Journalistic Photographs

of 2Next page
Displaying 1 to 20 of 24 matches.
japanthings
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloads
Posted Wed Jan 19, 2005 3:43AM
It clear that istockphoto is clearly geared towards photography for *designers.* It is the *designers* dirty little secret. My question is, why limit our market to designers?

The comments for rejection often say things like "this makes this photograph unsuitable for designers," as if it is designers that are the main market for photographs. And indeed, this is probably the case here, now.

It seems to me however that there is a large market for what I would calll "journalistic photographs". That is to say photographs that are of unusual, strange, famous, or timely things that people would be interested in purchasing, and that are not always easy to take.

For example if someone submitted a grainy photo with compression artifacts of the tsunami waves (perhaps with a "all proceeds to charity" sticker) then even though the photograph is grainy and has compresion artifacts it might still be the sort of photograph that a lot of people would want to download.

Bearing in mind the tremendous success of istock and the demand for both attractive AND not necessarily attractive but "interesting" photographs, perhaps it would be a good idea for istock to consider accepting journalistic photographs, perhaps under a seperate category, so to capitalise on both markets?

I admit that there are ways of taking "journalistic photographs" well. But, I think that there are occasions when it is difficult to take a photograph well (e.g. in the above example), and at the end of the day, the important thing is whether there is a demand.

I am not saying that istock should accept grainy photos of "my cat's first meal." And I believe that journalistic photographs should be clearly marked as being substandard from the point of view of a designer.

So I suggest that:
1) An extra checkbox in the upload screen for
"This a journalistic photograph which does not meet quality standards required by designers, but depicts something that may be of interest by reason of its content."
2)That an extra section be added to the FAQ concerning what consitutes a journalistic photograph.
3)That photographs submitted in this way be assesed by different instructors (perhaps?) under different, but equally stringent criterior.

This is partly a whine and it follow on from a previous post elsewhere on the forums. But, please note, I am speaking generally, not about any photograph that I have had rejected. At the same time
1) The are a lot of arty "well taken" photograhps on istock that have low downloads.
2) There are gaps in istock for photos that need not be arty or well taken but say for someones blog (we are only talking about a dollar) that would, I think, be in demand.

Or perhaps journalistic photographs are already accepted?

Or perhaps this is a business idea for another site?!

Or perhaps this is just hard cheese, and I should try harder? This last possibility is definately true in my case, but as a general comment about istock...

Members thoughts?

Tim

(Edited on 2005-01-19 03:52:21 by timtak)
subman
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto IllustratorExclusive iStockphoto Flash ArtistExclusive iStockphoto VideographerThis member has lost their last cage match. Consider this the black eye the bully gave you after school by the bike racks.Member has had a File Of The Week.Member has won a contest
Posted Wed Jan 19, 2005 3:50AM
I agree, thinking of images with grain, which sometimes is still usefull, I think we'll have to wait for that type of photography to come into demand before it will come more clearer.
namussi
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusive
Posted Wed Jan 19, 2005 4:43AM
I agree.

I'm a magazine editor. I NEED pictures which have logos in. For example, I needed a picture of a 7-Eleven to illustrate an article today, because one of the companies mentioned was negotiating with 7-Eleven Japan. I had to take the picture myself.

There are thousands of magazines, especially B2B, who have similar needs.

namussi

diane39
Member is a Black Diamond contributor and has more than 200,000 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsMember is an InspectorExclusiveMember has had a File Of The WeekAwarded to fabulous photographers with more than 100,000 downloads
Posted Wed Jan 19, 2005 6:13AM
You may want to check out this thread I started a while back about editorial use of photos.
jamirae
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Illustration downloadsMember has had a submission accepted to the Designer Spotlight
Posted Wed Jan 19, 2005 6:19AM
nice suggestion. why not take it into the suggestion forum? that would be a great place for your idea.
dgilder
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsMember has had a submission accepted to the Designer SpotlightThis member has lost their last cage match. Consider this the black eye the bully gave you after school by the bike racks.
Posted Wed Jan 19, 2005 7:41AM
I try to keep an eye out for journalistic shots that would also be stockable. I would love an editorial section of iStock.

You can do journalistic if you make sure people's faces aren't shown and clone out logos:

file_thumbview_approve
japanthings
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloads
Posted Wed Jan 19, 2005 7:59AM
Dear Subman,

Yes, "noisy" photos can also be really useful (or at least $1 useful), but like you say, the market is young. But perhaps not so young. I wonder how many people use "google images" for pictures for their blog, often in breach of copyright?

This would be really radical but, with the right marketing, in the top frame of the google images search it could say "using image from other people's website is illegal but you can purchase them at a dollar a time from istockphoto.com"!

I wonder if the leaders of istockphoto have Getty in their sights, while almost forgetting about a completely different, and much bigger market. That does not mean that istock should not take on Getty too, but that they can do both.

Dear Dgilder,
That is a nice photo! It meets both designer and editorial needs. But what about photos that meet only the latter?

Dear Namussi,
While I agree I would like images with logos, I think that photos that have logos such as logos cannot be sold without breaking the law.

Dear Diane39
Thanks for the link. Perhaps as was suggested on that thread, a new site is needed, with identical software but different criterion.

Dear Jamirae (thanks again for your photo!)
Do you think I should copy my post above to the other forum? Perhaps I might be allowed to ask what the general concesus is before making a suggestion. I am not sure about this. Perhaps this is just hard cheese (a British English expression?) whine?

To be really controversial, and perhaps nasty whiny (sorry), I would like to ask if perhaps istock driven by a "lets beat Getty images" type jealousy meets artistic-ego-massage kind of objective, or, by utilitarian demand, and profit?

Tim

(Edited on 2005-01-19 08:08:11 by timtak)

(Edited on 2005-01-19 08:09:27 by timtak)
sjlocke
Member is a Black Diamond contributor and has more than 200,000 Photo downloadsMember is a Gold contributor and has 5,000 - 12,499 Video downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 125 - 1,249 Audio downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Flash downloadsMember is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto IllustratorExclusive iStockphoto Flash ArtistExclusive iStockphoto VideographerMember has had a File Of The Week
Posted Wed Jan 19, 2005 8:04AM
I was just going to ask in the policy section whether the RF exclusivity clause applies to "editorial" images, as well as the normal commercial type image.

Again, I agree there should be an editorial license here.
dgilder
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsMember has had a submission accepted to the Designer SpotlightThis member has lost their last cage match. Consider this the black eye the bully gave you after school by the bike racks.
Posted Wed Jan 19, 2005 8:06AM
Editorial photos are specifically outside the exclusivity agreement
diane39
Member is a Black Diamond contributor and has more than 200,000 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsMember is an InspectorExclusiveMember has had a File Of The WeekAwarded to fabulous photographers with more than 100,000 downloads
Posted Wed Jan 19, 2005 8:08AM
Again, I agree there should be an editorial license here.


I second that.




We are demanding little SOBs around here, are we not?
RMAX
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveMember has had a Design Of The Week
Posted Wed Jan 19, 2005 8:10AM
...as I stated in Diane's thread, I often need editorial images which are not accepted on iStockphoto.
japanthings
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloads
Posted Wed Jan 19, 2005 8:10AM
I am not sure what "editorial" means. But lets forget it IF it is difficult.

What I am talking about it "interesting" but photographs that do not meet noise, compression artifacts, framing, focus and other "designer" oriented standards.

Who cares about designers? Designers care. But the market for photographs is much bigger than that.

Hi RMAX. Thank you!

Tim


(Edited on 2005-01-19 08:16:04 by timtak)
jamirae
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Illustration downloadsMember has had a submission accepted to the Designer Spotlight
Posted Wed Jan 19, 2005 8:15AM
I think if you want admins to consider it that you should put it in the suggestion forum for sure. discussing it here, though, (or even in the suggestion forum itself I suppose) could bring on additional ideas from others to enhance the suggestion.
japanthings
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloads
Posted Wed Jan 19, 2005 1:27PM
If, as it would seem, there is not all that much popular suppport for this idea i will not be submitting to the other forum.
diane39
Member is a Black Diamond contributor and has more than 200,000 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsMember is an InspectorExclusiveMember has had a File Of The WeekAwarded to fabulous photographers with more than 100,000 downloads
Posted Wed Jan 19, 2005 1:46PM

If, as it would seem, there is not all that much popular suppport for this idea i will not be submitting to the other forum.



What makes you think there isn't popular support for this?
jamirae
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Illustration downloadsMember has had a submission accepted to the Designer Spotlight
Posted Wed Jan 19, 2005 3:31PM
I think it's a good idea and you should submit it. Even if iStock is not in a position to incorporate your suggestion right now (for whatever reasons) it still may be something that would consider in the future. There are tons of great ideas posted in the suggestion forum, and not all have a lot of replies or discussion added to them, but that doesnt make them any less of a good idea.

kiloword-design
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloads
Posted Wed Jan 19, 2005 4:02PM
Devil's advocate: would the "journalistic photographer" like to either cut every face out of their photos, or be prepared to print 50000 model releases?

Magazines don't have to worry about them, or many other legal constraints faced by commercial photographers. That's why journalistic and commercial photos are simply two different things.

obviously the owners of the site have their visions set on design and commercial photography. Newspaper who wants journalistic pictures would go to Gettys or Reuters.
RMAX
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveMember has had a Design Of The Week
Posted Wed Jan 19, 2005 4:14PM
"Newspaper who wants journalistic pictures would go to Gettys or Reuters. "

...yes they would (do), only because there is no choice, but they'd rather pay $3 dollars if there was an alternative available. Anyway this is repeating Diane's thread and I've not heard any movement on this issue yet.
absolut_100
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloads
Posted Wed Jan 19, 2005 4:40PM
Not really, I know couple of newspapers' photoeditors and the reason they decide to buy photos from different agencies paying big money is different and I have already explained that in suggestion forum link

Talking about photojournalism, which I am mostly into I included as a kind of trial this photo and it never got downloaded
file_thumbview_approve

namussi
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusive
Posted Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:01PM
I think you would need a separate site to make it clear that those photos are for editorial use ONLY.

namussi
This thread has been locked.
of 2Next page
Displaying 1 to 20 of 24 matches.
Not a member?Join
Cart (0)