pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Vetta  (Read 26326 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 »

« Reply #25 on: August 20, 2009, 16:09 »
0
Sure, the question is, in the end, are you grossing as much?  I think I see them sell a bit less then they might have in the regular collection, but the higher price more than makes up for it.  I had one image that didn't sell at all.  Since in Vetta, it has more than paid for itself.  Sure, it might be higher in the best match, boosting the rpi, but still...

« Reply #26 on: August 20, 2009, 18:31 »
0
Yes, Vetta is selling. I've sold six thus far myself. As Sean says the price of the sale makes up for lack of volume.

I feel that the higher price is actually an advantage for both the buyer and seller.
On the seller's side there is the nebulous 'perceived value' factor. IE it is more expensive, therefore it must be better.

For the buyer, the higher price means that they are less likley to see the same shot in a competetor's advertisement.

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #27 on: August 20, 2009, 20:54 »
0
do you think as many would sell through Vetta versus how they would have done in the regular collection (in terms of dollars, not dl numbers)? if so, I almost agree with the assertion that buyers will see Vetta files as more unique, but as soon as they sell a lot through Vetta, doesn't that negate the argument?

I wish everyone success in Vetta, I think it is a great business model and they are marketing it well. but I wish the acceptance standards were more obvious and visible in the collection.

« Reply #28 on: August 21, 2009, 09:41 »
0
I definitely feel that the Vetta file will sell at lower volumes than they might otherwise have.
But Mr. SJLocke would be better equiped to answer this question since he should have a better handle on what sort of files sell tons and tons, versus slower selling subjects.

« Reply #29 on: August 21, 2009, 10:56 »
0
The Vetta files are more unique, firstly they are exclusive to Istock and secondly less likely to be an impulse buy, someone with a few credit to burn is not likely to buy from Vetta, but they will buy from the library to use up a few credits, the price point will mean less buyers but the revenue should be better or balanced.

What is the better RPI for an image 100 @ $1 or 10 @ $10, none as both gross $100, however if the image is more suited to the regular microstock library and finds itself in the Vetta collection, the contributor might get an initial kick out of having the image in the collection at the longer term cost of reduced revenue as it might lose sales it would have got in the general library, so it is Istock getting a right balance which is more important than contributors ego's.

If Istock opened up the collection to less than worthy images, and worthy does not mean just quality but availability to purcahse, then they might be doing the collection and the contributors no favours.

David    
« Last Edit: August 21, 2009, 10:58 by Adeptris »

« Reply #30 on: August 21, 2009, 12:56 »
0
I took another look at the Vetta photos. They are mostly of very high quality. But that stuff about  "take risks, develop ruthless standards .. seized their own artistic destiny and created a whole new calibre of art"?  Give me a break.  I'm seeing the same happy business people and confident doctors I see everywhere else.  Not a lot of risk taking going on here.

Why not just say "here are some really good stock photos"?


« Last Edit: August 21, 2009, 13:01 by stockastic »

« Reply #31 on: August 21, 2009, 13:40 »
0
Looking over my stats via lookstat.com for the past 30 days, my top earning images are mostly coming from Vetta. Images in the Vetta collection that have sold 15-20 times over 30 days are earning more for me than files that have sold 75-100 times in the same time frame.

I see some of the 'artsy' imagery, in Vetta, as being too specific and complete pieces of art. Thru nominating files that were difficult to produce or took an above normal effort, I can now start to see returns on those images right away.

Big big wraps to Vetta.

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #32 on: August 21, 2009, 23:10 »
0
^ I think that is the best point made yet. I would buy vetta as a place for files that required a lot of cost or set up to produce -- but nothing anyone says has or probably could explain some of the files included in vetta. I suppose there is no explanation required, since it is a subjective process, there are bound to be images included that someone at any given moment disagrees with. thanks for everyone's opinions.

bittersweet

« Reply #33 on: August 22, 2009, 14:02 »
0
files that required a lot of cost or set up to produce

A commonality that I noticed among some of the ones being called into question is that they are all available at XXXL size, which I guess technically puts them in the expensive to produce category, though truthfully not really what I interpreted that to mean when they first explained the collection.

That being said, I don't like posting other people's work and saying anything negative about it without their knowledge.

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #34 on: August 22, 2009, 23:06 »
0
^ I normally agree with that. but I'm not saying anything negative about these images per se, I'm just suggesting they are good stock versus what I believe to be the recipe for Vetta. I think I approached it respectfully and certainly meant no offense to the contributors. frankly one of my own files was nominated for Vetta a couple of months ago and I was a bit incredulous. happy but wondering why THAT file versus some of those I had nominated and had rejected from the exact same series that I felt were much better.

