of time for.
Well, someone around here seems to have a lot of time, and it isn't me.
-
I love this one.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-25704679-wet-white-onion-with-roots.php?st=9e66cb0[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-25704679-wet-white-onion-with-roots.php?st=9e66cb0[/url])
I really don't understand their plan if there is any. Quality of images was probably last advantage of iS.
I see your onion and raise you a squash...
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-25704683-yellow-squash-on-wood.php[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-25704683-yellow-squash-on-wood.php[/url])
One can only hope this is a contributor testing the boundaries just to see...
I'll see your squash with this here potato [url]http://www.stocksy.com/19921[/url] ([url]http://www.stocksy.com/19921[/url])
again, a real class act linking other peoples work.
People upload their images for sale to a public, searchable stock image web site. This isn't taking anything private and making it public. I realize that some have a notion that this is akin to using the fish fork for the salad course, or even in some way ethically suspect, but I think that's irrational.
From the toilet door shot with a flash uploaded when iStock's Agency Collection first got a dump truck of Getty files to the garbage in the Clerkenwell Images collection (to be clear, there are many files that are fine stock, albet not Vetta or special, mixed in with the garbage) we can't discuss problems with inspection standards or even the outright rubbish spouted by iStock that all incoming files would be subject to the same inspection standards without looking at the files.
What's a real class act is trashing a once good stock web site with the dreck that doesn't belong on Flickr, let alone to be sold for money.
why is this so called real class act spending so much time trashing for? sure there is a lot of crap on IS, but does one really need to dedicate time to it daily?
-
It's an intellectual dilemma. How do you discuss the quality of inspections being down, without showing examples? How do you show examples without offending?
-
Well..... not picking any individual......
I did a search for "arkangel" (a recent submission that probably would have got in anyway under the former soviet republic) and sorted by newest. I still can't believe my eyes...
-
Well..... not picking any individual......
I did a search for "arkangel" (a recent submission that probably would have got in anyway under the former soviet republic) and sorted by newest. I still can't believe my eyes...
Its too funny really... could be someone taking the piss with IS and laughing at it with his mates now.
-
Well..... not picking any individual......
I did a search for "arkangel" (a recent submission that probably would have got in anyway under the former soviet republic) and sorted by newest. I still can't believe my eyes...
Wow, what piss poor inspectors allowed those in...technically they seem okay, but subject-wise...what. I still see folks getting rejections in their forums...I'd like to see what they reject now if those are an example of what they allow.
-
Well..... not picking any individual......
I did a search for "arkangel" (a recent submission that probably would have got in anyway under the former soviet republic) and sorted by newest. I still can't believe my eyes...
Heaven's above! You'd get a rejection on Flickr for that! (They'd invent a special department just to reject it).
-
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-25503909-background-from-white-paper-texture.php[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-25503909-background-from-white-paper-texture.php[/url])
Good stuff.
a real class act, linking other photographers work.
How can we discuss it if we can't see it? 'I just saw this crazy file, but I can't show you or tell you :( '.
Interesting, recently someone linked old topic, and there , when certain guy made it clear that all his rejected photos got approved when another and exclusive author sent them to inspection you comment was:
"Im sure IS stuff would "love" to hear about that."
Without even questioning if the rights were transferred between them , you were the first one to judge and throw stones in conglomerates name on a person and its discussion that was no less truth than what u writing now.
I'm really wondering how u think now about yourself then , and its quite interesting how one can have different opinion depending on the spot where he stands at the moment of discussion.
-
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-25503909-background-from-white-paper-texture.php[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-25503909-background-from-white-paper-texture.php[/url])
Good stuff.
a real class act, linking other photographers work.
How can we discuss it if we can't see it? 'I just saw this crazy file, but I can't show you or tell you :( '.
Interesting, recently someone linked old topic, and there , when certain guy made it clear that all his rejected photos got approved when another and exclusive author sent them to inspection you comment was:
"Im sure IS stuff would "love" to hear about that."
Without even questioning if the rights were transferred between them , you were the first one to judge and throw stones in conglomerates name on a person and its discussion that was no less truth than what u writing now.
I'm really wondering how u think now about yourself then , and its quite interesting how one can have different opinion depending on the spot where he stands at the moment of discussion.
How is your comment in any way linked to the current discussion?
Let's just stipulate that you don't think highly of Sean. Do you have any other point that pertains to this discussion?
