I had just got accepted at iS when all the hullabaloo broke loose.  I don't have a clue and had a heck of a time getting images accepted ... until lately.  Suddenly my SS rejects are accepted and selling a iS.

I agree with whomever said that SS needs to wake up.  All the converts from iS won't matter if all the new images wind up at iS.
Or, maybe SS knows best and iS is starting to accept junk?

As I said; I'm clueless.   

...I agree with whomever said that Shutterstock needs to wake up.  All the converts from iS won't matter if all the new images wind up at iS.
Or, maybe Shutterstock knows best and iS is starting to accept junk...

I think SS at least knows that the image race is pointless and there's no need to just accept images to get the largest collection anymore. Maybe they've gone too far in the other direction and are stricter now, but I think they do recognize more than other sites that there is a serious need to refine the acceptance requirements and not just keep doing things the same way they've done for years.

One thing SS (and many other sites) have over istock is EPS10 vectors. istock won't accept them, so SS has a good collection of vectors in the more versatile EPS10 format that istock doesn't have. SS may not have it all figured out when it comes to acceptance policy, and they may be rejecting stuff that istock accepts. But they at least have a clue when it comes to offering modern file formats and not sticking with the same old antiquated EPS8 standard. It's amazing to me that they're making such a fuss over PNG, meanwhile most other major sites are killing them with progressive vector format policies.

Quote from: WarrenPrice on June 02, 2011, 14:31

...I agree with whomever said that Shutterstock needs to wake up.  All the converts from iS won't matter if all the new images wind up at iS.
Or, maybe Shutterstock knows best and iS is starting to accept junk...

I think Shutterstock at least knows that the image race is pointless and there's no need to just accept images to get the largest collection anymore. Maybe they've gone too far in the other direction and are stricter now, but I think they do recognize more than other sites that there is a serious need to refine the acceptance requirements and not just keep doing things the same way they've done for years.

One thing Shutterstock (and many other sites) have over istock is EPS10 vectors. istock won't accept them, so Shutterstock has a good collection of vectors in the more versatile EPS10 format that istock doesn't have. Shutterstock may not have it all figured out when it comes to acceptance policy, and they may be rejecting stuff that istock accepts. But they at least have a clue when it comes to offering modern file formats and not sticking with the same old antiquated EPS8 standard. It's amazing to me that they're making such a fuss over PNG, meanwhile most other major sites are killing them with progressive vector format policies.

Indeed. I for one, don't have any problems getting my photos accepted. I rarely get a rejection, but it's true, that I got one idiotic a month a ago - TM issues, although the vast majority of the series has already been accepted, with some detailed shots showing as much "TM" material as that one. A submitted it again, since the rejection was illogical (and photo was accepted at IS as well), it was accepted. I must say I welcome stricter inspections, but not in the technical point of view (focus, sharpness, noise, WB...), they're strict enough in this regard, but when it comes to composition, CV, originality and most importantly I'd reject oversupplied images, that don't sell for a long time (simple isolations, boring nature shots etc). Sure, I hate the fact the those starting early still have a free ride on those worthless shots I mentioned before, but nothing in life's fair anyway and it'll have to come to an end sooner or later. Oh yeah I'd definitely want them to be A LOT stricter when it comes to similars. It totally pisses me off, when I get a batch accepted, search under newest first and than my photos get pushed from the first (150) site in a couple of hours, because some boring isolated on white series of 54 almost identical shots got through. When they all should be rejected anyway (by the new, stricter standards), since they're badly composed, unoriginal, seen for a million times, shots with more or less blank expressions and standard, boring poses. And they should do something about keyword spamming too, because half of the results have nothing or little to do with search terms (eg you search for shopping and get a series of egg cartons)

Quote from: helix7 on June 02, 2011, 15:41

Quote from: WarrenPrice on June 02, 2011, 14:31

...I agree with whomever said that Shutterstock needs to wake up.  All the converts from iS won't matter if all the new images wind up at iS.
Or, maybe Shutterstock knows best and iS is starting to accept junk...

I think Shutterstock at least knows that the image race is pointless and there's no need to just accept images to get the largest collection anymore. Maybe they've gone too far in the other direction and are stricter now, but I think they do recognize more than other sites that there is a serious need to refine the acceptance requirements and not just keep doing things the same way they've done for years.

One thing Shutterstock (and many other sites) have over istock is EPS10 vectors. istock won't accept them, so Shutterstock has a good collection of vectors in the more versatile EPS10 format that istock doesn't have. Shutterstock may not have it all figured out when it comes to acceptance policy, and they may be rejecting stuff that istock accepts. But they at least have a clue when it comes to offering modern file formats and not sticking with the same old antiquated EPS8 standard. It's amazing to me that they're making such a fuss over PNG, meanwhile most other major sites are killing them with progressive vector format policies.

