MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: Magnum on April 30, 2010, 12:27
-
Scout rejected this with following reason:
++nasa image not sufficiently modified
(http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/12457895/2/istockphoto_12457895-earth.jpg)
Itīs made from a flat "nasa map" like this:
(http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:i485s0gCaQiSNM:http://www.freeworldalliance.biz/Pictures/Whole_world_-_land_and_oceans_from_NASA.jpg)
What do u think? I think Iīve done "something" to it...
-
Just send the file to scout with the same explanation you posted here maybe... I think it's enough modified IMO
-
Already done and scout agreed with reviewer. Iīm not sure they know how this is done? (Itīs not possible to add original on scout ticket) But I told scout I put a flat map on a sphere and added
stratosphere, light, stars etc.. but still.
Thereīs 1200 pages of earth images. half of em unedited nasa maps on a sphere ?
-
Thereīs 1200 pages of earth images. half of em unedited nasa maps on a sphere ?
True, that's confusing
-
Already done and scout agreed with reviewer. Iīm not sure they know how this is done? (Itīs not possible to add original on scout ticket) But I told scout I put a flat map on a sphere and added
stratosphere, light, stars etc.. but still.
Thereīs 1200 pages of earth images. half of em unedited nasa maps on a sphere ?
Yeah, you're too late to the game. You need to do more to it than a simple wrap.
-
Oh no! death punch... " simple wrap" So you donīt see the moody feeling and light/depth/stars added.
-
You only posted the thumb, but yes, it looks like a shaded wrap with a glow around it and a black background.
-
What do u think? I think Iīve done "something" to it...
It's a mistake. No real (NASA) image has a globe without any cloud formations. For me, this image is clearly synthetic. As to the shape of continents, I figure those are in the public domain.
-
Add a meteor hitting the earth or something else to give some punch....
why try to compete with 1200 pages of images?
-
Add a meteor hitting the earth or something else to give some punch....
why try to compete with 1200 pages of images?
or add a goldfish
-
:)
Iīve got one with a plane driving away thatīs accepted.
I thought stockimages was all about leaving it clean for the designers. Or atleast having variations. (like all millions other stockimage copies)
-
Add a meteor hitting the earth or something else to give some punch....
why try to compete with 1200 pages of images?
or add a goldfish
That should do it.
-
The suggestions are interesting, but the question was originally about IS not considering the edition a modified work of NASA's image. Personally I consider this rejection wrong, as the image is totally different, even if the edition was very simple. Put the two images together and ask people if they think they are the same image.
-
The suggestions are interesting, but the question was originally about IS not considering the edition a modified work of NASA's image. Personally I consider this rejection wrong, as the image is totally different, even if the edition was very simple. Put the two images together and ask people if they think they are the same image.
It's not that anyone thinks they are the same image. It's that it wasn't "sufficiently modified", other than a basic wrap and a couple of effects.
-
It's not that anyone thinks they are the same image. It's that it wasn't "sufficiently modified", other than a basic wrap and a couple of effects.
But what is the problem with that? Isn't it a whole different image?
-
I agree with Adelaide.
-
You're still missing the point. It isn't that pixel for pixel it's not the same image. It's that enough effort wasn't put into it aside from the wrap and effects that make it a image that IS wants to represent.
-
Thanks guys:) I agree and hope itīs a misunderstanding. Like they think Iīve used a actual Nasa photo or something. I think Itīs pretty creative making a space scene from a flat map.
And it takes some pretty expensive tools to do it. It not like anyone could do it with cheap software. I assure you this needs more effort than half of all photos on Istock
-
You're still missing the point. It isn't that pixel for pixel it's not the same image. It's that enough effort wasn't put into it aside from the wrap and effects that make it a image that IS wants to represent.
It's more work than shooting any simple photo. Many photos are just done by one "click" and submitted after simple crop, and smaller adjustments, or even without it. It's not about work applied to the image.
Sean, I really appreciate you as a photographer, but I think you should try to encourage someone sometimes instead of pointing how that person didn't implement enough of work, money or creativity. Your comment about this image was almost analog to: "Of course your portrait was rejected because it's simple 2D image of a 3D person".
This image is simple, and of course it looks like a child's game to you, but it's not that bad to be rejected for this reason. You are forgetting how high you are on the list of stock photographers. There are very few like you, and many more who are below. They should live too.
No offense. :)
-
I think the issue here is not whether the image is simple but whether the creator has added enough of their own creative content to a public domain image to claim it as their own work. istock clearly thinks not, even though it looks significantly different from the original. How much creative input was required to make that change? Not saying I agree with istock, just trying to clarify the issues.