« Reply #35 on: August 23, 2009, 16:34 »
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!
I disagree...it seems VERY good : )

« Reply #36 on: August 25, 2009, 17:52 »
0
As an art director, I've seen the industry change so much. In the beginning, you would hire a photographer with a style and concept in mine. That was the norm, not just reserved for huge accounts. Then, paying $600ish for RM was the new cool. Now days, a lot of agencies only have iStock accounts. The designers are emo about it. Constantly complaining, because the shot they really want is at Corbis or Getty or that illusive phootshoot, but instead they are forced to settle for less, because the end client doesn't care anyways. Vetta solves this, because now designers can buy better images with their iStock account. All they have to do is buy less, and they can stay on budget.

This will work until for a while until the non exclusive iStock photographers start producing equal quality images and selling them on the other stock sites for cheep.
« Last Edit: August 25, 2009, 17:55 by mericsso »

lisafx

« Reply #37 on: August 25, 2009, 17:56 »
0
You sound like exactly the target market for Vetta.  Thanks for sharing the designer's perspective with us.  :)

« Reply #38 on: August 25, 2009, 18:39 »
0
This will work until for a while until the non exclusive iStock photographers start producing equal quality images and selling them on the other stock sites for cheep.

I'm not sure that is a valid reason buyers don't shop at other places.  There's lots of good stuff all around.  Something else is drawing them to Vetta then.

« Reply #39 on: August 25, 2009, 18:55 »
0
This will work until for a while until the non exclusive iStock photographers start producing equal quality images and selling them on the other stock sites for cheep.

I'm not sure that is a valid reason buyers don't shop at other places.  There's lots of good stuff all around.  Something else is drawing them to Vetta then.

How about "it costs more therefore it must be better". Well, that and good search placement.

« Reply #40 on: August 25, 2009, 23:06 »
0
This will work until for a while until the non exclusive iStock photographers start producing equal quality images and selling them on the other stock sites for cheep.

I'm not sure that is a valid reason buyers don't shop at other places.  There's lots of good stuff all around.  Something else is drawing them to Vetta then.

Comfort, ease and time will be some of the reasons, as mericsso said "Now days, a lot of agencies only have iStock accounts."

If they only have an account with iStock then they are already tied-in and comfortable with the interface and how to use it, there is no need to waste expensive time shopping around if iStock can now deliver on price, quality and content.

But read what mericsso said again "now designers can buy better images with their iStock account. All they have to do is buy less, and they can stay on budget"

Istock are not creating a new market as the designers would have settled for lesser images because they did not have the budget or choice to shop around, so we have the same revenue 'no new market' the same only spread thinner, as Vetta is only taking exclusive images and buyer might now only look in the Vetta Collection then the suppliers of these images will benefit at the expense of the non exclusive revenue.

mericsso said "This will work until for a while until the non exclusive iStock photographers start producing equal quality images and selling them on the other stock sites for cheep."

Another sting in the tail for non exclusives to produce equal quality images is still not enough, the designers already have thier 'Itsock Accounts', but they may buy the same quality images from another site, but only if the artist is "selling them on the other stock sites for cheep.", so the real point is the designers want 'high production low volume agency exclusive images at microstock prices', I also want a $50,000 vehicle for $25,000 the difference is I will never get the car.

Just My Opinion:
Stocksites can create as many variant models and collections as they like, but there is "no new money" and all they will do is move it around or reduce the revenue allowing the designers and finance departments to cut budgets because they are now offering better for less.

The current model of the industry has all the customers already in the taget markets, and there is only one real option and that is one of consolidation, I think this has already started with the big sites grasping thier part of the market, which will force smaller sites to become niche or cease to trade as they cannot compete, the larger site will later streamline by cutting operating costs and improving delivery to maximise profits.

David  >:(
« Last Edit: August 26, 2009, 02:14 by Adeptris »

zzz

« Reply #41 on: August 26, 2009, 00:04 »
0
I disagree that the market will eventually see photos of Vetta caliber on other sites. At least not in a way that it would diminish the value of Vetta. I think 95% of microstock photographers won't bother spending the time or money to produce unique photos like the one's found in the Vetta collection. If someone chooses to produce the same quality, I bet they want a bigger share from the cake and join iStock so that they can submit to Vetta. iStock is way ahead of its competition.

« Reply #42 on: August 26, 2009, 00:19 »
0
I disagree that the market will eventually see photos of Vetta caliber on other sites. At least not in a way that it would diminish the value of Vetta. I think 95% of microstock photographers won't bother spending the time or money to produce unique photos like the one's found in the Vetta collection. If someone chooses to produce the same quality, I bet they want a bigger share from the cake and join iStock so that they can submit to Vetta. iStock is way ahead of its competition.


I hope you are correct.
From your mouth, to G_d's ear  ;D

« Reply #43 on: August 26, 2009, 00:22 »
0
I disagree that the market will eventually see photos of Vetta caliber on other sites. At least not in a way that it would diminish the value of Vetta. I think 95% of microstock photographers won't bother spending the time or money to produce unique photos like the one's found in the Vetta collection. If someone chooses to produce the same quality, I bet they want a bigger share from the cake and join iStock so that they can submit to Vetta. iStock is way ahead of its competition.
Agree.
I don't imagine myself spending a hole day and lot of money to produce 2-3 high quality images, and then upload them to FT or DT. I'll never get my money back. With Vetta it's possible.
IMO an images that needs more, let's say, then 10 minutes and production cost exceed 10$ is not Faststock (microstock) worth.

« Reply #44 on: August 26, 2009, 00:29 »
0
I disagree that the market will eventually see photos of Vetta caliber on other sites. At least not in a way that it would diminish the value of Vetta. I think 95% of microstock photographers won't bother spending the time or money to produce unique photos like the one's found in the Vetta collection. If someone chooses to produce the same quality, I bet they want a bigger share from the cake and join iStock so that they can submit to Vetta. iStock is way ahead of its competition.

Ok I am confused here is a simple question:
Where were these 'iStock exclusive high value images' being sold before Vetta, they were shot for the Istock library and not shot for the Vetta collection, they should not have been on sale as RM on other websites and then added to iStock and Vetta as RF, so they must have already been on Istock as 'exclusive RF' and at microstock prices until they were hand picked and chosen for Vetta, or were they just sitting on hard drives waiting for the birth of Vetta?

The imaging world is much bigger than microstock and Istock, and as you say not many microstockers will produce high quality high production costs images for any agency as they do not have the funds or tools.

From those that do shoot high production images how many do you think are iStock exclusive, and why would they not be on other traditional or midstock sites at similar price points, and why would they consider losing other revenue streams and take a year to become iStock exclusive, just to add Vetta images?

It is far to early to sing the praises of Vetta, the Vetta images were uploaded for the general collection by exclusives, they are not new contributors so they would have calculated the value of the image based on high volume of sales, the images in Vetta at the moment might be getting a better return, but the Vetta collection will grow and this will cause dilution of revenue within the collection putting pressure on the other images, then the numbers will need to be crunched to see if 'Vetta is Betta', or higher volumes in the general library is better.  

David  ;D
« Last Edit: August 26, 2009, 02:10 by Adeptris »

« Reply #45 on: August 26, 2009, 04:29 »
0
I disagree that the market will eventually see photos of Vetta caliber on other sites. At least not in a way that it would diminish the value of Vetta. I think 95% of microstock photographers won't bother spending the time or money to produce unique photos like the one's found in the Vetta collection. If someone chooses to produce the same quality, I bet they want a bigger share from the cake and join iStock so that they can submit to Vetta. iStock is way ahead of its competition.

Ok I am confused here is a simple question:
Where were these 'iStock exclusive high value images' being sold before Vetta, they were shot for the Istock library and not shot for the Vetta collection, they should not have been on sale as RM on other websites and then added to iStock and Vetta as RF, so they must have already been on Istock as 'exclusive RF' and at microstock prices until they were hand picked and chosen for Vetta, or were they just sitting on hard drives waiting for the birth of Vetta?


David  ;D

Initially, they were indeed on iStock as 'exclusive RF'.  iStock picked many for Vetta themselves and allowed exclusives to nominate a limited number from their own portfolio for consideration.

I think the rationale is that they were lost in a sea of 5 million other images, and iStock wanted to make them more visible at a higher price point.  Seems a good idea to me, though as you say, only time will tell.

« Reply #46 on: August 26, 2009, 04:52 »
0
and newer file are nominated for Vetta as they are uploaded.
So going forward these new files never saw the light of day as part of the regular collection

« Reply #47 on: August 26, 2009, 05:07 »
0
It is far to early to sing the praises of Vetta, the Vetta images were uploaded for the general collection by exclusives,

I'll sing the praises :) .  Anyways, at this point, I'd say the majority of images are now new images, made specifically for Vetta, or with Vetta in mind.

Quote
But read what mericsso said again "now designers can buy better images with their iStock account. All they have to do is buy less, and they can stay on budget"

I don't think this is how most buyers think - we've had lots of posts from people unwilling to pay higher prices.  They stick with what they are used to buying - the lower priced images in the regular collection.  I think Vetta is drawing new buyers to iStock from somewhere.  Or maybe it's causing the buyers to get more money from their clients.

« Reply #48 on: August 27, 2009, 00:55 »
0
Constantly complaining, because the shot they really want is at Corbis or Getty or that illusive phootshoot, but instead they are forced to settle for less, because the end client doesn't care anyways. Vetta solves this, because now designers can buy better images with their iStock account. All they have to do is buy less, and they can stay on budget.

