MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Show Posts

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 - jjauregui

Pages: [1]
1
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Buyers Bailing on Istock
« on: February 17, 2011, 04:38 »
I can care less about the acceptance rate. Our agency just cares about quality. Companies are willing to spend the money for the right photo.
Let me show you some examples of some garbage:
http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-image-creative-work-image10178466
http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photos-what-s-the-problem--image10178178
I just searched with the keywords, "laptop, man". Now tell me, if you cant tell the difference between istock and the other agencies than you don't have an eye for design. If I were a student or a freelancer with a low budget, then I would consider using canstock, dreamstime, shutterstocketc.


So these are examples to show that Istock has the superior images and other sites' reviewers need to step up?

As others have said, there is crap on all sites (including Istock). Sometimes the same crap (including Istock).

Maybe Istock reviewers need to step up too...  ;)


Nice, you got me! LOL! I wonder if those inspectors were on crack. I showed one of the account execs at work these photos of this furball. Man, he got a good laugh.

2
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Buyers Bailing on Istock
« on: February 17, 2011, 04:23 »
Uh oh, another wave of IS exclusives/cheerleaders trying to prove all the other sites are inferior. Too funny.

So, a buyer actually comes in to say something, and he's just an "exclusive/cheerleader" ?

Sorry Sean - this guy is NOT a real buyer - my guess is he is an exclusive IS contributor. I would be willing to put money on it. He has probably gone rogue (I am not saying IS put him/her up to it) but a realy buyer he or she ain't. The amount of "bad" content is about the same at Dreamstime, Shutterstock, Fotolia and IS (most of it legacy from years ago). The quality of what is available on the top sites is very similar. Where IS has the advantage and the edge still is in its wider choice of good imagery because it has the exclusives and the indepenents.  Anyone who is a real buyer knows this.

I shop at the other sites because 90% of the time they have what I need at a cheaper price - if I cannot find it I go to IS as a lost resort because chances are they will have whatever it is I am looking for. But that's the only time I go there to buy these days.

You are funny, I have no reason to lie.
We use to get catalogs from stock sites sent to us back in the days. They would send us thumbnails, then we would call to purchase the photos we would need. Or in some cases hire a photographer. Our storage room, is filled with CDs from photodisc, eyewire, stockbyte, comstock...etc. And its nice now, because Getty now has virtual CDs that make it easier when buying a collection. You don't have to worry about storing it.

Here's a thought that came to me right now. Not to far from where I live, is CalArts. CalArts is one of the top notch art schools in the nation. Some of the top animators (John Lasseter, Brad Bird, John Musker, Henry Selick and Tim Burton) went to this school. To get accepted a portfolio is required, which is part of their review process. iStock and macro sites use a similar process, you need to submit work before getting accepted. I think Dreamstime, and other sites should consider doing this before accepting a photographer's application. Personally, I think it would help their business. Its about quality, not quantity.

3
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Buyers Bailing on Istock
« on: February 17, 2011, 03:36 »

If this person iStock a buyer, that's great! If this person loves iStock, that's great! But there are still buyers leaving iStock, and there iStock still garbage on iStock, too. His post iStock very transparent.


He probably works for iStock. Remember that blog post that had a bunch of "users" leaving comments, only they all came from the same IP address, and that IP address was one of iStock's computers. Someone check his IP address, quick. :D

Edit: Apparently he doesn't work for iStock, but he iStock a contributor who iStock planning on going exclusive ASAP. So it seems he iStock an iStock "exclusive/cheerleader". So yup. Post iStock very transparent.

Put yourself in my situation. If you worked for an ad agency, and the agency buys a large credit package from iStock for their designers, would you care if the photo has a "little crown" or not when buying a photo? Honestly, I don't care if the photographer has that exclusive icon or not, if the shot is what I need then I just buy it. I'm not going to search other sites to find it cheaper. The cost gets rolled into the client's bill anyway.

As a matter of fact, we have Dreamstime and Bigstock credits still remaining, but we haven't used them up. We just don't buy from them. Years ago, we realized that a lot of those non-exclusives are at istock. iStock has a good mixture of non-exclusive and exclusive work. iStock is usually pretty good at filtering out the bad stuff.

4
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Buyers Bailing on Istock
« on: February 17, 2011, 03:01 »
Uh oh, another wave of iStock exclusives/cheerleaders trying to prove all the other sites are inferior. Too funny.

So, a buyer actually comes in to say something, and he's just an "exclusive/cheerleader" ?

Kind of like the same treatment the buyer/contributors get over at the iStock forum, huh?

He has pointed out garbage on other sites, as if iStock has none. Come on. Please. And look at you, jumping in here, putting me down. You don't ever see garbage on iStock? Why do you think there iStock a dollar bin? So you pull my comment out and choose to say something about it, making me look stupid, but you won't comment on the fact that this person, who by the way iStock a new member here with 4 posts, most of which are right here in this thread, doesn't think there iStock any garbage on iStock?

If this person iStock a buyer, that's great! If this person loves iStock, that's great! But there are still buyers leaving iStock, and there iStock still garbage on iStock, too. His post iStock very transparent.

edited: same for EyeDesigns posts...a little transparent

I'm at the agency practically the entire day designing, so I don't have time to post messages here. After work, I spend time with my family. So, now its 11:30 pm pacific time right now, and this is the time I get to go online and read up on stuff.

