Author Topic: What is happening to iStock, is it the end? (Read 52567 times)

danhowl · « **Reply #25 on:** June 16, 2013, 21:08 »

Quote from: Beppe Grillo on June 15, 2013, 02:24

When I started with iStock a few months ago it was quite difficult to get photos accepted.
...
My conclusion is that now iStock accepts everything and anything ...
This is not good news I think

Is it only my impression or other forum's users feel the same?

At a little over 3 years (and roughly 750 each of uploads and downloads), I still consider myself newbie to microstock. I'm scratching my head to figure out how/why you are drawing any kind of conclusions based on a few months of experience.

soundworks · « **Reply #26 on:** June 16, 2013, 21:33 »

Dear IS and SS (and especially the former) please stop accepting EVERYTHING. It is disheartening for photographers to do their best when you accept a series of 20 images of the same author and subject and good quality images get buried.
SS - over 120,00 images during the last week alone? This is too much.
IS, I am seeing a lot of images with questionable quality being accepted. Some exclusives can't even keep up with the numbers competition. People with beautiful portfolios and 2000 images over six years can't upload 200 images per week as the quality of their portfolio will suffer.

You are creating an unhealthy competition with a focus on quantity over quality (and the falling sales stemming from that). That is why specialised agencies like Stocksy will do better as their quality control is still very high. Do something now. Please.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #27 on:** June 16, 2013, 21:49 »

that was fun soundworks, believe it would be interesting to hear SS and IS regarding this matter, actually I believe we all know the answer (half million submissions at IS in the last 25 days), asking them to stop or saying please is just ridiculous sorry, believe you should know they have the fork and the cheese, too bad but stocksy ain't the salvation

tab62 · « **Reply #28 on:** June 16, 2013, 21:59 »

and here I thought I was getting better (almost 100% Acceptance Rate) in my photography skills only to find out out that my photos still suck but they will take them anyway...

Beppe Grillo · « **Reply #29 on:** June 17, 2013, 00:36 »

Quote from: danhowl on June 16, 2013, 21:08

Quote from: Beppe Grillo on June 15, 2013, 02:24

When I started with iStock a few months ago it was quite difficult to get photos accepted.
...
My conclusion is that now iStock accepts everything and anything ...
This is not good news I think

Is it only my impression or other forum's users feel the same?

At a little over 3 years (and roughly 750 each of uploads and downloads), I still consider myself newbie to microstock. I'm scratching my head to figure out how/why you are drawing any kind of conclusions based on a few months of experience.

1) my (personal) conclusion is that *now* iStock accepts everything and anything. And this seems to be confirmed by some users with a lot of more experience than me about iStock, answering to this thread.
2) if you read well the last sentence you will see that it is a question. This means that I am not quite sure of my (personal) conclusion, and this is the reason why I ask to other people with more experience about microstocks than me what they think about it, and if their conclusions are similar to mine.
3) nobody is perfect

Imagenomad · « **Reply #30 on:** June 17, 2013, 02:20 »

I hereby propose that Leaf should change the title of this section to "Top Tier - Big 3.5".

DoI: I've got a tiny port at iS but it's doing OK relative to its size because of the PP sales. RPI is just shy of $1 per year. But as soon as I make payout...

sharpshot · « **Reply #31 on:** June 17, 2013, 02:32 »

There's only a top 1 for me, the rest are way behind. Looking at the poll results, it looks like that's the same for most non-exclusives now. It feels like being almost exclusive with SS and I really don't like that. They've been good to me but I liked istock at one point and that all changed. So I'll be spending the rest of the year working mostly on my non-microstock portfolio on alamy and doing more video clips for Pond5.

ShadySue · « **Reply #32 on:** June 17, 2013, 05:08 »

Is this recent acceptance really the right way up?
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-25071293-buenos-aires-argentina.php?st=1a678e9
(My comment is only about the orientation.)

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #33 on:** June 17, 2013, 05:09 »

Quote from: loop on June 15, 2013, 14:10

Quote from: Donvanstaden on June 15, 2013, 14:00
I make more money on BS than on IS. The reason why that is significant is because my BS port is a whopping 8 images and my IS port is 84 images for a newbie istock is a waste of time... I get getting zero traffic on my IS images.

With so little images any selling data has not meaning at all.

