Yeah, you're right I'll remove it.

Thanks I enjoyed that! Have a camera? You're a Microstock Professional now.  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.

Quote from: tickstock on July 08, 2013, 17:29

Quote from: jsnover on July 08, 2013, 17:25

Quote from: jm on July 08, 2013, 16:39

I love this one.
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 see your onion and raise you a squash...

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...

I'll see your squash with this here potato http://www.stocksy.com/19921

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.

seem to have a lot of time for.

Well, someone around here seems to have a lot of time, and it isn't me.

  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...

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...

Heaven's above! You'd get a rejection on Flickr for that! (They'd invent a special department just to reject it).

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on July 08, 2013, 18:37

Quote from: shudderstok on July 08, 2013, 17:58

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on July 08, 2013, 16:03

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-25503909-background-from-white-paper-texture.php
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.

Quote from: Lizard on July 09, 2013, 15:14

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on July 08, 2013, 18:37

Quote from: shudderstok on July 08, 2013, 17:58

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on July 08, 2013, 16:03

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-25503909-background-from-white-paper-texture.php
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.

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.

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.

Quote from: Lizard on July 09, 2013, 16:45

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.

Quote from: gostwyck on July 09, 2013, 19:32

Quote from: Lizard on July 09, 2013, 16:45

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.