Indeed. I for one, don't have any problems getting my photos accepted. I rarely get a rejection, but it's true, that I got one idiotic a month a ago - TM issues, although the vast majority of the series has already been accepted, with some detailed shots showing as much "TM" material as that one. A submitted it again, since the rejection was illogical (and photo was accepted at IS as well), it was accepted. I must say I welcome stricter inspections, but not in the technical point of view (focus, sharpness, noise, WB...), they're strict enough in this regard, but when it comes to composition, CV, originality and most importantly I'd reject oversupplied images, that don't sell for a long time (simple isolations, boring nature shots etc). Sure, I hate the fact the those starting early still have a free ride on those worthless shots I mentioned before, but nothing in life's fair anyway and it'll have to come to an end sooner or later. Oh yeah I'd definitely want them to be A LOT stricter when it comes to similars. It totally pisses me off, when I get a batch accepted, search under newest first and than my photos get pushed from the first (150) site in a couple of hours, because some boring isolated on white series of 54 almost identical shots got through. When they all should be rejected anyway (by the new, stricter standards), since they're badly composed, unoriginal, seen for a million times, shots with more or less blank expressions and standard, boring poses. And they should do something about keyword spamming too, because half of the results have nothing or little to do with search terms (eg you search for shopping and get a series of egg cartons)

search results are such a mess, that I don't see any way for them to get it fixed. So much keyword spamming, so much similar accepted and of course having a library with 15+ mio files doesn't help either. So the only solution I see, is to either introduce a higher priced collection (priced like e+ for instance) that would save the buyers time, at least for those looking for premium content. To to mention the benefits for us. Or at least make us choose 10% of our photos that get to be pushed up front in search results (like on 123 RF). They could introduce a search like on alamy, where you can look under file age by months, years (eg uploaded in the last six months, year, 2 years etc). But that would only work if they indeed became way more strict when it comes to reviews (reject similars and get rid of keyword spammed images) and only after a certain period of time would pass, I'd say at least a year would be needed. Which is only a long term solution, so one of the first 2 solutions I mentioned would have to be put in place immediately.

But SS still is by far my fav agency and IMO the leader or at least becoming fast.

very interesting.
it seems the party is over at iStock.

Or just beginning, as I am fairly certain they knew people would begin uploading again at some point.  They knew the anger would would fall prey to sales drops.  They knew they would lose some exclusives and that they would not pull their ports (Joanne is an example), leaving a better revenue generating machine for Istock.  They knew they would lose buyers and that is okay because those buyers who cannot afford Istock prices are not the kind of customers they want. They knew there would be a decline in buyers in the short term with a longer capture rate of buyers who can afford these low-mid stock prices.  They knew that E+, Vetta and Agency (and now P+) would be needed to generate additional revenue from the excommunication of low-tier buyers.  They knew that some of these low tier buyers would migrate to Shutterstock so they created Thinkstock in hopes that a percentage of them would migrate to TS...creating a form of customer retention (thank you sir, may I have another).  Istock knew that a credit system such as what they invented was necessary in order to put flexibility into their revenue generating machine in case one or more of their new strategies failed.  That way they can change the credits "rules", screw the contributors and still meet budget goals...at our expense, of course.  I may have missed a few things but to me....in my opinion, Istock is right where they expected to be and does not consider anything they did a failure.  Slowly, one phase at a time, they are pushing a new pricing model and reinventing themselves.

 Slowly, one phase at a time, they are pushing a new pricing model and reinventing themselves.

Except what they fail to take into account is that it is not a new pricing model. It's a model that's been around for a while. And has failed numerous times. Otherwise, the massive success that was iStockPro would still be around and thriving.

Or just beginning, as I am fairly certain they knew people would begin uploading again at some point.  They knew the anger would would fall prey to sales drops.  They knew they would lose some exclusives and that they would not pull their ports (Joanne is an example), leaving a better revenue generating machine for Istock.  They knew they would lose buyers and that is okay because those buyers who cannot afford Istock prices are not the kind of customers they want. They knew there would be a decline in buyers in the short term with a longer capture rate of buyers who can afford these low-mid stock prices.  They knew that E+, Vetta and Agency (and now P+) would be needed to generate additional revenue from the excommunication of low-tier buyers.  They knew that some of these low tier buyers would migrate to Shutterstock so they created Thinkstock in hopes that a percentage of them would migrate to TS...creating a form of customer retention (thank you sir, may I have another).  Istock knew that a credit system such as what they invented was necessary in order to put flexibility into their revenue generating machine in case one or more of their new strategies failed.  That way they can change the credits "rules", screw the contributors and still meet budget goals...at our expense, of course.  I may have missed a few things but to me....in my opinion, Istock is right where they expected to be and does not consider anything they did a failure.  Slowly, one phase at a time, they are pushing a new pricing model and reinventing themselves.