Yea, like those images weren't there before Vetta. Most of the Vetta images were uploaded to istock long before introduction of Vetta. Now they just have higher price tag combined with better search placement.
« Last Edit: August 27, 2009, 00:57 by Konstantin Sutyagin »

« Reply #49 on: August 27, 2009, 03:53 »
0
Constantly complaining, because the shot they really want is at Corbis or Getty or that illusive phootshoot, but instead they are forced to settle for less, because the end client doesn't care anyways. Vetta solves this, because now designers can buy better images with their iStock account. All they have to do is buy less, and they can stay on budget.

Yea, like those images weren't there before Vetta. Most of the Vetta images were uploaded to istock long before introduction of Vetta. Now they just have higher price tag combined with better search placement.

And you'd prefer your best images to have a lower price tag and poorer search placement?

« Reply #50 on: August 27, 2009, 05:02 »
0
Constantly complaining, because the shot they really want is at Corbis or Getty or that illusive phootshoot, but instead they are forced to settle for less, because the end client doesn't care anyways. Vetta solves this, because now designers can buy better images with their iStock account. All they have to do is buy less, and they can stay on budget.

Yea, like those images weren't there before Vetta. Most of the Vetta images were uploaded to istock long before introduction of Vetta. Now they just have higher price tag combined with better search placement.

And you'd prefer your best images to have a lower price tag and poorer search placement?


No, why? I'm all for Vetta. I love when micros raise prices, even though I'm not exclusive to IS.

hqimages

  • www.draiochtwebdesign.com
« Reply #51 on: August 27, 2009, 05:20 »
0
So I could persuade my client to spend 50 quid on an image from Vetta, that he might still see being used by his competitor down the street.. I just see it as flawed sorry.. I love Istock pay-as-you-go. My clients not only have very little to pay me right now with the recession, but there's no way I can get them to put aside a real budget for expensive microstock images, it has to be the old-fashioned way for me and my clients anyway.. and surely the big clients, if they have 50 quid to spare, could persuade the client to go 100-200 and get exclusive rights to the image while they're at it.. I dunno, as a buyer it's annoying to see images I can't afford in the search results..

Also, if they see the same image being used by another company I can explain well, that's what you get when you're only prepared to spend 1-5 quid a download! And they accept that. Spend more and less chance of that happening.. what do I do if it happens with a Vetta image, scoff at their 50 quid? Can't! 50 quid is 50 quid!

hqimages

  • www.draiochtwebdesign.com
« Reply #52 on: August 27, 2009, 05:29 »
0
This is Vetta:
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-9066731-senior.php

This almost identical image is not:
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-9066670-senior.php

I mean as a buyer you have to wonder whose leg they are trying to pull!!!!

« Reply #53 on: August 27, 2009, 05:30 »
0
Constantly complaining, because the shot they really want is at Corbis or Getty or that illusive phootshoot, but instead they are forced to settle for less, because the end client doesn't care anyways. Vetta solves this, because now designers can buy better images with their iStock account. All they have to do is buy less, and they can stay on budget.

Yea, like those images weren't there before Vetta. Most of the Vetta images were uploaded to istock long before introduction of Vetta. Now they just have higher price tag combined with better search placement.

And you'd prefer your best images to have a lower price tag and poorer search placement?


No, why? I'm all for Vetta. I love when micros raise prices, even though I'm not exclusive to IS.

OK, I misunderstood - it's just that your post "they just have higher price tag combined with better search placement" read like you didn't approve!

Anyway, as iStock mentioned in a forum post somewhere, they have to start someplace.  Going forward, Vetta will be populated by new images not previously available in the rest of the collection, and hopefully originally conceived with the awareness that putting extra effort and cost into the concept will be repaid by the higher price point.

Of course, whether or not it will work remains to be seen, but many contributors are reporting Vetta sales so it's promising.

michealo

« Reply #54 on: August 27, 2009, 05:32 »
0
This is Vetta:
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-9066731-senior.php

This almost identical image is not:
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-9066670-senior.php

I mean as a buyer you have to wonder whose leg they are trying to pull!!!!


I have no comment as to whether this is right or wrong but probably the only reason the second one isn't is because of the number of dls ie over the 100 qualifying point for Vetta

hqimages

  • www.draiochtwebdesign.com
« Reply #55 on: August 27, 2009, 05:34 »
0
This is Vetta:
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-9066731-senior.php

This almost identical image is not:
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-9066670-senior.php

I mean as a buyer you have to wonder whose leg they are trying to pull!!!!