As exclusivity used to be, having an independent partner and submitting their rejects (even if with a rights transfer) was an ethically dubious thing to do. Getty has since behaved in such an abominable manner, breaking promises and calling "exclusive" things that aren't, that the current situation is much changed.That doesn't entitle contributors to be as base and double-dealing as they are, but it certainly makes it easier to understand.
-
time to lock this thread down...
-
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-25503909-background-from-white-paper-texture.php[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-25503909-background-from-white-paper-texture.php[/url])
Good stuff.
a real class act, linking other photographers work.
How can we discuss it if we can't see it? 'I just saw this crazy file, but I can't show you or tell you :( '.
Interesting, recently someone linked old topic, and there , when certain guy made it clear that all his rejected photos got approved when another and exclusive author sent them to inspection you comment was:
"Im sure IS stuff would "love" to hear about that."
Without even questioning if the rights were transferred between them , you were the first one to judge and throw stones in conglomerates name on a person and its discussion that was no less truth than what u writing now.
I'm really wondering how u think now about yourself then , and its quite interesting how one can have different opinion depending on the spot where he stands at the moment of discussion.
How is your comment in any way linked to the current discussion?
Let's just stipulate that you don't think highly of Sean. Do you have any other point that pertains to this discussion?
As exclusivity used to be, having an independent partner and submitting their rejects (even if with a rights transfer) was an ethically dubious thing to do. Getty has since behaved in such an abominable manner, breaking promises and calling "exclusive" things that aren't, that the current situation is much changed.That doesn't entitle contributors to be as base and double-dealing as they are, but it certainly makes it easier to understand.
U want to tell me u would like someone to pick your work and link it as example of something not worth at all ?
Because there is someone whose image we are talking about here, even if paper in white, , so I'm just pointing that I strongly believe its also not ethically
right to do that to any person.
Would u like to be that person whos work is presented as template of laughter ?
So I have nothing against nobody, but I don't like this specific ethical method used to prove something, and I don't like it so much that I felt like writing
a post.
-
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-25503909-background-from-white-paper-texture.php[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-25503909-background-from-white-paper-texture.php[/url])
Good stuff.
a real class act, linking other photographers work.
How can we discuss it if we can't see it? 'I just saw this crazy file, but I can't show you or tell you :( '.
Interesting, recently someone linked old topic, and there , when certain guy made it clear that all his rejected photos got approved when another and exclusive author sent them to inspection you comment was:
"Im sure IS stuff would "love" to hear about that."
Without even questioning if the rights were transferred between them , you were the first one to judge and throw stones in conglomerates name on a person and its discussion that was no less truth than what u writing now.
I'm really wondering how u think now about yourself then , and its quite interesting how one can have different opinion depending on the spot where he stands at the moment of discussion.
How is your comment in any way linked to the current discussion?
Let's just stipulate that you don't think highly of Sean. Do you have any other point that pertains to this discussion?
As exclusivity used to be, having an independent partner and submitting their rejects (even if with a rights transfer) was an ethically dubious thing to do. Getty has since behaved in such an abominable manner, breaking promises and calling "exclusive" things that aren't, that the current situation is much changed.That doesn't entitle contributors to be as base and double-dealing as they are, but it certainly makes it easier to understand.
U want to tell me u would like someone to pick your work and link it as example of something not worth at all ?
Because there is someone whose image we are talking about here, even if paper in white, , so I'm just pointing that I strongly believe its also not ethically
right to do that to any person.
Would u like to be that person whos work is presented as template of laughter ?
So I have nothing against nobody, but I don't like this specific ethical method used to prove something, and I don't like it so much that I felt like writing
a post.
As it happens, iStock appear to have pulled that particular file after it was identified as being a double ....
-
Seems to me that the iStock review system, with all its flaws, was very similar to commenting on whether or not certain images meet inspection standards.
I have had negative comments written on my images in the past (in one case by someone with a competing image, along with a low rating). It just goes with the territory. What's useful sells and what's not doesn't. Feel free to knock yourself out and post any images of mine you don't like. Mock me too if that floats your boat. What buyers think - sales - is really all that matters.
-
Well..... not picking any individual......
I did a search for "arkangel" (a recent submission that probably would have got in anyway under the former soviet republic) and sorted by newest. I still can't believe my eyes...
Wow, what piss poor inspectors allowed those in...technically they seem okay, but subject-wise...what. I still see folks getting rejections in their forums...I'd like to see what they reject now if those are an example of what they allow.
And again the keywords that are being allowed . . . :(
-
U want to tell me u would like someone to pick your work and link it as example of something not worth at all ?
Because there is someone whose image we are talking about here, even if paper in white, , so I'm just pointing that I strongly believe its also not ethically
right to do that to any person.
Would u like to be that person whos work is presented as template of laughter ?
So I have nothing against nobody, but I don't like this specific ethical method used to prove something, and I don't like it so much that I felt like writing
a post.
Any chance of "u" actually writing in English rather than juvenile text-speak? I might actually bother to read what you have to say if I didn't have to decipher your lazy nonsense.
-
Just stirring the pot a bit...
I seem to recall a few years ago StockXpert went though a time where they'd really relaxed the inspections. Not as much as what IS has done recently, but enough that they were taking some of my dogs that other agencies were (rightly) rejecting. Then it was announced that they were being ingested into the istock/Getty world and all sorts of fun and frivolity ensued. The conspiracy theorist in me (ha!) wonders if something is afoot. ::) :o :-X
-
U want to tell me u would like someone to pick your work and link it as example of something not worth at all ?
Because there is someone whose image we are talking about here, even if paper in white, , so I'm just pointing that I strongly believe its also not ethically
right to do that to any person.
Would u like to be that person whos work is presented as template of laughter ?
So I have nothing against nobody, but I don't like this specific ethical method used to prove something, and I don't like it so much that I felt like writing
a post.
Any chance of "u" actually writing in English rather than juvenile text-speak? I might actually bother to read what you have to say if I didn't have to decipher your lazy nonsense.
Seems like a non-native-English speaker.
-
Just stirring the pot a bit...
I seem to recall a few years ago StockXpert went though a time where they'd really relaxed the inspections. Not as much as what IS has done recently, but enough that they were taking some of my dogs that other agencies were (rightly) rejecting. Then it was announced that they were being ingested into the istock/Getty world and all sorts of fun and frivolity ensued. The conspiracy theorist in me (ha!) wonders if something is afoot. ::) :o :-X
Given that they are resolutely refusing to give new images any 'time in the sun', it could be that they're trying to get many images which won't sell and they're going to demote them to Main, or even force them into the PP, even for exclusives, if they get their connector working again, so that they can then advertise the large size of these lower cost offereings.
I'm sure there is some malice aforethought in the 'raising upload numbers almost infinitely', 'reducing acceptance standards' and 'new files being suppressed' combination. Though as I've said before, what they actually come up with has always been worse than what I thought they might be about to do.
-
U want to tell me u would like someone to pick your work and link it as example of something not worth at all ?
Because there is someone whose image we are talking about here, even if paper in white, , so I'm just pointing that I strongly believe its also not ethically
right to do that to any person.
Would u like to be that person whos work is presented as template of laughter ?
So I have nothing against nobody, but I don't like this specific ethical method used to prove something, and I don't like it so much that I felt like writing
a post.
Any chance of "u" actually writing in English rather than juvenile text-speak? I might actually bother to read what you have to say if I didn't have to decipher your lazy nonsense.
Seems like a non-native-English speaker.
Or a 14-year-old.
-
U want to tell me u would like someone to pick your work and link it as example of something not worth at all ?
Because there is someone whose image we are talking about here, even if paper in white, , so I'm just pointing that I strongly believe its also not ethically
right to do that to any person.
Would u like to be that person whos work is presented as template of laughter ?
So I have nothing against nobody, but I don't like this specific ethical method used to prove something, and I don't like it so much that I felt like writing
a post.
Any chance of "u" actually writing in English rather than juvenile text-speak? I might actually bother to read what you have to say if I didn't have to decipher your lazy nonsense.
Seems like a non-native-English speaker.
Or a 14-year-old.
Well, what is more lazy and has less sense than quoting something that u haven't even bother reading ?
Secondly, I would like to thank u that u rate my English as a native speaking 14-year old, I wonder how old would you be if we start
writing other way around.
-
Given that they are resolutely refusing to give new images any 'time in the sun', it could be that they're trying to get many images which won't sell and they're going to demote them to Main, or even force them into the PP, even for exclusives, if they get their connector working again, so that they can then advertise the large size of these lower cost offereings.
I'm sure there is some malice aforethought in the 'raising upload numbers almost infinitely', 'reducing acceptance standards' and 'new files being suppressed' combination. Though as I've said before, what they actually come up with has always been worse than what I thought they might be about to do.
That may very well be. We can sit here and speculate to our heart's content on whether they're planning on dumping lower quality images into a new value collection, trying to surpass Flickr in the number of images, or trying to swell the portfolio to appear a better value to a different asset management entity.
Sometimes the decisions their corporate masters make really make me wonder which side of Hanlon's Razor they are on.