Sorry but I think you are giving them far too much credit. I think they've been forced into actions to generate short-term profits because H&F don't care about the long-term future. Unfortunately for them it is not working out and they have lost a huge chunk of market-share. The introduction of P+ was not part of some 'master plan' but a knee-jerk reaction to prop up profits and save embarrassment over the RC targets that they have delayed ... and delayed ... and delayed ... announcing. If Istock were a publically-listed company would you be buying stock now? I know I wouldn't. I'd be anticipating lots of profit warnings in the quarters to come and the share price to react accordingly. They've screwed it up.

Quote from: Mantis on June 02, 2011, 16:38

Or just beginning, as I am fairly certain they knew people would begin uploading again at some point.  They knew the anger would would fall prey to sales drops.  They knew they would lose some exclusives and that they would not pull their ports (Joanne is an example), leaving a better revenue generating machine for Istock.  They knew they would lose buyers and that is okay because those buyers who cannot afford Istock prices are not the kind of customers they want. They knew there would be a decline in buyers in the short term with a longer capture rate of buyers who can afford these low-mid stock prices.  They knew that E+, Vetta and Agency (and now P+) would be needed to generate additional revenue from the excommunication of low-tier buyers.  They knew that some of these low tier buyers would migrate to Shutterstock so they created Thinkstock in hopes that a percentage of them would migrate to TS...creating a form of customer retention (thank you sir, may I have another).  Istock knew that a credit system such as what they invented was necessary in order to put flexibility into their revenue generating machine in case one or more of their new strategies failed.  That way they can change the credits "rules", screw the contributors and still meet budget goals...at our expense, of course.  I may have missed a few things but to me....in my opinion, Istock is right where they expected to be and does not consider anything they did a failure.  Slowly, one phase at a time, they are pushing a new pricing model and reinventing themselves.

Sorry but I think you are giving them far too much credit. I think they've been forced into actions to generate short-term profits because H&F don't care about the long-term future. Unfortunately for them it is not working out and they have lost a huge chunk of market-share. The introduction of P+ was not part of some 'master plan' but a knee-jerk reaction to prop up profits and save embarrassment over the RC targets that they have delayed ... and delayed ... and delayed ... announcing. If Istock were a publically-listed company would you be buying stock now? I know I wouldn't. I'd be anticipating lots of profit warnings in the quarters to come and the share price to react accordingly. They've screwed it up.

I think you have a point as well. Awhile back I would have disagreed, because not knowing how well Thinkstock managed to pick up the discontented IStock customers, it would be hard to guess how their strategy was paying off. But I think with recent signs - such as them raising commissions to get more content for Thinkstock, as well as the new Getty contract forcing content onto Thinkstock and combined with the success at ShutterStock recently, I now believe their strategy is failing miserably. All I can say is I'M LOVING EVERY SECOND OF IT.

After nine months of not uploading, I'm going to start uploading some new images to istock again.  I stopped because of the commission cuts and I'm still annoyed about that but my earnings have fallen so much that I don't think I can keep going with my boycott.  I also feel like the last person standing on the picket line after everyone else has gone back to work.  If I was earning more money, I would stick to my principles but the price of everything I buy has gone up this year and I really need more income.  The Photo+ collection looks like it's going to help and I will fill my remaining quota with new images and then reassess the situation.

Well, seems like I might be one of the last people standing. No more uploads and all but 5 images down until something changes. And I doubt it will, for my good anyway.

But they at least have a clue when it comes to offering modern file formats and not sticking with the same old antiquated EPS8 standard

I'm not sure why offering Illustrator 10 files rather than 8 makes much difference. Anyone with any real knowledge of Illustrator can pretty much replicate the few extra features that 10 has over 8. It's not the version of the software that's important, it's what you can do as an artist. Creativity and good ideas are far more important than whether an image is produced on an out of date format or a fractionally less out of date one.

Respect???  No, in fact its stupid not to upload, really. Never put personal before business. I just havent got the time anymore, my shots are very nieched and you have to go back, two, three times, chase releases and everything, too much work for the shots to just hang-in there, way back in search.

Thats my reason for not uploading. To ride on some personal issue, is not very clever.

Respect???  No, in fact its stupid not to upload, really. Never put personal before business. I just havent got the time anymore, my shots are very nieched and you have to go back, two, three times, chase releases and everything, too much work for the shots to just hang-in there, way back in search.

Thats my reason for not uploading. To ride on some personal issue, is not very clever.

Well, since you have been around since the "good old days", I guess you actually know what might be good for me and my business. NOT! I don't appreciate your calling me stupid or trivializing my decision down to "personal" or "emotional" or whatever other belittling word you choose to use.

Fact is, istock took money away from me. Sales are ever dwindling, not just for me, but for MOST everyone. I chose not to participate there anymore and decided to focus my efforts in other areas. And in fact it has proven to have been a good choice because other sites have more than taken up the slack for my loss of sales, not to mention other photography jobs I have taken. Not to mention getting rid of the whole istock drama out of my life.

One week you are slamming istock too. The next week, your sales take a turn for the better, and suddenly everyone else is stupid.