I have no comment as to whether this is right or wrong but probably the only reason the second one isn't is because of the number of dls ie over the 100 qualifying point for Vetta


I see, well then there is something very wrong with their system/pricing.. it's looking from an outsiders point of view as if they have two vastly different prices, for the same image/same quality.. most buyers wouldn't care why this happened, they would just feel someone was trying to rip them off, as I do to be honest after spotting that particular example! And I even now know why it happened it didn't make me feel any better!!

michealo

« Reply #56 on: August 27, 2009, 09:16 »
0
This is Vetta:
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-9066731-senior.php

This almost identical image is not:
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-9066670-senior.php

I mean as a buyer you have to wonder whose leg they are trying to pull!!!!


I have no comment as to whether this is right or wrong but probably the only reason the second one isn't is because of the number of dls ie over the 100 qualifying point for Vetta


I see, well then there is something very wrong with their system/pricing.. it's looking from an outsiders point of view as if they have two vastly different prices, for the same image/same quality.. most buyers wouldn't care why this happened, they would just feel someone was trying to rip them off, as I do to be honest after spotting that particular example! And I even now know why it happened it didn't make me feel any better!!


I think one has to look at Vetta as a work in progress, there may be some issues like this but it is a fantastic starting point.

And it is reassuring when elsewhere it seems to be a race to the bottom in terms of pricing.

hqimages

  • www.draiochtwebdesign.com
« Reply #57 on: August 27, 2009, 09:25 »
0
This is Vetta:
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-9066731-senior.php

This almost identical image is not:
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-9066670-senior.php

I mean as a buyer you have to wonder whose leg they are trying to pull!!!!


I have no comment as to whether this is right or wrong but probably the only reason the second one isn't is because of the number of dls ie over the 100 qualifying point for Vetta


I see, well then there is something very wrong with their system/pricing.. it's looking from an outsiders point of view as if they have two vastly different prices, for the same image/same quality.. most buyers wouldn't care why this happened, they would just feel someone was trying to rip them off, as I do to be honest after spotting that particular example! And I even now know why it happened it didn't make me feel any better!!


I think one has to look at Vetta as a work in progress, there may be some issues like this but it is a fantastic starting point.

And it is reassuring when elsewhere it seems to be a race to the bottom in terms of pricing.



What to me would be reassuring, is if they did it right, and they didn't underestimate the intelligence of buyers.. as a buyer how would you feel if you bought image1 above, thinking what a great image, Vetta is great, I never would have paid that much before but I did and I love the image.. then you return the next day and stumble across image2 above, for -4 times the price.. wouldn't you feel like someone was playing you for a fool?

I'm all for increasing prices in microstock, but they need to seriously revise how they are presenting this thing to buyers because if it flops, it simply re-affirms people's belief that photos aren't WORTH that much, when the reality would be that it was marketed and presented atrociously! At least do it right if you are going to do it at all, and right at the beginning too, what's the point in getting a bad reputation because of this from launch, and then spending the rest of the time un-doing the damage you did to your brand.. it doesn't make any sense to me!

« Reply #58 on: August 27, 2009, 17:25 »
0
Constantly complaining, because the shot they really want is at Corbis or Getty or that illusive phootshoot, but instead they are forced to settle for less, because the end client doesn't care anyways. Vetta solves this, because now designers can buy better images with their iStock account. All they have to do is buy less, and they can stay on budget.

Yea, like those images weren't there before Vetta. Most of the Vetta images were uploaded to istock long before introduction of Vetta. Now they just have higher price tag combined with better search placement.

And you'd prefer your best images to have a lower price tag and poorer search placement?


No, why? I'm all for Vetta. I love when micros raise prices, even though I'm not exclusive to IS.

OK, I misunderstood - it's just that your post "they just have higher price tag combined with better search placement" read like you didn't approve!

Anyway, as iStock mentioned in a forum post somewhere, they have to start someplace.  Going forward, Vetta will be populated by new images not previously available in the rest of the collection, and hopefully originally conceived with the awareness that putting extra effort and cost into the concept will be repaid by the higher price point.

Of course, whether or not it will work remains to be seen, but many contributors are reporting Vetta sales so it's promising.

I was actually kinda making fun of those emo designers. But their behavior is what all microstocks actually should take into account more. Designers were unhappy about microstock images and didn't value them. Now they are happy with essentially the same images. All it took to raise images value is to bump the price.

« Reply #59 on: August 28, 2009, 00:17 »
0
I was actually kinda making fun of those emo designers. But their behavior is what all microstocks actually should take into account more. Designers were unhappy about microstock images and didn't value them. Now they are happy with essentially the same images. All it took to raise images value is to bump the price.


I think it was more that these images are not typical stock and did not attract lots of views and sales, so they sank to the botton and spent some time with the dross, because the search enginge was ignoring them, now they have been found and added to a 'category' where they can be found but the search engine.

