MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Vetta  (Read 23898 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« on: August 18, 2009, 22:16 »
0
I'm a serious iStock exclusive, in general very happy. I have some questions about the Vetta collection, but I'd like to ask that anyone posting who simply wishes to rant or complain about iStock, please start your own thread and be courteous enough not to hijack this one.

Vetta has me at a loss. I am looking at the collection and trying to understand why some of the files have been accepted into Vetta. many of the files in Vetta are outstanding, and I can truly understand why they were chosen for a collection I believe is meant to highlight iStock's most exceptional images.

but many of the files in Vetta are embarrasingly mediocre. this seems unfair and inappropriate since iStock are working so hard to promote Vetta. I have a few files in Vetta, but getting anything else in seems to be rather tough.

given the variety of file quality accepted into Vetta, I have not been able to identify some common attribute. I don't want to point out the mediocre files, but it would be appreciated if an iStock admin or inspector or someone would explain what is being looked for. I think the Vetta collection is an excellent conception, and the sales seem to be going very well. but standards for the collection are extremely confusing and I wish someone would just admit that some truly boring and even bad shots have been accepted into the collection. we're all talking about it but no one will admit it. a clear standard would be appreciated since so many of us are very eager and excited about Vetta.


« Reply #1 on: August 18, 2009, 23:20 »
0
I have five images in Vetta. Some I nominated myself, some were nominated for me.
Yet I share your confusion.

The only thing that I 'get' is that these are supposed to be files with more of an artsy look that might not generate high volumes in the general collection but have the quality to sell at mid-stock prices.

That's about as much help as I can be, sorry.

« Reply #2 on: August 19, 2009, 05:30 »
0
from my perspective Vetta is a very good thing. I am not istock exclusive, not yet reached the level nedeed (pathetic, I know, but getting 250 dls in a year isn't that easy to achieve with a full time job) but in the future I might be.

once in a while, someone yells (OldHippy/sergey I am looking your way :) ) that we're selling images for peanuts. then some agency pulls a stunt and our commissions get cut even further. We shout and shout on the fora and the dust settles and we accept. Nothing changes for the better, except for the buyer getting something for less. Should  an agency want to raise their prices it runs into a buyer's riot and buyers go somewhere else to buy those same images at the lower price. We ourself are helping low paying *insult removed* agencies to wage that low price war. But, not with Vetta. You get at least 40% commission since being an exclusive is a requirement and it's 4 times more pricey. And buyer can't just scoff and go somewhere else because those images aren't for sale anywhere else. If they don't want to pay the price they don't get newest images of that quality.

istock, strangely as it may be, is right now looking as a bastion of hope for microstock (from contributors point of view) . they have effectively raised prices with Vetta and gave loyal contributors the share of it and customers still didn't get enough leverage to leave because they would leave a significant number of unique images behind. exclusivity is a powerful weapon for that. IMHO, istock should Vettify all of their exclusive content  with giving customers an advance notice to buy whatever they like at current prices. Is designers' budget so low that they would be jeapordized for having to pay 20$ for a photo download instead of 5$. How many pictures does your project require? thousand? How much is the gas to drive to the lab for that billboard material to be printed?

« Reply #3 on: August 19, 2009, 05:52 »
0
One thing they seem to like is an authentic "location" for whatever the theme is.

You can see my Vetta images here if you like:
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_search.php?action=file&userID=351711&taxonomy=Vetta+only

michealo

« Reply #4 on: August 19, 2009, 06:00 »
0
I think it has a few aims

It drives up profits for IS
It drives up rewards for contributers (who make the grade)
And it creates a strong incentive for the creation of higher quality imagery

Maybe sometimes some images that should be there aren't and some that shouldn't are but I think if you view it is a body of work it is very strong.

And bear in mind that what you see as embarrassingly mediocre at preview size may look amazing at full size

Xalanx

« Reply #5 on: August 19, 2009, 06:10 »
0
One thing they seem to like is an authentic "location" for whatever the theme is.

You can see my Vetta images here if you like:
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_search.php?action=file&userID=351711&taxonomy=Vetta+only


Beautiful work, very clean and straightforward. The medical team - are all models?

« Reply #6 on: August 19, 2009, 06:14 »
0
Thanks!  Yep.  All models of one kind of another. :)

grp_photo

« Reply #7 on: August 19, 2009, 06:42 »
0
One thing they seem to like is an authentic "location" for whatever the theme is.