You are right every stock site has bad photos, but you have to realize some of these stock sites need to tightening up their standards. Familiarize yourself who is out there, a lot of macro shooters have crossed the line, and now are submitting photos to iStock as exclusive photos. For instance, Steve Cole is now exclusive with istock, our agency has old Photodisc CD collections with some of his works in there. Theres many more I can name that are exclusive.  

5
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Buyers Bailing on Istock
« on: February 16, 2011, 03:47 »
I work for an ad agency in the LA area and I must say, the iStock content is by far superior from other microstock sites. We actually save money using iStock because the quality is right up there with macro sites. Dreamstimes, Fotolia, Canstockphoto, etc seem to accept any low quality photos. Its seems their inspectors need to raise the bar. Time is money, and finding a high quality photo is the key.


As a supplier I don't find much difference between the acceptance/rejection rate on any of the leading sites. Sometimes one rejects what another accepts, but that can be iS accepting what DT, Fotolia or SS reject.

One of the bizarre effects of iS policy is that image price depends on supplier status not image quality. That means you can have two near identical images, one listed as "vetta" and another in the non-exclusive price range.


I can care less about the acceptance rate. Our agency just cares about quality. Companies are willing to spend the money for the right photo.
Let me show you some examples of some garbage:
http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-image-creative-work-image10178466
http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photos-what-s-the-problem--image10178178
I just searched with the keywords, "laptop, man". Now tell me, if you cant tell the difference between istock and the other agencies than you don't have an eye for design. If I were a student or a freelancer with a low budget, then I would consider using canstock, dreamstime, shutterstocketc.

6
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Buyers Bailing on Istock
« on: February 16, 2011, 01:44 »
I work for an ad agency in the LA area and I must say, the iStock content is by far superior from other microstock sites. We actually save money using iStock because the quality is right up there with macro sites. Dreamstimes, Fotolia, Canstockphoto, etc seem to accept any low quality photos. Its seems their inspectors need to raise the bar. Time is money, and finding a high quality photo is the key.

7
General Stock Discussion / Re: My day with Yuri Arcurs
« on: December 10, 2008, 01:05 »
Hi All, 

 This is a bit of a rant, you have been notified.....

 Have you ever noticed whenever there is a Yuri post there is always some form of what I like to call " Yuri Envy ". It always surprises me that this takes place. It seems to be limited but it happens almost every time.
 If Yuri had personally offended someone then I could understand a little bitterness I guess but why do some feel threatened by this one guy. He is great at what he does and he seems to offer a lot of helpful advice for FREE. He is always trying something new to increase profit and reduce overhead at the same time sharing those ideas with all of us for FREE. I guess I just don't get it. He was helping people long before he realized there might be profit in it.
 I can tell you why his images sell better than any exclusive at Istock. He is a better shooter, better at understanding the buyers needs and especially better at how to promote his Brand. There will always be a Tiger Woods or a Michael Jordan  in the game. It is the same in Macro stock. There are some guys I know that just make more money than I do, they are better at their craft. I think these people should inspire you and push you to do better work. I know they do that for me and always will.
 All I can guess is that some people are just easily threatened and that's a shame. You are all great photographers in your own right and there is no one that can stop you from being the next Yuri of Micro, except for yourself. Don't see him as anything but a mark to shoot for if you wish, or a mentor if you find his information helpful. There is nothing wrong with having mentors. I have had a few in my life and they have all been a great asset.

Just my opinion,
Best,
AVAVA

Well put AVAVA! You hit on the nail.

8
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Make me want to be exclusive...
« on: May 08, 2008, 01:56 »
We had a meeting of Slovenian iStock users about 14 days ago. Most of the people there were exclusives and said their income almost doubled when they went exclusive. This was due to more images they could upload, faster review times (and therefore better position of the images in the "best match") and also search prefers exclusives (not 100% sure about this one).

I'm just a newbie on IS, so (for now) I don't have to make that decision :D


I must say from my experience, iStock does indeed prefer exclusives when it comes to searches. I work for a major ad agency in the LA area and we spend a lot of money buying istock photos and from other large agenciesgetty, veeretc. Anyhow, I'm an iStock contributor myself and when I log in using the ad agency's member name and password and search for my photos nearly half of my portfolio doesn't show. But when I log off and search for my photos, then most of my photos show up. It never fails, I log in with the agency's password/name and the bulk of my portfolio disappears.

As a result, I will become exclusive with iStock by mid summer because I'm currently tied up with Dreamstime. Also the Getty incentive at istock is nice. I've contributed to many microstock sites, but I must say they don't compare to istock's quality. If getty, veer or jupiter doesn't have the image we want, then it most cases istockphoto will have it. It just that good. Actually years back we tried shutterstock and dreamstime, but these two sites still didn't compare to istock's quality. As a designer I have tight deadlines and I can always count on istock for the right image under the tightest time constraints. Some of the top istock contributors such as lisegagne, sjlocke, hidesy, nico_blue, sodafish just to name a few can easily run with the big boys at veer, stockbyteetc. Their work is great.



Pages: [1]

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors