Well I have to say I'm guilty as charged  I am planning a blog post on the event now that the images have been published but haven't gotten to it yet. Lee has one from just after the event however - you can check it out here.

I think this event was a smart move (and so are the istockalypses by iStock).  Not that PhotoOp and an istockalypse should/can be compared...  but I believe both events are far from being a an expense on the company's budget.  They are meant as an investment and income generator for the company.  In my opinion, by having such an event Veer is hoping to dramatically increase their exclusive content and fill holes they see in their database - making for a higher valued collection for the buyer.  Veer and most other trad. companies have always organized shoots and brought in photographers - this one is no different really, albeit it was organized slightly different than their other shoots (it seems) and is targeted primarily towards the midstock market.  But Veer producing a stock shoot is nothing new.  Their fancy collection is a large collection of images they produced.

So anyhow, my point is that I think this event was a smart move on Veer's part, and I would certainly attend again if given the chance.

I must admit when I saw Lee's post about this (and again in their newsletter) my reaction was similar to cclappers. I also will admit that some of that is due to jealousy.

It does appear to be some sort of "in" club sort of thing - one of the many annoyances at IS.

Still, it might be a smart business move on Veer's part and I am guessing the amount of $ spent on this sort of thing pales compared to some others.

I don't fault Veer for spending some money on events like this, especially when there is a fairly clear goal in mind and the company stands to benefit greatly by expanding the exclusive collection with images that they can basically art direct  by organizing the locations, models, sets, etc. And when a company like Veer does it, I'm less inclined to take issue with them.

istock, on the other hand, shouldn't be spending money they claim they don't have on things like this. Remember, istock is the company that's saying they can't afford to pay us our old rates any more, and that their business model is unsustainable. Meanwhile they keep hosting events, awards, etc.

If Veer can keep up their rates and still afford to host events, good for them. The minute that changes, though, stuff like PhotoOps should be cut from the budget.

Wouldn't spending the money on reviewers, to get new photos through the q much faster, benefit even more contributors, buyers AND the company? That's just not me being jealous or dishing out sour grapes, that complaint comes from a lot of contributors, big and small.

Just sayin.

More isolated on white shots? No these are a win-win for both the contributors and the companies.  Also must say the way Veer went about it was much better then istock.

Thomas, since you don't contribute to Veer, being exclusive to Istock, you may not realize that the wait to get any images approved there has stretched into months.  This is unprecedented in microstock.  It's not unreasonable for contributors waiting months to get images reviewed (many of them extremely saleable lifestyle, not just objects isolated on white) to wonder if their priorities are a bit out of whack.  

I guess I just need to accept that the whole "community" spirit has disappeared from microstock and corporate think and greed has taken over. Those who can afford to play the game, win. The rest of the folks just trying to make a buck are S-O-L. I'm really not surprised, istock pretty much has prepared us for all of this.

I am in the same boat as you Cathy.  The community aspect of microstock was one of the positive trade-offs for taking such low commissions.  Now the community has eroded but the commissions haven't risen to keep pace.  It's taking me some time to adjust to the new reality.

Quote from: Eyedesign on November 30, 2010, 10:15

More isolated on white shots? No these are a win-win for both the contributors and the companies.  Also must say the way Veer went about it was much better then istock.

Thomas, since you don't contribute to Veer, being exclusive to Istock, you may not realize that the wait to get any images approved there has stretched into months.  This is unprecedented in microstock.  It's not unreasonable for contributors waiting months to get images reviewed (many of them extremely saleable lifestyle, not just objects isolated on white) to wonder if their priorities are a bit out of whack.

I'm with you, Lisa.  On the one hand, the PhotoOps benefit only a tiny fraction of Veer's content providers.  On the other, we have images waiting six weeks for review and upload quotas so low that we'll never get our existing portfolios online.  Only iStock has lower quotas.  

Quote from: cclapper on November 30, 2010, 09:34

I guess I just need to accept that the whole "community" spirit has disappeared from microstock and corporate think and greed has taken over. Those who can afford to play the game, win. The rest of the folks just trying to make a buck are S-O-L. I'm really not surprised, istock pretty much has prepared us for all of this.

I am in the same boat as you Cathy.  The community aspect of microstock was one of the positive trade-offs for taking such low commissions.  Now the community has eroded but the commissions haven't risen to keep pace.  It's taking me some time to adjust to the new reality.

I can't help feeling that some of us overestimated the cohesion of that community.  iStock's always struck me as cultish.  I only was active in the Shutterstock forums, but haven't been more than an occasional visitor for ages.  Still, most people in microstock act in a supportive fashion to their competitors.  Those that don't, well, liberal use of the Ignore button helps.

More isolated on white shots? No these are a win-win for both the contributors and the companies.  Also must say the way Veer went about it was much better then istock.

I don't understand why you are putting isolated on white shots down. There must be a reason why there are so many of them and they keep getting accepted. Maybe because they sell?

Quote from: disorderly on November 30, 2010, 10:54

snip
I can't help feeling that some of us overestimated the cohesion of that community.  iStock's always struck me as cultish.  I only was active in the Shutterstock forums, but haven't been more than an occasional visitor for ages.  Still, most people in microstock act in a supportive fashion to their competitors.  Those that don't, well, liberal use of the Ignore button helps.

Yes, istock turned cultish but it wasn't that way to begin with, when I started with microstock. Or maybe it was and I have been deluding myself all along  .

It's a fair question.  Back in 2006 when I got semiserious about this stuff, I spent a lot of time in the Shutterstock forums.  I spent a lot less time at iStock.  It felt more cultish (where never is heard a discouraging word) and more insular, and of course there was that feeling even from the beginning that the company was taking too large a share.  So I can't help wondering how much has really changed vs. how much we changed our perception.

Wouldn't spending the money on reviewers, to get new photos through the q much faster, benefit even more contributors, buyers AND the company? That's just not me being jealous or dishing out sour grapes, that complaint comes from a lot of contributors, big and small.

Just sayin.

I hear you. Especially, since I'm not even remotely interested in photography. I think it comes back to that question of, "Is this agency representing your interests?"