pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: OFFSET opened doors  (Read 37175 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.



« Reply #126 on: October 05, 2013, 14:45 »
-14
Nice try .
Better luck next time.

PS:
What you offer is exactly what i had enough and what i am fed up about.
Chat, chat , chat and in the end nothing left than kind words and nothing changed.
I dont care about nice words.
I care about professionality, support and reliability.
And thats nothing one can excpect from SS.

And-.... i know a lot of contributors in my country who just gave it up to discuss with SS.
The next one in line is me.

Bye
« Last Edit: October 05, 2013, 14:51 by FritzFox »

« Reply #127 on: October 05, 2013, 15:37 »
+9
Nice try .
Better luck next time.

PS:
What you offer is exactly what i had enough and what i am fed up about.
Chat, chat , chat and in the end nothing left than kind words and nothing changed.
I dont care about nice words.
I care about professionality, support and reliability.
And thats nothing one can excpect from SS.

And-.... i know a lot of contributors in my country who just gave it up to discuss with SS.
The next one in line is me.

Bye

So why don't you pull your port?

« Reply #128 on: October 05, 2013, 20:08 »
0
I agree, if you don't want to talk to Scott directly by email or sitemail and feel that uncomfortable working with them, just pull your portfolio. There are many agencies out there and you can always sell directly from your own site.

In general though, SS enjoys a good reputation in the community, so maybe take a step back and relax.

I don't quite understand why after uploading 8000 files you are now so disappointed.

But I guess that will remain your mystery.

mlwinphoto

« Reply #129 on: October 05, 2013, 20:34 »
+3
I cant believe what i see.....
Look here ....specially the first line of images:
http://www.offset.com/search/kids

Even our interns would get fired if they`d make "images" like this.

and that crap was announced as the new high quality stock agency???
what a laugh...


Wow, I thought it was going to be all national geographic type stuff, not vacation snaps.

I agree but as I see Stocksy is not much better.
http://www.stocksy.com/search?src=home&text=kids


So, what you are saying is that Offset and Stocksy should look like every other agency out there??  What good is that going to do them?
I certainly don't like every image I see on those two agencies or any other agency for that matter and I doubt you or anyone else does either.  Kudos to them for being different. 

« Reply #130 on: October 05, 2013, 21:04 »
0
"@Scottbraut:
Lets leave the sarcastic level and lets get serious.  What you are doing is a kick in the ass for every single serious photographer.  Do you sometimes have a look at the "images" you accept???  I would call that (its not even technical OK, not to mention professional) crap, garbage, trashwork, far away of beeing something conceptional or story-telling."

http://www.offset.com/photos/62875
http://www.offset.com/photos/65488
http://www.offset.com/photos/64783
http://www.offset.com/photos/65726
http://www.offset.com/photos/65718
http://www.offset.com/photos/65534
http://www.offset.com/photos/67512
http://www.offset.com/photos/67490
http://www.offset.com/photos/67255
http://www.offset.com/photos/67093
http://www.offset.com/photos/60931
http://www.offset.com/photos/60397


I don't see anything particularly wrong with any of these images, except for perhaps the last one.  On my calibrated monitor, the exposure of the mountain road is quite blown out, with very little detail showing.  The whole image is quite overexposed by about 2 to 3 stops.  That's my only criticism.  Anyone else seeing this?


« Last Edit: October 05, 2013, 21:11 by Sedge »

« Reply #131 on: October 05, 2013, 21:10 »
0
Question regarding this Offset image:

 http://www.offset.com/photos/60931

My question to the group and Scott: Are model release forms required for this type of image?

gillian vann

  • *Gillian*
« Reply #132 on: October 05, 2013, 22:50 »
+3
well I'm keen to apply. I can see a different style there from Stocksy, and I know I've got some great stuff that will fit in.

« Reply #133 on: October 05, 2013, 23:22 »
+1
Question regarding this Offset image:

 http://www.offset.com/photos/60931

My question to the group and Scott: Are model release forms required for this type of image?


Hi Sedge,

If the individual subjects are recognizable or in some way identifiable, yes.  This image is a good discussion case because the subjects are so tiny and side-lit.  I'd usually ask our compliance folks to look at the image and would want to see the original at 100% before suggesting an exact "yes" or "no" in a case like this.  As a general rule, when in doubt, it's better to have a release than not have one. 

Best,

Scott

« Reply #134 on: October 06, 2013, 00:10 »
0
Scott, thanks for the feedback...

EmberMike

« Reply #135 on: October 06, 2013, 01:13 »
+1
... i know a lot of contributors in my country who just gave it up to discuss with SS.
The next one in line is me.

Good riddance. See ya.