Another reason could be that the Exclusive Artist is lazy, uploaded and added 50 keywords without really looking at them for relevence and position, this will also make a good image sink with the dross, and in any search by the buyer the image might be returned but in the middle of a set of many images due to bad keywording.
 
Maybe the the real problem is the oversupply and weighting of 'popular' images, so the search engine developers should stop weighting images by views and downloads, stack images by the same artist in a search, add in a randomize function that re-sorts every search so we do not get the same set of images each time we do a search as, "Hello!, this is the forth time I have done this same search and got the same images, I have already seen them why do you think I want to see them again?"

When I searched for 'Christmas Tree' on iStock there are  7559 results, I can start from the first page or go to the last page and work back, but what your suitable image is number 3750 I will never see it, what I would like as a buyer would be that each time I re-run the search I get a set of fresh images shown to me, but then that would be fair to the customer and all contributors, which some contributors would not like.

David  ;D        
« Last Edit: August 28, 2009, 02:42 by Adeptris »

lisafx

« Reply #60 on: August 28, 2009, 15:59 »
0

When I searched for 'Christmas Tree' on iStock there are  7559 results, I can start from the first page or go to the last page and work back, but what your suitable image is number 3750 I will never see it, what I would like as a buyer would be that each time I re-run the search I get a set of fresh images shown to me, but then that would be fair to the customer and all contributors, which some contributors would not like.
    

The above sounds reasonable, but whenever something like this has been proposed in the istock forums it is the customers who object. 

Apparently a lot of them are still not using the lightbox functionality.  Seems that when they download a comp and come back a few days later to purchase the image they want to be able to find it in roughly the same place it was before.

 


« Reply #61 on: August 28, 2009, 18:38 »
0
why not just another option in the search for random ?

« Reply #62 on: August 29, 2009, 01:03 »
0
The above sounds reasonable, but whenever something like this has been proposed in the istock forums it is the customers who object. 

Apparently a lot of them are still not using the lightbox functionality.  Seems that when they download a comp and come back a few days later to purchase the image they want to be able to find it in roughly the same place it was before.

It would be a matter of education, if you like it add it to a lightbox, buyers can not have it both ways, any agency that has done a 'What the buyers want' survey have said, 'buyers are fed up with the same old microstock style images', 'buyers want different styles', 'buyers want more diversity', Ya-De-Ya Ya-De-Ya.

The image they think are not there might be, but the search engine and the buyers search habits mean that they never see the images that are there.

I did do some analysis of the search statistics from Alamy, these were only from buyers, and there were searches where the buyers had looked at 10 to 20 pages with 120 thumbnail images a page, but I averaged it over six months of data and the average search was 1.2 pages, and on average they zoomed and took a closer look at only 1 in 100 images, which means that the images presented were not really what the buyer was after, how much of this was regular searches returning familiar images.

Like any store that sell product that you are likely to 'buy once' you have to rotate the products on display to catch the eye and make the sales, by randomizing the searches it would give more artists a chance of a sale, and buyers a better look at what is in the collection without have to move through loads of pages.

The search for 'Christmas Tree' on iStock which returned 7559 results, lets remove all the other weighting and look at keyword relevence and placement and randomize them, there are images in the 7559 that will have low placement of relevent keywords, and these will still be at the back of the randomized search, but the images where the keywords are relevent and placed high would be the in the front of the search, and each search would give a good mix of thumbnails.   

If not anything else give buyers a randomize or 'go to page' #x option.

David  ;D 

lisafx

« Reply #63 on: August 29, 2009, 08:20 »
0

It would be a matter of education, if you like it add it to a lightbox, buyers can not have it both ways, any agency that has done a 'What the buyers want' survey have said, 'buyers are fed up with the same old microstock style images', 'buyers want different styles', 'buyers want more diversity', Ya-De-Ya Ya-De-Ya.



C'mon David, Istock has been trying to "educate" buyers to the peculiarities of their search engine for literally years. 

Majority of buyers aren't interested in being taught how to search.  The best search engine is one that is intuitive and as hassle-free as possible for buyers.

Obviously as contributors we have a different agenda for how we would like images displayed to be "fair" to all of us.  But as has been discussed many times, fairness to contributors is secondary to an easy buying experience.


« Reply #64 on: August 29, 2009, 12:05 »
0
Apparently a lot of them are still not using the lightbox functionality.  Seems that when they download a comp and come back a few days later to purchase the image they want to be able to find it in roughly the same place it was before.
[/quote]


I have downloaded comps before & the file number is part of the name on the comp file.
Surely the buyers are not so dense as to not realize that they can just type in that number and go right to the file again?

hqimages

  • www.draiochtwebdesign.com
« Reply #65 on: August 29, 2009, 12:06 »
0
I'd use a randomise if it was there! First thing I hate with Istock is trawling through the first bunch of images you get that every Tom/dick/harry has used on their advertising.. I want an image that pops, that I haven't seen used by other people, and just that fits the bill.. A totally random search could do it who knows, I like it on my site even :)

You're both right though, because Lisa is right in that, you don't want anymore buttons or that disambiguation thing that wrecks my head completely as a buyer, you just want to type in the keywords and go! I have often typed in a search, disambiguated, and I see 5 images displayed, lol, really, I have gone through 2000 images sometimes looking for the right one, I would rather have loads more results displayed than so little having narrowed the thing down to an unrealistic specific.. because of disambiguation also, certain keywords don't really exist.. I can't remember what I typed in the other day instead of 'couple', like 'pair' or, I must keep track of these things.. anyway no results until I happened upon the accepted keyword and voila my results..

Actually the second thing that has started to annoy me is when I click on the Vetta image that my client won't budget for (I pay for stock images out of my own maintenance fee unfortunately), and it's out of my range.. but apparantly you can turn it off I'm just a lazy buyer, must suss that out tho!
« Last Edit: August 29, 2009, 12:08 by hqimages »

hqimages

  • www.draiochtwebdesign.com
« Reply #66 on: August 29, 2009, 12:13 »
0
Here it is kinda, dont think this is the same one I did but close:

keywords- couple in swimming pool

Try it, I get one image, ONE! lol! I got the right search eventually but, those keywords should be giving 1000's of results off the bat!!

« Reply #67 on: August 29, 2009, 13:34 »
0
This is Vetta:
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-9066731-senior.php

This almost identical image is not:
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-9066670-senior.php

I mean as a buyer you have to wonder whose leg they are trying to pull!!!!


I love this!!!!  The notion that buyers are lazy idiots seems to be behind this...  If they built Vetta on new, previously unreleased material, its value would be clear.  Seeing this case (and I bet there are hundreds) will only devaluate the collection in the long run.

lisafx

« Reply #68 on: August 29, 2009, 17:00 »
0

I have downloaded comps before & the file number is part of the name on the comp file.
Surely the buyers are not so dense as to not realize that they can just type in that number and go right to the file again?

What can I tell you?  These are comments I have read from buyers over and over again in the istock forums every time there is a marathon thread on the subject of best match. 

« Reply #69 on: August 29, 2009, 19:24 »
0
If you want "random" try moving the relavance slider for best match around a bit.  I know it's asking a lot, but it might help.

If you need help searching, you can always post in the request forum.

« Reply #70 on: August 30, 2009, 22:16 »
0
If you want "random" try moving the relavance slider for best match around a bit.  I know it's asking a lot, but it might help.

If you need help searching, you can always post in the request forum.

Sweet...
cool tool for wasting time  ;D
Dude...

« Reply #71 on: September 02, 2009, 03:07 »
0
Vetta does my head in.  It proves that if you move a file to the top of the search it will get downloaded. 

I just wonder why unique and rare images should be in front of good stock photos on a stock site.  I say give the images their natural Best Match place and a separate Vetta search. 

As for the images in Vetta some are incedible and others aren't.  It almost seems it matter more who you are rather than what you produce.

« Reply #72 on: September 13, 2009, 18:01 »
0
I dont know about that kind of procedure but if it make profit in this example from juice industry...
First we squash fruits to get juice, than boil the juice to kill all vitamines, after that put sinthetic vitamenes in that dead juice?!?
Why?
Answer is what will science do if its not some kind of this experiment.
So I see that iStock is trying to do some kind of they science...
to transfuse blackhole to nothing screwing buyers and authors, or like dog who is running around tree to catch his own tail?!?
VV live long and prosper with 80% of my royalty, and thank you to screwing me from time to time...
Blind chicken sometimes pick the seed too...

« Reply #73 on: September 13, 2009, 20:21 »
0
I just wonder why unique and rare images should be in front of good stock photos on a stock site. 

That would be my question too.  Looking at many of the Vetta images I think - nice, clever, but why would anyone buy it? Maybe this just shows I know nothing about the people buying stock images.

I think IStock wants an artsy image, because many stock buyers are artsy types, even if the images they actually buy are pretty mundance.


« Reply #74 on: September 14, 2009, 02:26 »
0
I just wonder why unique and rare images should be in front of good stock photos on a stock site. 

That would be my question too.  Looking at many of the Vetta images I think - nice, clever, but why would anyone buy it? Maybe this just shows I know nothing about the people buying stock images.

I think IStock wants an artsy image, because many stock buyers are artsy types, even if the images they actually buy are pretty mundance.

Simple answer is brand marketing, and like any other storefront they put the interesting stock 'which is often not thier best sellers' on show, look around at other marketing methods, the main dealer car showrooms do not put the small affordable run-around or family car in prime spot but the top of the range fully loaded vehicle, why is this, because you already know they sells the staple products you see every day so they do not need them displayed as you walk in, but they will put a promotion or limited edition vehicle on display to catch the buyers eye, and once they are attracted into the store to have a look, hope to sell them the display vehicle or other more affordable products from the range and within thier budget, and once the prospect or customer knows that the showroom has different and interesting products on display they might pop back to have a look at what is new.

You may walk past hundreds of shop windows every day without a second glance, but there will be one or two that you may pause at becase you know they often have a fresh display of interesting products.

David  ;)   

« Reply #75 on: September 14, 2009, 13:27 »
0
Indeed.
Let's say I have 10 somewhat similar images from a shoot, but my best two are in the Vetta collection. The Vetta shots have the best chance of being seen ( and possibly purchased), but if I link them to the others in a lightbox then the rest of the shots benefit from the halo effect.

« Reply #76 on: September 18, 2009, 03:31 »
0
I just wonder why unique and rare images should be in front of good stock photos on a stock site. 

That would be my question too.  Looking at many of the Vetta images I think - nice, clever, but why would anyone buy it? Maybe this just shows I know nothing about the people buying stock images.

I think IStock wants an artsy image, because many stock buyers are artsy types, even if the images they actually buy are pretty mundance.

Simple answer is brand marketing, and like any other storefront they put the interesting stock 'which is often not thier best sellers' on show, look around at other marketing methods, the main dealer car showrooms do not put the small affordable run-around or family car in prime spot but the top of the range fully loaded vehicle, why is this, because you already know they sells the staple products you see every day so they do not need them displayed as you walk in, but they will put a promotion or limited edition vehicle on display to catch the buyers eye, and once they are attracted into the store to have a look, hope to sell them the display vehicle or other more affordable products from the range and within thier budget, and once the prospect or customer knows that the showroom has different and interesting products on display they might pop back to have a look at what is new.

You may walk past hundreds of shop windows every day without a second glance, but there will be one or two that you may pause at becase you know they often have a fresh display of interesting products.

David  ;)   
That doesn't really wash with a website.  People have already entered the showroom or the shop if they are searching.  Now the search result offer more specific results because of BM2 but with a load of randomness added because of Vetta. 

« Reply #77 on: September 18, 2009, 04:46 »
0
^  I don't agree - it depends - they may be searching for regular stock or they may be looking for something special, but the "rare and unique" stuff tends to be less popular and gets lost in the regular stuff.

So it makes sense to show off the special stuff at the top, so they can at least get a taste of it without having to wade through pages of more standard images.

I do think though that Vetta images should be more obviously seen as "different" (and hence warn the buyer that they cost more) by, say, putting a different border on them and reserving the top row or something.  Sort of like iStock have done at the stock.xchng site.

« Reply #78 on: September 18, 2009, 06:05 »
0
^  I don't agree - it depends - they may be searching for regular stock or they may be looking for something special, but the "rare and unique" stuff tends to be less popular and gets lost in the regular stuff.

So it makes sense to show off the special stuff at the top, so they can at least get a taste of it without having to wade through pages of more standard images.

I do think though that Vetta images should be more obviously seen as "different" (and hence warn the buyer that they cost more) by, say, putting a different border on them and reserving the top row or something.  Sort of like iStock have done at the stock.xchng site.

Why not just put them in their own separate collection away from the standard stock?

'Click here if your looking for something extra special'

« Reply #79 on: September 18, 2009, 06:30 »
0
^  I don't agree - it depends - they may be searching for regular stock or they may be looking for something special, but the "rare and unique" stuff tends to be less popular and gets lost in the regular stuff.

So it makes sense to show off the special stuff at the top, so they can at least get a taste of it without having to wade through pages of more standard images.

I do think though that Vetta images should be more obviously seen as "different" (and hence warn the buyer that they cost more) by, say, putting a different border on them and reserving the top row or something.  Sort of like iStock have done at the stock.xchng site.

Why not just put them in their own separate collection away from the standard stock?

'Click here if your looking for something extra special'

They already have that:

Quote
Need more options?
Check out the new iStock Exclusive Collection found only on Getty Images or try this search on gettyimages.com for images or video.

David   ;D


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
54 Replies
26276 Views
Last post August 04, 2009, 21:49
by loop
12 Replies
8061 Views
Last post July 03, 2009, 11:01
by willie
19 Replies
9092 Views
Last post August 17, 2010, 01:08
by lagereek
88 Replies
24802 Views
Last post September 29, 2010, 18:06
by traveler1116
12 Replies
5477 Views
Last post July 05, 2011, 14:45
by Shank_ali

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors