|
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 - stockanon
Pages: [1]
1
« on: April 12, 2012, 05:34 »
The problem with the argument that there is some demand somewhere for faded, cross-processed images, or pinhole images, or Holgaesque images is that in the end it boils down to an argument that every image ever shot should be accepted because sometime, somewhere it might be exactly what someone wants. Which makes inspectors redundant.
To some extent Getty has already embraced that idea by tying up with Flickr - and you can always contact Getty to see if they can persuade someone to sell you a flickr shot, even if it isn't in the Getty Flickr collection.
I think there's currently as much market for these type of images than for the standard plasticy, fake smile, fake lighting, fake people stock images that crowd the stock libraries. Just open any of the higher end magazines and look at the ads. We're not talking about a couple people come out from under a rock looking for these type of images. It's a wider trend which should be noticed and responded to by stock agencies as if they have any business sense. Just because you or others don't like the style doesn't mean it doesn't exist or have value. I can't tell you how many people I talk to that can't stand and even make fun of the fake look of the standard white background, brightly lit, fake smile images that fill stock libraries. Does it mean those images shouldn't exist or be sold on stock sites? No. It just means there are many styles and tastes and if something becomes big enough and in demand than why wouldn't you want to offer it in a stock library?
2
« on: April 12, 2012, 05:00 »
^ Ok, I see. Since I never got to see the original image being discussed, I was referring to the more general discussion about whether this genre has value as stock and should be allowed in the regular stock collections.
3
« on: April 12, 2012, 04:12 »
Give me a break when has IS taken anything other than technical quality into account? Sure there must be tons of really excellent images (by any criteria) on the site done by folks on top of their game that meet the pixel peeping standards. There are, however, hundreds of thousands more on the other sites that may have some insignificant technical flaw that wouldnt pass the IS inspectors but that these sites recognise will enhance their collections. There are literally millions on flickr that are really creative, original and say something that would never get past the door on any MS site. It is a hell of a lot easier to do a simple technically perfect image than it is to do a complex one. The image posted is devoid of any merit just a technically bad version of the technically good boring images that are spread across the Internet. You have standards or you dont have standards and when acceptance is based on who produced the image or the equipment used instead of the work itself, you dont have standards.
I have no problem with questioning or calling out iStock on it's practices or policies. I for one have been negatively affected by many things iStock/Getty have done, especially recently. However, I do think that skewering this contributor and this genre is short-sighted.
4
« on: April 12, 2012, 02:59 »
4 - iStock is not a place to explore ones inner level of artistic expression
Because you say so ?
There are some fantastically creative successful portfolios on iStockphoto - not just artsy but also conceptual and experimental. As well as all of the fantastically executed more conventional portfolios. And pretty much everything in between. It's a broad church from that perspective. Something for everyone, how it should be.
Personally I really like some of the more indy - styled portfolios.
Good point about creativity. I love some of the creative imagery on Istock and see no reason that creative work not be accepted.
But I do agree with Daisy's points 1-3. Quality standards should be high and consistently enforced. Nothing about technical quality precludes creativity. It's not either or.
I think on point 4 Daisy probably means that there are certain artistic channels that aren't suited for stock - the current fad for pinhole photography, for example, which creates exceedingly soft images that can look sharp in a thumbnail and could, therefore, confuse buyers. Then again, if there were a pinhole collection it wouldn't be misleading.
Wow. Ok, so now Ive read most of this thread and finally got to the bottom of which contributor was being discussed. I am by no way an inspector or insider at istock although I have been a contributor there for many years. I have admired this contributor's work from afar since I started here at iStock. It is obvious that he knows what he's doing and is fully capable of producing what many of you consider "suitable stock" images. He also obviously has his own style and in this case is working towards a newer trend which is currently becoming more popular in the artsier side of photography and advertising (yes, I'm talking commercially). While I cant see the original image being discussed as it has been removed from istock, I can see the type of image in his portfolio and so my comments are based on those. I think its pretty telling that many of you think this genre isnt "suited for stock" as was expressed in the above quote. If any of you have been selling stock for long, one thing you must know is that it's all about what the current trends and styles are. Yes, there are certain types of stock images that may never go out of style, but there are also many trends that come and go. Currently there is a very popular trend towards the supposed "real" looking faded, cross-processed style that has been made popular in part by, yes, instagram. Whether you like it or not, there is no set "standard" when it comes to trends or styles. In this case there is a certain segment of the market that are looking for this type of image so they should most definitely be included in stock collections. Buyers aren't stupid, so this talk about "confusing" buyers is funny to me. The buyers are the ones who decide what sells, so let them decide! Having said this, should we have quality standards at iStock? Certainly, but not at the expense of providing images that meet a given market demand. Is it fair that certain proven contributors should be given more leeway than beginners? Yes, why not. While I may or may not enjoy this leeway myself, I don't have a problem with someone who is a proven artist/contributor having more freedom. I think it comes with the territory and is fair. Does it mean there won't be some mistakes? No, but I see many newbie images that I think should never have been accepted either, but they somehow get in the collection because they barely met a certain technical standard. Heck, there are plenty of images in my own portfolio that make me sick as an artist (bright lights, fake, plastic smiles) but for some reason sell. Who decides? The buyers.