-
If you type "earth" in IS search engine and choose just photos you will see many images made by simple wrapping. Some of them are simpler than this one, and some of them have blue flame. I think the problem here was made because there are so many images done the same way in IS database, so reviewer thought this image is just one more the same image.
-
I really don't think the effort is what matters, but a whole new image produced with quality. To me, this is what should count.
-
If you type "earth" in IS search engine and choose just photos you will see many images made by simple wrapping. Some of them are simpler than this one, and some of them have blue flame. I think the problem here was made because there are so many images done the same way in IS database, so reviewer thought this image is just one more the same image.
Yes, as I said, he's too late to the game with this one.
Here's a video thread that says what I'm trying to convey (the same thing has been said about rasters as well):
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=198101&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=198101&page=1)
-
The rules keep changing and new submissions are held to ever higher standards, and rejected - leaving old submissions, which don't meet the new standards, to keep pulling in the money. It is not clear to me how this improves things for buyers.
-
+1 ^^
-
The rules keep changing and new submissions are held to ever higher standards, and rejected - leaving old submissions, which don't meet the new standards, to keep pulling in the money. It is not clear to me how this improves things for buyers.
Yes, I've noticed that. I'm sure at least half of my top ten wouldn't get in now, but they're still my best sellers. Go figure.
-
The rules keep changing and new submissions are held to ever higher standards, and rejected - leaving old submissions, which don't meet the new standards, to keep pulling in the money. It is not clear to me how this improves things for buyers.
This is especially problematic if this policy is effectively protecting low quality images from high ranking contributors like this one:
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-7754431-earth-with-night-lights-asia.php (http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-7754431-earth-with-night-lights-asia.php)
while keeping better images from less prominent members out of the database.
-
I couldn't agree more. I have no problem with istocks High standards and review policy. I just wish they would strip out all the inferior quallity they have on there which would never get through now... That would truly set them apart and stop me wading through poorer stuff when I'm sourcing images... I just don't get it. Who's benefitting from that?
-
I'm burned out on IS at this point and have stopped submitting. I've been doing microstock for about a year and a half , trying to produce somewhat unusual object images, going for quality rather than quantity, and it isn't worth the effort. Don't bother flaming me, it's just a simple statement of how I see this market, I'm not emotionally invested. All my images sell, but none are going to be blockbusters, and at micro prices it doesn't add up to enough to bother with. IS in particular espects you to jump through too many hoops for too small a payoff. There's no way I could go exclusive unless I live to be 100, and I'd probably die the next day from exhaustion.
I like doing these sorts of photos, I enjoy the validation I get from selling them, but there's no way it can pay off, given the mountains of old junk that sit ahead of me on the search pages.
In no way do I intend to discourage those of you who have found a formula that works on IS.
-
The rules keep changing and new submissions are held to ever higher standards, and rejected - leaving old submissions, which don't meet the new standards, to keep pulling in the money. It is not clear to me how this improves things for buyers.
This is especially problematic if this policy is effectively protecting low quality images from high ranking contributors like this one:
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-7754431-earth-with-night-lights-asia.php[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-7754431-earth-with-night-lights-asia.php[/url])
while keeping better images from less prominent members out of the database.
Oops, a simple wrap (But uploaded before simple wraps gets rejected for being simple wraps )
Oh, I just wanna say I like Istock most of the time.
-
The rules keep changing and new submissions are held to ever higher standards, and rejected - leaving old submissions, which don't meet the new standards, to keep pulling in the money. It is not clear to me how this improves things for buyers.
This is especially problematic if this policy is effectively protecting low quality images from high ranking contributors like this one:
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-7754431-earth-with-night-lights-asia.php[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-7754431-earth-with-night-lights-asia.php[/url])
while keeping better images from less prominent members out of the database.
Hardy - hardy - har. Like I said, late to the game, out of luck. "low quality" is cute too, as it has day and night maps merged, with clouds, textured geography, bump maps, etc. So, ps, not a "simple wrap". Of course you could use the image zoom to see the full rez. Something the OP hasn't provided here yet.
-
Well it was rejected so I couldnīt provide an Istock link to full res. Here is a Fotolia link with zoom possibility.
http://www.fotolia.com/id/21548729 (http://www.fotolia.com/id/21548729)
Sign up if you like Sean and youīll be my affiliate:)
-
I couldn't agree more. I have no problem with istocks High standards and review policy. I just wish they would strip out all the inferior quallity they have on there which would never get through now... That would truly set them apart and stop me wading through poorer stuff when I'm sourcing images... I just don't get it. Who's benefitting from that?
Are you sorting by Best Match? In general (though there were wild swings in the ten or so days just past) it should give the most relevant hits.
-
but there's no way it can pay off,
Maybe you're just not good enough? Plenty do make it pay, often very well.