« Reply #136 on: October 06, 2013, 01:35 »
+5
Hi Scott, appreciate your willingness to stay and face the MSG crowd, who (at times) can be rather brutal.
Although I dont agree with FritzFox harsh criticisms, I do sympathise with his frustrations.

I dont believe Shutterstock has left the starting blocks with Offset in a gallant direction.
A truly noble and honourable business would have cherry picked from the staff that help grow their business from the ground up, rather than hiring externally for the newly created top jobs.

The content being gathered for Offset can easily be created by the extraordinary talents available on Shutterstock. I do hope you guys can take a step back, see the bigger picture and reward the people who deserve to be rewarded.

I realise that writing this will put me on the Offset black list, but Ive always been about loyalty, if loyalty meant nothing, i would still have my port available on IS.

EmberMike

« Reply #137 on: October 06, 2013, 01:45 »
+3
...The content being gathered for Offset can easily be created by the extraordinary talents available on Shutterstock. I do hope you guys can take a step back, see the bigger picture and reward the people who deserve to be rewarded...

I have to disagree. It wouldn't make sense to come up with this new collection and bill it as something different than Shutterstock and then populate the collection with content from some of the same people who supply content to Shutterstock. Previous history with Shutterstock should have no bearing on whether someone is selected to work with Offset, regardless of whether or not they have the capability to create the kind of work required by Offset.

In the end, portfolio should be the primary determining factor. And if I understand Offset correctly, if you have a portfolio of work that you think shows the kind of stuff they might want, nothing is stopping you from trying to get it seen and considered. Scott please correct me if I'm wrong here, but it seems like there is nothing that says that a current Shutterstock contributor is disqualified from Offset. I would suspect that anyone who supplies content to both Shutterstock and Offset will likely have very different looking portfolios at each site, as each site seems inclines to want somewhat different types and styles of images.

If you've got the work, show it. Maybe they'll take you.
 
« Last Edit: October 06, 2013, 01:49 by EmberMike »

« Reply #138 on: October 06, 2013, 02:05 »
+3
...The content being gathered for Offset can easily be created by the extraordinary talents available on Shutterstock. I do hope you guys can take a step back, see the bigger picture and reward the people who deserve to be rewarded...

I have to disagree. It wouldn't make sense to come up with this new collection and bill it as something different than Shutterstock and then populate the collection with content from some of the same people who supply content to Shutterstock. Previous history with Shutterstock should have no bearing on whether someone is selected to work with Offset, regardless of whether or not they have the capability to create the kind of work required by Offset.

The approvals and rejections of microstock shaped the look and feel of the content created. Macro will do the same.

« Reply #139 on: October 06, 2013, 02:29 »
+8

The approvals and rejections of microstock shaped the look and feel of the content created. Macro will do the same.
Absolutely!  We all know that dark shadows, cut-off/cropped heads/feet, over/under-exposure, lensflares and partial out-of-focus areas will give an image a "realistic" feel.  But we have al learned to avoid it, because these images would be rejected in 99% of the cases.  Now suddenly these "effects" seem to be worth more ...   Problem is that if we would start shooting like this, SS would STILL reject them.
I love dark shadows (I hate cropped off heads though  ;) ), but I don't submit those images to SS - waste of bandwidth ...

« Reply #140 on: October 06, 2013, 06:32 »
+1
And if I understand Offset correctly, if you have a portfolio of work that you think shows the kind of stuff they might want, nothing is stopping you from trying to get it seen and considered. Scott please correct me if I'm wrong here, but it seems like there is nothing that says that a current Shutterstock contributor is disqualified from Offset. I would suspect that anyone who supplies content to both Shutterstock and Offset will likely have very different looking portfolios at each site, as each site seems inclines to want somewhat different types and styles of images.

If you've got the work, show it. Maybe they'll take you.


That is correct.  Shutterstock.com itself has both amazing images and also buyers transacting at higher price points.  Unlike some other agencies, we're not actively segmenting our main collection.

What we are doing is cultivating a collection of images that we know buyers want, but struggle to find easily in stock.  That could be of a particular quality, authenticity, style or narrative.   For example, it's very easy right now to go and find a high-quality image of "pizza" at Shutterstock.com.   Offset provides high-quality images of pizza, but also everything around making pizza, the ingredients, cooking, serving and eating.  Because it's curated -- it's very easy to find a group of images that work naturally together for an editorial story, advertising campaign, etc... 

That's going to be different than what a local business might be looking for to illustrate their website, menus, signage, etc...   Which isn't to say that we don't have high-quality and useful images on both websites, or graphically strong single images, because we do.   

Pizza at Offset
Pizza at Shutterstock

That's really just one example, but hopefully it's helpful. 

Shutterstock contributors can apply for Offset, but at this point in time, we really recommend that they do so if their images are a good match for the direction of the collection.  As everyone here knows, there's great earnings potential in our main collection and also great content. 

Best,

Scott

Beppe Grillo

« Reply #141 on: October 06, 2013, 06:38 »
+1
^^^^

What do you mean with your links?
That OFFSET show 20 times the (almost) same photo, and Shutterstock not?


ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #142 on: October 06, 2013, 06:43 »
+2
^^^^

What do you mean with your links?
That OFFSET show 20 times the (almost) same photo, and Shutterstock not?
That's the point.
It's the same photo, but offset.
 ;)

But seriously, I think that's what he means by "enabling storytelling"

« Reply #143 on: October 06, 2013, 07:43 »
+4
First I want to thank Scott and Shutterstock for coming into these forums! Keep in mind they don't have to! I think it very wise that they try and communicate with us here. I love the pizza images and find that very useful in explaining the difference between SS main and OFFSET, Than-you for that.

« Reply #144 on: October 06, 2013, 08:00 »
+3
First I want to thank Scott and Shutterstock for coming into these forums! Keep in mind they don't have to! I think it very wise that they try and communicate with us here. I love the pizza images and find that very useful in explaining the difference between SS main and OFFSET, Than-you for that.
Agree.  However, I do want to point out that some of the photographers, Amos Nachoum and Brandon Cole, are the world's best underwater photographers.  The only reason David Doubilet probably isn't in the collection is his contract with National Geographic.  So from a "what level of photographer do you need to be" perspective, these examples to me say VERY HIGH END, in most cases anyway. Maybe I can get in with my walking octopus or my barracuda shot!! ;)

« Reply #145 on: October 06, 2013, 08:31 »
0
I find it amusing ahnd ironic to find that my local natural light, which was an automatic rejection on iStock in the old days, is now applauded by the very same people who used to tell me how evil it was, over on Stocksy.

Can we please see an example of the sort of rejected picture which you are talking about here ?

I have never heard of iStock ever rejecting a picture because it was naturally lit.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #146 on: October 06, 2013, 09:08 »
+2
I find it amusing ahnd ironic to find that my local natural light, which was an automatic rejection on iStock in the old days, is now applauded by the very same people who used to tell me how evil it was, over on Stocksy.

Can we please see an example of the sort of rejected picture which you are talking about here ?

I have never heard of iStock ever rejecting a picture because it was naturally lit.
At the beginning (back in early 2007) I put them on the critique forum, and was always told the lighting was 'too flat'.
Many Brits had the same rejections when shooting landscapes or wildlife. We were aways told to increase the 'S' shape in curves. Latterly, I did it with the clarity filter in RAW.

« Reply #147 on: October 06, 2013, 09:16 »
-2
Ah ok. So it was the processing which was rejected.

I have not seen any work on Stocksy which has out of context flat lighting. Have you ?

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #148 on: October 06, 2013, 09:28 »
0
Ah ok. So it was the processing which was rejected.

I have not seen any work on Stocksy which has out of context flat lighting. Have you ?

I have seen plenty of photos there with identical lighting to that which I and many others had rejected from iStock in the past. I have indicated them in previous posts.

And it was not the processing which was rejected. It was the lighting which they deemed 'too flat'. The processing which was acceptable was not 'natural'. I accept that flat lighting is being accepted nowadays on iStock.

BTW, last year I noticed a new iS tog on the critique forum asking about rejections, and was told the same, 'flat lighting'. I was interested enough in his work to look at his personal website, and found he's a multi-award winner in several prestigious UK and international natural history competitions and his work is used in top class NH publications. I see that he has now stopped uploading to iS. Their loss.
Added: no, he's just started uploading again, presumably having discovered that they now accept more subdued lighting.
« Last Edit: October 06, 2013, 15:08 by ShadySue »

« Reply #149 on: October 06, 2013, 10:34 »
-1
I have seen plenty of photos there with identical lighting to that which I and many others had rejected from iStock in the past. I have indicated them in previous posts.

Could you please point me to one of those previous posts?

My sense is that flat lighting has to be used appropriately. Like any other technique. It surely has to be stylistically intentional.

The look of Hilla and Bernd Becher's best known work is partly all about the flat lighting. Their work and teaching has been a very major influence on where we are now.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
29 Replies
12340 Views
Last post December 17, 2009, 18:12
by PixelBitch
2 Replies
2927 Views
Last post August 29, 2012, 17:47
by Mantis
9 Replies
5106 Views
Last post May 24, 2013, 07:02
by Deyan Georgiev Photography
7 Replies
9264 Views
Last post April 15, 2015, 21:47
by onepointfour
13 Replies
6628 Views
Last post March 07, 2018, 20:16
by RAW

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle