Well, since IS opened the door to mobile phone photos and I just bought a new iPhone 4s, I thought I would give it a go. My first shoot was actually some test shots at a local music store where I was planning a full on 5D-with-strobes shoot. The iPhone shots came out pretty good for an iPhone using Camera+ app and some light post in LR and PS. All were accepted but one. Surprising.

Yesterday I was at Oceanside Pier and snagged a bunch of nice photos and just ULed them. I got some, IMO, nice shots with good compositions and subject matter. BUT while doing post, I kept thinking, why . didn't I just bring my 5D and not have to deal with all this noise, color distortion, jpeg format, and other issues inherent in a freaking iPhone sensor.

I guess my point is, just because you can doesn't mean you should.

I am looking at beautiful captures that have a 50/50 chance of acceptance depending upon an inspector's tolerance of all this iphone stuff. With a FF sensor and speed light fill, that goes up to 85%+ chance of acceptance.

Anyway, that is my morning ramble and first experience with mobile phone shooting.

What you got?

Nice stuff FV.

Yeah a real advantage is the stealth and non-intimatadation factor  you don't get with a DSLR. Suddenly, grocery stores, retail, bars etc... are fair game -- well, let's say in the game.

What is kinda cool too is that you don't have to mess with all the camera settings in these point-and-shoots. Shooting with an LCD in sunlight sucks though.

Damnn, I am starting to waffle on this. Sean will be ripping me a new one before dawn! 

Yeah a real advantage is the stealth and non-intimatadation factor  you don't get with a DSLR. Suddenly, grocery stores, retail, bars etc... are fair game -- well, let's say in the game.

What is kinda cool too is that you don't have to mess with all the camera settings in these point-and-shoots. Shooting with an LCD in sunlight sucks though.

I agree on this, I know for asking that I can't take out my camera with the 24-70 on it in a mall without having the security at least looking at me.

The question is, does a small point and shoot camera can be reviewed with the same standards as an iphone picture. I really have no need of an iphone at the moment and certainly won't pay a monthly fee only for taking pictures in malls and grocery stores. I guess that's a Istock forum question...

Uhhhh...

LOL, square with a white frame and a tweeked wrong color balance only hipsters can achieve. It be funny if it even sell once.

Don't you need a permission release for them for editorial?

But not for commercial.

Lol, I know, I know.  As I said, I'm sure there's a market, but hopefully they will find a way to segment these out so they don't affect the regular collection standards.

Quote from: ShadySue on September 07, 2012, 14:19

Don't you need a permission release for them for editorial?

But not for commercial.

Lol, I know, I know. 

Yeah, but how often would you find a shop or bar with no IP issues? By the time you'd drawn attention to yourself getting into weird positions or moving stuff around, you might as well pull out your dSLR. And if you're going to have to spend ages cloning out stuff, again you might as well have taken it on your dSLR and had more size options.

I just don't see (m)any photos coming through that couldn't have been taken on a p&S or dSLR.

Quote from: sjlocke on September 07, 2012, 14:21

Quote from: ShadySue on September 07, 2012, 14:19

Don't you need a permission release for them for editorial?

But not for commercial.

Lol, I know, I know. 

Yeah, but how often would you find a shop or bar with no IP issues? By the time you'd drawn attention to yourself getting into weird positions or moving stuff around, you might as well pull out your dSLR. And if you're going to have to spend ages cloning out stuff, again you might as well have taken it on your dSLR and had more size options.

I just don't see (m)any photos coming through that couldn't have been taken on a p&S or dSLR.

sue -- i've done undercover produce section and got accepted without IP.

Quote from: ShadySue on September 07, 2012, 14:25

Quote from: sjlocke on September 07, 2012, 14:21

Quote from: ShadySue on September 07, 2012, 14:19

Don't you need a permission release for them for editorial?

But not for commercial.

Lol, I know, I know. 

Yeah, but how often would you find a shop or bar with no IP issues? By the time you'd drawn attention to yourself getting into weird positions or moving stuff around, you might as well pull out your dSLR. And if you're going to have to spend ages cloning out stuff, again you might as well have taken it on your dSLR and had more size options.

I just don't see (m)any photos coming through that couldn't have been taken on a p&S or dSLR.

sue -- i've done undercover produce section and got accepted without IP.

Fruit and veg? I've done that with my dSLR!
But the advantage of phone is that they don't seem to expect a proper white balance.

Here's the thing, a picture is a picture and you either have standards or you don't and differing standards are the same as no standards.

Yes and no. Buyers have differing standards regarding technical requirements vs image content and style etc. Buyers also have money to spend on what they like. I only pick up a camera to make money. I am a whore but love the lifestyle.

I'm still wondering why the phone is preferred over a DSLR and then using some filters like these to create that vintage Instagram look.

The phone is just a tool. What they seem to want is a certain look, which can be easily achieved in a much higher resolution image from a DSLR. But visually, there's nothing preventing someone from capturing the same image on a DSLR that would be had with a phone and then giving it that phone look in post.

Quote from: EmberMike on September 08, 2012, 10:51

The phone is just a tool. What they seem to want is a certain look...

I think that behind all this 'mobile photography' nonsense, what they really want is photos that look like they were taken by young people.  I am totally serious when I say this.

 

Cool and "edgy" like the downtime page 

Quote from: stockastic on September 08, 2012, 11:35

I think that behind all this 'mobile photography' nonsense, what they really want is photos that look like they were taken by young people.  I am totally serious when I say this.

You're right! They're looking for people under thirty making faces at the camera, awkwardly holding their bikes, scooters, skateboards or bottles of water. Pants drooping, perhaps held up with a buckly belt, loose t-shirts and old trainers. Their bodies should be all elbows and wrists and wobbly knees, and the make up on the girls should look vaguely goth. Their hair should be pointy or flattened, the boys' a carefully arranged mess. They should look like they are on their way somewhere, but not in a hurry, like from point A in the park to point B in the park. Or they're at a festival and just hanging out in front of their tent. At least one of them should be laughing, another look confused, while the rest are making faces. You'll get rich if you shoot that!

LOL although I'm not quite sure if you're really agreeing with me... :-)

I'm not necessarily thinking in such negative ways.   There's an ongoing change in ideas about photographic imagery.  When I was a kid my Dad had the camera (kids didn't) and he carefully lined us up for formal portraits.  Today, 15-year-olds all pack cameras and shoot by sticking the phone out at arm's length, unannounced. To sell products to kids today, you need photos that look like they were taken by their peers, not their parents.