You can see my Vetta images here if you like:
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_search.php?action=file&userID=351711&taxonomy=Vetta+only

Mmmh the hint with the authentic locaction maybe the right indication.
But actually it looks to me like very typical Microstock-stuff not different from the rest, if this is the vetta I don't wanna see the valle!

« Reply #8 on: August 19, 2009, 08:01 »
0
I'm a serious iStock exclusive, in general very happy. I have some questions about the Vetta collection, but I'd like to ask that anyone posting who simply wishes to rant or complain about iStock, please start your own thread and be courteous enough not to hijack this one.

Vetta has me at a loss. I am looking at the collection and trying to understand why some of the files have been accepted into Vetta. many of the files in Vetta are outstanding, and I can truly understand why they were chosen for a collection I believe is meant to highlight iStock's most exceptional images.

but many of the files in Vetta are embarrasingly mediocre. this seems unfair and inappropriate since iStock are working so hard to promote Vetta. I have a few files in Vetta, but getting anything else in seems to be rather tough.

given the variety of file quality accepted into Vetta, I have not been able to identify some common attribute. I don't want to point out the mediocre files, but it would be appreciated if an iStock admin or inspector or someone would explain what is being looked for. I think the Vetta collection is an excellent conception, and the sales seem to be going very well. but standards for the collection are extremely confusing and I wish someone would just admit that some truly boring and even bad shots have been accepted into the collection. we're all talking about it but no one will admit it. a clear standard would be appreciated since so many of us are very eager and excited about Vetta.

but it would be appreciated if an iStock admin or inspector or someone would explain what is being looked for.

they dont post here...

I dont want to be rude, and definetly not unwelcoming so please dont take this wrong way, wouldn't this better posted on the istock forum where the people that decide may be able to answer your question? (and then you can explain it to everyone else, because I haven't got a clue - but then you can a picture of an handshake for free, $1, $25, $100, $1000 etc and people pay it )

« Reply #9 on: August 19, 2009, 08:10 »
0
In a post above, it was noted that "artsy" photos seemed to be what istock was looking for in the Vetta collection. And I have seen lots of funny, artsy, cool photos. And Sean's photos are all nice, clean, very professional, no filters photos. Not what I would consider artsy at all. So there still doesn't seem to be a definitive explanation for exactly what they are looking for.

Does the term crapshoot mean anything to you?

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #10 on: August 19, 2009, 09:52 »
0
I don't think posting this is in the iStock forum would be that welcome. I am sort of saying that the new baby is a great idea but kind of ugly...that kind of thing doesn't go over too well. I am a huge fan of the Vetta concept and I applaud its rollout in terms of marketing--I think the collection is doing very well. but it also seems that it should not be so elusive to get into given that many of the images in there are basically just stock photos. many images in there really scream Vetta....but many, MANY of them are boring and even mediocre and just NORMAL stock. and it worries me that sometimes on iStock it is who you know and not what you produce. I hope that is not a factor here. I'm not saying it is, I hope it isn't.

I'm by no means a black diamond or anything, but I'm well into gold and performing well so I'm moderately successful on iStock. I also shoot editorial and for a number of magazines, so I am not a noob when it comes to evaluating image quality.

« Reply #11 on: August 19, 2009, 10:32 »
0
I am confused with it too.

Not quite sure what I can get accepted

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Last Edit: August 19, 2009, 11:08 by hawk_eye »

« Reply #13 on: August 19, 2009, 16:30 »
0
yes, good examples

(and look in almost many macro collection's and you'll find "worse" images)

(my 13 yr old son walked in when I brought up the pancake. He glanced at it for a second and said cool pancake but the frying pan is too clean and it looks fake :))

The woman blowing her nose, the photog has links into the rest of the series. The rest of the series is a mix of vetta and non vetta. I wonder what buyers would think of that, not that it is a big deal to me and I dont really know why but personally it sort of rubs me the wrong way, maybe they are just a little too similar?

I suppose the real test of it all is whether they sell. Maybe they should have done if 1 year in vetta with no sales it drops back to normal collection. (Although I think they are trying to head to cheap non-exclusive / vetta exclusive)  
« Last Edit: August 19, 2009, 17:04 by Phil »

« Reply #14 on: August 19, 2009, 21:25 »
0
I wasn't too energized by what I saw there.  Some that were quite good. Too many featuring the shooter's twenty-something art-school buddies doing fakey scenes.    And some that I just don't get. 

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #15 on: August 19, 2009, 22:08 »
0
I think the debate about artsy compared to stock in terms of value is irrelevant here.....to me as long as files in Vetta are EXCEPTIONAL, they deserve to be there. that's what I am looking for. I can appreciate the work, talent and artistic value of an exceptional image, even if I personally dislike it.

what surprises and confuses me about the collection is the number of mediocre files. and yes, of course this is a subjective evaluation, but I'd like to think I can appreciate beautiful, exceptional work even if I don't like it. and mediocrity kind of speaks for itself.

at least Vetta is motivation to do more experimental work, which I have missed as I have become more heavily involved in microstock. hopefully I can get more into the collection once I figure out the secret ingredient.

« Reply #16 on: August 19, 2009, 22:12 »
0
I dont realise why exlusives on IS post anything on this indenpendace forum??
They have they "Exclusive forum on IS"
Veta Beta Stokalipsa or any kind of lobotolipsa who carer here about that because this stuff is provided only for iStock exkljuzives?!?
It is only bad thing if is in they description to guard and spy other forums.

bittersweet

« Reply #17 on: August 19, 2009, 22:37 »
0
Could you at least try to post in some kind of coherent form of English??

« Reply #18 on: August 19, 2009, 22:57 »
0
Could you at least try to post in some kind of coherent form of English??

coherent form of English??
I am not native English speker and I am trying my best...
In some cases you are right and for that reason I can ariculate my opinons.
For posting treads and post for me is very consumig time and after all I am not shure that what I want to say is placed on right thread.
I can recognize what is wrong or what is not and that is only way how I can spoke throw this forum....
If I offend ego of somebody I am deeply sorry for that. This is FORUM where are all of us post ours oppinions.

bittersweet

« Reply #19 on: August 19, 2009, 23:11 »
0
I understand that you are not a native English speaker, but that last post of yours went off into something that didn't even resemble English.

I'm not sure, but I think you were saying that istock exclusives should not be allowed to post here because this is an independent forum and they are only here to spy on us. That is beyond ridiculous.

"Independent" in the sense of this forum means that it has no ties to any stock agency (and so those agencies ideally would hold no influence over what happens here). It does not mean "independent" in that it is a forum only for stock contributors who are not exclusives anywhere.


Xalanx

« Reply #20 on: August 19, 2009, 23:34 »
0
Veta Beta Stokalipsa or any kind of lobotolipsa who carer here about that because this stuff is provided only for iStock exkljuzives?!?

Dude, whatever you're smoking... it's BAD!

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #21 on: August 20, 2009, 15:18 »
0
no further thoughts on Vetta?

lisafx

« Reply #22 on: August 20, 2009, 15:50 »
0
My understanding of Vetta (limited because I can't participate in it) was that in addition to "artsy" images, they were looking for hard-to-get and/or unusual images, which would support Sean's location idea.  

Most of Vetta is really outstanding, but some of it, like the examples posted here by hawk-eye, leave me scratching my head.  I think it is just down to the subjective opinions of the inspectors who choose the files for Vetta.  

And FWIW I can completely understand why istock exclusives would want to post here instead of the istock forum.  For one thing, this thread isn't likely to be locked here.  For another, this site can provide a level of anonymity that allows for more straightforward discussion. 
« Last Edit: August 20, 2009, 15:52 by lisafx »

« Reply #23 on: August 20, 2009, 16:00 »
0
I'll say that there are buyers out there.  I had six Vetta sales, plus a bunch of others from one buyer within half an hour.  I can tell, because they were all L sizes.

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #24 on: August 20, 2009, 16:05 »
0
well Sean - I'd certainly argue that your images are exceptional. but I would also be a bit worried in the case of some of them that what you are selling in Vetta is less than what you would sell in volume if they were in the regular collection. how many buyers would sooner pay less for a slightly less good stock image? whereas in the case of something more artsy or obscure, they are less likely to find a comparable image in the main collection.

having said that, if this is a move by istock to skim the best of the entire collection into a higher priced collection, with increased royalties to contributors....I like the idea of that. but then what's the point of photos.com etc...?
« Last Edit: August 20, 2009, 16:07 by hawk_eye »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
54 Replies
23525 Views
Last post August 04, 2009, 21:49
by loop
12 Replies
7409 Views
Last post July 03, 2009, 11:01
by willie
19 Replies
8311 Views
Last post August 17, 2010, 01:08
by lagereek
88 Replies
21498 Views
Last post September 29, 2010, 18:06
by traveler1116
12 Replies
4808 Views
Last post July 05, 2011, 14:45
by Shank_ali

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle