Quote from: MichaelJay on February 23, 2009, 05:38

... and I have been reconsidering it every few months since then.

For me this is the crux of the matter. Exclusives always seem to have this 'buyer's remorse' gnawing away inside themselves on whether they have made the right decision or not. Independents on the other hand, at least all the ones I know (and that's quite a few), are happy and confident that they are much better off remaining so. We only have to visit the IS forums and read the shrieks of indignation everytime there's a best match-change to confirm our thoughts.

But it seems to me you're basing that conclusion on a self-selecting sample - exclusives who have made their decision and are happy with it aren't likely to keep posting about how they're content with their lot.  And the complainers in the best match threads are frequently non-exclusives as well who feel that the exclusives might be receiving some unfair advantage.

From my point of view, I am exclusive, it suits me just now but if circumstances change in the future it may not and then I'll reconsider it, but I don't see that as "buyer's remorse".

I'm also thinking it's a lot easier to give up exclusivity after some time than it is to take it on.  You don't have to wait 90 days, or six months in another case, to remove your portfolio on some other site, for one thing.  And it's not like you can't go exclusive again later if it really doesn't work out - though in that case you do have to wait 90 days.

Where did you hear that it was going to take effect this week?

They announced they were trialling it a few weeks back and would release it shortly if all worked out OK, but since then nothing - so I'm guessing they're still ironing out the bugs...

Ah Ha, I think I'm starting to get it. So since all mine like the above example are Licensed (licenced), that doesn't mean they are Editorial?

What have I been doing all this time? 

Have to go look and see what kind of mess I've made.

I don't see anything else except "set restrictions" looks like in Alamy language Licenced = Editorial.

Remember, if you don�t have a release for certain content, you can sell it as Licenced (L) and set restrictions to �Editorial use only�.

Fine with me. I'm clicking the two boxes, leaving photos as Licenced and I guess I agree, I'm not going into some sub-menu for every image and setting it editorial only. But I'm not leaving anything unchecked that should be either.

You're not making a mess, it's fine like that.  It's just that "Editorial" is only one of the uses covered under "Licence", and you can restrict them further if you wish to (though quite why you would is unclear to me).

But SharpShot said: "If I am selling RM and I have indicated that I don't have a release, it is up to the buyer to decide if they can use the photo."  He's not leaving anything unchecked that should be either.

No, that's not the same thing.

It isn't a case of marking photos as having a model/property release when they don't.

When you mark as "No Release" it will automatically set "License" option, but "Restrictions" is a subset of this - to set "Restrictions" you have to click "More Options" under the image, then select any restricted uses you wish to disallow under the pull-down menu.

To specify "Editorial" use only you have to remove all other options in that pull-down, which is indeed time consuming.  Whether it is required though is still a moot point.

Here's a weblink to a small gallery of mine (6 photos in it)
Comments welcome from yourself and everyone else. Where do you think is a good place that will accept such photos?
Suggestions very welcome

http://pa.photoshelter.com/usr-show/U0000svgnQeuMhV8

Well, I like them and I think iStock would be good for these - as others have said, landscape type pictures aren't usually big sellers anywhere, but I've found them to get regular sales on IS.  Yes, I know they're one of the big players but don't be scared off, I think you're easily good enough to get taken on there.  You will need to use some different subjects as well as landscapes for your application, they like to see a range of different work, but should be no problem.

That said, once accepted you'd have to go a bit easier on the post processing to get those particular shots past the inspectors.  iStock don't like such heavily processed images.

I am sorry but I have to disagree over the consistency of istock reviews.
I didn't upload to them in months, due to the horrendous process to get my files to the site. So I have about 30 photos, no more.
But I uploaded 15 images few weeks ago with DeepMeta (btw - very nice piece of software). Well, among those there were about 8 with landscape and ruins from a very old castle in the mountains. They all are of the same quality, since I shot them in the same conditions with the same camera and lens. Only 5 of them made it through, the others being rejected for:
- keywords (the same keywords were used to all since all the photos were showing the castle in various compositions)
- overuse of noise reduction software (i do NOT use noise reduction software AT ALL)
or
- noise (same settings, same conditions, noise levels were the same in all photos. Camera is 5D, lens is 17-40, iso 100, sunny day).

Inconsistent reviews is the second reason for what I don't bother with istockphoto.

My 0.02$...

Certainly a bit odd to get rejections based on both "overuse of noise reduction" and for excessive noise when you've used the same settings on much the same scene!

I don't seem to have this problem with them though, I usually find their reviewing fair, even when I have used a little noise reduction it seems to have been considered acceptable.

Have you tried posting samples in their critique forum to get some feedback?

My God... people what's wrong with you all??

Everyone gets so grumpy when their iStock stats aren't updating...

Quote from: Gannet77 on February 05, 2009, 06:50

Quote from: Neustock on February 05, 2009, 05:53

Maybe at last it would mean an end to all those &@**!ing photographers who endlessly shoot business groups ad nauseam 

NS

Don't see why it would.

You certainly seem to do all right out of such shots!

Hence the 
 

Indeed, no criticism implied and I certainly didn't intend any grumpiness, your portfolio is excellent!

I'd alluded to the same thing about the multimedia_de application in another thread - it allows anyone to relatively easily track month on month total downloads for all of iStock, which are figures they don't normally like to release.  I'd wondered if they might decide to make the public availability of downloads optional, visible only to yourself when logged in if you chose to opt out.

On the general point though, I personally don't have any problem with it, but I do think anyone who does should have the right to opt out.

I take it you mean your initial application - bear in mind though that iStock don't judge the initial application by the same criteria they use for accepting images.

What they are looking for initially is an indication of your ability to compose different types of subject, your "eye for a picture" as it were, not technical nit picking about noise or artifacts or whatever (you'll get plenty of that later).

Did they reject all three, and what reason did they give?  If you sent them three similar subjects, they may just want to see something different so they can make a better judgment.

Be aware too that, once you get it, the initial images must be resubmitted and will be judged much more closely so they won't necessarily be accepted first time.

I still seem to be getting roughly average sales, obviously some buyers are persisting.

But they say it is not related to the BM2 testing planned this week...  probably just as well, it would bode ill if a few tests had broken the server!

The main point I was making was that he felt his pictures were too good to sell for a dollar, but he has no problem buying our pictures for a dollar.  But since he isn't selling any of his pictures because they would have to be scanned, my guess is they wouldn't even sell for a dollar.   

I don't understand the logic here - having to scan his pictures would certainly mean it might not be worth the effort, but it certainly doesn't mean they won't sell.

I have plenty of scanned images in my portfolio, and they sell all the time.

Isn't it possible that you're misreading the termination clause? I think that what they're addressing is that they have the right to take 30 days to stop selling all the content if you leave the site altogether. IOW, that this clause isn't talking about a switch from exclusive to non?

If it's an issue for anyone, I'd suggest contacting contributor relations to see if this delete your exclusive uploads  interpretation is really correct.

That's sort of what I wondered.  It would seem counter productive for iStock to remove large numbers of  presumably good selling files just because someone renounced exclusivity, especially given that from then on they would be making more money from them.

Can anyone who has actually done this shed any light on it?

Quote from: Gannet77 on January 30, 2009, 12:19

Yes, I don't know if that's a bug or what.

Her sales are still in the total downloads though, a drop of 800,000+ would be obvious if not...

I believe she took action to have her stats completely removed (not just made "anonymous"). I don't think it's a bug, and she isn't the only one.

Now that's interesting.

Actually I agree with that, I think it's right that multimedia_de should remove the contributor completely if requested.

Though the stats are of course still accessible to anyone building a similar application, unless and until iStock should decide to prevent it.