5
« on: November 29, 2011, 15:37 »
What's disturbing to me is the fact that the broken Istock works similarly to the correctly working Thinkstock and Getty Images in regards to sales reporting. Instead of transparent reporting of sales when they happen, everything is now opaque. I know I'm being a conspiracy theorist but its tough not to be these days.
Actually, I was thinking along these same lines. Remember when we used to have live stats on our DLs and that went wonky? Well... we never got that back did we? I may just be a matter of time before iStock stops giving daily updated stats and we have to wait for an end of month report like Getty. They seem to be moving towards alignment in other areas so why not in this one? Long gone are the days when iStock was its own company or at least allowed to operate independently of Getty even once they were bought. Now iStock is just another portal for Getty and it probably makes sense to them to bring their reporting practices in line with the rest of the "family". They probably think that passing it off as a bug initially will break us in to the idea easier than if they just announce it. Bah... who knows, but it does sound like something they might do.
6
« on: November 26, 2011, 06:10 »
Just iStock living up to its true identity: iStuck (or iSuck if you prefer)
7
« on: November 23, 2011, 10:17 »
In any case, you'd best clear that with IS/Getty first.
Remember, they don't have to justify cancelling their contract with you, any more than you need a reason to cancel your contract with them.
True, no more than they need to justify lowering royalty rates. We already found that out the hard way. Anyways, I'm not a "go behind your back" sneaky type even if Getty is, so I'll either be exclusive or not openly (all spoken anonymously, of course ;-). A little time will tell.
8
« on: November 23, 2011, 08:13 »
IMO, you're not going to win any contests by shifting uploads to Getty.
I respect your opinion Sean, but if iStock isn't not working for me anymore, what other options do I have without leaving exclusivity? And don't say the Partner Program (I know you won't Sean).
9
« on: November 23, 2011, 07:40 »
Cobalt, thanks for the levelheaded advice. I probably will hold on a bit longer but it is becoming quite unsustainable from a personal income aspect. I do have a house contract at Getty and have started to upload more there. That is partly what I was refering to with regard to leaving microstock. It's just been really hard to decide between uploading to iStock or Getty, but IS is making that choice easier. On the other hand it will probably take a while before I start seeing significant returns on Getty and if the returns i'm seeing from V/A files on Getty is any indication, it's not very encouraging.
10
« on: November 23, 2011, 07:25 »
michealo: "Note it's not a regular Tuesday it's two days before thanksgiving in the US which is a major market for IS."
I understand that, but it still doesn't explain the continued drop off and last week was not much better than this week.
11
« on: November 23, 2011, 06:58 »
Im an iStock exclusive at the diamond level and have been contributing there since 2007 (let the guessing begin). For my own reasons Ive chosen to remain anonymous at this time and this is my first ever post here on MSG.
This thread as well as other recent conversations both here and in the istock sales threads have me very worried about the future of istock. Is iStock becoming the Myspace of the microstock world? I certainly hope not, but my faith in IS has been slowly eroding for over a year now and this month it is the worst ever.
A year ago I used to average about 30-40 DLs on a normal weekday. This year that number dropped to 20-30 per weekday. This month it has dropped to 10-20 per weekday. Yesterday I only had 5 DLs, which for me is unheard of on a regular working Tuesday, normally my best day of the week. I have a good number of Vettas and a smaller number of Agency files but royalties from those few sales are not near enough to balance the loss of revenue from decreasing DLs. I know these are just my numbers so they are anectdotal at best. But that said, something is seriously wrong with this picture. I dont upload as much as I could, but I do try to upload regularly. So, what does all this mean?
Its causing me to seriously question staying exclusive at IS and for that matter, its causing me to question the concept of microstock in general (yeah, I know that sounds a bit dramatic). I really don't know what to do but its clear that something has to change and they say that change begins with "me". It's just hard when you've invested so much with one agency and now you're getting a big fat turd in return.
Pages: [1]
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
