Quote from: sjlocke on April 08, 2010, 15:35
We need to see the image.  Can't comment on the keywords without seeing the image.

Well actually you could.  The question was whether words in the description are picked up by the search engine.

Quote from: cclapper on April 08, 2010, 15:26
If the person isn't actually doing yoga, relaxation exercises or pilates, then I can see where they would be rejected. If the fitness model is walking in the park with a yoga mat, then the keywords would be fitness, woman, girl, park, mat (or maybe yoga mat), walking. Something like that. IMHO.

If I did a search for yoga, expecting to see people doing yoga, I would think that your photo should not be there. Walking isn't really yoga. 

Well, going by that logic, there would be no non-active shots found on a search with the keyword yoga or pilates and that is simply not the case. I made those specific searches on iStock and found several non-active shots--I even found a shot of a mat and ball alone with no person than came up in the search.  I also found several images of activities that are specifically not related to yoga or pilates (possibly one would only know that with specific either).

After another petty rejection from iStockphoto over keywords, I'm curious if the search engine picks up the words in a file's description as well as the keywords for the file.  This particular case was a fitness model carrying a yoga/pilates matt over her shoulder in a park.  The description labeled it as such, but iStock rejected the keywords yoga, pilates and relaxation exercise.  Did the reviewer just not know what that is? 

If the search engine would pick up Yoga and Pilates from the description there is little harm done, but if not the rejection, in my opinion, misses the point--the point being helping creatives find images that are relevant to the subject matter they are searching for.

Quote from: alias on March 31, 2010, 18:19

Quote from: danhowl on March 22, 2010, 16:15
If it were only one or two files I wouldn't think twice about it.  It has been a number of files over several months.

These symptoms suggest a problem with your workflow.

Many photographers who came to digital from having been previously shooting transparency film still have tendency to under expose IMO. Because they got used to a slightly under exposed transparency looking right.

Not to harp, but if you go back to my entire post, I mention inconsistency in rejection.  What brought it up are images that have been accepted on other sites but not IS or images from within a larger set of photos that are rejected when similar images with different poses are accepted by IS (in my best estimation--same lighting, same post-processing).  While I do have a number of years experience of shooting transparency for publication, I have been exclusively digital for several years shooting for magazines and advertising.  I understand where you are coming from regarding under-exposure.  That sentiment explains the preponderance brightly lit, shadowless images within microstock.

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on March 22, 2010, 12:30

I find the review process to be consistent. And the camera doesn't matter. A D3X will most likely only amplify whatever problems you're having.

I saw your IS post questioning artifacting on your World Trade Center picture. It's a great picture but it took me less than a second to see the smoke is loaded with artifacting.  

Unless you are suggesting that I faked the WTC picture more recently, it would be obvious that I am referring to different images captured with more contemporary equipment and workflow.  Leaf Aptus was introduced in 06 and the D3X was introduced in late 08.  If it were only one or two files I wouldn't think twice about it.  It has been a number of files over several months.

I have had a number of files rejected from iStock with the 'artifacting' message.  Each of them were shot at 100 ISO w/o any post sharpening.  The files were captured with either a Nikon D3X or a Leaf Aptus digital back.  In every case where they were submitted to other sites the images were accepted like ie. Shutterstock and Dreamtime.  In some cases, other files shot at the same time of the same subject were accepted by iStock.

It very much seems to me that the review process is inconsistent (at best) and that the 'artifacting' message is used when reviewers can't explain their decision.

Quote from: RT on March 12, 2010, 12:34
Do you understand that when you shoot a model you are employing that person? or am I right in assuming that you're having trouble with understanding that, which I could understand because employment law is one of the most complex things there is.

I figured that you were trying to fold the issues of modeling and employment into the issue of model releases.  I fear that it shows possibly too much experience with the law and not enough experience dealing with models.  Models can be 'hired' with or without a release.  Model releases exist for many situations where there is no issue of employment.  Any attempt to cement those issue together is folly.

This grandstanding has taken this thread too far away from the OP's original question and thrown too much misinformation into the air.  I'm sticking to the issues with iS going forward.

Quote from: RT on March 12, 2010, 00:24

Apart from the fact your definition of a model release and what it does is wrong, neither you or the industry can change or make legal definitions, and whether you or anyone in the industry who chooses not to accept that a model release forms part of an employment contract does not detract from the fact that it does.


Out of interest I notice your username is new here and you've only made two posts on this subject, you wouldn't happen to be someone already registered here who's trying to pretend to be another person would you, I only ask because you've the same characteristics i.e. lack of knowledge and eagerness to make everyone think you're an experienced photographer despite your own trip ups. I wonder who you could be

Let me know when you've found that law.

Actually that language comes from a litigator in the rights & clearances department of one of the largest law firms in the world--not from myself.  They confirm what countless people who actually work in this industry practice every day.  And yes, I work in the industry as a professional fashion and commercial photographer and work with model releases on a constant basis.  And no, I don't need to create a double identity to contrast your intellectual errors.  This user name is the same I use on iStock--and after all, isn't this what the thread is all about?

And to remind...you made the statement that model releases are 'employment contracts' an assertion without attribution.  I think that the burden is on you to site a case where a MR equals a employment contract, not me. 

Your emphatic stance almost make me think that you are trying to bring up the argument wether models are employees.  More of an argument can be made in this avenue and debate has been made on either side.  But, and this is the important part, a model release is NOT the document that has any bearing on this.  If you have an ounce of legal experience you should realize this salient difference.

Quote from: RT on March 11, 2010, 14:12
Wow you better let all the legal minds that compile the law dictionaries know then  

Employment is a contract between two parties, one being the employer and the other being the employee. An employee may be defined as: "A person in the service of another under any contract of hire, express or implied, oral or written, where the employer has the power or right to control and direct the employee in the material details of how the work is to be performed." Black's Law Dictionary page 471 (5th ed. 1979).

Again, that is not, nor has it been a standard that applies to model releases.  Just because you empty the bins at a law firm does not make you a legal scholar. 

The industry never thought of a release as an employment contract and never would.  Model releases are specifically intended to outline the rights being granted to the photographer and his reps for licensing purposes.  The subject/model is pre-approving the designated future uses (usually anything and everything in the case of stock) and releasing the licensor and licensee from liability.  It is titled very aptly - it is a release of rights and liability, plain and simple.

It is more akin to a licensing or royalty agreement than any kind of employment contract.  In fact, several modeling agencies create contract documents that specifically state that models are not employees. Similarly, when I shoot an assignment for a magazine or advertiser, I am not an employee nor do I sell my photography to them.  I license the use of my photographic product, usually for a fixed period of time and specified usage.

Seriously, if you do not understand this distinction you might want to reconsider your activities in both law and photography--at the very least refrain from littering discussion forums with misinformation.

Quote from: RT on February 06, 2010, 09:50

... it's an employment contract and therefore can be written in many different ways with varying stipulations, the problem is people like you read a few guidelines given out by stock agencies and get the wrong end of the stick and think that info is law, and what's worse is that as a reviewer on a microstock agency you're actually advising people on these things!!!!

A model release is not nor ever has been an Employment Contract.  It is astonishing to hear that from anyone who has any experience with law or the photography industry.