It reflects what I see as the performance of new images on iStock. A lot of them never even get viewed (possibly entering the search on the second, third or fourth page because exclusive files are reviewed quicker) and then they just vanish down into the depths of the search. If nobody ever sees them it doesn't matter a fig whether they are brilliant or rubbish.
The upload date default is actually a severe distortion of the search. Files should appear by approval date, not by upload date. That way at least they could hope for a few seconds on the first page of the most recent search, which might get a sale, which might give them a chance to battle into contention on best match.

ShadySue · « **Reply #34 on:** June 17, 2013, 05:11 »

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #35 on:** June 17, 2013, 05:11 »

Quote from: ShadySue on June 17, 2013, 05:08

Is this recent acceptance really the right way up?
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-25071293-buenos-aires-argentina.php?st=1a678e9
(My comment is only about the orientation.)

Of course, Buenos Aries is about 90 degrees down the left hand side of the world. Didn't you know that?

ShadySue · « **Reply #36 on:** June 17, 2013, 05:13 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on June 17, 2013, 05:11

Quote from: ShadySue on June 17, 2013, 05:08
Is this recent acceptance really the right way up?
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-25071293-buenos-aires-argentina.php?st=1a678e9
(My comment is only about the orientation.)

Of course, Buenos Aries is about 90 degrees down the left hand side of the world. Didn't you know that?

I had serious doubts about the orientation of a group of photos which was accepted last week, but it was 'marginally debatable' as there wasn't a definite ground or sky or other obvious feature in the images.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #37 on:** June 17, 2013, 05:20 »

Quote from: ShadySue on June 17, 2013, 05:13

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on June 17, 2013, 05:11
Quote from: ShadySue on June 17, 2013, 05:08
Is this recent acceptance really the right way up?
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-25071293-buenos-aires-argentina.php?st=1a678e9
(My comment is only about the orientation.)

Of course, Buenos Aries is about 90 degrees down the left hand side of the world. Didn't you know that?

I had serious doubts about the orientation of a group of photos which was accepted last week, but it was 'marginally debatable' as there wasn't a definite ground or sky or other obvious feature in the images.

I have taken the precaution of grabbing a screen shot of that .... don't really know why. Maybe to remind myself that the inspectors are always right.

I see stuff going through now with no composition, no subject, no (not limited) commercial value, severely under-exposed .... everything. I'm just completely bemused by it. It seems to be like Flickr where anybody can dump whatever they like,

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #38 on:** June 17, 2013, 05:30 »

I'm afraid I've posted that pic in the "incredibly fast inspection" thread so it probably won't be around for long.

ShadySue · « **Reply #39 on:** June 17, 2013, 05:37 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on June 17, 2013, 05:30

I'm afraid I've posted that pic in the "incredibly fast inspection" thread so it probably won't be around for long.

Indeed, it's already 'not available for download'.

ShadySue · « **Reply #40 on:** June 17, 2013, 05:51 »

I've just looked at another port via a 'cheers for quick inspection' post and it's another that looks like a series of stills from a celluloid movie. Even in a 'spot the difference' competition some of them would leave one flummoxed.
In answer to the OP: I haven't a clue, but it must be significant of something.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #41 on:** June 17, 2013, 06:00 »

Quote from: ShadySue on June 17, 2013, 05:37

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on June 17, 2013, 05:30
I'm afraid I've posted that pic in the "incredibly fast inspection" thread so it probably won't be around for long.
Indeed, it's already 'not available for download'.

And I got a sitemail telling me my post was deleted and I "should know better" than to post someone else's work in the forum.
Lol!
I wrote back pointing out it was the inspector I was criticising, not the photographer. Perhaps I'll get banned again.

Oh, Kelvin did say that the file had already been "earmarked for deletion" so perhaps Lobo had picked it up from this thread already.

ShadySue · « **Reply #42 on:** June 17, 2013, 06:07 »

^^
I saw a note from EvilClown that it had been accepted in error and the inspector had notified it. They must have changed the system, because I remember at least once having an acceptance which was cancelled within a couple of minutes, so 'presumably' then an inspector could him/herself cancel a genuine error.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #43 on:** June 17, 2013, 07:44 »

Having looked at some other photos I have to conclude that there must be quite a number of inspector "mis-clicks" (as they are apparently called) awaiting correction.

KB · « **Reply #44 on:** June 17, 2013, 08:04 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on June 17, 2013, 05:09

The upload date default is actually a severe distortion of the search. Files should appear by approval date, not by upload date. That way at least they could hope for a few seconds on the first page of the most recent search, which might get a sale, which might give them a chance to battle into contention on best match.

This is exactly the way it works, and has for a long time. With such large differences in approval time now, it's very easy to see. Do any popular search (e.g., 'business') and look at the results sorted by age. Exclusive file numbers start with 252, indies with 251 or 250.

ShadySue · « **Reply #45 on:** June 17, 2013, 08:08 »

Quote from: KB on June 17, 2013, 08:04

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on June 17, 2013, 05:09
The upload date default is actually a severe distortion of the search. Files should appear by approval date, not by upload date. That way at least they could hope for a few seconds on the first page of the most recent search, which might get a sale, which might give them a chance to battle into contention on best match.

This is exactly the way it works, and has for a long time. With such large differences in approval time now, it's very easy to see. Do any popular search (e.g., 'business') and look at the results sorted by age. Exclusive file numbers start with 252, indies with 251 or 250.

Yup, I had a batch of Scout-overturned files last week, and they're showing as my most recent by Age, even though they were uploaded a couple of months ago.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #46 on:** June 17, 2013, 08:11 »

Quote from: KB on June 17, 2013, 08:04

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on June 17, 2013, 05:09
The upload date default is actually a severe distortion of the search. Files should appear by approval date, not by upload date. That way at least they could hope for a few seconds on the first page of the most recent search, which might get a sale, which might give them a chance to battle into contention on best match.

This is exactly the way it works, and has for a long time. With such large differences in approval time now, it's very easy to see. Do any popular search (e.g., 'business') and look at the results sorted by age. Exclusive file numbers start with 252, indies with 251 or 250.

Ah, well, I'm not paying close enough attention then. To be honest, I spend hardly any time looking at iStock other than looking at my latest sale list.

BrianM · « **Reply #47 on:** June 17, 2013, 10:40 »

Quote from: Beppe Grillo on June 15, 2013, 02:24

First I sent pictures that were rejected a few months ago. All were accepted without any problem.
Then I pushed a bit and I sent pictures whose quality was questionable. All accepted.
I pushed the envelope further, I sent blurry pictures, moved, noisy, with artifacts, etc.. All accepted
I did it again with others of the same kind ... All accepted .........

My conclusion is that now iStock accepts everything and anything ...
This is not good news I think

This is great fodder for my upcoming talk to designers which includes a slide about the different aesthetics of various RF agencies.

The other thing it has me wondering is where Getty stands on Inspectors. They are paid, so they are a cost center to be reduced. I have friends who are Inspectors and I don't want to see that happen! If it did, I think you would see more of iStock's best moving on from exclusivity.

Getty must consider, if inspection standards at iStock become virtually nil, no reason to pay skilled people to evaluate images and you can outsource checking model releases. Inspectors on the other hand might be inspecting so quickly now because with lower standards, possibly make up for lost sales by rapid clicking tons of new content in. If they are instructed to lower standards that naturally speeds up their pace.

lisafx · « **Reply #48 on:** June 17, 2013, 16:26 »

How are Istock getting around the model release requirements? Lots of the indies flooding the site with their back catalogues of work may not be able to upload a shiny new Istock release for each shoot because it was not required prior to Sept. 2009.

Have they also relaxed the model release rules? Not relevant to me, but I am curious if they've relaxed them after being such hard a$se$ for so long. I remember what a PITA it was to get a release for every single time I shot my husband or daughter...

ShadySue · « **Reply #49 on:** June 17, 2013, 16:50 »

Quote from: lisafx on June 17, 2013, 16:26

How are Istock getting around the model release requirements? Lots of the indies flooding the site with their back catalogues of work may not be able to upload a shiny new Istock release for each shoot because it was not required prior to Sept. 2009.

Have they also relaxed the model release rules? Not relevant to me, but I am curious if they've relaxed them after being such hard a$se$ for so long. I remember what a PITA it was to get a release for every single time I shot my husband or daughter...

The back catalogues aren't necessarily of models. Can't answer your exact question, but there are release rejections:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=354189&messageid=6900631

I also had a rejection for needing a PR; no PR was needed, but I had to bother someone unnecessarily to get evidence of that, and it's now with Scout.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: What is happening to iStock, is it the end? (Read 52567 times)

danhowl

soundworks

luissantos84

tab62

Beppe Grillo

Imagenomad

sharpshot

ShadySue

BaldricksTrousers

ShadySue

BaldricksTrousers

ShadySue

BaldricksTrousers

BaldricksTrousers

ShadySue

ShadySue

BaldricksTrousers

ShadySue

BaldricksTrousers

KB

ShadySue

BaldricksTrousers

BrianM

lisafx

ShadySue

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors