|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - ShadySue
13576
« on: June 11, 2011, 17:40 »
Trouble is that if anyone raises these specific issues on the iStock forum, Lobo will just snark and say you can't call out images.
Just call me sue.itoldyaso.com
13577
« on: June 11, 2011, 15:41 »
ShadySue, from a newspaper picture editor's point of view, if you want a picture to illustrate a report referring back to Berlusconi at that event, you don't want to run something and then get told that the picture can't be from there because he was wearing something different or had his head shaved at that time. So even though the location is unidentifiable, being certain that you have the right location at the right time is valuable information.
I wouldn't be surprised if the whole Brown in Jerusalem set was uploaded in a file of that name by the photographer. It makes sense to keep the set together so that newsdesks can view them easily to pick out what they want. The header may not work that way on iSTock but I bet it did at the beginning of the set's life.
I do understand all of that. The thing is, it's now on iStock, and under different standards to the ones we have to adhere to. That's the only point I'm making. I'll raise again my oft-repeated complaint that there is no way we can indicate whether a main collection ('creative') image is unaltered (to editorial standards), so can be used where they are required.
13578
« on: June 11, 2011, 14:48 »
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-16838458-gordon-brown-travels-to-israel.php?st=7d67cf2
It's a photo of Silvio Belusconi, tight portrait of him holding his head in his hands. Could have been taken anywhere, but titled, as the URI above, "Gordon Brown Travels to Israel", though the title explains that it is SB.
The picture is going to be part of a series covering the entire Gordon Brown visit event, possibly shot by someone who travelled with him. The title is, in effect, the title of the folder containing all the pictures from that event. The keyword "Ehud Olmert" is there because it was shot during his speech. By istock standards, more than half the keywords are irrelevant but they are giving the place, time and event, which would be relevant if you wanted a picture of Berlusconi at the Jerusalem press conference - rather than just an "any time, anywhere" Berlusconi shot.
It seems that many of the pictures have an overall event title which is the same for an entire series, even if it seems irrelevant to the specific subject.
Indeed, but that doesn't follow 'iStock standards' as they have been set out for us. They could surely have thought up an overall title which was relevant to the whole series. And there's nothing in that image which isn't just an 'any time, anywhere' Berlusconi shot.
13580
« on: June 11, 2011, 12:04 »
Today's stuff from Getty has some very generic (and iMO not very good) images of Venice sunsets, a vase of flowers, rolled towels, power pylons silhouetted, etc. That (a) wouldn't be accepted if we submitted it to either collection and (b) competes with existing content in both collections (the only advantage regular iStock contributors have being that their shots are better).
They aren't looking at this closely enough and are just dumping expensive crap (along with the genuine editorial of shots of Einstein's papers, for example).
Another example of a stupid/irrelevant title: http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-16838458-gordon-brown-travels-to-israel.php?st=7d67cf2It's a photo of Silvio Belusconi, tight portrait of him holding his head in his hands. Could have been taken anywhere, but titled, as the URI above, "Gordon Brown Travels to Israel", though the title explains that it is SB. Trouble is that if anyone raises these specific issues on the iStock forum, Lobo will just snark and say you can't call out images. Contacting Support will take months to get a cookie cutter answer from their cut and paste list. SMing admin will get a hastily thought up 'justification' which holds no water.
13581
« on: June 11, 2011, 11:57 »
I know several long time pro photographers, mostly stock and commercial shoots. They are definitely not a positive bunch. All them them I know were nearly destroyed by us (microstock). Some have joined us after years of grousing, but have not put in the effort to make it worthwhile, and the "easy" window of opportunity may have passed. Every one of them says they were not at all worried about competition from "poor quality" point and shoot stock available from mere amatures online at the beginning. After all they are pros and customers know it and you get what you pay for. Wow were they wrong.
I fear we are doing the same.
Since we're on editorial, I won't comment on commercial shoots, but certainly, as I said above, many end editorial users don't need iStock's pixel-peeping, either because of the quality of their printing or paper, or because they're going to be used really small. So I don't see how we can compete with 'free' for many uses which don't require MRs or PRs. And in fact, IMO a lot of Flikr images are 'better' for many uses inasmuch as they can be much more 'free' than anything you see on any agencies.
13582
« on: June 11, 2011, 07:22 »
I didn't read most of the posts, but I do have a question? Is editorial even worth the time you put in?
The random, walk about "newsy" stuff like people have been posting? Parades, this or that demonstration, the street down the ways from your house? Not so much. Maybe at the old RM pricing - for instance, a one day newspaper RM price on Getty is around $130, but you can now get it on IS for forever use in anyway you like for $5.
I'm guessing that a lot of that is available free on Flikr and the likes, so for editorial/blogs, why pay? Not everyone needs pixel perfect, 'iStock light' images.
13583
« on: June 11, 2011, 05:21 »
There's been a new ingestion overnight (UK time), though only a few of them are showing. What immediately leaps out at me is how very dark most of them are (I'm specifically meaning in lighting; you'd expect serious editorial to have 'dark' subject matter), and how us lesser mortals would certainly have had these rejected. But also, that generic caption forces people to click on the image to fnd out what it is, so if views have any weight in Best Match, these files will stay at the top. At the moment, the new ones are all showing as 'unknown title' on the thumbnails, but I'll assume that's a temporary blip. I couldn't imagine what one image was from the thum (the thum title as of this moment isn't showing) so I zoomed in. It really shows either I don't 'get' editorial titling/captioning, or realistically a lot of these images are bulk title/captioned before submission to Getty, and the bulk info doesn't suit all images. The one I happened on was this one: http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-16838316-unknown-title.php?st=cc3287dMy immediate first question is, why isn't this main collection. You've all read my rants about images being rejected for editorial and 'should be sent to the main collection' even when hand made by an artisan or when featuring people and a yacht. [1] Again, total inconsistency about the application of iStock "standards" Second, the title says, "Mass Evacuations As Mount Merapi Erupts" There is no evidence in this particular photo of the mass evacuations. The caption says: "YOGYAKARTA, INDONESIA - OCTOBER 27: A car is covered with ash from the erupting Mount Merapi volcano at Kaliurang village in Sleman, on October 27, 2010 near Yogyakarta, Indonesia. Thousands have been ordered to evacuate as Mount Merapi, which last erupted in 2006, began to emit plumes of smoke and clouds of ash.(Photo by Ulet Ifansasti)" Which explains the photo. BUT I somehow didn't notice before that the photographer's name is mentioned in the caption, even though the image is copyrighted to Ed Stock. [1] I see this point has been made on the iStock forum with reference to other photos.
13584
« on: June 11, 2011, 05:09 »
SNP .. I am glad to see you back from the London lypse, and in rare form as usual. Can't wait to see your photos on Thinkstock as my company has a subscription there.
here we go again! 
I took it as a troll and am not rising to the bait. 
13585
« on: June 10, 2011, 20:37 »
I'm very surprised to see a 0.07c sale. Wow
There are unadvertised huge discounts to certain buyers (credits under 50c each), special discounts like 20% off for a limited period of time, and allegedly still tons of credits from about 2004 still around. For all I know, the first two may even be combinable.
13586
« on: June 10, 2011, 20:16 »
Why is it that EVERY single topic about Istock these days turns into a mud slinging match at some point?
Maybe because photographers, in general, seem to be a negative and pessimistic bunch of people.
I believe the problem of some (not only in photography) is an EGO issue, some people just dont stop and think before talking and even worst its after because they never regret it.. in this forum everybody takes things too personal and are attacking constantly other, if it is exclusive, if not, if know more or less about this or that, people just need to calm down and do whatever they enjoy, if it is just bringing bad mood to forum perhaps should leave, must said I am not talking for anyone in special, I do enjoy all comment and this is a lesson for me everyday, dont enjoy the attacks, take it slowww guys, in a all in the same world and we only live once
Better still, we could look for jobs as forum moderators and grouch at people all day (not on msg, of course). Well, OK, that would be boring after a couple of hours, but hey, it's probably quite well paid.
13587
« on: June 10, 2011, 20:10 »
Another bute from LOBO http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=330440&page=1
Totally insensitive from someone whose salary derives from the contributors he enjoys putting down, but which presumably doesn't fluctuate with the whims of the best match, or reduce because of the policies of the company which is supposed to be representing his interests
I'm a pretty fair and decent person but if he worked for me I would have him in my office for a short discussion, and his response in retrospect would have been quite different. He needs to represent the qualities of the Istock brand, regardless of who touches the process...and he dilutes, in my opinion, brand equity (not that they have much left).
I suspect that he does represent very well the iStock brand of 2010/11. For better or worse.
13588
« on: June 10, 2011, 19:55 »
Is it true? I sometimes wonder about it too.
I don't know any other photographers personally (in the real world). I'm curious if this is true also.
Are we really such a negative bunch? A few years ago when most of us were seeing our incomes grow every month, I thought we were a pretty positive group. I suspect it is recent circumstances that have made us over into a bunch of grouches... 
Remember: "A cynic is just a heartbroken ideallist".
13589
« on: June 10, 2011, 19:54 »
Another bute from LOBO http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=330440&page=1
Totally insensitive from someone whose salary derives from the contributors he enjoys putting down, but which presumably doesn't fluctuate with the whims of the best match, or reduce because of the policies of the company which is supposed to be representing his interests
13590
« on: June 10, 2011, 12:33 »
Most of what happens seem to follow a fairly predictable / inevitable trend. In some ways it seems to almost pre-empt the inevitable. For better or worse I think they have a good nose for where the market will go.
In which case it might be wise for them to share this with the contributors.
13591
« on: June 10, 2011, 12:09 »
Highest: $106.40, Vetta EL.
But that was last year when our commission was better on ELs and Vettas.
Some recent EL sales reported on iStock threads have been ridiculously low (low credit values).
Lowest: 19c.
Average RPD this year: $4.29. (but my dls are well down)
13592
« on: June 10, 2011, 08:10 »
Yes, that could well be the case, as the caption says the picture was posed. But I very much doubt that iSTock's officials have a clue about whether images from the Getty feed have releases or not. They're probably just told that every Getty image has the necessary releases and meets the required technical standards. As they are cheerfully approving images that fail the iStock caption rules, the posing rules and the most basic technical quality rules, it seems that they have no say at all over any aspect of the incoming content. In these circumstances, would Getty allow them to reject an image over model release rules? Would Getty even let them see any releases?
Are iStock inspectors having to approve the editorial images from Getty then?
Allegedly, but it seems not to the same standards we are required to meet.
13593
« on: June 10, 2011, 05:13 »
I fail to see the benefits of choosing RM over RF in any situation. If the image is not even exclusive when being sold as RM, then why pay more for restricted usage - RM - when you can get almost unlimited usage - RF - for less ? Never understood the concept of rights managed. When is it beneficial ? Makes no sense to me
You would buy rights for an image if you didn't want your book cover to have the same photo as someone else's (posted on a different thread last week):  ...  Similarly if you didn't want your calendar cover image to be the same as someone else's, or your photo used in an advert and also used in a rival's advert etc. If you buy specific RM rights the photographer and agency has a reponsibility to assert that the image (and probably any 'significantly similar') has been used before in a conflicting use. The more 'managed' you want your end usage to be, the more you pay. For example, you'd pay significantly more to buy rights to 'all uses, worldwide' for an image for five years than you would if you paid for 'advertisements, print, magazine, plumbing industry, Luxembourg, one month'. It can have surprising benefits to the consumer too: a friend was trying to choose an itinerary for a trip to New Zealand and showed me that "all the different tour operators use mostly the same photos" (presumably sent out free by the New Zealand Tourist Board. She eventually chose one where the company showed 'different' images, not the 'obvious' ones most used.
13594
« on: June 10, 2011, 04:47 »
Last time I wrote to Scout because my latest images were refused for No EXIF no one replied. Unless of course it takes three weeks for them to figure out a scan never has EXIF data?
How long did you wait? I've got an open Scout ticket since Mid-February.
Got me beat mine is only from March.
I've got two from 13th March still showing in open tickets; the Feb one has fallen off the cliff. At the beginning I was getting editorial rejections that didn't make sense to me. Now I'm not even bothering to Scout them (in three years I doubt if I Scouted ten files; since Editorial, I've got well over 10 I'd like to Scout). They win again. 
13595
« on: June 10, 2011, 04:37 »
actually, they might accept it. in a similar situation, I took images at a fashion week event that was open to commercial photography (not to mention I had actually applied for and received a media pass). I did not have a a property release (no one did), however I had taken a photo of the sign at the entrance to the event indicating that commercial photography was permitted and this photo constituted acceptable proof of the released location as did a scan of my media pass for the event.
"Commercial photography" is not the same as "earning money from editorial photography" and an agency which knew what they were doing with editorial would not require that. But then, we're dealing here with an agency which rejects editorial shots for poor (naturally 'flat') light and allows resubmissions ...
13596
« on: June 09, 2011, 19:39 »
Last time I wrote to Scout because my latest images were refused for No EXIF no one replied. Unless of course it takes three weeks for them to figure out a scan never has EXIF data?
How long did you wait? I've got an open Scout ticket since Mid-February.
13597
« on: June 09, 2011, 18:09 »
After a really poor week last week, bad weekend, slow Monday, Tuesday was my best non-EL day (for $$) for at least 18 months (didn't look back further than Dec '10) and BDY for dls (not saying much - well under half of my best download day in my first year) . Then yesterday was slow again and only 1 dl all day today. :-(
Tuesday took me over 50% of my RC target to keep 30%, but Summertime is coming, and I can hardly imagine how much worse July-August will be ...
13598
« on: June 09, 2011, 17:27 »
They do however like every other single agency in the world want assurance that no actual laws (civil or criminal) have been broken in obtaining the image, but that's nothing to do with releases.
this is the issue...define this 'assurance'...that's precisely what we've all been discussing.
besides pressganging the stranger next to you, and giving them your camera set on Program, and asking them to shoot you clearly being in a public place with the celebrity or event in progress, I can't really see what else you can do. And if you did that, you're wasting your own shooting time, and then you'd probably have to waste more time explaining why you wanted them to do it, and when they found out you were shooting for stock (and explained what that is), they'd likely want paid ... The trouble must the different laws in different countries. If the 'tog was acting illegally, that would be their responsibility, and the agencies' contracts are all clearly written to shift the blame onto the photographer, in iStock's case, they abnegate all legal responsibility to help a 'tog, even when an image has been used contrary to the terms and conditions. In the UK, it would be up to the prosecutor to prove that the 'tog was taking photos from an illegal place, as we are 'innocent until proven guilty'. It's not up to us to prove we were on a public place. I guess it's up to us to know the relevant laws in any country we're shooting in, which in some cases can be difficult to find out. (In the case of France, I don't know how it works out for news. I've seen 'crowd scenes' from France in UK newspapers and TV progs, so that was shooting people in the street, and no way they all gave permission.
13599
« on: June 09, 2011, 17:20 »
To be honest I've never had a situation where my assistant doesn't have something to do, and don't take this the wrong way but if you've got an assistant who on a 7 hour shoot has nothing to do for 5 of those hours you should think about getting one that's a bit more self motivated or ask yourself do you really need an assistant?
It also depends on how much you're paying him, or if you're paying him at all. If you're paying him well, than he/she really should be very self motivated, showing initiative, being your right hand. He should be doing everything, except shooting. But if he/she is just your friend who tags along on the shoot, helping you because you asked him for a friendly favor, well than you can be just happy he's willing to do it for free, as a favor. Same goes for someone who wants to learn from you, you can't really dictate him around and (almost) bark orders at him, although he came there to learn and you're paying him with knowledge.
I'm guessing that someone who's doing it for a friendly favour won't do it again, if they had to waste five hours doing zilch.
13600
« on: June 09, 2011, 17:04 »
And we have to put in a description. I often have virtually the same text in the title, caption and description. Strangely, although the caption is the most important, and is locked as soon as we submit an image, only the title (and description, I've read) are searchable.
On EdStock's files, the description reads:
"From the latest Apple product to the Sydney Opera House to President Obama, iStock now gives you access to brands, faces and far-off places with our new editorial images. See more editorial images.description
How editorial images can be used
Editorial files are licensed for non-commercial uses only, but what does that mean exactly? Read more."
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
